Sox still interested in Willy Taveras

[lostfan]

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 wouldn't really mind him hitting 9th either. But we don't have a leadoff hitter, so I'm in the "no" crowd too. I think it's great that he's fast and everything but if his OBP is gonna be like .325, no thanks.

[scenario]

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.

 

Like I said in my original post... it's a list of all MLB players who had 1500 or more plate appearances in the 4 years from 2005-2008. I just picked the bottom 25 for the table.

 

There was no cherry picking or data twisting involved. By setting the threshold of plate appearances lower, it generated a list of 199 players including most starting players over the last 4 years.

 

Then I ranked them ALL by OPS. So if you don't see any other leadoff hitters in here, it's simply because their OPS was high enough so they were not in the bottom 25.

 

Bottom line: Taveras was #6. NUMBER SIX.

 

You want him for you leadoff man? Good for you. I don't.

 

I think he sucks... and the data seems to support my opinion.

Edited December 2, 2008 by scenario

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

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

Per Wikipedia:

 

Technical version of runs created: RC = (H + BB - CS + HBP - GIDP) X [TB + (.26 X (BB - IBB + HBP)) + (.52 X (SH + SF SB)] / AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF

 

HOLY s*** THE ANSWER TO THE UNIVERSE1!11!!!!1OMG1!!!!!!

 

Thank God. I'll never have to watch another baseball game again.

[SoxFan562004]

Per Wikipedia:

 

Technical version of runs created: RC = (H + BB - CS + HBP - GIDP) X [TB + (.26 X (BB - IBB + HBP)) + (.52 X (SH + SF SB)] / AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF

 

HOLY s*** THE ANSWER TO THE UNIVERSE1!11!!!!1OMG1!!!!!!

 

Thank God. I'll never have to watch another baseball game again.

That's what I was waiting for... thanks...

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Like I said in my original post... it's a list of all MLB players who had 1500 or more plate appearances in the 4 years from 2005-2008. I just picked the bottom 25 for the table.

 

There was no cherry picking or data twisting involved. By setting the threshold of plate appearances lower, it generated a list of 199 players including most starting players over the last 4 years.

 

Then I ranked them ALL by OPS. So if you don't see any other leadoff hitters in here, it's simply because their OPS was high enough so they were not in the bottom 25.

 

Bottom line: Taveras was #6. NUMBER SIX.

 

You want him for you leadoff man? Good for you. I don't.

 

I think he sucks... and the data seems to support my opinion.

The data says he has no power. That is all the data says. Do your ranking by OBP and he's not in that group over his career. Last year he probably is, but last year was not the norm for him.

[Felix]

Didn't you say you were done replying to these posts awhile ago KHP? Whatever happened to that?

[scenario]

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.

 

Absolutely right! I agree 100%.

 

We could live with a low SLG out of a player if he had a high OBP.

 

But a player who doesn't do either very well???

 

Whew...

 

I just think we should keep looking.

[Felix]

Absolutely right! I agree 100%.

 

We could live with a low SLG out of a player if he had a high OBP.

 

But a player who doesn't do either very well???

 

Whew...

 

I just think we should keep looking.

No. You and your stats are wrong. His one good (lucky?) half of a season outweigh all the other full seasons he's had in hitters ballparks and show that he'll be a successful player in Chicago, so long as people cheer for him.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

That's what I was waiting for... thanks...

No, thank you, really I mean it. Now that I know how insightful it can be to take all those stats out of context, weight them arbitrarily, and then combine them into this ridiculous mush, I'll never have to look at what a player's strengths are in individual areas again. God bless the runs created stat.

[scenario]

Do your ranking by OBP and he's not in that group over his career. Last year he probably is, but last year was not the norm for him.

 

You're right.

 

Ranked by OBP he would be #51 on that list of 199 players (lowest to highest OBP).

 

But I'm just not impressed with a player who has a .331 career OBP and absolutely no power.

 

IMO that's not good.

 

And I pray to the baseball gods that Kenny will keep looking for a better alternative.

Edited December 2, 2008 by scenario

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Didn't you say you were done replying to these posts awhile ago KHP? Whatever happened to that?

Because you guys kept up with your s***. I thought you'd all quit, but then you didn't. I am almost done for tonight though, it's getting late.

 

All I have to say is that I am going to laugh so f***ing hard if I wake up in the morning and turn on the radio and hear that the Sox have just acquired Willy Taveras. I'll laugh even harder if he has a good year and you guys can't enjoy it because you're all too butt-hurt by his low SLG%.

[SoxFan562004]

No, thank you, really I mean it. Now that I know how insightful it can be to take all those stats out of context, weight them arbitrarily, and then combine them into this ridiculous mush, I'll never have to look at what a player's strengths are in individual areas again. God bless the runs created stat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James

 

This is the guy who created the stat. He has been in the Boston Red Sox front office for many years and uses these stats to help the Red Sox evaluate players. You cannot watch every single game played by every single base ball player. People smarter than me (and despite your blanket statement that people who don't like Taveras are "stupid", I am somewhat bright) have came up with formulas to help gauge a players performance. To call it ridiculous mush shows how little you know about the years spent in developing these stats

Edited December 2, 2008 by SoxFan562004

[SoxFan562004]

Because you guys kept up with your s***. I thought you'd all quit, but then you didn't. I am almost done for tonight though, it's getting late.

 

All I have to say is that I am going to laugh so f***ing hard if I wake up in the morning and turn on the radio and hear that the Sox have just acquired Willy Taveras. I'll laugh even harder if he has a good year and you guys can't enjoy it because you're all too butt-hurt by his low SLG%.

What would you consider a good year? Hate to ask you to use those evil "stats", but "he ran fast" isn't what I'm looking for. (I'm going offensive wise here).

 

Just so you know if the White Sox acquire him and he has a career year I will cheer him as loud as anyone on this board.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

What would you consider a good year? Hate to ask you to use those evil "stats", but "he ran fast" isn't what I'm looking for. (I'm going offensive wise here).

 

Just so you know if the White Sox acquire him and he has a career year I will cheer him as loud as anyone on this board.

A good year, to me, means he hits above his career average of .283, gets on at a clip higher than .330 which is IMO the best you can expect out of a full season of Anderson ATM, and helps us score runs in situations where our sluggers aren't slugging.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James

 

This is the guy who created the stat. He has been in the Boston Red Sox front office for many years and uses these stats to help the Red Sox evaluate players. You cannot watch every single game played by every single base ball player. People smarter than me (and despite your blanket statement that people who don't like Taveras are "stupid", I am somewhat bright) have came up with formulas to help gauge a players performance. To call it ridiculous mush shows how little you know about the years spent in developing these stats

That's right, I do know very little about the years spent mashing the mush. I know the Red Sox value his opinions and statistical mashed potatoes quite highly, but I also believe they spend an assload of money through the draft, through the international free agent market, through free agency, and in their scouting and player development departments. And I don't think you need runs created or whatever to tell you that Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Pedro Martinez, Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsukaza, Curt Schilling and all the other key cogs in their championships are or were very good players. Nor do you need that stat to tell you that Jed Lowrie, Clay Buccholz, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Michael Bowden, etc. either are or were very good prospects.

 

In short, I attribute about 0.0000003% of the Red Sox successes to Bill James.

[scenario]

That's right, I do know very little about the years spent mashing the mush. I know the Red Sox value his opinions and statistical mashed potatoes quite highly...

 

The research is really good and worth the time of a serious baseball fan like yourself to learn more about.

 

It's not statistical mush...

 

It's good science that debunks alot of old misguided myths about what factors contribute to baseball success.

Edited December 2, 2008 by scenario

[santo=dorf]

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.

I think that OPS and SLG% shouldn't be held against a leadoff hitter as much as a DH as well, but it shouldn't be ignored entirely. Obviously I'd take Sizemore over Podsednik (remember that argument from 3 years ago) but I don't think it's fair to use a metric that is driven by power and compare it to all the players in the MLB to a small skinny guy whose manager expects him to drop bunts because he's fast and does it well.

 

If Taveras was on this team I imagine Ozzie would be expecting him to bunt for a single in the first bat of every game and if he didn't he'd ride the pine.

[R.J.]

The myth of Scott Podsednik is going to kill this team. In 2005, Pods had a nice year and was a nice player in his role, but too many people credit him for winning us that world series. With that said, If you're looking to recapture that 2005 Podsednik spirit, you won't get it from Taveras. His career numbers are below those thresholds. You're going to get a really fast guy making a ton of outs at the top of your lineup.

 

I also assume that the proponents of acquiring Taveras and giving him 650 ABs are willing to write last year off as a fluke, and no, no I am not.

 

This guys a good 4th outfielder to have if you give up nothing to get him. Keep looking for an everyday guy.

 

[SoxFan562004]

That's right, I do know very little about the years spent mashing the mush. I know the Red Sox value his opinions and statistical mashed potatoes quite highly, but I also believe they spend an assload of money through the draft, through the international free agent market, through free agency, and in their scouting and player development departments. And I don't think you need runs created or whatever to tell you that Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Pedro Martinez, Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsukaza, Curt Schilling and all the other key cogs in their championships are or were very good players. Nor do you need that stat to tell you that Jed Lowrie, Clay Buccholz, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Michael Bowden, etc. either are or were very good prospects.

 

In short, I attribute about 0.0000003% of the Red Sox successes to Bill James.

 

Luckily for Red Sox fans Theo Epstein would probably disagree with you. A few things. One, often times it's easy to peg the superstar players in any sport, I don't discount the eye test. Two, the Twins obviously weren't overwhelmed by David Ortiz even though he was growing as a player every year and those whacky stats would have told you that.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/ortizda01.shtml

 

Taveras does not fit into any of the categories of players you listed, he's not a superstar and at best he would be a role player who sometimes you need to compare him with similar players, which stats help one to do.

 

You seem like someone who also believes in "hard nose football" and "Bears Weather!!"

[R.J.]

You seem like someone who also believes in "hard nose football" and "Bears Weather!!"

 

Wait, is Willy Taveras a GRINDER~!! who has the fireandthepassion it takes to play Ozzie Ball?

 

Because in that case, I'll pick him up at the airport.

 

[SkokieSox]

The myth of Scott Podsednik is going to kill this team. In 2005, Pods had a nice year and was a nice player in his role, but too many people credit him for winning us that world series. With that said, If you're looking to recapture that 2005 Podsednik spirit, you won't get it from Taveras. His career numbers are below those thresholds. You're going to get a really fast guy making a ton of outs at the top of your lineup.

 

I also assume that the proponents of acquiring Taveras and giving him 650 ABs are willing to write last year off as a fluke, and no, no I am not.

 

This guys a good 4th outfielder to have if you give up nothing to get him. Keep looking for an everyday guy.

 

Wonder if we receive a veteran leadoff hitter by other means, and then Taveras as a CF 9 hole hitter? If his bat was to replace Uribe, I have to feel it is a significant upgrade, especially with his speed.

[eickevinmorris]

So did KHP get banned? Really man, make a cogent argument against luck and variations in BABIP. Please.

[joejoesox]

Wonder if we receive a veteran leadoff hitter by other means, and then Taveras as a CF 9 hole hitter? If his bat was to replace Uribe, I have to feel it is a significant upgrade, especially with his speed.

 

Replace Uribe's bat... in what capacity?

[SoxFan1]

Replace Uribe's bat... in what capacity?

I believe he means in the capacity of a 9-hole hitter.

[caulfield12]

Luckily for Red Sox fans Theo Epstein would probably disagree with you. A few things. One, often times it's easy to peg the superstar players in any sport, I don't discount the eye test. Two, the Twins obviously weren't overwhelmed by David Ortiz even though he was growing as a player every year and those whacky stats would have told you that.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/ortizda01.shtml

 

Taveras does not fit into any of the categories of players you listed, he's not a superstar and at best he would be a role player who sometimes you need to compare him with similar players, which stats help one to do.

 

You seem like someone who also believes in "hard nose football" and "Bears Weather!!"

 

The Ortiz decision was made because they had too many players at about the same time increasing in salary, and there were concerns in MIN about his work ethic and growing/expanding girth. Obviously they were wrong about him, Thank God.