Our Putrid Cfer's

[Texsox]

Depends on what you're doing at the other positions. If you're strong in lots of places, one or two revolving doors can be tolerated.

 

What I was thinking was around a dollar figure like many businesses calculate. Generally it runs into the thousands to recruit and train someone. Just shuffling rosters and getting some one from one level to another has to cost a bit.

[Melissa1334]

Huh? 18mil is what he took, that's what it took to acquire him. Some amount some other team tried to acquire him for is irrelevant.

yea bcuz the angels came in at the last second and had they not, we would of had him for 15il

[caulfield12]

All teams have that "cost/benefit" analysis way of looking at their rosters.

 

Some use VORP and mix it in with salary to get an "overall efficiency" factor for any given player.

 

A perfect example of this is Wilson Betemit versus Juan Uribe. We didn't have anyone (maybe it's Nix now) who could play 3B, SS and 2B AND hit just a little bit. Lillibridge can't hit, Betemit can't field. So the question is do you go with Juan Uribe at $3.6 million or Wilson Betemit at $1.3 million.

 

Personally, with how our pitching has been, I would rather have Uribe's defensive abilities and occasional power (he's also sure to get runners in from 3rd with less than 2 outs, a big weakness for the Sox) than a player in Betemit who's not being used correctly and is a defensively liability at any position on the field.

 

One of the keys to making the playoffs last season was having an experienced/veteran bench player like Uribe to fill the void when Crede went down. Our bench this year is the worst it has been in many years. Before, we had Ozuna, who could give you a spark offensively and play adequate defense.

 

 

I'll give Nix the benefit of the doubt that he can replace Uribe, though. That's turning out to be a pretty astute pick-up by KW, because if Fields fails to make it, Nix will be the first player they turn to. I'm not sure Ozzie will be able to trust Betemit's defense at 3B, although a platoon of Nix/Betemit might be the best overall option offensively.

 

 

 

[SoxFan562004]

Sounds about right - that's like $18M per year in gross profit, less in net, which means they are making just a few percentage points in profit. I remember seeing the Sox at something like 1.9% the last year that I looked at Forbes' numbers, and that was better than a lot of teams.

 

This whole conspiracy theory that they are taking money out of the team and going "cheap" on payroll is just manifestly false. They make little money, they have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, and are facing lower ticket sales and rolling sponsorship losses. They aren't juicing the fans, they are doing what everyone has to do right now.

 

And for the love of... Brent Lillibridge is not playing because of salary issues!!!!!! He's the f***ing 4th string option in CF, due to injuries, which by the way no team in baseball would have a good option for.

the raise to $23 for parking helps though. The real money in owning a team, unless you have a cash printing machine like the NYY is the value of the investement. Look what the current group paid for the team and how much it's worth now, it was a tremendous investement.

[Texsox]

All teams have that "cost/benefit" analysis way of looking at their rosters.

 

Some use VORP and mix it in with salary to get an "overall efficiency" factor for any given player.

 

A perfect example of this is Wilson Betemit versus Juan Uribe. We didn't have anyone (maybe it's Nix now) who could play 3B, SS and 2B AND hit just a little bit. Lillibridge can't hit, Betemit can't field. So the question is do you go with Juan Uribe at $3.6 million or Wilson Betemit at $1.3 million.

 

Personally, with how our pitching has been, I would rather have Uribe's defensive abilities and occasional power (he's also sure to get runners in from 3rd with less than 2 outs, a big weakness for the Sox) than a player in Betemit who's not being used correctly and is a defensively liability at any position on the field.

 

One of the keys to making the playoffs last season was having an experienced/veteran bench player like Uribe to fill the void when Crede went down. Our bench this year is the worst it has been in many years. Before, we had Ozuna, who could give you a spark offensively and play adequate defense.

 

 

I'll give Nix the benefit of the doubt that he can replace Uribe, though. That's turning out to be a pretty astute pick-up by KW, because if Fields fails to make it, Nix will be the first player they turn to. I'm not sure Ozzie will be able to trust Betemit's defense at 3B, although a platoon of Nix/Betemit might be the best overall option offensively.

 

I was thinking about a stat like ERA, RBI, etc that could be easily calculated. There are too many variables, but I'd love to see someone print standings based on cost per win. That would be interesting and perhaps a partial way to evaluate a GM.

[caulfield12]

http://thesportseconomist.com/2005/05/mone...win-fallacy.htm

 

Things like this have been done many times before...the problem is that Oakland A's, Twins or Rays usually "win" this competition, but they're not necessarily successful in terms of winning playoff series or getting to the World Series.

 

GM's like Epstein, Cashman, Minaya, Lynch, etc., will never have a chance because they HAVE to win and they have the budgets to be competitive every year, so they really could care less about cost per win, the only thing is the bottom line of winning the the World Series or not.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I was thinking about a stat like ERA, RBI, etc that could be easily calculated. There are too many variables, but I'd love to see someone print standings based on cost per win. That would be interesting and perhaps a partial way to evaluate a GM.

It wouldn't be too hard to determine cost per home run, rbi etc. What would be harder to determine is how much that player has affected things such as attendance, souvenier sales, etc. For example when the Sox signed Carlton Fisk, how many 72 jerseys were sold, how many season ticket sales did that produce? How many casual fans decided, hey the Sox got a real ballplayer, maybe I'll go check them out, and wound up become huge fans who spend a lot of money on the White Sox win or lose? Maybe he was worth a lot more than his numbers.

 

 

On the other hand, when the Sox signed Albert Belle, how many long-time fans were disgusted they gave a guy generally considered to be a jerk all that money and vowed never to spend another dime on the Sox again? Maybe his actual worth was less than his production.

 

[Texsox]

http://thesportseconomist.com/2005/05/mone...win-fallacy.htm

 

Things like this have been done many times before...the problem is that Oakland A's, Twins or Rays usually "win" this competition, but they're not necessarily successful in terms of winning playoff series or getting to the World Series.

 

GM's like Epstein, Cashman, Minaya, Lynch, etc., will never have a chance because they HAVE to win and they have the budgets to be competitive every year, so they really could care less about cost per win, the only thing is the bottom line of winning the the World Series or not.

 

Exactly, which is why for Sox fans the bottom line is not winning the World Series or not but the cost per player and how that will affect the chances of winning a World Series.

[The Ginger Kid]

Hunter would have pissed people off here something intense. His defense isn't what it used to be 2-3 years ago, and he put up an .810 OPS last year. Do you really want to pay someone like that $18 mill a year?

have you been watching him play?

[soxfan-kwman]

We shoulda got Willy Taveras..

I totally agree. I thought kenny would have got him for sure.

[qwerty]

have you been watching him play?

 

He has not been good for three years now, and his arm has taken a s*** on him. People will say ''omg omg, look at all those diving plays!!''. Diving plays generally only result due to less than good jumps and or routes to the ball. Simply put, rowand>> hunter defensively from the day he was brought up until now. There really is no comparison which is better of the two.

[caulfield12]

Hunter was better than Rowand (clearly) until about 3 years ago.

 

They're probably even now, although age is catching a bit with Rowand as well.

 

Anderson's better than Rowand or Hunter, but neither Rowand nor Anderson are/were better than Hunter in his prime on turf.

[Balta1701]

Anderson's better than Rowand or Hunter, but neither Rowand nor Anderson are/were better than Hunter in his prime on turf.

If Anderson could bring a ball back over the fence, I might start disagreeing with you. Anderson covers as much ground as any CF I've seen and he plays people perfectly in advance. He just isn't a HR robber.

[qwerty]

Hunter was better than Rowand (clearly) until about 3 years ago.

 

They're probably even now, although age is catching a bit with Rowand as well.

 

Anderson's better than Rowand or Hunter, but neither Rowand nor Anderson are/were better than Hunter in his prime on turf.

 

The bold is entirely false. There is nothing clear about it.

 

The second line is essentially as false as the first.

 

The third line baffles me because it just is not a fact, and by the third line i mean saying rowand wasn't a better defender during ''hunter's'' prime.

 

You do not believe in metrics and go strickly with what you see with your eyes. Others may reply to me with '' well you are only looking at metrics''. This would be the furthest from the case. I go with visual, factual, and knowledge... combined. Then, and only then, is when i base my decision.

Edited May 15, 2009 by qwerty

[fathom]

I heard a stat today that on the season, we have 2 extra base hits from our center fielders. That has to be close to a record. Keep up the good work KW!

[caulfield12]

The bold is entirely false. There is nothing clear about it.

 

The second line is essentially as false as the first.

 

The third line baffles me because it just is not a fact, and by the third line i mean saying rowand wasn't a better defender during ''hunter's'' prime.

 

You do not believe in metrics and go strickly with what you see with your eyes. Others may reply to me with '' well you are only looking at metrics''. This would be the furthest from the case. I go with visual, factual, and knowledge... combined. Then, and only then, is when i base my decision.

 

 

Basic fact: Since we're all White Sox fans, it's impossible to be objective about "our" players. We tend to either deify them or crucify them more than we should. They are never as good OR as bad as we think usually.

 

I've watched almost as many Twins games as White Sox games over the last 5-6 seasons and there's no way Rowand was better than Hunter in CF from 2002-2004.

 

The reason Aaron Rowand had to dive for so many balls is he took bad routes or misjudged a lot of balls. He's not nearly the defender Anderson is (not talking about their arms) in terms of jumps, instincts, routes, proper technique...Anderson is clearly better. I never say anything good about Brian Anderson as a hitter, but Rowand's not even in his class. Not to mention that I don't give extra points for crashing into wallks or playing so recklessly that he ends up hurting his team by having to go onto the disabled list.

 

 

[qwerty]

 

Basic fact: Since we're all White Sox fans, it's impossible to be objective about "our" players. We tend to either deify them or crucify them more than we should. They are never as good OR as bad as we think usually.

 

I view every player around the league the very same equally. First and foremost i am a baseball fan, not a white sox fan. I love the white sox, but it does not compare to my overall love for the game. Possibly for the scenario you presented it holds true for a voluminous portion of baseball fans. Do not lump me in with the masses, as you have no clue what my thought process is.

 

I've watched almost as many Twins games as White Sox games over the last 5-6 seasons and there's no way Rowand was better than Hunter in CF from 2002-2004.

 

Many highly intelligent individuals would disagree with this assesment.

 

Here is what mitchel lichtman, who is the creator of UZR, has to say.

 

An average fielder is around -5 to +5 runs per season, a good or poor one +-5 to +-10 , a very good or very poor one, +-10 to +-15, and a great or terrible fielder, between +15 and +20 or between -15 and -20, respectively.

 

UZR just so happens to be what every single major league front office uses as the number one reference point defensively.

Lichtman currently is in the cardinals front office.

 

Torii hunter

 

2002-

Inning- 1234.2

-0.5 UZR

0 UZR/150

 

2003-

Innings- 1299.1

13.2 UZR

19 UZR/150

 

2004-

Innings- 1100.0

-0.1 UZR

-0.2 UZR/150

 

2005-

Innings- 813.1

2.6 UZR

4.5 UZR/150

 

2006-

Innings- 1232.1

-10.9 UZR

-11.6 UZR/150

 

2007-

Innings- 1314.2

-6.0 UZR

-6.5 UZR/150

 

2008-

Innings- 1193.1

-11.5 UZR

-13.0 UZR/150

 

================================================================================

 

Aaron rowand

 

2002-

Innings- 601.2

6.0 UZR

12.4 UZR/150

 

2003-

Innings- 378.2

6.0 UZR

26.3 UZR/150

 

2004-

Innings- 1018.2

13.3 UZR

19.0 UZR/150

 

2005-

Innings- 1367.2

16.1 UZR

18.7 UZR/150

 

2006-

Innings- 900.2

1.6 UZR

2.3 UZR/150

 

2007

Innings- 1373.2

10.3 UZR

10.0 UZR/150

 

2008

Innings- 1275.1

-6.5 UZR

-6.1 UZR/150

 

As i said, they are not comprable, and that would go for the other less quality metrics out there also.

 

The reason Aaron Rowand had to dive for so many balls is he took bad routes or misjudged a lot of balls. He's not nearly the defender Anderson is (not talking about their arms) in terms of jumps, instincts, routes, proper technique...Anderson is clearly better. I never say anything good about Brian Anderson as a hitter, but Rowand's not even in his class. Not to mention that I don't give extra points for crashing into wallks or playing so recklessly that he ends up hurting his team by having to go onto the disabled list.

 

Rowand gets to balls standing up that hunter has to dive for. Andruw jones gets to balls standing up that both hunter and rowand would have to dive for. Anytime you see andruw jones diving for a ball, well, that would be a double past literally anyone else in the league anyone in the entire major leagues.

 

@ the bold.

 

Talk about overstating something due to fandom.

Edited May 16, 2009 by qwerty

[caulfield12]

Andruw Jones WAS a good outfielder before he gained about 50 pounds.

 

I could care less what UZR or Zone Rating or any of that stuff says. It's one tool to use, but it's probably 33% accurate at best.

 

I've had Major League Baseball Extra Innings package for most of that time and I've watched 60-120 Twins games every season when Hunter was in his prime. I'll rely on what I've watched over some stat geek who created a stat largely so he could get a job for a major league baseball team because he wasn't a good enough player probably to even get to the minor leagues.

 

I'll let others decide...who here thinks that Aaron Rowand was a better defensive CFer than Torii Hunter from 2002-2004?

 

This should be interesting.

 

 

 

Don't be confused...UZR is a very flawed statistic for several reasons. Most importantly, it can vary DRASTICALLY from year to year. Jeter's UZR 2 years ago was -40, I believe.

 

I'll take that cue to point out the other major flaw: the "zones" aren't as neat and specific as one might think. For example, defensivley a CF usually shifts fairly far toward left field for a righty pull hitter, in which case a line drive to right center is his "responsibility" that goes for a double or triple. Also, a CF in one year may have an abnormally large # of fly balls to his zones. Whereas a similar CF may have more line drives that will sail to one spot (the same spot that the lazy fly ball lands for CF #1) or flares that don't stay up long enough (whereas CF #1 may enjoy more air time on those balls). Parks, pitching staff, bad luck..it's all hard to factor in...

 

Hence Jeter's defense got magically alot worse with a poor 3B, and magically alot better with A-Rod at 3B, who has more range and first step quickness than most 3B's. Another example: Check out Tejada's #'s after Chavez was no longer playing with him.

 

Not to mention there so many other factors that one defensive stat can not account for : outs by virtue of a throw, bases saved by a player NOT taking an extra based due to reputation, etc.

 

That being said, over the course of 3-5 years, UZR should balance out and make those things becomes less of a factor.

 

This is why defense is so hard to quantify.

Someone needs to mention this to "I Love Wang"....

 

First of all, it is impossible to judge defense with numbers, unlike judging offense (a-la... batting average). There are TOO MANY HUMAN FACTORS involved to put numbers up against, to have a "rating" defensively. I also think there are way too many people married to the "numbers". The best defensive rating system, by far and away, is.... MY EYES! Watching things like body movements, footwork, and shoulder positioning help me determine who is capable of playing their position properly. I learned some of these defensive dynamics from a friend of mine that was scout for the Rockies. So I rely on what I see on the field, not on a calculator.

 

And the thing that gets me, if this UZR was so great, how come the best rated players aren't walking away with the Gold Glove awards? For instance, I think 3 years ago, Jay Payton was the top rated centerfielder... Whoa!!! And now, Aaron Rowand, although I think he is a nice player, certainly to me, is not better than Jones, Hunter, Edmonds, or Logan (defensively). Are the numbers seeing something that the voters are not? Are the voters making the wrong choices on purpose?

 

A lot of the defensive 'rankings' are also a matter of opinion. People think that Timo Perez was a good outfielder with a strong arm. I thought the opposite, just from watching him. The only thing he did well was get the ball away quickly. Bad jumps and very poor footwork. Another guy is people think is really good, but I think otherwise, is Garret Anderson. If you watch this guy enough, you will see that his jumps are below average and he NEVER throws the ball on target. This to me makes him a below average outfielder. Now, do I want him in my lineup? Sure do, his bat more than makes up for his lack of defense. But on the whole, that is what needs to be measured more than anything. Is the balance of the player worth having him in the lineup? If his bad defense is determined to be hurting the team more than his offense is helping, and the Yankees are caught in that predicament right now.

 

Let's take a look at Bernie. If his production was, say, that of 2000 or 2001 (in that time frame +/- a year or 2) with 30 HR's and 110 RBI's, we may not be looking so hard for a centerfielder. But because Bernie's offense is no longer offsetting his defense, well, the hunt is on.

 

from a nyfans.com thread

Edited May 16, 2009 by caulfield12

[qwerty]

Andruw Jones WAS a good outfielder before he gained about 50 pounds.

 

I could care less what UZR or Zone Rating or any of that stuff says. It's one tool to use, but it's probably 33% accurate at best.

 

I've had Major League Baseball Extra Innings package for most of that time and I've watched 60-120 Twins games every season when Hunter was in his prime. I'll rely on what I've watched over some stat geek who created a stat largely so he could get a job for a major league baseball team because he wasn't a good enough player probably to even get to the minor leagues.

 

I'll let others decide...who here thinks that Aaron Rowand was a better defensive CFer than Torii Hunter from 2002-2004?

 

This should be interesting.

 

 

 

Don't be confused...UZR is a very flawed statistic for several reasons. Most importantly, it can vary DRASTICALLY from year to year. Jeter's UZR 2 years ago was -40, I believe.

 

I'll take that cue to point out the other major flaw: the "zones" aren't as neat and specific as one might think. For example, defensivley a CF usually shifts fairly far toward left field for a righty pull hitter, in which case a line drive to right center is his "responsibility" that goes for a double or triple. Also, a CF in one year may have an abnormally large # of fly balls to his zones. Whereas a similar CF may have more line drives that will sail to one spot (the same spot that the lazy fly ball lands for CF #1) or flares that don't stay up long enough (whereas CF #1 may enjoy more air time on those balls). Parks, pitching staff, bad luck..it's all hard to factor in...

 

Hence Jeter's defense got magically alot worse with a poor 3B, and magically alot better with A-Rod at 3B, who has more range and first step quickness than most 3B's. Another example: Check out Tejada's #'s after Chavez was no longer playing with him.

 

Not to mention there so many other factors that one defensive stat can not account for : outs by virtue of a throw, bases saved by a player NOT taking an extra based due to reputation, etc.

 

That being said, over the course of 3-5 years, UZR should balance out and make those things becomes less of a factor.

 

This is why defense is so hard to quantify.

Someone needs to mention this to "I Love Wang"....

 

First of all, it is impossible to judge defense with numbers, unlike judging offense (a-la... batting average). There are TOO MANY HUMAN FACTORS involved to put numbers up against, to have a "rating" defensively. I also think there are way too many people married to the "numbers". The best defensive rating system, by far and away, is.... MY EYES! Watching things like body movements, footwork, and shoulder positioning help me determine who is capable of playing their position properly. I learned some of these defensive dynamics from a friend of mine that was scout for the Rockies. So I rely on what I see on the field, not on a calculator.

 

And the thing that gets me, if this UZR was so great, how come the best rated players aren't walking away with the Gold Glove awards? For instance, I think 3 years ago, Jay Payton was the top rated centerfielder... Whoa!!! And now, Aaron Rowand, although I think he is a nice player, certainly to me, is not better than Jones, Hunter, Edmonds, or Logan (defensively). Are the numbers seeing something that the voters are not? Are the voters making the wrong choices on purpose?

 

A lot of the defensive 'rankings' are also a matter of opinion. People think that Timo Perez was a good outfielder with a strong arm. I thought the opposite, just from watching him. The only thing he did well was get the ball away quickly. Bad jumps and very poor footwork. Another guy is people think is really good, but I think otherwise, is Garret Anderson. If you watch this guy enough, you will see that his jumps are below average and he NEVER throws the ball on target. This to me makes him a below average outfielder. Now, do I want him in my lineup? Sure do, his bat more than makes up for his lack of defense. But on the whole, that is what needs to be measured more than anything. Is the balance of the player worth having him in the lineup? If his bad defense is determined to be hurting the team more than his offense is helping, and the Yankees are caught in that predicament right now.

 

Let's take a look at Bernie. If his production was, say, that of 2000 or 2001 (in that time frame +/- a year or 2) with 30 HR's and 110 RBI's, we may not be looking so hard for a centerfielder. But because Bernie's offense is no longer offsetting his defense, well, the hunt is on.

 

from a nyfans.com thread

 

One of the most ignorant things i have seen here in a long time. But i expected nothing else other than a response of this ilk. I admire your ability for being the most predictable person on the planet and not even being able to realize it. Quite hard to be that naive. Is the world still flat? I think some ''geek/s'' along the way realized that it in fact is not. What a moron to try and benefit society. We should have hung that buffoon.

 

Sign up?

[caulfield12]

One of the most ignorant things i have seen here in a long time. But i expected nothing else other than a response of this ilk. I admire your ability for being the most predictable person on the planet and not even being able to realize it. Quite hard to be that naive. Is the world still flat? I think some ''geek/s'' along the way realized that it in fact is not. What a moron to try and benefit society. We should have hung that buffoon.

 

Sign up?

 

 

You are right and I am wrong.

 

I defer to you.

 

Aaron Rowand is a golden god. I guess I just missed the memo inducting him into the Hall of Fame or even according him a Gold Glove.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2009 by caulfield12

[NorthSideSox72]

It's nice, though, that you think that statistical analysis is the way to go here...I remember people in the mutual fund services fields hyping these "quant" programs too about 8-10 years ago...programs that could find statistical anomalies faster than human research analysts and identify undervalued corporations. You know what happened? Almost 99% of these funds are buried under a simple index fund.

I know this is off topic - huge surprise BTW - but your supposition that quant or black box trading was a failure is entirely false. Its all over the place now, just not in the open-ended fund spaces that you could see them. Its been a huge success for a lot of firms.

 

Carry on.

 

[qwerty]

You are right and I am wrong.

 

I defer to you.

 

Aaron Rowand is a golden god. I guess I just missed the memo inducting him into the Hall of Fame or even according him a Gold Glove.

 

 

There is no reason to defer a damn thing, but if you insist, so be it. I take it you did not want things to escalate, because if it did you may have not been able to post for a week, and i know you sure as hell wouldn't want to jeopardize that.

 

I saw what you originally said at six or so in the morning. I sure wish you did not delete it, as i was absolutely dying to reply that haphazard, nonsensical, spew which resembled something of the sort of a post.

 

You sure know how to let a guy down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.- Do not bother with a response, as you will not be getting one back. You have honestly hurt my head enough this past off-season, i believe it's about time to stop reading what you have to say, or at the very least respond to what you have to say.

[kapkomet]

You are right and I am wrong.

 

I defer to you.

 

Aaron Rowand is a golden god. I guess I just missed the memo inducting him into the Hall of Fame or even according him a Gold Glove.

 

You have lost all credibility here. I'll just flat out say it. Your incessant rants and narrowmindedness has made it impossible to even have a debate with you. This thread (among others in the last few months) is seriously laughable from the standpoint that you always have to be right, even when you get proved wrong. When someone presents something that is a fact, like you ask for, you piss all over it with 75 paragraphs of bulls*** having nothing to do with what the point was in the first place.

 

I think it's getting to the point that pretty much everyone is going to stop debating with you because you have no interest of learning anything, just being right.

 

Please do carry on by yourself now.