White Sox acquire Juan Pierre

[NorthSideSox72]

Many times what looks like a productive out on the surface, in all reality, is the exact opposite.

 

All of these articles coincide at some point...

 

Pretty much two of the first articles written on the subject...

 

I'd like to point out this text from the WSJ blog you linked to:

 

A team with a runner on first with no outs has the expectation of scoring .88 runs, but a team with a runner on second and one out will score just .69 runs. Even though the runner moved over, the chances of scoring went down. Similarly, a runner on second with no outs meant that teams scored 1.14 runs on average, whereas hit a grounder to the right side and "productively" move that sucker over, and the run expectation drops to .97. Now, it is preferable to have the runner at second with one out (.69) then it is at first with one out, that is, having received a "non-productive" out (.53), so the productive out would be worth .16 of a run. That's nice, but it's such a small thing that it doesn't really mean anything, doesn't add up into anything you can see in the final record.

 

Does anyone else see the problem in the assumptions made here? I see three, in fact.

 

For one thing, he's say that a .16 of a run differential is meaningless, but in the SAME PARAGRAPH, says that the difference between 1.14 and .97 (which is .17) IS meaningful. And does the same while comparing .88 and .69 (a .19 difference). He's arguing against himself.

 

Second, he forgets the fact that hits and outs are not of equal frequency in baseball. What he is therefore not factoring in, is that since an out is the 70% likelihood, how it is used should be weighted more heavily than as if it were an A or B comparison between hits and outs.

 

Third, looking at his .88 vs .69 comparison, he doesn't account for the fact that within the actions which take you from .88 to .69, is a certain percentage of both hits and outs (some productive, some not). The resulting .19 difference is assuming the same balance over time. Now, what he doesn't know, and can't know, is, would the difference be the same if, say, the amount of SAC bunts was doubled. Would the gap decrease? You could actually dig further into numbers over time to get a decent correlation on this, probably, and that might be worth something.

 

[caulfield12]

Even if they had traded for Peavy in June they still wouldn't have assumed more than about $4.4M or so since Peavy had already been paid for the first week in June and 2 months in April and May, which is pretty much the same figure they took on with Rios and Peavy.

 

I know what Kenny said because some of his comments pissed me off, but he doesn't always tell the truth. The point is, the Sox didn't add much, so we can't assume they had much to add. We don't get to see their books, and we don't know what all they spend on, so it's very hard to speculate. It's much easier to argue about how they spend the money we do know they have, and in that department, I think they have had a god awful offseason.

 

I agree on what you said about Wise opening in CF too, that was absolutely horrid, and trades could have been made for league minimum players with at least *some* potential even if they had not wanted to add salary. A bunch of people here were arguing for Josh Anderson for example. That wouldn't have worked out, but if they would have made at least *some* kind of actual effort to *not* run Dewayne Wise out there, that would have been much appreciated by yours truly.

 

 

I'm sure we could have also come up with someone comparable to what the D-Rays took for Edwin Jackson. That move alone would have swung the division in our favor...although it seems to me at the time the majority were arguing against him, maybe 60/40 against, if I remember correctly.

 

As far as adding those contracts, it was always 2010-12 that was more the concern than anything else...it's sort of a shame that we had been waiting so long to get rid of Thome's deal (at least at last year's prices, before it was quite reasonable), Konerko's deal, Contreras, MacDougal, etc. It's even crazier to think that with Cabrera still around, we might not even have seen Beckham last year. KW really lucked out there, as many posters pointed out, he won that game of chicken but he wasn't going to go to well twice with the likes of Dotel this time around.

 

Nevertheless, we are still/again in financial constraints to an extent because of Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink and the Rios/Peavy deals, with Rios being far and away the riskiest move KW has ever made in terms of the impact on future budgeting and putting us in a difficult position like the Tigers got into (although they have 5-7 large/questionable contracts, not just a couple, with Willis/Sheffield/Guillen/Ordonez/Robertson/Bonderman coming to mind right away, off the top of my head).

 

No doubt something was awry with our chemistry last year, and it's strange considering we shed Cabrera and Swisher, who quite a few argued were a large part of the problem. Of course, some will say the "presence/moxie" of Rowand in the past or Joe Crede is what made the difference....Carl Everett, for that matter. There was something missing last year, you could never quite put your finger on it.

 

I'm sure after Konerko is gone that many will be saying we're missing a "leader" in the clubhouse to go along with the likes of Buerhle and AJ....Dye and Thome were always very "quiet" leaders, not very vocal. It's going to have to come from Ozzie and that starting pitching staff, because we have so many players like Quentin, Ramirez and Rios that are, at best, enigmatic. I'm wondering how soon Beckham will make his presence felt? Going into the season, he very well might be our best offensive player, especially if Quentin doesn't return to form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Read KW's quote on July 7. He said he couldn't make a big trade because of money, couple that with the fact KW traded for Peavy earlier in the season, but was refused. They had the money then, no? The Sox had money. His quote said their projections were off, which would indicate they had even less than they budgeted. So if they didn't have money in April and May, they had even less in July and August. If the money isn't a lot for 3 Peavy starts and what ever you want to call Rios' performance, how come so many freak out about Linebrink's contract?

 

So the crux of the argument is now based on a Kenny Williams statement? Can I use the Iraqi Information Minister for mine?

[caulfield12]

There's something else lost in the productive outs conversation.

 

The White Sox have traditionally been a three run homer and a cloud of dust type of offense in the last decade, particularly in 2000 and 2006.

 

Ozzie obviously wants to change the mindset of the team, to find players who have the "small ball/fundamental" skills to manufacture runs when the big boppers are all struggling and most of the games are tight because of our #3 in all of MLB starting pitching staff.

 

I think there was something about that 2005 team, despite their average or below average offensive output...not just defensively, but they really seemed to care for each other, pull for each other, Iguchi was one of the quiet, understated examples of that idea. It's hard to see it in the box scores or stats, but they will never measure the contributions of a player like him effectively.

 

When you see the likes of Wise, Owens, Anderson, Lillibridge, Fields, Corky Miller, etc., flailing away and often having no understand of game situations or how to execute properly, it rubs off on the rest of the team...it seems most of the players were "selfish" last year in their approaches. Look at Quentin and Ramirez for example, very rarely did you see them change from at-bat to at-bat in terms of making adjustments. Ramirez was very good at that in 2008, so-so last year. Quentin almost never went to the opposite field...I think Thome might have done it more often that CQ last year.

 

The one thing you can say is that across the board, this team has become more veteran/experienced off the bench and more athletic in the starting line-up and defensively. How that translates to wins and losses will be interesting. I think defensively, we're better at every position (or should be) with the possible exception of 3B and then you know what you're getting with AJ. I think how atrocious our defense was had a tremendously negative impact on the whole team over the course of the year. I can't remember a White Sox team making so many defensive and baserunning errors in my lifetime.

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

I can't remember a White Sox team making so many defensive and baserunning errors in my lifetime.

Baserunning errors I don't want to comment on...but defensive errors in the OF, I still give 2006 the win there.

[caulfield12]

Baserunning errors I don't want to comment on...but defensive errors in the OF, I still give 2006 the win there.

 

Pods actually looked/seemed decent this year, even in CF....but he was close to atrocious in his earlier stint. I wonder what happened to cause him to improve in that area?

 

Then you have Dye's "cement shoes" and horrible throwing mechanics in RF, and Mackowiak's adventures after replacing Anderson in CF.

 

 

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I'm sure we could have also come up with someone comparable to what the D-Rays took for Edwin Jackson. That move alone would have swung the division in our favor...although it seems to me at the time the majority were arguing against him, maybe 60/40 against, if I remember correctly.

 

Yeah, a lot of us wanted Jackson but then some others thought he sucked and Sonnancrap was better (even though Jackson was still young, extremely talented, gaining experience, and his numbers were trending upwards, pointing towards a possible breakout). Speaking of moves we could have made in hindsight, imagine if we'd been able to land Jackson and Zobrist (who was only a bench player at that point) for Dye and Getz? If I had a time machine I'd probably use it only for baseball purposes.

 

As far as adding those contracts, it was always 2010-12 that was more the concern than anything else...it's sort of a shame that we had been waiting so long to get rid of Thome's deal (at least at last year's prices, before it was quite reasonable), Konerko's deal, Contreras, MacDougal, etc. It's even crazier to think that with Cabrera still around, we might not even have seen Beckham last year. KW really lucked out there, as many posters pointed out, he won that game of chicken but he wasn't going to go to well twice with the likes of Dotel this time around.

 

Agree, but Kenny only won that game of chicken because the FA market hadn't crashed yet. Agree that 2010 is supposed to be the start of the next era of truly meaningful Sox baseball (shooting for the WS).

 

Nevertheless, we are still/again in financial constraints to an extent because of Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink and the Rios/Peavy deals, with Rios being far and away the riskiest move KW has ever made in terms of the impact on future budgeting and putting us in a difficult position like the Tigers got into (although they have 5-7 large/questionable contracts, not just a couple, with Willis/Sheffield/Guillen/Ordonez/Robertson/Bonderman coming to mind right away, off the top of my head).

 

Disagree on the Rios deal being Kenny's riskiest move. I wanted this guy before and IMO this is going to be a brilliant acquisition. I mean, any long-term contract is risky (look at Dye with the A's for an example) but in terms of what Rios can be expected to give you, along with his age and the fact that his contract takes him into his prime and not beyond it, plus the salaries that even average all-around CF'ers get, I think he'll be at least worth his deal if nothing else.

 

Kenny's riskiest moves IMO have been the ones like the Tony Pena trade, the Mike MacDougal trade, the Ritchie deal, etc. where he gave up prospects with higher ceilings than the players he was acquiring, and the players he was acquiring weren't exactly models of consistency either. He hasn't been burned yet, but those types of moves eventually will burn him (and any other GM) the same way the Cubs got burned by the Garland-for-Karchner deal. Moves like the first Javy deal, the first Freddy deal, the Thome deal, etc. are usually considered the riskiest, but IMO they aren't all that risky because you pretty much know you'll be winning that trade, and if one of your former prospects does break out, at least you got a proven star/borderline star in return.

 

No doubt something was awry with our chemistry last year, and it's strange considering we shed Cabrera and Swisher, who quite a few argued were a large part of the problem. Of course, some will say the "presence/moxie" of Rowand in the past or Joe Crede is what made the difference....Carl Everett, for that matter. There was something missing last year, you could never quite put your finger on it.

 

Agree, but more than anything I think the problem is that they sucked. The back of the rotation was a mess; the bullpen always had some s***ty, unreliable pitchers; the offense had nothing much at the top to begin the season, and nothing much at the bottom all year long; and the guys in the middle were not doing what guys in the middle need to be doing. Oh, and the team defense was atrocious, as was pretty much every other element of fundamental baseball. Had the Sox been a better team I think they would have clicked just fine.

 

I'm sure after Konerko is gone that many will be saying we're missing a "leader" in the clubhouse to go along with the likes of Buerhle and AJ....Dye and Thome were always very "quiet" leaders, not very vocal. It's going to have to come from Ozzie and that starting pitching staff, because we have so many players like Quentin, Ramirez and Rios that are, at best, enigmatic. I'm wondering how soon Beckham will make his presence felt? Going into the season, he very well might be our best offensive player, especially if Quentin doesn't return to form.

 

We'll always have some veteran leaders, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no better leadership than that by example, and there's no better example than solid play. And really, if AJ, Buehrle, and Peavy were the main veteran leaders of this club then I can't see that being anything but a good thing.

 

Agree with all the rest too. How come you're not around here as much anymore, Caulfield?

 

[caulfield12]

Yeah, a lot of us wanted Jackson but then some others thought he sucked and Sonnancrap was better (even though Jackson was still young, extremely talented, gaining experience, and his numbers were trending upwards, pointing towards a possible breakout). Speaking of moves we could have made in hindsight, imagine if we'd been able to land Jackson and Zobrist (who was only a bench player at that point) for Dye and Getz? If I had a time machine I'd probably use it only for baseball purposes.

 

 

 

Agree, but Kenny only won that game of chicken because the FA market hadn't crashed yet. Agree that 2010 is supposed to be the start of the next era of truly meaningful Sox baseball (shooting for the WS).

 

 

 

Disagree on the Rios deal being Kenny's riskiest move. I wanted this guy before and IMO this is going to be a brilliant acquisition. I mean, any long-term contract is risky (look at Dye with the A's for an example) but in terms of what Rios can be expected to give you, along with his age and the fact that his contract takes him into his prime and not beyond it, plus the salaries that even average all-around CF'ers get, I think he'll be at least worth his deal if nothing else.

 

Kenny's riskiest moves IMO have been the ones like the Tony Pena trade, the Mike MacDougal trade, the Ritchie deal, etc. where he gave up prospects with higher ceilings than the players he was acquiring, and the players he was acquiring weren't exactly models of consistency either. He hasn't been burned yet, but those types of moves eventually will burn him (and any other GM) the same way the Cubs got burned by the Garland-for-Karchner deal. Moves like the first Javy deal, the first Freddy deal, the Thome deal, etc. are usually considered the riskiest, but IMO they aren't all that risky because you pretty much know you'll be winning that trade, and if one of your former prospects does break out, at least you got a proven star/borderline star in return.

 

 

 

Agree, but more than anything I think the problem is that they sucked. The back of the rotation was a mess; the bullpen always had some s***ty, unreliable pitchers; the offense had nothing much at the top to begin the season, and nothing much at the bottom all year long; and the guys in the middle were not doing what guys in the middle need to be doing. Oh, and the team defense was atrocious, as was pretty much every other element of fundamental baseball. Had the Sox been a better team I think they would have clicked just fine.

 

 

 

We'll always have some veteran leaders, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no better leadership than that by example, and there's no better example than solid play. And really, if AJ, Buehrle, and Peavy were the main veteran leaders of this club then I can't see that being anything but a good thing.

 

Agree with all the rest too. How come you're not around here as much anymore, Caulfield?

 

 

I was waiting for W. Taveras to be acquired, lol?

 

Actually, have just been busy here at my university in Thailand and teaching ESL as my second job, also travelled to Taiwan. I guess the disappointing end to the 2009 baseball season....the Yankees again on top of the baseball world...needed spring training to get closer in the rear-view mirror b4 I got excited again. That and the fact that Univ. of Iowa basketball has become an embarassment, so I guess I have to talk about some sports now.

 

But it sure feels strange to be running the air conditioning when my mom in Iowa is talking about a white Christmas.

 

Well, at least I have seen Avatar two times...that's one accomplishment of the last week, haha.

 

 

[WCSox]

They have every reason to lie. Again its a business, if they want to make a profit, that's fine. I would want to make a profit. But you know as well as I, if they don't spend money but publicize they made $20 million that particular season, its not going to go over very well. As the only major sport without a salary cap, making money and not winning isn't going to fly. They aren't going to tell you they are willing to lose money, because then expectations about spending would reach Yankee level. People wouldn't think the Sox should even have a budget. They tell you they break even. Its something fans will understand.

 

I have no comment on the "Sox are cheap" discussion, but this is a good point. The Sox will do or say whatever it takes to give them an advantage, financially or personnel-wise. Kenny's attendance comment back in June or whenever was made for one of two reasons: (1) to try to encourage more people to purchase tickets or, more likely, (2) to cause misdirection as he was attempting to make deals for Peavy and Rios. This "misrepresentation of the truth" seems to have become more pronounced during Kenny's tenure, but has been around for as long as I can remember. Hawk has been their official Minister Of Propaganda for almost 30 years, touting players that obviously have no chance of making in impact in the bigs and justifying all of the front office's unpopular decisions (*cough* White Flag *cough*).

 

That said, I don't begrudge them for doing this because I understand that it's a business. They need to publicly misrepresent the truth at times to be competitive. Hell, I remember Schueler lying to a little girl who asked him about their desire to re-sign Robin Ventura at Soxfest '98. But what in the heck else was he supposed to say? "Sorry, little Suzie, but we're going to low-ball him and let him sign with somebody who's willing to pay market value." If they always tell the public the truth, while every other organization tells the public what they want to hear or whatever gives them a competitive advantage, they'll draw 10,000 fans per game and never win anything.

Edited December 22, 2009 by WCSox

[Ranger]

It's pretty clear that the White Sox view their market as pretty inelastic...that there is a hardcore, dedicated season ticket base than will keep renewing, almost no matter what the circumstances. It's the 80/20 rule of sports marketing, that 80% of the revenue will be derived from the same 20% of the attendance, namely the season ticket buyers. Of course, in 2006, there was a big jump because of the World Series championship and what looked like an extended run of playoff appearances being set up, but almost all of the positive effects of winning a World Series are exhausted within five years...when things return to normal, which is essentially where we're at with the White Sox franchise.

 

I'm not sure what it is about that marketplace in Chicago, but it is interesting the cost of living is a lot higher in Southern California (in general) and yet White Sox/Cubs ticket prices and parking, concessions, etc., are a higher across the board than costs for Dodgers or Angels games.

 

To me, over the years, it seems like the best promotion has been the fireworks nights in terms of producing strong numbers...of course, those are almost always weekend games, too, which is another factor.

 

Having worked for a minor league baseball team for two years, half-price nights during the week (especially before or after the summer hits and school lets out) and "half-priced beer/Thirsty Thursday/Two For Tuesday" promotions didn't have a significant impact on increasing overall revenues...and the more you discount the core price of a ticket, the more upset your season ticket holders and devalue the worth of a White Sox ticket, making it harder to encourage fans to pay legit prices when they can easily get tickets for free or discount.

 

Now most major league teams don't discount beer...and they are also perhaps more conscious about alienating the fanbase by promoting nights where drunks take over the stadiums and scare the "family crowd" away. Perhaps they could try to discount parking during the week, that's another idea. One of the first things that most fans bring up about Comiskey is the high price of parking, for some reason, that specific issue sticks in the "craw" of lots of fans.

 

The most successful promotions were always the give-away nights, where people paid regular ticket prices but got something "pretty decent" free for themselves or their kids...these kind of nights, which depend upon the sales and marketing department, are what really drive the revenues up for most teams who break even or lose money from Monday through Thursday is the majority of major league markets.

 

Pretty good post, though I don't think they view their die-hard season ticket base as more guaranteed than any other team would view theirs. They still feel heavy pressure to get renewals.

 

When you speak of the Angels and Dodgers, part of the lower cost in ticket prices is the fact that both of those parks have larger cpacities (the Angels can seat 5,000 more, the Dodgers almost 16,000 more). Plus, both of those teams consistently draw 3,000,000 fans per game and have done so for several years. Greater capacity and greater attendance means you can have lower ticket prices. Compared to other teams, Sox ticket prices really aren't outrageous or anything.

 

I'd like to point out this text from the WSJ blog you linked to:

 

 

 

Does anyone else see the problem in the assumptions made here? I see three, in fact.

 

For one thing, he's say that a .16 of a run differential is meaningless, but in the SAME PARAGRAPH, says that the difference between 1.14 and .97 (which is .17) IS meaningful. And does the same while comparing .88 and .69 (a .19 difference). He's arguing against himself.

 

Second, he forgets the fact that hits and outs are not of equal frequency in baseball. What he is therefore not factoring in, is that since an out is the 70% likelihood, how it is used should be weighted more heavily than as if it were an A or B comparison between hits and outs.

 

Third, looking at his .88 vs .69 comparison, he doesn't account for the fact that within the actions which take you from .88 to .69, is a certain percentage of both hits and outs (some productive, some not). The resulting .19 difference is assuming the same balance over time. Now, what he doesn't know, and can't know, is, would the difference be the same if, say, the amount of SAC bunts was doubled. Would the gap decrease? You could actually dig further into numbers over time to get a decent correlation on this, probably, and that might be worth something.

 

 

He didn't say it was meaningful. He just said there was a difference.

 

There's something else lost in the productive outs conversation.

 

The White Sox have traditionally been a three run homer and a cloud of dust type of offense in the last decade, particularly in 2000 and 2006.

 

Ozzie obviously wants to change the mindset of the team, to find players who have the "small ball/fundamental" skills to manufacture runs when the big boppers are all struggling and most of the games are tight because of our #3 in all of MLB starting pitching staff.

 

I think there was something about that 2005 team, despite their average or below average offensive output...not just defensively, but they really seemed to care for each other, pull for each other, Iguchi was one of the quiet, understated examples of that idea. It's hard to see it in the box scores or stats, but they will never measure the contributions of a player like him effectively.

 

When you see the likes of Wise, Owens, Anderson, Lillibridge, Fields, Corky Miller, etc., flailing away and often having no understand of game situations or how to execute properly, it rubs off on the rest of the team...it seems most of the players were "selfish" last year in their approaches. Look at Quentin and Ramirez for example, very rarely did you see them change from at-bat to at-bat in terms of making adjustments. Ramirez was very good at that in 2008, so-so last year. Quentin almost never went to the opposite field...I think Thome might have done it more often that CQ last year.

 

The one thing you can say is that across the board, this team has become more veteran/experienced off the bench and more athletic in the starting line-up and defensively. How that translates to wins and losses will be interesting. I think defensively, we're better at every position (or should be) with the possible exception of 3B and then you know what you're getting with AJ. I think how atrocious our defense was had a tremendously negative impact on the whole team over the course of the year. I can't remember a White Sox team making so many defensive and baserunning errors in my lifetime.

 

 

I don't agree with you on CQ and Ramirez. It didn't have anything to do with selfishness. Quentin was hurt and upon his return, spent the rest of the season trying to figure it out again. That's not selfish. Ramirez did some things better last year that he didn't do the previous year (like a better OBP and taking more walks, for example). He also got exposed in the early colder months, which is not something that happened to him the previous season. Overall, they were not as good, but it wasn't about being selfish.

[NorthSideSox72]

He didn't say it was meaningful. He just said there was a difference.

If it isn't meaningful, then his entire point is moot. He's trying to say that .16 is materially less meaningful than .17, which is mathematically absurd in this usage. The author is playing both sides of the fence, and his argument is useless as a result. Either that scale of difference is useful, or it is not. If it is, his second point is moot. If it is not, his first point is moot. Either way, he's off base.

 

[Ranger]

If it isn't meaningful, then his entire point is moot. He's trying to say that .16 is materially less meaningful than .17, which is mathematically absurd in this usage. The author is playing both sides of the fence, and his argument is useless as a result. Either that scale of difference is useful, or it is not. If it is, his second point is moot. If it is not, his first point is moot. Either way, he's off base.

 

 

I don't think he's off base, and I don't think he was saying that particular difference was meaningful. It seemed to me that all he did was present all of the numbers with the overall determination that productive outs don't matter all that much by the end of a full year.

 

I think the real (and significant) difference to look at is the difference between a runner at second no outs (1.14 expectancy) and runner at second 1 out (.69). That's an interesting number because when you factor in his conclusion that the productive out that moves the runner over compared to a non-productive out where the runner stays put at first is not that much different, the numbers suggest you have a better chance of scoring that runner from first if you can get him to second without giving up an out to do it. Therefore, the intentional productive out is not all that productive according to the numbers here, and the best bet may be to have a normal plate appearance in the runner on first, nobody out situation.

[Voros]

Run expectancy tables suffer from two flaws:

 

1) They represent the outcome with average players on base, at the plate and due up. Change those players and you change the numbers. That is why, of course, no one argues about pitchers bunting in those situations.

 

2) Later in games, it starts to diverge with what you're really looking for: win expectancy. For example, with a tie game in the bottom of the ninth, scoring one run is as good as scoring 10 runs, either outcome wins you the game. So multi-run strategies lose their advantages over single run strategies.

 

That said they are a pretty decent starting benchmark for a strategic analysis of what you're doing. More often than not, bunting a guy over with a man on first and no one out is a bad strategy. There are times when it has its benefits, and there's a benefit to doing it every now and then just to keep the other team honest. But if the lead-off hitter reaches base in the first, and the White Sox have their best hitters coming up, it's pretty crazy to suggest the number two guy should bunt.

 

To me I think when guys who can run a bit sacrifice bunt, they should try and bunt for a hit and take the sacrifice if they get thrown out. It not only increases the chances for the guy to reach base, but it puts additional pressure on the opposing defense to make a quick decision and a good throw and that can lead to more throwing errors by them.

[caulfield12]

You can make another argument that with our pitching staff set up the way it is, scoring runs in the first inning (like we did in 2005 and then 2006 a lot, holding many one or two run leads throughout the entire game) and getting the first lead of the game, those will both be critically important.

 

(So another interesting question would be to study what's the best way to get someone with 30+ stolen bases home from first base with no outs, based on his stolen bases percentages being around 75-80%....steal....sacrifice or hit away).

 

If you have Beckham batting 3rd and Pierre gets on-base, there SHOULD be numerous runs scored on Beckham doubles without Pierre having to steal 2nd base. That's another reason I prefer to have Ramirez batting second, although it might be Rios, too.

 

If Quentin, Konerko, AJ and Teahen are "jamming" up the basepaths in the middle of the order, things won't be any different than in the past, we'll just have lower OPS/SLG totals compared to Dye and Thome.

 

It would be nice to have CQ running at 100% too, because that makes a big difference in his value as a player, if he's able to go 100% around the basepaths.

 

That's the irony of our line-up, that three of best possibilities for the 1-2 spots (Pierre/Ramirez/Rios) might be better served being at the bottom of the order...but I still think you have to bat Beckham 3rd, Quentin 4th and Konerko 5th and the DH/AJ/Teahen 6th.

[Ranger]

Run expectancy tables suffer from two flaws:

 

1) They represent the outcome with average players on base, at the plate and due up. Change those players and you change the numbers. That is why, of course, no one argues about pitchers bunting in those situations.

 

2) Later in games, it starts to diverge with what you're really looking for: win expectancy. For example, with a tie game in the bottom of the ninth, scoring one run is as good as scoring 10 runs, either outcome wins you the game. So multi-run strategies lose their advantages over single run strategies.

 

That said they are a pretty decent starting benchmark for a strategic analysis of what you're doing. More often than not, bunting a guy over with a man on first and no one out is a bad strategy. There are times when it has its benefits, and there's a benefit to doing it every now and then just to keep the other team honest. But if the lead-off hitter reaches base in the first, and the White Sox have their best hitters coming up, it's pretty crazy to suggest the number two guy should bunt.

 

To me I think when guys who can run a bit sacrifice bunt, they should try and bunt for a hit and take the sacrifice if they get thrown out. It not only increases the chances for the guy to reach base, but it puts additional pressure on the opposing defense to make a quick decision and a good throw and that can lead to more throwing errors by them.

 

I agree with that. Which is why I don't take every bit of extended statistical analysis as gospel. SOmetimes people get lost in it. Late game situations are completely different than the entire game as whole.

 

 

You can make another argument that with our pitching staff set up the way it is, scoring runs in the first inning (like we did in 2005 and then 2006 a lot, holding many one or two run leads throughout the entire game) and getting the first lead of the game, those will both be critically important.

 

(So another interesting question would be to study what's the best way to get someone with 30+ stolen bases home from first base with no outs, based on his stolen bases percentages being around 75-80%....steal....sacrifice or hit away).

 

If you have Beckham batting 3rd and Pierre gets on-base, there SHOULD be numerous runs scored on Beckham doubles without Pierre having to steal 2nd base. That's another reason I prefer to have Ramirez batting second, although it might be Rios, too.

 

If Quentin, Konerko, AJ and Teahen are "jamming" up the basepaths in the middle of the order, things won't be any different than in the past, we'll just have lower OPS/SLG totals compared to Dye and Thome.

 

It would be nice to have CQ running at 100% too, because that makes a big difference in his value as a player, if he's able to go 100% around the basepaths.

 

That's the irony of our line-up, that three of best possibilities for the 1-2 spots (Pierre/Ramirez/Rios) might be better served being at the bottom of the order...but I still think you have to bat Beckham 3rd, Quentin 4th and Konerko 5th and the DH/AJ/Teahen 6th.

 

I don't think it's accurate to align Quentin and Teahen with the speed of PK/Thome/Dye. Those two guys have much better speed than the other 3. Teahen has average speed and CQ is at least average for a power hitter (as long as he's healthy). The trio of the past is REALLY slow.

 

[knightni]

Ranger, have you heard whether Quentin's speed has returned after the plantar faciitis?

[fathom]

I don't think it's accurate to align Quentin and Teahen with the speed of PK/Thome/Dye. Those two guys have much better speed than the other 3. Teahen has average speed and CQ is at least average for a power hitter (as long as he's healthy). The trio of the past is REALLY slow.

 

Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball.

[knightni]

Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball.

Really?

 

Is there an article stating that somewhere that I could read?

[qwerty]

Really?

 

Is there an article stating that somewhere that I could read?

 

Simple google search should find you all you need to know on the subject.

[Ranger]

Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball.

 

 

He is certainly regarded as a very good baserunnner.

[SoxAce]

Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball.

 

He is indeed outstanding.

[ThunderBolt]

Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball.

Which is all the more impressive considering he's a really built guy.

[fathom]

Really?

 

Is there an article stating that somewhere that I could read?

 

They've talked about that a lot on Baseball Tonight, as Teahen has a handful of inside-the-parkers the past few years.

[southsider2k5]

I am glad to hear that. We could use some baseball IQ on this team after the last few years...

[fathom]

I am glad to hear that. We could use some baseball IQ on this team after the last few years...

 

I think the additions of Pierre and Teahen, as well as the subtraction of Podsednik, is going to have an amazingly positive influence on our baserunning.