Octavio Dotel signs with Sox

[Balta1701]

Good point, assuming Quentin is healthy. Keep in mind, though, that if Quentin is in the Sox lineup, that will put Swisher in CF, which hurts us defensively as opposed to having Owens in CF and Swisher in LF.

Owens is not such a good CF that the difference here will be very large, unless Swisher is just godawful out there. He has to be Mackowiak level, where him being out there costs us a run or two a game, before it really catches up with us. If we were talking the difference between Anderson and Swisher defensively...ok, that's pretty big, but the difference with the bats is even bigger.

 

I'm hoping there's a solid chance that Ozzie uses his top 4 OF's in a way to give Owens about 400 at bats, and uses him mainly to rest guys like Konerko, Thome, and Dye more often than he has the last 2 years (by putting Swisher at 1b fairly often that is). After seeing how injury and age caught up with people, particularly Thome and Dye last year, I think that would be a good idea.

 

My worry, on the other hand, is that oz will use them like he has guys in the past...he identifies his biggest 2 or 3 guys and puts them out there every day until they break down, while he always makes sure to get plenty of rest/time off for the younger guys who shouldn't have the injury issues. That's kinda how I felt Dye, Thome, Konerko have been used the last 2 years...they had to ask for a day off, whereas lesser guys were always forced to take days off.

[bmags]

My apologies for not engaging in the fantasy world where Owens is going to hit .310/.380/... We can do that with just about every player -- it'sbasically like saying, "if X was good, he'd be a good baseball player!" Yes, obviously if Owens could sustain a .380 OBP the Sox ought to find a place for him. I'd say that about any player who could do that -- I don't see how a statement like that raises the level of discourse on this site.

No -- not at all -- but you go ahead and think that if you'd like.

 

I say that, b/c consensus snowballs on this site. And the general consensus is owens ceiling is .270, because of his rookie season he hit around there. His power is awful, his home run was comical, but there seems no thought given to what owens #'s would need to be for him to overcome that power. And his obp in the minors was high. And his average was around what I posted. And his OBP was a good .50 points higher and sometimes more in the minors. And while you say SB don't matter, for owens they do. He can't hit doubles, so he needs to convert his singles into doubles. If he can convert at a 85% percentage and is getting on base at a .360 clip, that helps negate his power.

 

I'd love to have grady sizemore too. I'd really love if Quentin was a CF, or we were confident in Swisher in CF. But we're not. And owens hasn't been handed CF. The notion though, that if he enters the season at CF, we are screwed, is stupid. If he's there, it's because he showed he is gonna produce at a high level.

[bmags]

Owens is not such a good CF that the difference here will be very large, unless Swisher is just godawful out there. He has to be Mackowiak level, where him being out there costs us a run or two a game, before it really catches up with us. If we were talking the difference between Anderson and Swisher defensively...ok, that's pretty big, but the difference with the bats is even bigger.

 

I haven't seen a scouting report on swishers D in CF since he has been acquired. a handful of people on this site have worried about him being mackowiak bad because of his lack of experience and the # of games making it seem like he was just shoved there like robbie. But, i kind of feel like the silence about his D means it wasn't awful, but nothing to talk about. That I can live with.

[lvjeremylv]

I say that, b/c consensus snowballs on this site. And the general consensus is owens ceiling is .270, because of his rookie season he hit around there. His power is awful, his home run was comical, but there seems no thought given to what owens #'s would need to be for him to overcome that power. And his obp in the minors was high. And his average was around what I posted. And his OBP was a good .50 points higher and sometimes more in the minors. And while you say SB don't matter, for owens they do. He can't hit doubles, so he needs to convert his singles into doubles. If he can convert at a 85% percentage and is getting on base at a .360 clip, that helps negate his power.

 

I'd love to have grady sizemore too. I'd really love if Quentin was a CF, or we were confident in Swisher in CF. But we're not. And owens hasn't been handed CF. The notion though, that if he enters the season at CF, we are screwed, is stupid. If he's there, it's because he showed he is gonna produce at a high level.

I'll go back to what I said about Podsednik - he didn't have any power either, yet his style of play is what set the tone for the entire mode of our offense in 2005. Get em on, get em over, and get em in. Fans knew that if Scott could get his way on base, he was going to steal 2nd (and often times, 3rd as well) - and the opposition knew it too. His job wasn't to hit the long ball or hit for a high slugging percentage. His job was to get on base and create havoc for the other team. That's something that Owens is capable of doing, and I don't think we should all dismiss the importance of that. We have plenty of hitters that will hit plenty of home runs in 2008. I just hope there are people on base when they happen.

[ptatc]

Yep -- Owens is all of (~)4 months younger than Nick Swisher, to put things into perspective a bit.

 

And no, it's completely unreasonable to think Owens is capable of a .370 or .380 OBP. His minor league OBP was .362, and that's despite the fact that he was old for his level every step of the way. That doesn't even mention his terrible slugging percentage.

 

He's nothing more than a 4th outfielder, but for some reason Sox fans seem to equate 'speedy' and 'slap-hitty' with 'good'.

 

He was old in age only. He had less experience for his age due to his football career. He was probably progressing at a proper rate for experience. I think he will do fine and be better than a 4th outfielder. He played acceptable CF defense last year after everyone touted his defense as not playable in CF. I think he will learn and be a good MLB player.

[Balta1701]

I'll go back to what I said about Podsednik - he didn't have any power either, yet his style of play is what set the tone for the entire mode of our offense in 2005. Get em on, get em over, and get em in. Fans knew that if Scott could get his way on base, he was going to steal 2nd (and often times, 3rd as well) - and the opposition knew it too. His job wasn't to hit the long ball or hit for a high slugging percentage. His job was to get on base and create havoc for the other team. That's something that Owens is capable of doing, and I don't think we should all dismiss the importance of that. We have plenty of hitters that will hit plenty of home runs in 2008. I just hope there are people on base when they happen.

The beauty of the Swisher and Quentin trades is that...if those guys play up to their levels...we should have solved those problems. Nick Swisher is an OBP machine. In a down year for him last year with no lineup protection, he took 100 walks and had an OBP of .381. Put him in front of Thome/Konerko/Dye and those numbers would be expected to go up even more.

 

Quentin's career minor league OBP is .427. Although that's still average-heavy because he's hit over .300 at most of his stops, he's still been good for about 70 walks a year in 500 or so AB's.

 

Joe Crede usually took about 25 walks a season. 30 in a good year. Fields in his minor league stints was usually putting up 60-70.

 

Juan Uribe...well, what more do I need to say?

 

Richar showed some average patience last year, and his BB rate from last year would translate to about 50 walks over a full season, which is right in line with what we'd have gotten from Iguchi.

 

Owens...well, I think that although he's raw, his numbers suggest he has a shot at being a decently patient hitter if he gets a full time chance, and a .350-.360 OBP is not unreasonable for him at all.

 

Compared to where we were with Erstad and Pods and Uribe all in the same lineup (Pods's problem not being that he couldn't take a walk, but that at the end he couldn't do much else), and we've significantly upgraded our OBP this year.

[daa84]

The beauty of the Swisher and Quentin trades is that...if those guys play up to their levels...we should have solved those problems. Nick Swisher is an OBP machine. In a down year for him last year with no lineup protection, he took 100 walks and had an OBP of .381. Put him in front of Thome/Konerko/Dye and those numbers would be expected to go up even more.

 

Quentin's career minor league OBP is .427. Although that's still average-heavy because he's hit over .300 at most of his stops, he's still been good for about 70 walks a year in 500 or so AB's.

 

Joe Crede usually took about 25 walks a season. 30 in a good year. Fields in his minor league stints was usually putting up 60-70.

 

Juan Uribe...well, what more do I need to say?

 

Richar showed some average patience last year, and his BB rate from last year would translate to about 50 walks over a full season, which is right in line with what we'd have gotten from Iguchi.

 

Owens...well, I think that although he's raw, his numbers suggest he has a shot at being a decently patient hitter if he gets a full time chance, and a .350-.360 OBP is not unreasonable for him at all.

 

Compared to where we were with Erstad and Pods and Uribe all in the same lineup (Pods's problem not being that he couldn't take a walk, but that at the end he couldn't do much else), and we've significantly upgraded our OBP this year.

Im not sure if its exactly a good thing because of the inherent injury risk, but a good chunk of quentin's obp is explained by HBPs too....he was hit 112 times in 1618 PAs in the minors...thats about 1 every 15 plate appearances

[Balta1701]

Im not sure if its exactly a good thing because of the inherent injury risk, but a good chunk of quentin's obp is explained by HBPs too....he was hit 112 times in 1618 PAs in the minors...thats about 1 every 15 plate appearances

Do those get counted as BB's in stat lists? Because that's what I was going off of.

 

To answer my own question, no, there's a separate line for those in the Baseball Cube stats. So he's still taking 70 or so walks a year and being plunked 20 times.

 

You know, yeah, sometimes they do get hurt, but there's always something I like about having a good, patient hitter who stands up close to the plate. Especially if he has some power. Because it sometimes seems to throw a pitcher off, get him stuck working on the outside corner all the time because he doesn't want to hit the guy.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Balta1701

[witesoxfan]

Scott Podsednik - who I think we will all agree did more than a good job of leading off for us in 2005 - had an OBP of .351 that year. Jerry managed a .324 last season - just 27 points off of what Scott did. I think it's very reasonable to say that Owens could show improvement and have an OBP of .350 in 2008, and he's shown he has just as much speed as Podsednik.

 

An on base percentage of .360-.380 for a White Sox leadoff hitter would be awesome, but it's certainly not a pre-requisite.

 

I'd completely disagree that Podsednik did a good job leading off in 2005, let alone "more than" one. He was an adequate leadoff hitter. The offense in general in 2005 was absolutely pitiful; pitching, defense, and the 3-run homer was what won the Sox games in 2005, and that dates back to good old Earl Weaver. Ozzie Guillen was just as volatile too, so it worked out wonderfully.

[Balta1701]

I'd completely disagree that Podsednik did a good job leading off in 2005, let alone "more than" one. He was an adequate leadoff hitter. The offense in general in 2005 was absolutely pitiful; pitching, defense, and the 3-run homer was what won the Sox games in 2005, and that dates back to good old Earl Weaver. Ozzie Guillen was just as volatile too, so it worked out wonderfully.

I think I have to disagree with this, simply from watching the team in 05. In the first half, before Pods got hurt, he was excellent. There were games he simply controlled unlike anyone else in that lineup, entirely with his speed. There were a ton of games, especially in April and May when we built that big lead, that we won solely because of the work of Pods and Iguchi. Konerko, Dye, and Crede all had pretty bad starts/bad months of May, AJ wasn't hitting that great, Carl Everett was Carl Everett, Uribe was Uribe, but we were able to eek out a lot of wins because the 2 guys at the front of the lineup were excellent at manufacturing runs and doing their jobs.

 

Just from watching that team, the difference between the 1st and 2nd halfs, where Pods was healthy and was hurt, was huge on the offensive end. Pre all star we were #10 in MLB in runs scored, post all star when Pods was hurt we were #18.

[almagest]

Simply because projections like this, or other "pythags" and mundane calculations are meaningless until the games are played.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he will improve over last year, being as young as he was, with more experience under his belt.

 

According to calculations like this, the 2005 Sox were a second or third place team that didn't win the world series.

 

The line I mentioned would be an improvement for Owens. And what about his minor league stats indicates that he's going to significantly improve? He's a career .294 / .362 / .368 hitter in the minors. And that's mostly due to his breakout AA season, which he hasn't even come close to in any other season in his career.

 

Believe me, I'd like Jerry to hit .300 with an OBP of .370+, and steal 40+ bases. The only evidence we have, though, is his past seasons, and the likely projected results of a full 2008 season from him. Just saying "you have a feeling" that he'll be better because he's young isn't based in any way on fact.

 

If calculations like this are "meaningless," then what about the 2007 Sox? They finished at 72-90, which just happens to be their Pythagorean record. You can't discount any sort of statistical evidence or projection just because the games haven't been played yet. By that logic, no one would know how any player or team would perform, ever.

[CWSGuy406]

I'd love to have grady sizemore too. I'd really love if Quentin was a CF, or we were confident in Swisher in CF. But we're not. And owens hasn't been handed CF. The notion though, that if he enters the season at CF, we are screwed, is stupid. If he's there, it's because he showed he is gonna produce at a high level.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. So if he hits .500 during Spring Training, it means he's going to produce as a high level?

 

Owens ZiPS are a pretty fair estimate -- and they have no bias (that I or you may hold): .261/.325/.338. (*Note*: That's not to say he'll hit that line exactly, but when your 'optimistic' line is .290/.355/.370, it's pretty safe to say you can be categorized as a thoroughly mediocre hitter.)

 

SS2k brought up Otis Nixon, a very quick glance tells me that seems to be a pretty fair comp -- league average OBP, absolutely miserable slugging percentage with 50+ SBs a year (at a 75% clip). That's fine for a fourth outfielder, but I don't want a player like that starting for me (especially when there are better options -- i.e. Quentin).

 

Butler, OTOH, doesn't seem like a great comp.

Edited January 28, 2008 by CWSGuy406

[Balta1701]

It doesn't mean that at all. So if he hits .500 during Spring Training, it means he's going to produce as a high level?

 

Owens ZiPS are a pretty fair estimate -- and they have no bias (that I or you may hold): .261/.325/.338.

 

SS2k brought up Otis Nixon, a very quick glance tells me that seems to be a pretty fair comp -- league average OBP, absolutely miserable slugging percentage with 50+ SBs a year (at a 75% clip). That's fine for a fourth outfielder, but I don't want a player like that starting for me (especially when there are better options -- i.e. Quentin).

 

Butler, OTOH, doesn't seem like a great comp.

If he gets 400 PA's though...while he's used as a sub that allows us to keep Quentin, Swisher, and in order of increasing importance Konerko, Dye, and Thome healthy...then he is not a bad option at all. And if I were the one running things, which thankfully I'm not...that's how I'd use him, as a quasi-everyday OF, shifting around either him or Swisher so that I can make sure that my guys, especially the old guys like Dye and Thome who clearly we've seen can get banged up and struggle because of it, then I think everyone would be pretty happy.

[CWSGuy406]

If he gets 400 PA's though...while he's used as a sub that allows us to keep Quentin, Swisher, and in order of increasing importance Konerko, Dye, and Thome healthy...then he is not a bad option at all. And if I were the one running things, which thankfully I'm not...that's how I'd use him, as a quasi-everyday OF, shifting around either him or Swisher so that I can make sure that my guys, especially the old guys like Dye and Thome who clearly we've seen can get banged up and struggle because of it, then I think everyone would be pretty happy.

 

Well, if we wanted (or still want) a guy like that, someone like Mark DeRosa would be a better option, seeing that he can play more than LF and CF (well, he can't play CF, but if Ramirez is kept on the roster he can play there). And, you know, DeRosa can actually hit the ball where as Owens (for all intents and purposes) can't.

[lvjeremylv]

If calculations like this are "meaningless," then what about the 2007 Sox? They finished at 72-90, which just happens to be their Pythagorean record. You can't discount any sort of statistical evidence or projection just because the games haven't been played yet. By that logic, no one would know how any player or team would perform, ever.

Sometimes those projections pan out, sometimes they don't. If I recall correctly, we were picked to finish 3rd or 4th in the Central in 2005, and we all saw what happened there. Bottom line in professional sports is that so often, injuries can crush a team that otherwise would have been right in the thick of things. There are no projections or theories that can predict what players are going to get injured, and when; nor can they predict what players are going to have career years and, conversely, what players are going to have off years. That's why they go out and play 162 games and see what happens.

[almagest]

Sometimes those projections pan out, sometimes they don't. If I recall correctly, we were picked to finish 3rd or 4th in the Central in 2005, and we all saw what happened there. Bottom line in professional sports is that so often, injuries can crush a team that otherwise would have been right in the thick of things. There are no projections or theories that can predict what players are going to get injured, and when; nor can they predict what players are going to have career years and, conversely, what players are going to have off years. That's why they go out and play 162 games and see what happens.

 

And like I said before, the '07 Sox finished at 72-90, which was their Pythagorean Record. And like I said before, I realize statistical evidence isn't the only way to evaluate baseball, because of the variances present in a full season. It's still a useful tool, though. And in cases like this, there is absolutely NO evidence that Owens would put up anything better than the projected ZiPS or Marcel line. Anything else requires a leap of faith, and that's not going to help this team.

[bigruss]

So this idea was brought up in a discussion with my dad recently in a talk over the leadoff spot: When Pods was a real threat to steal, in that first half of 2005, the next guys up to bat saw a lot more fastballs when he was on base. Atleast it seemed that way, and this was the cause from the threat of Pods to steal a base and the pitcher/catcher trying to catch him by throwing more fastballs so they would have a chance. I dont know if this is completely true, that a good-great basestealer gets in the head of pitchers and actually forces him to throw more fastballs is true, but if so I think that should be taken into account.

[lvjeremylv]

So this idea was brought up in a discussion with my dad recently in a talk over the leadoff spot: When Pods was a real threat to steal, in that first half of 2005, the next guys up to bat saw a lot more fastballs when he was on base. Atleast it seemed that way, and this was the cause from the threat of Pods to steal a base and the pitcher/catcher trying to catch him by throwing more fastballs so they would have a chance. I dont know if this is completely true, that a good-great basestealer gets in the head of pitchers and actually forces him to throw more fastballs is true, but if so I think that should be taken into account.

That is a very good point, and quite true. Unless you've got a savvy veteran pitcher who can stay calm with a speedster dancing around in the corner of his eye, a guy like Podsednik is going to create a lot of problems for the opposition. And yes, the person at the plate is going to see more fastballs because that gives the catcher more time to get the ball down to 2nd when the runner inevitably takes off. It gives the manager so many more options, too. He can tell the 2 hitter to take 2 strikes, giving the runner more time to get into scoring position; he can play hit and run; he can wait for the runner to steal 2nd, then sacrifice him over to 3rd and give your 3/4 hitters an RBI chance; the game COMPLETELY changes when you have a base stealer at the top of your lineup.

[Balta1701]

That is a very good point, and quite true. Unless you've got a savvy veteran pitcher who can stay calm with a speedster dancing around in the corner of his eye, a guy like Podsednik is going to create a lot of problems for the opposition. And yes, the person at the plate is going to see more fastballs because that gives the catcher more time to get the ball down to 2nd when the runner inevitably takes off. It gives the manager so many more options, too. He can tell the 2 hitter to take 2 strikes, giving the runner more time to get into scoring position; he can play hit and run; he can wait for the runner to steal 2nd, then sacrifice him over to 3rd and give your 3/4 hitters an RBI chance; the game COMPLETELY changes when you have a base stealer at the top of your lineup.

But, here's the key...the whole idea only works if 2 things hold. First, your guy must be highly effective at stealing. They have to know that he's going and that if they don't put forth the effort to stop him he'll take 2nd base easily. If he's getting thrown out/picked off a decent chunk of the time, then the runs you gain by running don't make up for the outs you lose when he's picked off. That's where the 75% success rate comes in...you really need the guy to steal 2nd successfully 75% or more for that to matter, otherwise they start not caring, because they start thinking their catcher can get them out no matter what they throw or do. When Pods started getting picked off by Victor Martinez on a regular basis, that was it for him.

 

Second, the guy needs to be on base. Especially in a lineup of boppers like we have, the more he's on base, the more runs. Especially if you're counting on him to be disruptive, the difference between a .325 and a .350 OBP, which over a full season winds up being about 15 times being on base, is pretty big, and it gets magnified with every point of OBP you're talking about.

[Dick Allen]

Pods scored 80 runs in 2005 and drove in 25. He was 0 for 7 with the bases loaded with 1 RBI on a walk.Let's quit the "leading the White Sox" to a championship BS. He was much better on the 2003 Brewers, a team which scored about 20 runs less than the 2005 White Sox, and hit 4 less homers with a pitcher batting. BTW, that team lost 96 games. Pitching is what won the championship.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Dick Allen

[Gregory Pratt]

Pitchers already throw 75% fastballs; I'd guess you see a little bit more with a solid basestealer on, but it's overrated.

[Dick Allen]

Pitchers already throw 75% fastballs; I'd guess you see a little bit more with a solid basestealer on, but it's overrated.

I agree its very overrated. The leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once, but he will bat at least as much as anyone in the lineup. Its more important to get a guy who can get on base, and let the 2,3, 4 hitter do their jobs. Even when Pods was supposedly spectacular, didn't Iguchi have to give himself up a lot? You're taking pitches ,getting behind in the count so the guy can get to second.

[Balta1701]

I agree its very overrated. The leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once, but he will bat at least as much as anyone in the lineup. Its more important to get a guy who can get on base, and let the 2,3, 4 hitter do their jobs. Even when Pods was supposedly spectacular, didn't Iguchi have to give himself up a lot? You're taking pitches ,getting behind in the count so the guy can get to second.

You know what, you guys can bring up all those points, and while I'll acknowledge the need for OBP, you simply aren't going to be able to convince me that Podsednik's work on the basepaths wasn't a very important ingredient in the 2005 team. Yes, the pitching was the biggest part, no one doubts that. Yes, pitchers throw fastballs anyway. Yes, the guy only leads off once a game. Yes, Iguchi grounded out to 2nd to get Pods over to 3rd plenty of times. Yes, he only scored 80 runs (despite missing a month). But there was a reason why we made sure he got in the all star game. Because whether the stats say it or not, he was a huge part in a lot of those wins in the first half. Just watching the games, you could see it. You could see how big a difference he made on the basepaths, you could see how big a difference it made when he got hurt and was terrible/on the DL for 1.5 months. That's what my eyes told me. I think that's what the 10th in the 1st half and 18th in the 2nd half in runs scored tells me. Whether the stats say it or not, for the 2005 team, having that guy at the front of our lineup who stole 20 some bases in a row was damn important.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know what, you guys can bring up all those points, and while I'll acknowledge the need for OBP, you simply aren't going to be able to convince me that Podsednik's work on the basepaths wasn't a very important ingredient in the 2005 team. Yes, the pitching was the biggest part, no one doubts that. Yes, pitchers throw fastballs anyway. Yes, the guy only leads off once a game. Yes, Iguchi grounded out to 2nd to get Pods over to 3rd plenty of times. Yes, he only scored 80 runs (despite missing a month). But there was a reason why we made sure he got in the all star game. Because whether the stats say it or not, he was a huge part in a lot of those wins in the first half. Just watching the games, you could see it. You could see how big a difference he made on the basepaths, you could see how big a difference it made when he got hurt and was terrible/on the DL for 1.5 months. That's what my eyes told me. I think that's what the 10th in the 1st half and 18th in the 2nd half in runs scored tells me. Whether the stats say it or not, for the 2005 team, having that guy at the front of our lineup who stole 20 some bases in a row was damn important.

This is one of those runarounds that has gone on in here since 2005, and will probably still come up in 20 years. There are some people convinced that Ozzie Ball / Small Ball was the reason the team won the title. Others it was pitching. Still others it was homeruns. Or defense.

 

I find the great exaggeraters amusing. People who say that any one of those things won the championship are selectively ignoring much of the picture. Pitching was number 1, no doubt. But defense, Pods' presence at the top, lots of home runs, good situational hitting when the team needed it, some luck, some small ball, and even a little bit of that intangible grindiness all came into play. No way that team wins the title without ALL those things.

 

[Leonard Zelig]

Pods scored 80 runs in 2005 and drove in 25. He was 0 for 7 with the bases loaded with 1 RBI on a walk.Let's quit the "leading the White Sox" to a championship BS. He was much better on the 2003 Brewers, a team which scored about 20 runs less than the 2005 White Sox, and hit 4 less homers with a pitcher batting. BTW, that team lost 96 games. Pitching is what won the championship.

 

You are right, Pods slugged us to the WS win.