Offseason Rankings

[chitownsportsfan]

some of the things that helped them win - speed, defense, smart outs - are often dismissed by the analysts as unimportant.

 

 

Defense has been widely regarded as a major reason the Sox were so good at preventing runs in 2005, it's been discussed even by the arrogant Baseball Prospectus, which even took the extremely rare step for them of admitting they were wrong. The Sox converted a higher percentage of balls in play into outs then every team except Oakland. That's a good thing.

 

However, the Sox were 20th in "productive outs"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive?tp=team

 

The top 3 teams in "productive outs" were Washington, Colorado, and Pitsburgh. In fact, the winning percentage of the bottom 1/3 in productive outs is much higher than the top 1/3. Productive outs is about the last thing I'd look at to see how well a team performed. It's almost meaningless.

[longshot7]

The Sox were ranked 14th because of the Pods trade only.  Most of the critics said it was a terrible move.  I also wouldn't call picking up your starting catcher, 2B, RF, 5th Starter, and Closer low risk moves.  Those moves totalled around $20 million alone.  AJ was a risk because he was a cancer, Dye, Hermie, and El Duque were all injury risks, and Gooch was a complete unknown.  Those seem more like bold moves to me.  It was not like they were shoring up their bench or middle relief. 

 

This year's rating is hilarious too.  I don't know if the Sox had the best moves this offseason but they were definitely better than NYY, BOS, and OAK.

 

It was a bad trade. The Sox would've been even better last year had they not been cheap and traded Carlos Lee. Podsednik was an addition no doubt, but he really didn't add that much.

[SHAFTR]

What was our record with a healthy Scott Podsednik?

 

What was our record when he out or playing with that hernia?

I rest my case.

 

Or you could just realize that the alternative to Scott Podsednik in left was Timo Perez (appeared in Left in 27 games last year) & Pablo Ozuna (9 games).

[YASNY]

Or you could just realize that the alternative to Scott Podsednik in left was Timo Perez (appeared in Left in 27 games last year) & Pablo Ozuna (9 games).

 

Or I could realize he replaced Carlos Lee in left field.

[NorthSideSox72]

Defense has been widely regarded as a major reason the Sox were so good at preventing runs in 2005, it's been discussed even by the arrogant Baseball Prospectus, which even took the extremely rare step for them of admitting they were wrong.  The Sox converted a higher percentage of balls in play into outs then every team except Oakland.  That's a good thing.

 

However, the Sox were 20th in "productive outs"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive?tp=team

 

The top 3 teams in "productive outs" were Washington, Colorado, and Pitsburgh.  In fact, the winning percentage of the bottom 1/3 in productive outs is much higher than the top 1/3.  Productive outs is about the last thing I'd look at to see how well a team performed.  It's almost meaningless.

Take a look at the description of that measure. Its useless. Runs scored with 1 out specifically (not none, just one) on GB/FB? How ridiculous. Real productive outs should include any out that advances a runner or score a run - effectively, adding a total base. Show me that measure, and that is a start.

[YASNY]

It was a bad trade.  The Sox would've been even better last year had they not been cheap and traded Carlos Lee.  Podsednik was an addition no doubt, but he really didn't add that much.

 

No. It wasn't a bad trade. It opened the door that led to the World Series.

[3E8]

Or you could just realize that the alternative to Scott Podsednik in left was Timo Perez (appeared in Left in 27 games last year) & Pablo Ozuna (9 games).

And don't forget Crede was also injured during that period, making Geoff Blum an everyday starter.

[RME JICO]

You mean besides signing Beckett and Tavarez and acquiring Crisp and Pena?

 

I don't know if I'd rank their offseason at #4, but they did strengthen their rotation significantly with Beckett and their 'pen with Tavarez.  The loss of Damon was more than offset by Crisp and Pena.

 

In addition to Damon, the Sawks lost Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn, Renteria, Olerud, and Mirabelli.

 

They replaced those players with Crisp, Lowell, Snow, Gonzalez, and Pena.

 

I would call that a slightly negative trade off, so the only real upgrades are Beckett and Tavarez.

[chitownsportsfan]

Yea, I just realized all those numbers were from 2004 anyway, the point stands, but not as well. Dang Google and ESPN teaming up against me. Who knew the string, "Productive outs 2005" would produce the 2004 stats...

[chitownsportsfan]

The truth about Productive Outs is that they aren't something that are good in bulk, but only in limited context. A Productive Out in the ninth inning of a tie game is a good thing, but one in the first inning of any game is merely less bad than other outs. There is a heirarchy of plays in baseball:

 

Home Run

Triple

Double

Single

Base on Balls/Hit by Pitch

Reach on Strikeout

Reach on Error

Productive Out

Strikeout

Out on Ball in Play

Double Play

Triple Play

 

By making a productive out, you prevent any of the outcomes on the bottom third of the list from happening, but it also eliminates the top two thirds of the list. In context, that's a worthwhile trade, but in general, it's a terrible, stupid, Brock-for-Broglio-type trade. Counting them in context might give us a tiny bit of useful information -- counting them without context gives us little more than noise.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...e-outs-article/

 

If you're still not convinced, Google "productive outs", there are hours of reading material proving their relative worthlessness to winning baseball.

[RME JICO]

RME JICO--you're my hero!  I didn't even have to dig through the archives of THT's to prove my point.  I thought those articles were very fair, they concluded that speed does make the pitcher a little more loose--to the tune of 2 runs a year--that's rather yawnworthy in my book.

 

Give me two LF'ers, all things being equal, power hitting, contact hitting, arm, and I'll take the faster guy every time.  Speed has a place in baseball no doubt.  But its place is relatively unimportant compared to the other major American team sports.

 

I had those articles bookmarked.

 

Now in reality Pods was worth more to the team than just stealing bases. His speed allowed him to score on hits that others would not score or advance on. This analysis only covers when a Top 10 base stealer is on First base with Second base open. It doesn't mention when they are on second, or how far they advance on a hit and run or on a hit.

 

This analysis basically said that base stealers do not disrupt the pitcher as much as you would think. That doesn't mean that Pods is not a factor on the basepaths.

[SHAFTR]

Or I could realize he replaced Carlos Lee in left field. 

 

Are you giving me a choice between Lee or Podsednik?

I choose Lee.

 

If you are givine me the choice of Podsednik, Vizcaino and $6 million or Lee? I'll take the former.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...e-outs-article/

 

If you're still not convinced, Google "productive outs", there are hours of reading material proving their relative worthlessness to winning baseball.

I guess I am in the minority then, but I still believe those productive outs, if taken in the context I described earlier, were key to the Sox' success in 2005. So was speed, not just in stolen bases, but in other aspects of the game. That is why I would probably take Pods over Lee (last year's numbers as basis). Although it all depends on what your team needs - no team can win with all power or all speed in the lineup (yet another fact not present in many of these stats).

 

I do have a question about that list in your post, though - why the heck is a strikeout better than an out on a ball in play for the hitting team? That makes no sense to me.

[chitownsportsfan]

If you are givine me the choice of Podsednik, Vizcaino and $6 million or Lee? I'll take the former.

 

Good point Shaftr, I think we had this debate over on SSS a few weeks ago. The Pods/Lee trade cannot be evaluated in isolation. That is, the trade was really part of a larger organizational emphasis on defense and a spreading out of resources. I'd take Lee over Pods anyday of the week, twice on doubleheader days. However Pods was an adequate piece on a world championship team, nothing wrong with that. I also have no doubt that if the Sox had had the money to still sign Vizcaino and Iguchi and Dye with Lee in LF, then they still would have won at least 99 games and the World Series--everything else being equal outside of Lee and Pods' 2005 stats.

[chitownsportsfan]

why the heck is a strikeout better than an out on a ball in play for the hitting team? That makes no sense to me.

 

Well, the thing is that that "out on a ball in play" is exclusive from any "moving over" of the runners. Essentially, it's worse than a strikout because a runner might get got in a pickle from 3rd to home or 2nd to 3rd.

 

That's the only logic I can think of for that. Any other ideas?

[YASNY]

Are you giving me a choice between Lee or Podsednik?

I choose Lee.

 

If you are givine me the choice of Podsednik, Vizcaino and $6 million or Lee?  I'll take the former.

 

Bingo. Or you can look at it as Pods, Vizcaino, AJ and Iguchi (maybe even more ... El Duque? Dye? I don't remember the sequence of events.) for Lee.

[ChWRoCk2]

Blue Jays should be alot higher on that list I mean Burnett, Ryan Overbay and Glaus if Im correct

[G&T]

If you're still not convinced, Google "productive outs", there are hours of reading material proving their relative worthlessness to winning baseball.

 

This is very logical. Most good teams don't need to make outs in order to advance runners or score runs. While a crappy team might get a double, then move a guy over with a fly out, a better team scores that runner with a hit. Productive outs help a good team, but they happen more often on a team like Colorado.

[southsider2k5]

It was a bad trade.  The Sox would've been even better last year had they not been cheap and traded Carlos Lee.  Podsednik was an addition no doubt, but he really didn't add that much.

 

You missed the entire 2004-2005 seasons, because if you had actually watched what happened on the field, the only way you could have posted that is in green. Turn off the computer, throw away the baseball encyclopedia and watch the games.

[SSH2005]

You missed the entire 2004-2005 seasons, because if you had actually watched what happened on the field, the only way you could have posted that is in green.  Turn off the computer, throw away the baseball encyclopedia and watch the games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't even bother. This is the same dude said that Jerry Owens would be our starting CF'er and Rookie of the Year this season.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, the thing is that that "out on a ball in play" is exclusive from any "moving over" of the runners.  Essentially, it's worse than a strikout because a runner might get got in a pickle from 3rd to home or 2nd to 3rd. 

 

That's the only logic I can think of for that.  Any other ideas?

None. No idea. I wasn't even sure it was referring to if a man was on base or not. Sort of a weird list really, since you don't know the situation (runners, outs) going in.

[WCSox]

In addition to Damon, the Sawks lost Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn, Renteria, Olerud, and Mirabelli.

 

They replaced those players with Crisp, Lowell, Snow, Gonzalez, and Pena.

 

I would call that a slightly negative trade off, so the only real upgrades are Beckett and Tavarez.

 

Out of the first six you mentioned, I'd only consider Renteria the really significant loss. Damon's a slightly better hitter than Crisp, but is almost a liability in CF nowadays. Mueller is a solid third baseman with a soild OBP, but doesn't hit for power. Lowell's a much better hitter, assuming that he stays healthy and doesn't repeat last year. Millar's numbers have been going downhill over the past few seasons, so he and Snow are roughly equivalent at this point. Olerud was great 10 years ago, but isn't worth crap now. Bellhorn and Mirabelli are backups. They dropped a lot of aging players on the declne, which was the smart thing to do.

 

Agreed that they took a slight hit offensively, but they got a young stud power pitcher and a very good set-up man. The BoSox needed pitching coming into this season, especially with old, injury-prone fogies like Wells, Schilling, and Wakefield anchoring their rotation. If Lowell returns to pre-2005 form and Beckett is able to pitch 170+ innings, they got better. If not, they got worse.

[NorthSideSox72]

In addition to Damon, the Sawks lost Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn, Renteria, Olerud, and Mirabelli.

 

They replaced those players with Crisp, Lowell, Snow, Gonzalez, Willie Harris and Pena.

 

I would call that a slightly negative trade off, so the only real upgrades are Beckett and Tavarez.

Fixed.

[TheBlackSox8]

Blue Jays should be alot higher on that list I mean Burnett, Ryan Overbay and Glaus if Im correct

and benjamin molina