Sox still interested in Willy Taveras

[ThunderBolt]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/taverwi01.shtml

He is a bad offensive player and the White Sox don't have a magical spell that will make him a quality MLB offensive player.

... Cooper can fix him.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

If all it took to get Taveras was two pieces of s*** like Broadway or McCulloch, he'd already be gone. Chances are, the Rockies are trying to bend KW over a barrel and make him give up something actually valuable.

 

Please, argue against luck, random variations in BABIP, etc.

Argue against luck? That is the crutch of your argument? Luck? Rabbit feet and magic 8-balls? I cannot even fathom how anyone could suggest "luck" as the reason for anything. Odds exist and they play themselves out. Luck is nothing more than a concept invented by idiots and perpetuated by idiots.

 

Taveras gets a high percentage of his hits by putting the ball in play in the infield, either by swinging the bat or bunting, and then by using his speed to beat out a play. If the opposition cannot throw him out in any individual situation then it is not luck. If the pitcher cannot field a bunt properly, or the third baseman positions himself in the wrong spot, or if the SS double clutches, of if Taveras himself happens to lay a perfect bunt right down the line that the third baseman is forced to let roll, then that is not luck. That is the direct result of a play initiated by Taveras. If you want to look at the numbers, here:

 

Here's his batting average split by hit trajectory with number of hits/AB:

2005: .320 on ground balls (79/247), .746 on line drives (44/59), .491 on bunts (28/57), .167 on fly balls (21/126)

2006: .269 on ground balls (61/227), .694 on line drives (43/62), .553 on bunts (21/38), .193 on fly balls (22/114)

2007: .291 on ground balls (41/141), .762 on line drives (32/42), .712 on bunts (37/52), .110 on fly balls (9/82)

2008: .232 on ground balls (43/185), .667 on line drives (46/69), .500 on bunts (22/44), .088 on fly balls (9/102)

 

He got "lucky" exactly zero times. He put the f***in' ball in play and ran. When he hit the f***in' ball in the f***in' air he didn't get f***in' s*** because he has no f***in' power. Obviously. On some occasions, for any number of reasons, he was more successful than in others, but luck had exactly zero to do with it. You can't simulate what goes on in defensive players' minds at the time of a given play, or the condition of the infield at the time of that play, or where they are positioned at the time of that play, etc., so you cannot call any one of these numbers lucky. In fact, the odds say that if Willie puts a bunt down in a non-sacrifice situation, most likely he'll end up on first base. They also say that as long as he doesn't hit the ball in the air he's a good hitter. Since he gets a majority of his hits are because of his legs you cannot put on cloak and a wizard hat and pick up your magic wand and shout, "Luck!" Not unless you're a moron anyway.

[Felix]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/taverwi01.shtml

 

he's played at least 97 games and has had at least 372 ABs in each of the last four years. Every year he has been a below average offensive player, PEAKING with a OPS + of 89. He is a bad offensive player and the White Sox don't have a magical spell that will make him a quality MLB offensive player.

I said this way too many pages ago (as did a number of other posters in more than one thread), but it's refuted with the clever argument that OPS is a stupid stat and the statistical analysis that shows Taveras needs a fan base cheering for him in order to be successful, which is why Chicago is a better place than Colorado for him.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Here's a search I did of all MLB players since 2005... with a minimum of 1500 plate appearances... ranked by OPS (from lowest to highest).

 

So... here are the 25 MLB regulars with the lowest OPS... with the worst shown first.

 

Read into it what you want...

 

More stupidity...

 

Obviously he'll rank at the very bottom in a stat that accounts for a tool he does not possess, and a tool which BTW is completely unrelated to his job as lead-off man. How stupid are you people?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I said this way too many pages ago (as did a number of other posters in more than one thread), but it's refuted with the clever argument that OPS is a stupid stat and the statistical analysis that shows Taveras needs a fan base cheering for him in order to be successful, which is why Chicago is a better place than Colorado for him.

See my post above. SLG% is not a necessary tool for a lead-off hitter. OPS is a stupid way to measure the performance of lead-off hitters.

[SoxFan562004]

More stupidity...

 

Obviously he'll rank at the very bottom in a stat that accounts for a tool he does not possess, and a tool which BTW is completely unrelated to his job as lead-off man. How stupid are you people?

He will be guaranteed to lead-off exactly once a game. He has zero power.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/taverwi01.shtml

 

His RC last year was 55, and this incoroporates his base running

 

RC - Runs Created - A runs estimator created by Bill James. A runs estimator attempts to quantify the entire contribution of a player's statistics to a team's total runs scored. It typically involves some positive value for things like hits, walks, steals, home runs, etc. and negative values for outs, caught stealing and GIDP. There are 24 different versions of RC depending on the stats you have. In general, I am using the tech version which incorporates baserunning, HBP and other offensive events. When those aren't available I use the SB version, and when those aren't available, I use the basic version, (H + BB) * (TB)/ (AB + BB) from baseball-reference.com

 

Nick Swisher had a RC last year of 69 and a slightly better RC/G of 4.5 compared to 4.3.

 

In '05 Pods had 67

 

Edited December 2, 2008 by SoxFan562004

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

He will be guaranteed to lead-off exactly once a game. He has zero power.

What is your point? We all know he doesn't have power. Why do you need power to hit at the top or the bottom of a lineup when you're not expected to have anyone on base ahead of you?

[Dick Allen]

See my post above. SLG% is not a necessary tool for a lead-off hitter. OPS is a stupid way to measure the performance of lead-off hitters.

How about OBP? Taveras has been below league average in 3 of his 4 major league seasons. He's fine batting ninth or eighth, but leading off is a waste.

[Dick Allen]

He will be guaranteed to lead-off exactly once a game. He has zero power.

The problem is the leadoff hitter is going to get up to the plate more than any other hitter over the course of a season. Willy Taveras isn't the guy you want for that.

[SoxFan562004]

What is your point? We all know he doesn't have power. Why do you need power to hit at the top or the bottom of a lineup when you're not expected to have anyone on base ahead of you?

Dick Allen summed it up well for me. He's a bad offensive player.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

How about OBP? Taveras has been below league average in 3 of his 4 major league seasons. He's fine batting ninth or eighth, but leading off is a waste.

Fine. Bat him 9th, I don't care. I'm arguing against people who think he sucks no matter what and isn't a better bet than Anderson. I disagree with all of that.

 

Willy Taveras is not my ideal lead-off hitter, at all. However, those guys who would be ideal are going to be waaaay too expensive to acquire and I'd rather go after the cheaper guy. If the Sox do get Taveras, and if Ozzie does have him lead off, he isn't going to kill the team there. Batting 9th, he's not going to kill the team there either. Given his ability to play CF, if we do acquire him, there will be far greater issues with our offense and with our pitching and defense than Willy Taveras. And, if he has a good year, he'll actually help us.

[scenario]

More stupidity...

 

Obviously he'll rank at the very bottom in a stat that accounts for a tool he does not possess, and a tool which BTW is completely unrelated to his job as lead-off man. How stupid are you people?

 

Listen... I don't know what you think you know... but ix-nay with the upid-stay. You obviously like Taveras, but that is not a good reason to take shots at people making reasonable arguments.

 

OPS is a well established measure of offensive output. The fact is that players who score low in OPS have to do something else extremely valuable to justify their spot in a lineup.

 

If it didn't mean anything for a leadoff hitter, then where are the other leadoff hitters on the list? In fact, where are the other 'good' offensive players? The fact is that practically every player on that list is considered 'marginal' as a starter... because of their low offensive output. It's a list that seems made up of defensive specialists and journeymen.

 

Is there ANYbody on that list who would make the Sox a better offensive team? I don't think so.

Edited December 2, 2008 by scenario

[SoxFan562004]

Listen... I don't know what you think you know... but ix-nay with the upid-stay. You obviously like Taveras, but that is not a good reason to take shots at people making reasonable arguments.

 

OPS is a well established measure of offensive output. The fact is that players who score low on OPS have to do something else extremely valuable to justify their spot in a lineup.

 

If it didn't mean anything for a leadoff hitter, then where are the other leadoff hitters on the list? In fact, where are the other 'good' offensive players? The fact is that practically every player on that list is considered 'marginal' as a starter... because of their low offensive output.

Good post, also look at his RC and RC/G which includes things like base running and he still isn't very good.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Dick Allen summed it up well for me. He's a bad offensive player.

And again, why is a guy who gets on a few more times per season and hits a few more XBH's more valuable than a guy who gets on less and hits for less power but does more damage when he's on? League average OBP and league average SLG% in CF isn't going to get you a whole lot anyway. At least Willy has a tool to use when he does get on base.

[SoxFan562004]

And again, why is a guy who gets on a few more times per season and hits a few more XBH's more valuable than a guy who gets on less and hits for less power but does more damage when he's on? League average OBP and league average SLG% in CF isn't going to get you a whole lot anyway. At least Willy has a tool to use when he does get on base.

Please look at my post about RC, it has a definition in there, even with him doing all the "damage" on the path he isn't a very productive offensive player. Also, I made a mistake, his career average RC/G was 4.3, last year he had a 3.8!

 

Also, who are a few other players not on the White Sox roster you would compare him with?

Edited December 2, 2008 by SoxFan562004

[Dick Allen]

And again, why is a guy who gets on a few more times per season and hits a few more XBH's more valuable than a guy who gets on less and hits for less power but does more damage when he's on? League average OBP and league average SLG% in CF isn't going to get you a whole lot anyway. At least Willy has a tool to use when he does get on base.

If a guy hits 40 doubles and steals 15 vs. a guy who hits 15 doubles and steals 40, they basically get to second just as much, but the guy who hits the doubles will drive in runs. In the AL with a DH, a leadoff guy that can drive in runs is pretty valuable.

[EvilMonkey]

Willy Taveras stole 5 bases in one game last season, and didn't score a run.

 

Thats an ally-op from Kalapse.

Sounds more like an inditement of his teammates instead of a negative against him.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Listen... I don't know what you think you know... but ix-nay with the upid-stay. You obviously like Taveras, but that is not a good reason to take shots at people making reasonable arguments.

 

OPS is a well established measure of offensive output. The fact is that players who score low in OPS have to do something else extremely valuable to justify their spot in a lineup.

 

If it didn't mean anything for a leadoff hitter, then where are the other leadoff hitters on the list? In fact, where are the other 'good' offensive players? The fact is that practically every player on that list is considered 'marginal' as a starter... because of their low offensive output. It's a list that seems made up of defensive specialists and journeymen.

 

Is there ANYbody on that list who would make the Sox a better offensive team? I don't think so.

Your list is a joke. I just counted, and you've got 2 3B who aren't starters (Counsell, Castillo), 6 catchers, 9 SS, 3 CF, 2 2B, and 3 LF who aren't starters anymore (Payton, Pierre, Pods). Who would've thought that you'd come up with a bunch of players playing premium positions when you ranked according to OPS? Big surprise there...

 

And yes, Taveras would make the Sox a better offensive team than what we have now because he adds an element to the game that we are missing.

[Dick Allen]

Sounds more like an inditement of his teammates instead of a negative against him.

Its a negative because in order to produce runs, Taveras needs all the help he can get. He can steal all the bases he wants, he's still going to need someone to drive him in. He's totally reliant on others to drive him in, just like everyone else, and he's not very apt at driving in runs considering 30 rbi is a career high.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Dick Allen

[SoxFan562004]

Your list is a joke. I just counted, and you've got 2 3B who aren't starters (Counsell, Castillo), 6 catchers, 9 SS, 3 CF, 2 2B, and 3 LF who aren't starters anymore (Payton, Pierre, Pods). Who would've thought that you'd come up with a bunch of players playing premium positions when you ranked according to OPS? Big surprise there...

 

And yes, Taveras would make the Sox a better offensive team than what we have now because he adds an element to the game that we are missing.

Which would be speed? Again, Swisher is slow, he had a higher RC/G than him and it includes base running which includes SBs!

[lostfan]

If a guy hits 40 doubles and steals 15 vs. a guy who hits 15 doubles and steals 40, they basically get to second just as much, but the guy who hits the doubles will drive in runs. In the AL with a DH, a leadoff guy that can drive in runs is pretty valuable.

Not that I want Taveras leading off for the Sox, but those prototypical leadoff hitters that are being referred to in the last couple of pages don't really grow on trees either. If you want a leadoff guy that can drive in runs, and has an OPS at, near, or over .800 with a handful of homers and still steals bases, you're talking about elite talent. Those names sound like Roberts, Ichiro, Sizemore, Granderson. The ones who can't do all that and are one-dimensional slap hitters (Taveras, Owens, etc.) are a dime a dozen. The rest are somewhere in between. The Sox haven't been able to find one of those "in between" guys for a while now.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

If a guy hits 40 doubles and steals 15 vs. a guy who hits 15 doubles and steals 40, they basically get to second just as much, but the guy who hits the doubles will drive in runs. In the AL with a DH, a leadoff guy that can drive in runs is pretty valuable.

If a guy hits 40 2B's he's not leading off, he's generally hitting in the middle of the order somewhere 3-7 depending on the type of offense the team is running out.

 

There were two prototypical or close to prototypical lead-off men who hit over 40 doubles in all of baseball last year, and they were Brian Roberts and Dustin Pedroia. Good luck acquiring those guys.

[Dick Allen]

Not that I want Taveras leading off for the Sox, but those prototypical leadoff hitters that are being referred to in the last couple of pages don't really grow on trees either. If you want a leadoff guy that can drive in runs, and has an OPS at, near, or over .800 with a handful of homers and still steals bases, you're talking about elite talent. Those names sound like Roberts, Ichiro, Sizemore, Granderson. The ones who can't do all that and are one-dimensional slap hitters (Taveras, Owens, etc.) are a dime a dozen. The rest are somewhere in between. The Sox haven't been able to find one of those "in between" guys for a while now.

I understand that. But a leadoff hitter with a below average OBP, absolutely no power and no ability to drive in runs isn't the answer either. Like I said, if the price was low and Taveras was thought of as an eighth or ninth place hitter, I wouldn' mind him on the White Sox. Selling him as a leadoff hitter is a joke.

[SoxFan562004]

I understand that. But a leadoff hitter with a below average OBP, absolutely no power and no ability to drive in runs isn't the answer either. Like I said, if the price was low and Taveras was thought of as an eighth or ninth place hitter, I wouldn' mind him on the White Sox. Selling him as a leadoff hitter is a joke.

I will agree with you on that, if the Sox give very little up for him and he bats 9th it isn't the end of the world, but not as leadoff.

[lostfan]

Listen... I don't know what you think you know... but ix-nay with the upid-stay. You obviously like Taveras, but that is not a good reason to take shots at people making reasonable arguments.

 

OPS is a well established measure of offensive output. The fact is that players who score low in OPS have to do something else extremely valuable to justify their spot in a lineup.

 

If it didn't mean anything for a leadoff hitter, then where are the other leadoff hitters on the list? In fact, where are the other 'good' offensive players? The fact is that practically every player on that list is considered 'marginal' as a starter... because of their low offensive output. It's a list that seems made up of defensive specialists and journeymen.

 

Is there ANYbody on that list who would make the Sox a better offensive team? I don't think so.

It's not that OPS is meaningless for a leadoff hitter, it's that it's not as good of a pure metric to measure their production like it is for a middle of the order type hitter. It doesn't tell you everything by itself, the SLG part of it means something, but the OBP (and walk ratio) is more important than the SLG.