The Sox and "moneyball"

[chitownsportsfan]

I found this interesting quote from the Sox management in an article about judging player value in the New York Times

 

The World Series champion Chicago White Sox use a different popular method to assess their expected victories. Rick Hahn, their assistant general manager, tracks the number of runs his lineup should score and his pitching staff should allow. Several studies have shown that any 10-run swing in that differential equates to about one victory.

 

"When we got Jim Thome from the Phillies, we figured he was worth about 20 runs more than the combination of Carl Everett and Frank Thomas," Hahn said, referring to the 2005 club's designated hitters. Hahn estimated that giving up center fielder Aaron Rowand in the trade cost about five runs. "That gave us a total improvement of about 15 runs. We feel we improved by about one and a half wins in the exchange, which is pretty good."

 

 

Interesting stuff. I think the "different popular method" used to determine victories is :

 

Pythagorean Winning Percentage

 

RF^2

-------------

RF^2 + RA^2

 

# RF = runs scored; RA = runs allowed.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of this formula because I think it misjudges how "good" teams find ways to win close games that hasn't yet been determined from statistical analysis and probably never will. The confidence the Sox had in late innings and the calm hand of Ozzie (mostly) helped the White Sox outperform their pythagorean by 8 games.

 

Still, I'm glad that KW is thinking analytically as well as traditionally about player aquisitions. Personally, I predict Thome and BA will be worth more like 30 more runs than Frank and Rowand. I don't have any stats to back that up though!

[3E8]

Raising the terms to a power of 1.83 is more accurate I've seen.

[NorthSideSox72]

The statistics are interesting.

 

But frankly, I don't think what Hahn said is exactly ground-breaking, or even worthy of calling a "method". He tries to add players who will be responsible for scoring more runs and/or reducing opponent runs. Well... duh.

 

But figuring out how much run-impact a player will have is definitely interesting. Once all the available calculations are taken into account, your function will still only be allowed to approach a phantom target, though. Stats can't average in predictors for the unpredictable human elements. They only take you so far.

[chitownsportsfan]

Right, it's not groundbreaking, but many pundits have argued that the Sox are the "anti-moneyball" team, when that simply isn't true. KW might not be a Billy Bean acolyte, but he isn't Bull Duram either.

 

The Sox were built on run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills. That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

[RME JICO]

The Sox were built on  run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills.  That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[joeynach]

Right, it's not groundbreaking, but many pundits have argued that the Sox are the "anti-moneyball" team, when that simply isn't true.  KW might not be a Billy Bean acolyte, but he isn't Bull Duram either.

 

The Sox were built on  run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills.  That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

 

Exactly, the market dictates everything. Along with a keen Gm who knows how to play the market and its changes to his advantage. Baseball is business and business in this country is governed by a free capitalistic market. The market for the 2006 season changed, pitching got ridicolous money on the market. Burnett getting $55 mil being under .500 on his careers, Milwood getting 4 yrs 44 Mil from the M's, Morris getting 3 Yrs 27 Mil after posting a +5 ERA last year. To combat such things you have to get creative. Bring some guys over from a different league or call ups from your farm system that the pitchers dont know. Bring in a big bat with high OBP to help offset the fluz of big name pitchers on the market. KW has done all that, he knows what hes doing.

[CanOfCorn]

Right, it's not groundbreaking, but many pundits have argued that the Sox are the "anti-moneyball" team, when that simply isn't true.  KW might not be a Billy Bean acolyte, but he isn't Bull Duram either.

 

The Sox were built on  run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills.  That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

 

And the one thing they were a little iffy on, the offense, was addressed.

 

If KW can change Anthrax' opinion, he can do anything.

 

[Dam8610]

I found this interesting quote from the Sox management in an article about judging player value in the New York Times

Interesting stuff.  I think the "different popular method" used to determine victories is :

 

Pythagorean Winning Percentage

 

RF^2

-------------

RF^2 + RA^2

 

# RF = runs scored; RA = runs allowed.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of this formula because I think it misjudges how "good" teams find ways to win close games that hasn't yet been determined from statistical analysis and probably never will.  The confidence the Sox had in late innings and the calm hand of Ozzie (mostly) helped the White Sox outperform their pythagorean by 8 games.

 

Still, I'm glad that KW is thinking analytically as well as traditionally about player aquisitions.  Personally, I predict Thome and BA will be worth more like 30 more runs than Frank and Rowand.  I don't have any stats to back that up though!

 

2 MAJOR factors that I think throw that projection way off: Good bullpens (usually will make a team win more than the pythagorean projection) and (JMO here) runs that are scored at the end of games that mean absolutely nothing to the outcome of the game (while I've seen nothing to prove or disprove this, I'd bet that this will make a team win less than their pythagorean projection).

 

The Sox were built on run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills.  That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

 

Well, I don't think pitching was undervalued (see: Russ Ortiz, Carl Pavano), but otherwise that argument is true and makes sense.

[Rowand44]

The Sox were built on  run prevention (pitching + defense) because the market was undervaluing these skills.  That is what made the Sox so efficient with their modest payroll in 2005.

Since when has the market undervalued pitching?? Kenny built this team on the most traditionalist way possible with pitching and defense. I'm sure almost every organization has some stat guy that does their thing and that is obviously Hahn here but the Sox are far from a moneyball team, just look at their offense last year.

[witesoxfan]

Personally...when I think about parts of the game that debunk Pyth W-L...I think of good defensive teams. Minnesota was playing over their head every year from 01-04 it seemed, and people constantly called it luck. I don't buy it. The year they took a step away from being a very good defensive team and tried to improve their offense, they were a .500 team. I don't think it was any coincidence that losing Hunter's mediocre bat but gold glove in CF killed that team.

 

The A's had a very large runs scored to runs allowed differential...thus boosting their Pyth W-L something crazy...but the Sox didn't have a huge one, and they won a ton of close games. You think that it was any coincidence these two teams were 1-2 in defensive effeciency?

[TLAK]

I am a stat'r myself and have learned that they measure what a player did in the past, not necessarily what he will do in the future. Stats are predictive in a broad sense, guys good enough to hit .300 are more likely to do it again than a guy who never hit above .240. But it's no guarantee and will never take the place of a good scout.

 

Like they say in the stock market, past performance does not guarantee future results.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:43 PM)

I found this interesting quote from the Sox management in an article about judging player value in the New York Times

Interesting stuff.  I think the "different popular method" used to determine victories is :

 

Pythagorean Winning Percentage

 

RF^2

-------------

RF^2 + RA^2

 

# RF = runs scored; RA = runs allowed.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of this formula because I think it misjudges how "good" teams find ways to win close games that hasn't yet been determined from statistical analysis and probably never will.  The confidence the Sox had in late innings and the calm hand of Ozzie (mostly) helped the White Sox outperform their pythagorean by 8 games.

 

Still, I'm glad that KW is thinking analytically as well as traditionally about player aquisitions.  Personally, I predict Thome and BA will be worth more like 30 more runs than Frank and Rowand.  I don't have any stats to back that up though!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So is Hahn assuming that the Sox will give up teh exact same number of runs or less? Those 15 runs don't mean jack if the pitching staff gives up 10 more runs in 2006 than 2005.

[SoxnGiants]

So is Hahn assuming that the Sox will give up teh exact same number of runs or less?  Those 15 runs don't mean jack if the pitching staff gives up 10 more runs in 2006 than 2005.

 

Why do you think he's assuming that? I think he was just referring to that one position in the lineup.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Well, I don't think pitching was undervalued (see: Russ Ortiz, Carl Pavano), but otherwise that argument is true and makes sense.

Correct. Pitching is never undervalued, but Kenny highlighted aquiring guys who were undervalued.

 

Garcia was nearly non-tendered 6 months before we got him. Then Kenny signed him to a below-market deal.

 

Contreras was aquired for a pitcher who signed a non-guaranteed minor league deal just 18 months prior, and got some money thrown in to make his salary below market.

 

Add Jenks, Hermanson, Politte -- all undervalued, and his approach seems a little more "moneyball"

[Rowand44]

Correct. Pitching is never undervalued, but Kenny highlighted aquiring guys who were undervalued.

 

Garcia was nearly non-tendered 6 months before we got him. Then Kenny signed him to a below-market deal.

 

Contreras was aquired for a pitcher who signed a non-guaranteed minor league deal just 18 months prior, and got some money thrown in to make his salary below market.

 

Add Jenks, Hermanson, Politte -- all undervalued, and his approach seems a little more "moneyball"

All gm's do that though cheat. Everyone is always looking for diamonds in the rough I don't think that has anything to do with moneyball.

[Gene Honda Civic]

All gm's do that though cheat.  Everyone is always looking for diamonds in the rough I don't think that has anything to do with moneyball.

Well then you should read the book again.

[Rowand44]

Well then you should read the book again.

Ha, well I'm just saying there isn't a gm in baseball who doesn't look for the so called diamonds in the rough. If you want to call that moneyball fine, I'll call it flying under the radar.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Your post got me thinking, what organizations are "diamond hunters" (obviously this list is flawed, as I'm making broad generalizations)

 

NYY, NYM, BAL, BOS, LAA, LAD, and the Cubs are out... They Just try to outspend everyone. TOR probably joined the club this offseason.

 

PIT, KC are just dumb and cheap.

 

COLO is dumb because they come up with a new plan every year, and will never attempt to stick with a plan.

 

TB and FLA are cheap, but try to develop inhouse talent through scouting.

 

Teams who I would place solidly in the "diamond hunters" category are MIN, CLE, US, OAK, MIL. We may have even graduated from this group by having enough scratch to retain Konerko. That would put us in the same group as SEA and Philly who are a little from column A and a little from Column B. TEX is probably a diamond hunter now, but I only have one deal to base that on.

 

SD and SF look to be fielding a AARP team. Are old players undervalued? maybe.

 

ATL suceed on the strength of their scouting, and the magic of their pitching coach. (I don't know if that replicable)

 

I'm missing a bunch from the NL, but I think it's safe to say that less than 1/3 of MLB is out there looking to find the undervalued players.

[jenksd]

monkeyball