Rick Hahn on the Score

[iamshack]

All of this moving Beckham is predicated on having a sound option at third base, which we currently don't. Viciedo won't be a third baseman, most likely, and Brent Morel still has a long way to go. With our finite resources, it makes sense to keep Beckham/Alexei/Getz as our infielders for awhile. Also, Gordon likely will become a very good third baseball, given a year or two full-time at the position, that is worth a lot in its own right.

 

And no one is arguing with the current state of affairs.

 

Only what the potential of the club would be were it to acquire a sound option at third base.

[lostfan]

All of this moving Beckham is predicated on having a sound option at third base, which we currently don't. Viciedo won't be a third baseman, most likely, and Brent Morel still has a long way to go. With our finite resources, it makes sense to keep Beckham/Alexei/Getz as our infielders for awhile because paying $10 million for a third baseman isn't economically smart when you have Beckham entrenched there. As well, spending at second base isn't smart when Getz is going to get better and is pretty good already.. Also, Gordon likely will become a very good third baseball, given a year or two full-time at the position, that is worth a lot in its own right.

The bolded part is really obvious but keeps getting repeated even though it's been acknowledged. Of course we'd have to find a solid 3B first, otherwise moving Beckham back to the middle would be stupid.

 

The rest of the post is all good points, there is no reason to change anything right now. But in the future, adding a 3B (let's say, hypothetically, Chone Figgins) would make this lineup ridiculous.

Edited August 3, 2009 by lostfan

[Greg Hibbard]

I think too much emphasis is put on OPS when evaluating players like Getz, and even players like Beckham (as he currently stands). A bases loaded double is clearly worth more than a solo shot homer, for example, but a player with 30 homers and 10 doubles is going to have an OPS of .850-.950 whereas a player like Getz who is capable of the opposite gets evaluated at best in the high .700 range, which makes him look like a much worse prospect in some ways than he really is.

 

OBP is much more important to me than OPS is evaluating Getz's value, and as long as he's .325 or better, I'm happy.

 

Really great discussion, btw

Edited August 3, 2009 by Greg Hibbard

[elrockinMT]

He's making it fairly obvious that the organization sees Dan Hudson has the top pitching prospect in the organization and did even when Poreda was around. Hudson was a near untouchable at the deadline.

 

Hahn is a great interview, very honest and really says the kind of things you like to hear from the front office.

 

 

The hype means he will be traded within two years

[elrockinMT]

And no one is arguing with the current state of affairs.

 

Only what the potential of the club would be were it to acquire a sound option at third base.

 

 

 

I hear Joe Crede might be available next year

[Ozzie Ball]

I think too much emphasis is put on OPS when evaluating players like Getz, and even players like Beckham (as he currently stands). A bases loaded double is clearly worth more than a solo shot homer, for example, but a player with 30 homers and 10 doubles is going to have an OPS of .850-.950 whereas a player like Getz who is capable of the opposite gets evaluated at best in the high .700 range, which makes him look like a much worse prospect in some ways than he really is.

 

OBP is much more important to me than OPS is evaluating Getz's value, and as long as he's .360 or better, I'm happy.

 

Really great discussion, btw

True, just like how a bases loaded home run is worth more than a bases empty double and I fail to see your point. A hitter can't control the situation in which he hits, he can only control what he does at the plate. Now if Getz could will 3 men on base so he can drive them all in with doubles then yes, hitting doubles would be perfectly fine, but this is obviously not the case. Of what they can control the best thing that any hitter can do in any situation is to hit a home run, but yet people still make excuse for players who don't do this, "oh, they're small", "oh, they're grindtastic", "oh, they can run fast", it's BS, the best outcome is always the home run, then the triple, then the double and that is why OPS and other more relevant statistics such as wOBA value power hitters more highly than non power hitters. Power is the best correlation to runs which in turn is the best correlation to wins (from the offensive standpoint).

 

As for your second point, a .360 OBP would be OK for Getz, but that isn't Getz, now I see you've edited it to a .325 OBP which is inadequate even for a number 9 hitter. I really don't see why anyone is getting hung up on Chris Getz, he's a decent plug for now because he's cheap but he will need to be replaced soon.

 

Getz doesn't get on base and his track record doesn't suggest he will ever get on base. In order to be considered an "on-base guy" he'd need to double his walk rate, a development I could see happening if he was an 18 year old playing rookie ball, but unfortunately he is a polished almost-26 year old playing in the Majors.

 

Getz doesn't hit for power, and as we've already seen, power= runs= wins/ Getz's track record also suggests he is unlikely to ever hit for power.

 

Getz doesn't hit for a high average nor do his track record, contact rate or batted ball rates suggest he will ever consistently hit for a high average (.300+).

 

Getz isn't playing good defense (-6.9 UZR per 150 games), his Minor League track record suggests he can play above average defense at 2B (in the Minors), so therefore I can see him becoming an average defensive 2B.

 

So, in essence, what we have here is a below average offensive 2B and an average (at best) defensive 2B and people are actually against the idea of replacing this guy? Talk about overrating ones "assets".

 

As for Beckham, he CAN play the middle infield, statistically it is much harder to find good hitting middle infielders than 3B's, so therefore logic tells us he should be moved to the middle infield. I would then look to bring in a cheap but effective third baseman, preferably Adrian Beltre, who's defense is so good that he doesn't even need to hit to be an average player, this would also aid our pitching staff and Beltre should/could be available at a slashed price coming off an injury.

[Princess Dye]

True, just like how a bases loaded home run is worth more than a bases empty double and I fail to see your point.

 

This conversation (not this comment specifically) is reminiscent of one of the most mind blowing things ive heard Hawk say this year (or ever)

 

 

"The most important pitch in baseball is the fastball. The second most important is first-pitch strike."

Edited August 3, 2009 by Princess Dye

[lostfan]

^^actually OBP correlates best to runs. Not SLG.

 

OBP .93

SLG .87

AVG .79

HR .64

2B .23

3B .08

[Y2HH]

Who is the new guy we drafted this year -- I've heard a few radio personalities call him a star in the making...he was the college world series mvp or something -- wouldn't he be considered one of our top prospects, too?

[Greg Hibbard]

A .325 OBP which is inadequate even for a number 9 hitter.

 

Yes, I edited. I had not had my coffee yet and it was a combination of looking at the wrong stat line and having a momentary brain fart.

 

How do you value Ramirez's offense? He has a .328 OBP and his OPS is 20 points higher than Getz despite a few more home runs.

 

I'm really not sure how we can expect every component of our lineup to have .300/.375/.475/.850 or even an .800 OPS. It's not about "grinderball" or whatever, in my opinion it's that OPS by valuing every home run, triple, a double proportionally the same, it is an oversimplification that weights the same offensive value to a bases loaded _______ to a bases empty ______ . In my opinion, sluggers (like Josh Fields) who just tee off and hit home runs (but have a generally low average) are overvalued compared to players like Getz because the OPS looks to be about 100 points apart which seems like a huge number. Is Josh Fields really scoring 10% more runs+rbi than Chris Getz?

[Milkman delivers]

I find it funny that you're supposed to put guys in certain positions so they have more "value" in people's minds. Who cares what position Beckham plays as long as he's in the line-up. I saw one post where if you put Chase Utley in the OF he just becomes your regular 30-35 homer guy with 110-120 rbi, like there are hundreds of those around. If Beckham gets even better than he is now and stays at 3rd, he'll probably be the best 3rd baseman the White Sox ever had. I don't see the downside.

 

I really don't understand the disdain a lot here have for Getz. In March, the consensus was he should lead off, now after performing about as well as expected, he needs to be replaced. I guess fans are conditioned to scoring via the longball. They complain when thats the only way to score, but when a guy like this comes along, since he doesn't hit a lot of homers, he's garbage, and needs to be replaced by someone who can play 3rd and hit homers.

 

Beckham's "value" is his value to the White Sox, not his "value" vs. others at certain positions. If the White Sox are better off with Beckham at 3rd, that's where he's most valuable. If its second, the same. As long as he's in the line-up, I'm happy.

 

Beautiful. Nicely said.

[Voros]

If you want to weight OBP and SLG a little more correctly than OPS does, something like (1.8 * OBP) + SLG works fairly well.

 

But with the exception of extreme cases, OPS mostly gets the job done. Getz hasn't been a good offensive player so far in the majors, but I think he could probably hit a little better going forward. How much is debatable. If he continues that kind of stolen base success rate (unlikely but even close to that is nice) that should help a little.

[Pumpkin Escobar]

I find it funny that you're supposed to put guys in certain positions so they have more "value" in people's minds. Who cares what position Beckham plays as long as he's in the line-up. I saw one post where if you put Chase Utley in the OF he just becomes your regular 30-35 homer guy with 110-120 rbi, like there are hundreds of those around. If Beckham gets even better than he is now and stays at 3rd, he'll probably be the best 3rd baseman the White Sox ever had. I don't see the downside.

 

I really don't understand the disdain a lot here have for Getz. In March, the consensus was he should lead off, now after performing about as well as expected, he needs to be replaced. I guess fans are conditioned to scoring via the longball. They complain when thats the only way to score, but when a guy like this comes along, since he doesn't hit a lot of homers, he's garbage, and needs to be replaced by someone who can play 3rd and hit homers.

 

Beckham's "value" is his value to the White Sox, not his "value" vs. others at certain positions. If the White Sox are better off with Beckham at 3rd, that's where he's most valuable. If its second, the same. As long as he's in the line-up, I'm happy.

 

I agree with you to an extent and I love having Getz/Beckham. Having Beckham in your lineup whatever position he is at - the production is great.

 

The case is what can we get more out of to help the team.

 

Lets say Getz becomes an average 2nd baseman. Which I wouldn't call him yet. If he is average and Beckham is putting up those kind of numbers at 3rd. Thats great but he isn't a top 3 3rd baseman. Now he doesnt need to be one which is why I agree with you. Who cares if he is top 3? His production will be great.

 

Thats completely true. The issue is that it's rare you can move a guy from 3rd to 2nd usually because the modern day 3rd baseman is a bruising power hitter. In Beckhams case - we can.

 

Now moving him to 2nd instantly makes him a top 3 2nd baseman IMO (Utley, Kinsler, Beck) with the production we project for him. If we go sign an average 3rd baseman - that average 3rd baseman easily exceeds and produces beyond an average 2nd baseman like Getz was when he was in the lineup.

 

Thats kind of where you maximize what you put out on the field. Now I for one am a believer in having a Getz type of guy in your lineup. I think because 2nd base is a weak offensive position in most cases it is good to have the guy who just plays baseball. By that I mean that he does the little things. Hits for a solid avg, has speed, good defense, and know how to play the game. It's more of an NL mindset it seems to have this kind of guy anymore unless you're Minnesota and Oakland.

 

If thats Getz, then great. If it's not, why wouldn't we want to move a premium player to 2nd base and fill in 3rd with an average to above-average player? That play in the AL would be worth it.

 

Either way though I think the point is Beckhams bat will be great for us regardless of where he is at. Peoples concern is where he fits in among who else plays that position and at 3rd base he is not the same bang for your buck guy as he is at 2nd base. Just the nature of the beast.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[Princess Dye]

I find it funny that you're supposed to put guys in certain positions so they have more "value" in people's minds.

 

If there are enough great 3Bs out there for every team to have one.... then yes i'd want Beckham at 2B.

 

 

But since it's not the case, I'm in agreement w/ you.

[caulfield12]

Beckham would trail only Ben Zobrist in AL at 2B in OPS.

 

Right now, he's fifth (860) behind Michael Young (so-so defensively despite GG), A-Rod, Longoria and Aybar (also limited defensively).

 

So the argument that Rolen at 3B with Beckham at 2B is much better than Beckham/Getz has some merit, unless you consider the financial cost and the players that bringing in Rolen AND Peavy would prevent us from adding or resigning (CF, leadoff, Dye/Thome, LF/RF, etc., bullpen).

 

Getz would be something like 14th out of 15 players (ahead of only CLE's Valbuena and also Casilla/Tolbert, who didn't have enough to qualify)...

 

STILL, Getz's skill set (speed, doing little things, fundamentals, hustle...plus his cheap/affordable contract and production)....make him much more attractive and valuable to the WHITE SOX, especially if he can increase his OBP 15-35 points.

 

ALEXEI is still sixth (out of 16) AL shortstops in what is a down year for him compared to his rookie campaign).

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/pos...t/OPS/minpa/200

 

If he was putting up last year's numbers, he'd be RIGHT up there with everyone in the AL except for Bartlett (is this season an anomaly or repeatable?), Jeter and COMPARABLE with Scutaro, Asdrubal Cabrera and Erick Aybar.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/pos.../true/minpa/200

Getz at .340-.350 OPS becomes better than AL average and a much more palatable line-up option for Ozzie and KW...and I think he's definitely right there in that territory since the ASB, correct, as he has grown more and more comfortable in 2009.

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/pos...asePct/minpa/25

 

Look at Getz's OBP since the ASB, .382 and 6th in the AL during that time period!

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/pos...asePct/minpa/25

 

ALSO, 6th in OPS. So better than AL average.

 

Interesting argument here...all things considered, unless there's a CLEARLY better option, the INCREDIBLE affordability of Beckham, Getz, Nix and Alexei Ramirez give us many/multiple options around the rest of the payroll (starting rotation, bullpen, outfield, etc.)

 

Imagine if we did have Brandon Allen/Viciedo/Fields paired with those four youngsters? Probably the most productive efficiency in all of baseball for cost of production...in any MLB infield. Finding better...impossible.

 

 

The only weaknesses we have going forward are the 5th starter slot (until Peavy comes back), defense, health/age/range of outfield and the bullpen, which started out the 2009 season as our main area of strength the first 2-3 months of the season and has become something of a weakness recently.

Edited August 3, 2009 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

They are not fantasy baseball rules.

 

It is market-value. And since the White Sox operate under a finite budget, that absolutely applies to us.

 

Is the goal not to try and optimize our resources?

Who cares about market value? Beckham isn't being and probably never will be moved. If anything, if Beckham's stats make him only an outstanding thirdbaseman rather than the best secondbaseman first ballot HOFer in the game, it will save the Sox money, but that's clearly not the motivation. The motivation is to put the best team on the field. Getz and Beckham are better than Fields and Beckham or Betemit and Beckham. That's why those others are in Charlotte.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Dick Allen

[SockMe]

haha, man strength, good interview, hasnt everyone been impressed with Bacon???

 

 

 

whats not to be impressed with.

[iamshack]

Who cares about market value? Beckham isn't being and probably never will be moved. If anything, if Beckham's stats make him only an outstanding thirdbaseman rather than the best secondbaseman first ballot HOFer in the game, it will save the Sox money, but that's clearly not the motivation. The motivation is to put the best team on the field. Getz and Beckham are better than Fields and Beckham or Betemit and Beckham. That's why those others are in Charlotte.

 

I give up, Dick.

 

[caulfield12]

Everything in this economic market is about "value" Mr. Allen.

 

You wouldn't say who cares about the market value of your house, would you? Every homeowner, and team owner, wants to get the best possible value (buy low, sell high) out of his assets....there's "worth," like Roy Halladay, and then there's what another team is actually willing to part with him to acquire said asset.

 

The Mona Lisa might be "worth" $1-2 billion USD, but only if someone was/is willing to part with their money for Mr. DaVinci's painting.

 

Alexei Ramirez and Gordon Beckham are "worth" more than any position players on our team...along with Carlos Quentin.

 

Gordon Beckham becomes a much more valuable asset playing above-average defense up the middle, hitting 50 doubles, 20 homers with a .300 AVG and 100 RBI's than he does as a corner IF or corner OF.

 

Which is also why Flowers is worth a ton if he can catch and Viciedo if he can play 3B....and Danks/Mitchell if they can leadoff and play CF well.

Edited August 4, 2009 by caulfield12

[iamshack]

Everything in this economic market is about "value" Mr. Allen.

 

You wouldn't say who cares about the market value of your house, would you? Every homeowner, and team owner, wants to get the best possible value (buy low, sell high) out of his assets....there's "worth," like Roy Halladay, and then there's what another team is actually willing to part with him to acquire said asset.

 

The Mona Lisa might be "worth" $1-2 billion USD, but only if someone was/is willing to part with their money for Mr. DaVinci's painting.

 

Alexei Ramirez and Gordon Beckham are "worth" more than any position players on our team...along with Carlos Quentin.

 

Gordon Beckham becomes a much more valuable asset playing above-average defense up the middle, hitting 50 doubles, 20 homers with a .300 AVG and 100 RBI's than he does as a corner IF or corner OF.

 

Which is also why Flowers is worth a ton if he can catch and Viciedo if he can play 3B....and Danks/Mitchell if they can leadoff and play CF well.

 

Well said.

 

Dick, let me stick with analogies, as long as we are making them.

 

Say you like to watch tv both in your bedroom, but also in your basement. You watch tv in your basement most of the time, and often watch the games down there with your best friends. You basically just use your bedroom tv to watch tv before you go to sleep at night.

 

You have a decent tv in your basement - a 37 - inch Samsung. You have a crappy 19 - inch Emerson in your bedroom right now.

 

One day, your son, who won the lottery, buys you a new 58 inch Sony with all the bells and whistles.

 

Now, you can put it in your bedroom, and throw your 19 inch tv out, simply because your bedroom is closer to the front door and you don't have to lug the big 58 incher down the stairs. Then you'll have the 58 inch tv in your bedroom, where you don't watch it as much. And you'll keep your 37 inch tv down in the basement, where you watch all the big games with your friends.

 

OR

 

You can take the inconvenience of lugging the new 58 incher down to the basement, but have that baby with all its bells and whistles where everyone can appreciate it and get the most use out of it. You can then, if you make the effort, put the 37 incher that was in your basement up in your bedroom, and throw your old crappy 19 inch tv out.

 

Which would you do?

 

In my mind we are doing the equivalent of putting the 58 inch tv in our bedroom, even though we don't use it as much and keeping the 37 inch tv downstairs, where we watch all the big games.

 

I guess for now it's alright, because it's not easy to move that 37 inch tv to the bedroom, but if we get the chance, we should get around to that.

[Milkman delivers]

Well said.

 

Dick, let me stick with analogies, as long as we are making them.

 

Say you like to watch tv both in your bedroom, but also in your basement. You watch tv in your basement most of the time, and often watch the games down there with your best friends. You basically just use your bedroom tv to watch tv before you go to sleep at night.

 

You have a decent tv in your basement - a 37 - inch Samsung. You have a crappy 19 - inch Emerson in your bedroom right now.

 

One day, your son, who won the lottery, buys you a new 58 inch Sony with all the bells and whistles.

 

Now, you can put it in your bedroom, and throw your 19 inch tv out, simply because your bedroom is closer to the front door and you don't have to lug the big 58 incher down the stairs. Then you'll have the 58 inch tv in your bedroom, where you don't watch it as much. And you'll keep your 37 inch tv down in the basement, where you watch all the big games with your friends.

 

OR

 

You can take the inconvenience of lugging the new 58 incher down to the basement, but have that baby with all its bells and whistles where everyone can appreciate it and get the most use out of it. You can then, if you make the effort, put the 37 incher that was in your basement up in your bedroom, and throw your old crappy 19 inch tv out.

 

Which would you do?

 

In my mind we are doing the equivalent of putting the 58 inch tv in our bedroom, even though we don't use it as much and keeping the 37 inch tv downstairs, where we watch all the big games.

 

I guess for now it's alright, because it's not easy to move that 37 inch tv to the bedroom, but if we get the chance, we should get around to that.

 

In your scenario, though, the crappiest TV would be Getz, no? That isn't the case, as he'd be the middle TV, as he's definitely not the worst. The s***ty TV would be Fields or whoever.

 

[iamshack]

In your scenario, though, the crappiest TV would be Getz, no? That isn't the case, as he'd be the middle TV, as he's definitely not the worst. The s***ty TV would be Fields or whoever.

 

No, Getz is the 37 inch tv, and we are keeping him in the basement.

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but you get the point....

 

 

[lostfan]

Actually that's a really good analogy and it makes perfect sense. You COULD just leave the 58 inch tv in the bedroom and start watching tv there, after all, its a 58 inch tv and you should just be glad you have one. But why not put it where you'll get the best use out of it?

[knightni]

Having a TV in your bedroom is bad for your sleeping time/love life though.

 

 

Move it downstairs.