Couch rips the White Sox for "staying put"

[StrangeSox]

Well apparently $200 Mil payroll hasn't been succesful either how many WS have the yanks had recently.

 

I'd say it takes a good combination of both. Spend some money, but don't blow it all on big-name free agents and use statistics to your advantage.

[whitesoxfan101]

How successful has moneyball been in winning a WS or even getting to one?

 

Dumb argument. Getting to the playoffs is all about the GM and all that, once you get there, it's purely a matter of luck. There is no scientific way to win in the playoffs, basically you have to get hot and you have to get lucky. To blame moneyball for that is simply nonsense.

Edited May 8, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[DBAHO]

.900. As in OPS. But 90 works too, so that's fine.

 

And that's why KW didn't trade Dye, because it's very likely he's going to be really productive this year. It's also why he hasn't signed him to an extension. I mean, honestly, name me one logical replacement for Dye's production.

And Dye's a fairly notorious slow starter who really heats up along with the weather around the June mark.

 

That alone is a good reason to think the Sox if they can hang with the pack at the end of this month in the Central, could get themselves on a little run if they continue to pitch the way they have ebcause the bats should definitely get better in the warmer weather.

[Rowand44]

it's purely a matter of luck.

I don't care what anyone says, for the most part that's bulls***. There are exceptions to the rule but to say you just have to luck your way to winning a world series is nonsense.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Rowand44

[StrangeSox]

Dumb argument. Getting to the playoffs is all about the GM and all that, once you get there, it's purely a matter of luck. There is no scientific way to win in the playoffs, basically you have to get hot and you have to get lucky. To blame moneyball for that is simply nonsense.

 

Thanks

 

It's not luck. It involves a ton of factors, but its not luck. The White Sox didn't "luck" their way into completely dominating pitching performances.

 

I wasn't blaming moneyball for the A's lack of success. I just find it funny when people talk about how successful moneyball has been for the A's. Yes, it has allowed them to field a playoff contender for relatively cheap, but they have yet to field a World Series contender.

[caulfield12]

I don't care what anyone says, for the most part that's bulls***. There are exceptions to the rule but to say you just have to luck your way to winning a world series is nonsense.

 

 

Although it's really hard to make an argument that the Cardinals were the fifth best team in the NL last year or that the Marlins were the best team in 2003...

 

The Cardinals had a better record in the post-season than the regular season. The Marlins got really hot at the right time and rode their pitching staff, just like 1997.

 

You can't win the WS without talent, obviously...and it's not luck, being able to assemble a team without talent...but the Braves would have won more than one World Series if there wasn't a certain element of chance involved. They've had 14 chances and we've had 3 in that same time period, yet both teams have one title.

[Balta1701]

Dumb argument. Getting to the playoffs is all about the GM and all that, once you get there, it's purely a matter of luck. There is no scientific way to win in the playoffs, basically you have to get hot and you have to get lucky. To blame moneyball for that is simply nonsense.

You know what? I would say there is actually an argument against this, although I'm a bit too busy to prove it. It could be argued that exactly the things which give moneyball in terms of its OBP/OPS focus an advantage in the regular season could wind up counting as disadvantages during the postseason.

 

Moneyball, in its original form focusing on the undervaluing of OBP, focused a lot of effort on guys who could pile up the walks and therefore work to high OBP's and high pitch counts. Against average pitching staffs, this seems like exactly what you'd want to do. Against a moderate to poor pitcher, if you go up there looking to take pitches every at bat, you're going to wind up on base all the time.

 

But in the playoffs, the caliber of opponent goes up dramatically. You're no longer facing the pitching staffs of the Royals, the Mariners, etc. You're no longer seeing #5 starters except out of the bullpen. You're no longer seeing pitchers making their ML debuts or pitching staffs who are struggling. You go from facing random pitchers to seeing Johan 2x in a 5 game series. Its entirely possible that the value formulation could and in fact should change somewhat when you raise the caliber of opponent. If your team suddenly starts facing pitchers who just don't walk people, and your team is geared around the walk, bloop, blast mentality, and you have no ability to manufacture runs in other ways, you could find your former advantage turned into a disadvantage.

 

This isn't necessarily why the A's haven't won, I'm sure there's data that could either back it up or argue against it, but it's at least worth considering.

[joeynach]

.900. As in OPS. But 90 works too, so that's fine.

 

And that's why KW didn't trade Dye, because it's very likely he's going to be really productive this year. It's also why he hasn't signed him to an extension. I mean, honestly, name me one logical replacement for Dye's production.

 

You dont think any of the sox outfield prospects have the ability to put up dye career #'s of .276 avg and .339 OBP, and 23 Hrs per year (based on 164 hrs between 1999-2006 minus 2003) over their career. You dont think any player KW could possibly acquire via trade or FA could put up those #'s every year or better?

 

Possible 08 free agents that would look good in the sox OF: Byrnes, Ichiro, Dunn, Andruw Jones, Hunter, Abreu, Shawn Green, Trot Nixon.

[witesoxfan]

You dont think any of the sox outfield prospects have the ability to put up dye career #'s of .276 avg and .339 OBP, and 23 Hrs per year (based on 164 hrs between 1999-2006 minus 2003) over their career. You dont think any player KW could possibly acquire via trade or FA could put up those #'s every year or better?

 

No, I don't think any outfielder the White Sox could have acquired could have put up the numbers I suggested Jermaine Dye put up. You're using career averages, which I'm not talking about at all right now and has NEVER been brought into the discussion.

 

The White Sox were counting on Dye to put up about .300 30 100 .900 coming into this season because he's hit 31 and 44 homers in his 2 only years as a member of the White Sox, and has put up OPS's of .845 and 1.007. They were counting on him to be the 5th hitter, and a damn good 5th hitter, in the offense. You have not found me a reasonable player that can put up .300 30 100 .900, and instead have changed the question and put it back on me.

 

Find me one player the White Sox could have acquired that is likely going to put up .300 30 100 .900 that could have been acquired reasonably, and I'll admit that you were right that the Sox should have traded Dye, even considering I don't recall you ever even mentioning the thought that the Sox should trade Dye or Crede in the offseason.

[whitesoxfan101]

You know what? I would say there is actually an argument against this, although I'm a bit too busy to prove it. It could be argued that exactly the things which give moneyball in terms of its OBP/OPS focus an advantage in the regular season could wind up counting as disadvantages during the postseason.

 

Moneyball, in its original form focusing on the undervaluing of OBP, focused a lot of effort on guys who could pile up the walks and therefore work to high OBP's and high pitch counts. Against average pitching staffs, this seems like exactly what you'd want to do. Against a moderate to poor pitcher, if you go up there looking to take pitches every at bat, you're going to wind up on base all the time.

 

But in the playoffs, the caliber of opponent goes up dramatically. You're no longer facing the pitching staffs of the Royals, the Mariners, etc. You're no longer seeing #5 starters except out of the bullpen. You're no longer seeing pitchers making their ML debuts or pitching staffs who are struggling. You go from facing random pitchers to seeing Johan 2x in a 5 game series. Its entirely possible that the value formulation could and in fact should change somewhat when you raise the caliber of opponent. If your team suddenly starts facing pitchers who just don't walk people, and your team is geared around the walk, bloop, blast mentality, and you have no ability to manufacture runs in other ways, you could find your former advantage turned into a disadvantage.

 

This isn't necessarily why the A's haven't won, I'm sure there's data that could either back it up or argue against it, but it's at least worth considering.

 

The reason the A's have never won was that their best teams, by far, lost years ago. Their best chance to win were their early 2000's teams that had Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, Zito, etc.....but they ran into the 2000 and 2001 Yankees back when those Yankee teams were still awesome, and in 2002 they suffered that shocking upset loss to Minnesota (although Giambi was gone by that year).

 

 

I don't care what anyone says, for the most part that's bulls***. There are exceptions to the rule but to say you just have to luck your way to winning a world series is nonsense.

 

You don't luck your way into the playoffs, but you luck your way to winning a World Series. Even our great championship team, which went 11-1 in the postseason, very well could have headed to Anaheim down 2-0 if not for the horrendous umpiring of Doug Edings. Your telling me the 83 win Cardinals winning it all and getting 6 errors in 5 games from Tiger pitching wasn't luck? Your telling me coming down from 0-3 against the Yankees, with the last 2 games in New York, isn't luck? Your telling me the Bartman incident wasn't luck? Your telling me Dusty Baker's bad pitching staff decisions (SEE: Ortiz, Russ) leading to an Anaheim rally wasn't luck? Your telling me Mariano Rivera BLOWING GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES wasn't luck?

 

Let's face it, to win it all you have to be great but you also have to be lucky at some point in time. That's how it works, period. Those World Champions were great teams which is why they took advantage of those lucky breaks, but the lucky breaks had to present themself in the first place.

 

You can't win the WS without talent, obviously...and it's not luck, being able to assemble a team without talent...but the Braves would have won more than one World Series if there wasn't a certain element of chance involved. They've had 14 chances and we've had 3 in that same time period, yet both teams have one title.

 

Exactly. The Marlins have won ZERO division titles in their history and have 2 World Titles, the Braves won 14 in a row and have 1 to show for that timespan. If that isn't luck I don't know what is.

Edited May 8, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[joeynach]

No, I don't think any outfielder the White Sox could have acquired could have put up the numbers I suggested Jermaine Dye put up. You're using career averages, which I'm not talking about at all right now and has NEVER been brought into the discussion.

 

The White Sox were counting on Dye to put up about .300 30 100 .900 coming into this season because he's hit 31 and 44 homers in his 2 only years as a member of the White Sox, and has put up OPS's of .845 and 1.007. They were counting on him to be the 5th hitter, and a damn good 5th hitter, in the offense. You have not found me a reasonable player that can put up .300 30 100 .900, and instead have changed the question and put it back on me.

 

Find me one player the White Sox could have acquired that is likely going to put up .300 30 100 .900 that could have been acquired reasonably, and I'll admit that you were right that the Sox should have traded Dye, even considering I don't recall you ever even mentioning the thought that the Sox should trade Dye or Crede in the offseason.

 

I never said they should have or that I wanted to trade them, although I do believe their values were the highest they would have ever been. I wasn't on a trade Dye/Crede campaign but I was on a "I dont expect their #'s from 07 to be that close to their #'s of 06" campaign. My point is on expectations, did you expect Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte to have 2.00 ERA's in 2006 like 05, did you expect Hermanson to start 06 with no ER into June, did you expect Garland to post a 3.50 ERA in 06? I like Dye and Crede for what I believe they are, which is not a .300 hitter for either IMO. Crede is an outstanding defensive 3B with 25 HR pop along with 75-80 RBI. Dye is an aging RF with diminished range, but a decent arm, hes got good pop in the bat, a good low ball hitter who should be around .275-.285 with 30+ HR and 90ish rbi. I think too many people just blindly expected Crede and Dye (as well as some of our 05 guys) to just post #'s similar to the prior year with absolutely when no track record was present. To much of an assumption by saying "well they turned the corner". Thats my point about all those other guys, everyone knew Neal Cotts finally turned the corner in 2005 right, tell that to him in 2006. And the only reason i was talking about career numbers is because that is the mean in the term "regression towards the mean". Its the same thing when a lifetime C student gets and A on one test. In my comparison the lifetime C grades are the same thing as the players career average(s).

Edited May 8, 2007 by joeynach

[caulfield12]

The reason the A's have never won was that their best teams, by far, lost years ago. Their best chance to win were their early 2000's teams that had Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, Zito, etc.....but they ran into the 2000 and 2001 Yankees back when those Yankee teams were still awesome, and in 2002 they suffered that shocking upset loss to Minnesota (although Giambi was gone by that year).

You don't luck your way into the playoffs, but you luck your way to winning a World Series. Even our great championship team, which went 11-1 in the postseason, very well could have headed to Anaheim down 2-0 if not for the horrendous umpiring of Doug Edings. Your telling me the 83 win Cardinals winning it all and getting 6 errors in 5 games from Tiger pitching wasn't luck? Your telling me coming down from 0-3 against the Yankees, with the last 2 games in New York, isn't luck? Your telling me the Bartman incident wasn't luck? Your telling me Dusty Baker's bad pitching staff decisions (SEE: Ortiz, Russ) leading to an Anaheim rally wasn't luck? Your telling me Mariano Rivera BLOWING GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES wasn't luck?

 

Let's face it, to win it all you have to be great but you also have to be lucky at some point in time. That's how it works, period. Those World Champions were great teams which is why they took advantage of those lucky breaks, but the lucky breaks had to present themself in the first place.

Exactly. The Marlins have won ZERO division titles in their history and have 2 World Titles, the Braves won 14 in a row and have 1 to show for that timespan. If that isn't luck I don't know what is.

 

 

Our playoffs, EVERYTHING went our way...

 

1) Two calls against Escobar with AJ at bat

2) Easy ball through Graffanino, followed by Iguchi homer when we were down

3) Pods taking Lidge deep

4) Rallying against Oswalt

5) Geoff Blum? Who?

6) Rallying against Lidge to win game 2 after Vizcaino's hit off Jenks

7) Buehrle getting a save...when we close to using Ozuna as a pitcher

8) El Duque getting 3 outs against Boston

9) Cotts getting out of 2nd and 3rd, no outs, with Jenks' help against Bagwell

10) The fact that they had to lead off with Clement in a short series

Edited May 8, 2007 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Our playoffs, EVERYTHING went our way...

 

1) Two calls against Escobar with AJ at bat

2) Easy ball through Graffanino, followed by Iguchi homer when we were down

3) Pods taking Lidge deep

4) Rallying against Oswalt

5) Geoff Blum? Who?

6) Rallying against Lidge to win game 2 after Vizcaino's hit off Jenks

7) Buehrle getting a save...when we close to using Ozuna as a pitcher

8) El Duque getting 3 outs against Boston

9) Cotts getting out of 2nd and 3rd, no outs, with Jenks' help against Bagwell

10) The fact that they had to lead off with Clement in a short series

 

Now was all of that due to luck, or do to having the right staff and having that staff perform?

[witesoxfan]

I never said they should have or that I wanted to trade them, although I do believe their values were the highest they would have ever been. I wasn't on a trade Dye/Crede campaign but I was on a "I dont expect their #'s from 07 to be that close to their #'s of 06" campaign. My point is on expectations, did you expect Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte to have 2.00 ERA's in 2006 like 05, did you expect Hermanson to start 06 with no ER into June, did you expect Garland to post a 3.50 ERA in 06? I like Dye and Crede for what I believe they are, which is not a .300 hitter for either IMO. Crede is an outstanding defensive 3B with 25 HR pop along with 75-80 RBI. Dye is an aging RF with diminished range, but a decent arm, hes got good pop in the bat, a good low ball hitter who should be around .275-.285 with 30+ HR and 90ish rbi. I think too many people just blindly expected Crede and Dye (as well as some of our 05 guys) to just post #'s similar to the prior year with absolutely when no track record was present. To much of an assumption by saying "well they turned the corner". Thats my point about all those other guys, everyone knew Neal Cotts finally turned the corner in 2005 right, tell that to him in 2006. And the only reason i was talking about career numbers is because that is the mean in the term "regression towards the mean". Its the same thing when a lifetime C student gets and A on one test. In my comparison the lifetime C grades are the same thing as the players career average(s).

 

Sweet. Regression to the means exists, who knew?

 

The same philosophy works with the pitching staff too, as the entire pitching staff, save Contreras, pitched worse than their career numbers. So given that Dye regressed to .300 (or .280 if you prefer) 30 100 .900, not his career averages but substantially weaker numbers than last season, you also have to consider that Garland, Buehrle, Vazquez, and Garcia all would have put up ERAs closer to their career norms this year. All the Sox can hope is that those numbers cancel each other out and the result is good for the Sox.

 

And I'm really not sure how you can argue that for Crede. His contact rate has increased over the past 3 years, and in line with that, his average, on-base, and slugging have all increased right along with it. He's entering his prime years and is going to be receiving the only big contract he's going to sign in his career following 2008, so to expect him to regress to the means is a bit extreme, because while he's not going to be an MVP candiate ever, to expect .260/.306/.447/.753 from him following his previous 2 seasons just doesn't seem realistic. I see .270 25 75 .775 as a lower but realistic projection, but not much less than that. There was a great possibility that trading him this offseason would have resulted in seeing him put up .310 35 110 .875 this year, and even trading him at his highest value, they wouldn't have traded him at his highest value. They won't this offseason either, but if they don't, they'll get a compensatory pick for him, and that won't be enough.

 

Politte was a bit smoke and mirrors in 2005, but he also messed up his arm pretty good that year and had surgery following his release from the White Sox organization. That undoubtedly had an effect. Neal Cotts also seemed a bit injured because the hitch in his delivery, which was his deception and made his fastball appear 3-5 MPH faster, was essentially non-existent. Without that, he's a fastball pitcher who throws it in the low 90s, and thus, will get lit up. Hermanson I still believe would pitch well to this day if his back would cooperate. The problem is that his back won't cooperate, and he'll never pitch in the majors again. With his back acting up like it did, he topped out at about 90, and his secondary pitches were just not good enough to compensate for his lack of velocity, and he got rocked. I also never expected Garland to put up a 3.50 ERA again, and I don't think anybody did. But Garland putting up ERAs of like 7 and 6 in April and May of last year killed his ERA for the year, and he was very solid in the second half. That's the pitcher that the Sox have now, and I fully expect him to put up an ERA of around 4.00 this year.

 

Point blank, you're ripping KW for not planning around regression to the means, but he has prepared for that; if regression to the means works for hitters who play above their career norms, then regression to the means works for pitchers who pitch below their career norms. He really didn't need to do a damn thing to fix that. What he hasn't done is put together a complete bench, because there's absolutely no reason Luis Terrero is on this roster over Eduardo Perez. And really, I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't care if Mackowiak played CF one game every week or one every other week. He was bad out there, but it was only exploited because he was a platoon partner with Anderson, not just playing there every now and then.

[witesoxfan]

I never said they should have or that I wanted to trade them, although I do believe their values were the highest they would have ever been. I wasn't on a trade Dye/Crede campaign but I was on a "I dont expect their #'s from 07 to be that close to their #'s of 06" campaign. My point is on expectations, did you expect Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte to have 2.00 ERA's in 2006 like 05, did you expect Hermanson to start 06 with no ER into June, did you expect Garland to post a 3.50 ERA in 06? I like Dye and Crede for what I believe they are, which is not a .300 hitter for either IMO. Crede is an outstanding defensive 3B with 25 HR pop along with 75-80 RBI. Dye is an aging RF with diminished range, but a decent arm, hes got good pop in the bat, a good low ball hitter who should be around .275-.285 with 30+ HR and 90ish rbi. I think too many people just blindly expected Crede and Dye (as well as some of our 05 guys) to just post #'s similar to the prior year with absolutely when no track record was present. To much of an assumption by saying "well they turned the corner". Thats my point about all those other guys, everyone knew Neal Cotts finally turned the corner in 2005 right, tell that to him in 2006. And the only reason i was talking about career numbers is because that is the mean in the term "regression towards the mean". Its the same thing when a lifetime C student gets and A on one test. In my comparison the lifetime C grades are the same thing as the players career average(s).

 

Sweet, regression to the means exists, I had no idea.

 

Expecting Dye to put up .280 30 90 isn't unrealistic at all because he's done it 2 times with the Sox. He's been injured in the past and recovering from injuries as well (unlike Erstad, who has had fully healthy years and still produced garbage), so to expect his numbers to be a bit lower than they are isn't entirely implausible. If he doesn't hit 30 homers and put up an OPS around .850-.900, I'll be surprised. Also, Crede's entering his prime years and his numbers have improved every year for the past 3. His contact rate has improved, and thus he's seen his average, on-base, and slugging improve over the past 3 years as well. He's playing for the only huge contract he's going to get in his life, so that is a bit of a factor as well. Him putting up .270 25 75 .775 was on the low end of what I would have expected coming into the season, and now it looks about like what I should expect; had he been traded, it's entirely possible he could have put up .310 35 110 .875 and the Sox look like idiots because they wouldn't have gotten near enough value.

 

And dude, if regression to the means is true, progression to the means is true. The Sox had 4 starters in their rotation underachieve last year - 3 quite badly - and to expect them to continue that trend would have been unrealistic.

 

Secondly, there are reasons for all of those pitchers you've mentioned; Politte's arm was shot, Cotts lost the hitch in his delivery, Hermanson's back was done, and Garland had no confidence going inside on hitters (whether you consider that an excuse or a reason is up to you) and he talked about how he had a deadarm period as well; if you look at Garland's numbers, they are grossly disfigured because of his April and May of last year. It would appear the Sox have more of the June-September pitcher than they do the April and May and pre-2005 pitcher, so I'm not worried at all.

 

Basically, you're ripping KW for not preparing for regression to the means, but he already has and he didn't have to do a damn thing to do it. KW put together one of the best looking rosters you'll ever see last year, and had the talent come through and the pitching performed to their career norms, the Sox would have won about 100-105 games last year. As it is, the pitching staff was horrendous and the offense was good, and they ended up with 90 wins. The only thing he's done wrong this year is give this offense a lack of depth; there is no reason at all that Eduardo Perez is not on the roster right now instead of Luis f'ing Terrero.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 8, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our playoffs, EVERYTHING went our way...

 

1) Two calls against Escobar with AJ at bat

2) Easy ball through Graffanino, followed by Iguchi homer when we were down

3) Pods taking Lidge deep

4) Rallying against Oswalt

5) Geoff Blum? Who?

6) Rallying against Lidge to win game 2 after Vizcaino's hit off Jenks

7) Buehrle getting a save...when we close to using Ozuna as a pitcher

8) El Duque getting 3 outs against Boston

9) Cotts getting out of 2nd and 3rd, no outs, with Jenks' help against Bagwell

10) The fact that they had to lead off with Clement in a short series

What about the blown home run call where the ball hit to the left of the yellow line in Houston? I think it was Lane off of Garland in game 3.