White Sox acquire Juan Pierre

[southsider2k5]

True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights.

 

I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend.

 

Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries.

 

Actually according to your argument, the organization would have less money, not more. I, and others here, have argued for years that those profits go back into the team annually. Your argument has always been that they do not reinvest that money, which means the money goes back to the shareholders/investors. If it does, that money is gone, unless the organization raises more capital somehow. You can't argue it both ways.

[southsider2k5]

As for the attendance, where was the spike to lead to an increase?

 

It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around.

[ScottyDo]

Even though I don't call the Sox tight with money, I think there's a valid argument some make that they refuse to do certain deals out of principle. Boras aside, they wont do what other clubs are doing in overpaying for talent. Is it a distaste for Boras in particular or for what he represents in a larger sense?

 

The whole thing about not signing long term free agent pitchers.... It pains a bit to watch other teams do it and win championships.

 

I think what we'd all like is this great farm system pumping out cheap talent... to cushion the blow for free agent overpays. But obviously it's easier said than done.

 

 

 

Overall I agree with you.... the angry Sox fan should focus their argument on how the org spends the money...not claim that they dont spend it. That part is just wrong. Because the Albert Belle signing was such an anomaly for this franchise, it just seems like they're cheap. But that's not doing one's homework.

...and others are stuck with Barry Zito for the rest of time. The SF Giants could be a serious contender if they could spend that money elsewhere instead of pouring it into the gravitational singularity known as Zito's Wallet. This is why the Sox fall into the camp they do.

 

I agree with the gist of your post though.

[Dick Allen]

Dick, it's not that I believe everything they say, it's just that I don't think they have any reason to lie to us. I trust, through the behavior of the owner and the GM, that they do everything in their power to win. I am not on some mission or crusade to uncover every unspent dollar that may be in the cushions of their couch. For whatever reason, you are.

 

I'm really not. I just know they screwed White Sox fans last off season.

 

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. JR's edict is to not lose money. I say, if a profit is what you really want, don't talk about finances all the time. Don't always mention you don't have any money to spend. If its some sort of negotiating tactic, its only going to work with a player only the White Sox are negotiating with anyway. If another team offers more money, the player is going to take it.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around.

There is nothing to suggest there was a spike from April and May when they said they had no money to June and July when they spent money. KW was crying about the LA Dodgers attendance, calling it an eye opener, and cried about money. I believe that series was in June.. The attendance didn't get much better after that. It doesn't look like they added any sponsors during that time either.

 

“Well, if I’m being completely honest money is more of the issue now. We expected a little more support than we’ve gotten,” he said. “I think it’s a reflection upon the economy of what’s kind of happen with regards to attendance and I don’t know if we’ve played consistent enough, or been exciting enough for people to get behind us. We’re still hopeful.”

 

We’ve been probably pretty short or a little aggressive in our projections and we might have to take a lot closer look at it, because, the Dodgers series was certainly an eye opener for us,” Williams said.

 

The quote was from July 7. Peavy came to the Sox less than 1 month later.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

You were joking, but where would any team be without individual stats?

 

Not as good as how they interact as a team on a good team.

[Ranger]

True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights.

 

I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend.

 

Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries.

 

I'm aware of Forbes articles on the subject. Forbes is the same publication that determined the Sox spend a higher percentage of their revenue on payroll than any other team in baseball except for the Nationals, who were equal at 79%.

 

Half-priced Mondays, by the way, don't make near the money for the team that they would make on an average night at regular price. Even if they sell considerably fewer tickets on the regular night.

 

Also, there's a misconception that payroll is determined based on the previous year's income. They actually set payroll based on revenue they project for that year. So, the payroll they have for 2010 is based on how much revenue they think they'll generate in 2010 through ticket sakes, sponsorships, etc. Therefore, it's not out of the ordinary to find out they'll be able to spend a bit more, or have to cut back a bit, midway through a season. Things can change throughout the year, and it's always a smart thing to do to leave themselves some flexibility. This is why they will sometimes "find money" midseason.

 

 

Even though I don't call the Sox tight with money, I think there's a valid argument some make that they refuse to do certain deals out of principle. Boras aside, they wont do what other clubs are doing in overpaying for talent. Is it a distaste for Boras in particular or for what he represents in a larger sense?

 

The whole thing about not signing long term free agent pitchers.... It pains a bit to watch other teams do it and win championships.

 

I think what we'd all like is this great farm system pumping out cheap talent... to cushion the blow for free agent overpays. But obviously it's easier said than done.

 

Overall I agree with you.... the angry Sox fan should focus their argument on how the org spends the money...not claim that they dont spend it. That part is just wrong. Because the Albert Belle signing was such an anomaly for this franchise, it just seems like they're cheap. But that's not doing one's homework.

 

Won't overpay for talent? Isn't that what everyone is complaining they're doing with Rios, Linebrink, potentially Peavy and Putz? I realize Buehrle wasn't a free agent, but they ponied up the money and the years to keep him. Does it matter he wasn't a free agent? I think they're just incredibly smart about not throwing around years on a contract for a pitcher that might blow up halfway through the deal. The Sox aren't in the financial position to be able to overcome the cost of a bad starter's contract. Yeah, it would be nice if they had the luxury of being able to pay Burnett, Sabathia, and then be able to have interest in Carlos Zambrano on top of all of that. But they don't.

 

They have, and do, sign Boras clients when those clients don't have outrageous demands. I just think they refuse to allow Boras to use them in a bidding war for a player when everyone knows that player is going to end up making an absurd amount of money. The only teams that are able to sign a Boras client to a Boras kinda deal, and then be able to pay the other players they need, are the Yankees and Red Sox

[iamshack]

^^^

Great stuff here.

Edited December 22, 2009 by iamshack

[Thad Bosley]

Half-priced Mondays, by the way, don't make near the money for the team that they would make on an average night at regular price. Even if they sell considerably fewer tickets on the regular night.

Half Price Monday nights seem to draw about 15,000 - 20,000 more fans than what they would have if they didn't offer the half price tickets. And those extra fans obviously don't count the season ticket base, who still pay full price on those evenings. So you still get the full revenue charge from that season ticket base, but even with only the half price of the ticket revenue generated by those extra 15,000 - 20,000 extra fans, you still get the FULL revenue expended by those fans on food, beverages, and all of the extras offered around the ball park. Thus, I'd say they make a hell of a lot more on those half-priced Mondays than they do on an "average night". I mean, heck - why do you think they even have these half-price night offers in the first place!

[knightni]

I don't know how much the team actually gets from concessions. I thought that the concession company got the lion's share of the cash.

[southsider2k5]

 

 

 

There is nothing to suggest there was a spike from April and May when they said they had no money to June and July when they spent money. KW was crying about the LA Dodgers attendance, calling it an eye opener, and cried about money. I believe that series was in June.. The attendance didn't get much better after that. It doesn't look like they added any sponsors during that time either.

 

“Well, if I’m being completely honest money is more of the issue now. We expected a little more support than we’ve gotten,” he said. “I think it’s a reflection upon the economy of what’s kind of happen with regards to attendance and I don’t know if we’ve played consistent enough, or been exciting enough for people to get behind us. We’re still hopeful.”

 

We’ve been probably pretty short or a little aggressive in our projections and we might have to take a lot closer look at it, because, the Dodgers series was certainly an eye opener for us,” Williams said.

 

The quote was from July 7. Peavy came to the Sox less than 1 month later.

 

Actually according to your argument, the organization would have less money, not more. I, and others here, have argued for years that those profits go back into the team annually. Your argument has always been that they do not reinvest that money, which means the money goes back to the shareholders/investors. If it does, that money is gone, unless the organization raises more capital somehow. You can't argue it both ways.

 

 

It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around.

 

Kenny Williams said that. Not Jerry, not someone from the board, it was Kenny. Kenny had to go to Jerry, who had to go the board to get approval for Kenny to add anyone. That came from Jerry himself. That doesn't prove that the Sox as an organization were holding out. All that proves is that either Kenny doesn't sit in on the board meetings, or it means is that Kenny is saying the same stuff that Kenny always has said.

 

It also still doesn't prove that the Sox aren't reinvesting profits into the team, and it still doesn't prove that the Sox held a ton of money back.

 

I still want to know where you get the idea that the Sox aren't taking the profits them make annually and applying them towards the next years team, because there is nothing to indicate that money goes back to the shareholders/investors.

[southsider2k5]

I'm aware of Forbes articles on the subject. Forbes is the same publication that determined the Sox spend a higher percentage of their revenue on payroll than any other team in baseball except for the Nationals, who were equal at 79%.

 

It also doesn't say anywhere that the profits from one year aren't reinvested into the team next year.

[qwerty]

Good stuff as always, Qwerty.

 

I had read the stuff about the base stealing and the "havoc on the bases" theory.

 

My next question would be what about the net effect of the team simply having better base runners? Not necessarily from a stealing perspective, but more runners who could advance from 1st to 3rd and more runners who could score from 1st base or 2nd base?

 

What about the ability to make more productive outs as opposed to unproductive outs?

 

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...

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...roductive-outs/

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...e-outs-article/

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Baseball fans in Washington and Baltimore could applaud the brainy, heads-up baseball their teams played this past season. The Nationals and Orioles were the only two teams to rank in the top 10 in both making their outs productive ones and in preventing such outs. And they ranked No. 1 and 2 in the productive-out gap, defined as their own productive-out percentage and their opponents.

 

Unfortunately for their fans, the two teams also placed in the bottom half of the majors in runs scored and finished with two of the three worst records. (Pittsburgh finished between them, with the second-worst record overall.) That’s because productive outs are at best barely productive and at worse counterproductive.

 

Productive outs have long enjoyed some recognition in the box score. A bunt that successfully advances a runner doesn’t count against the batter as an out, nor does a fly ball that allows a runner to tag up from third base and score. But other outs with silver linings — such as grounders and fly balls that advance runners as well as bunts, or groundouts that drive in runs — look as bad for a player’s batting average as a strikeout or double play. ESPN’s Buster Olney noted in 2004 that the Tigers emphasized such outs, and accompanying his article was a ranking of MLB teams by productive out percentage. Today that’s a fixture of ESPN.com’s baseball stats, defined as follows: The total number of productive outs divided by the total number of outs made when productive outs are possible. Productive outs either advance a runner with no outs, score a runner with one out or result from a sacrifice by a (presumably weak-hitting) pitcher with one out.

 

But the difference between productive outs and unproductive ones is small, and such outs are unlikely to compensate for other hitting deficiencies. Consider the Phillies’ 11-0 pasting of the Dodgers Sunday. The Phillies had three productive outs. Two were followed later in the inning by extra-base hits that rendered those outs meaningless; the third scored a run. And the Dodgers had one productive out, moving a runner from first to second, where he was stranded. The Phillies had twice as many extra-base hits as the Dodgers had any hits — all singles — and that mattered a whole lot more than the edge in productive outs.

 

During the regular season, the Nats had 12 more productive outs per 100 out opportunities than the Red Sox did. Boston, however, had five more total bases per 100 at bats, and outscored the Nats by a whole run per game (partly due to the designated hitter, but also because of higher quality throughout the lineup).

 

Baseball stats analysts have pointed this out before. When TBS flashed a list of productive outs during the network’s broadcast of the Yankees-Twins series, it “disgusted” Steven Goldman, who launched a rant on Pinstriped Bible. He pointed out that the runs a team can expect to score in an inning are almost always lower after a productive out than they were before. (That’s based on averages over all scenarios. With a weak hitter at the plate that might not always be the case.) “Scoring is the result of reaching base and making extra-base hits, not making outs,” Goldman wrote.

 

“We used the popular baseball term ‘productive outs’ once during our 13 division series games,” a TBS spokesman said in response. An ESPN spokesman, asked about the site’s tracking of the stat, said, “We present Productive Out stats along with the many other stats that we present on ESPN.com. We think they have value as one piece of the larger picture when analyzing the game, and we appreciate that fans’ opinions of any individual analytical measure will be different from person to person. Our goal is to provide a wide range of thought-provoking analytics, informed opinions and diverse perspectives to fans.”

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/10/19/t...hat-productive/

 

I was disgusted to see a list of "productive outs" pop up towards the end of TBS's broadcast last night. It just cemented TBS's status as a network that broadcasts baseball but doesn't pay enough attention to the game in any of its aspects to be successful. How the heck do we kill this concept that making outs can be a good thing? Check out the stats: 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.

 

If the Yankees can be credited with having a high total of such outs, it is because they had a high total of runners on base. Scoring is the result of reaching base and making extra-base hits, not making outs. All this stuff about productive outs is purely imaginary corn for suckers, and TBS embracing it is just one more embarrassment for an amateurish production.

 

http://pinstripedbible.mlblogs.com/archive...a_surprise.html

 

From the ESPN website “A Productive Out, as defined and developed by ESPN The Magazine and the Elias Sports Bureau: when a fly ball, grounder or bunt advances a runner with nobody out; when a pitcher bunts to advance a runner with one out (maximizing the effectiveness of the pitcher's at-bat), or when a grounder or fly ball scores a run with one out.”

 

 

 

Do they matter?

 

 

 

To look at this, I ran a regression in which team runs per game was the dependent variable and team OPS (on-base percentage + slugging percentage) was the independent variable. I used data from 2004. If you know where data on productive outs in years before 2004 is available, please let me know.

 

 

 

The regression equation was

 

 

 

R/G = 14.17*OPS – 5.99

 

 

 

The r-squared was .942, meaning that 94.2% of the variation in runs per game across teams is explained by OPS. The standard error was .125, or about 20.3.

 

 

 

Then I added in productive outs per game (PO/G).

 

 

 

R/G = 14.15*OPS - .083*PO/G – 5.88

 

 

 

The r-squared was .942. Yes, the coefficient on PO/G is negative. Meaning that with OPS held constant, as PO/G rises, runs per game actually goes down. The coefficient on PO/G was not significant.

 

 

 

I also broke down OPS into on-base percentage (OBP) and slugging percentage (SLG). The regression equation was

 

 

 

R/G = 16.85*OBP + 12.83*SLG – 6.31

 

 

 

The r-squared was .944

 

 

 

I again added in PO/G. The regression equation was

 

 

 

R/G = 16.85*OBP + 12.83*SLG – .15*PO/G - 6.20

 

 

 

The r-squared was .945. Again, the coefficient on PO/G is negative, meaning that as PO/G rises, runs per game actuall falls. It was not significant.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION: PRODUCTIVE OUTS DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE SCORING. THEY MAY EVEN HURT SCORING.

 

 

 

In 2004, the relationship between team winning percentage and team OPS differential (your OPS minus your opponent’s OPS) was

 

 

 

Pct = 1.439*OPSDIFF + .496

 

 

 

The r-squared was .814. The standard error was .0366. Then I added in Productive Out differential and got

 

 

 

Pct = 1.435*OPSDIFF + .0082*PRODDIFF + .496

 

 

 

The r-squared was .8144. The standard error was .0372. Adding in productive outs did not change the nature of the relationship or the predictive power. The t-value for PRODDIFF was .247, so it was not significant. In fact, its impact on winning is very slight. The best team in PRODDIFF was the Angels, at .2778. The worst was the Diamnondbacks at -.494. So the Angels were about .77 better. Multiplying that by .0082 and we get .006 gain in winning pct. For a 162 game season that is about 1 win. So to even win one more game, you have to go from the worst to the best team in productive out differential. If we compare the Angels to an average team, with a PRODDIFF of zero, they would win .37 more games. So if an average team in productive outs became the best team, they could add .37 more wins.

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION: PRODUCTIVE OUTS HAVE ALMOST NO IMPACT ON WINNING, HOLDING OPS CONSTANT.

 

http://cyrilmorong.com/PROD.htm

 

From the ESPN website “A Productive Out, as defined and developed by ESPN The Magazine and the Elias Sports Bureau: when a fly ball, grounder or bunt advances a runner with nobody out; when a pitcher bunts to advance a runner with one out (maximizing the effectiveness of the pitcher's at-bat), or when a grounder or fly ball scores a run with one out.”

 

 

 

(go back to my home page to see my study on how productive outs are not important at the team level)

 

 

 

I also looked to see if including data on productive outs changes the statistical evaluation of individual hitters. The ESPN site lists 259 players with their productive outs for 2004.

 

 

 

To check this, I calculated the linear weights batting runs (BR, from Pete Palmer) for each player with Productive Outs (PO) data listed at the ESPN website. The values for this are

 

 

 

1B = .47

 

2B = .78

 

3B = 1.09

 

HR = 1.4

 

BB = .33

 

Out = .25

 

 

 

BB includes BB and HBP.

 

 

 

Then I adjusted their BR in the following manner: I gave them .167 BR for each PO. Why that number? I. used data from Tangotiger’s website (see link at the end of this study). Here is his run expectancy (RE) table:

 

 

 

RE 99-02 0 1 2

 

Empty 0.555 0.297 0.117

 

1st 0.953 0.573 0.251

 

2nd 1.189 0.725 0.344

 

3rd 1.482 0.983 0.387

 

1st_2nd 1.573 0.971 0.466

 

1st_3rd 1.904 1.243 0.538

 

2nd_3rd 2.052 1.467 0.634

 

Loaded 2.417 1.65 0.815

 

 

 

If you go from a man on first and no outs to a man on second and 1 out, your RE falls from .953 to .725. But if the runner did not advance, RE falls to .573. So you are .152 better off if he is on second. So what does a PO do to RE? The table below shows this

 

 

 

Runners

 

 

PO Value

 

1

 

 

0.152

 

2

 

 

0.258

 

12

 

 

0.496

 

3

 

 

0.134

 

13

 

 

0.101

 

23

 

 

-0.080

 

123

 

 

-0.016

 

 

 

The “Runners” column shows the situation before the PO occurred. The PO value is for no outs in the first three cases and with one out in the rest. This fits the definition of a PO. So, if you have a man on second and one out instead of a man on first and one out, you are .152 better off in RE (.725-.573). If you have a runner on third and one out instead of a runner on second and one out you are .258 better off (.983-.725). The situations with a man on third are trickier. If you get a PO with runners on second and third (23) and one out, you end up with a man on third and two out. From the RE table, you go from 1.467 RE to .387. So you lose 1.08 RE. But a run did score, so you only lose -.08, which is the PO value. If you get a PO with a runner on third and one out you end up with the bases empty and two outs and the RE falls .866 (.983 -.117 = .866). But a run did score, so the PO has a value of .134 (1- .866).

 

 

 

Then I assume that all hitters got their POs with a given frequency. From data that I got from Tom Ruane (it is based on game from the 1980s and Tangotiger’s data is based on 1999-2002-this is not a perfect situation, but it is the data I have) here are the frequencies of the above situations.

 

 

 

Runners

 

 

Frequency

 

 

PO Freq.

 

1

 

 

0.053

 

 

0.42

 

2

 

 

0.019

 

 

0.15

 

12

 

 

0.013

 

 

0.10

 

3

 

 

0.012

 

 

0.09

 

13

 

 

0.011

 

 

0.09

 

23

 

 

0.011

 

 

0.08

 

123

 

 

0.009

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

The first frequency column shows how often the runner situation occurs as a percentage of all base-out situations. The second one shows its frequency as a percent of all PO situations. Remember that if a situation has a man on third, it is for one out, keeping with the definition of POs. The PO situations occur about 12.76% of the time. And .053 is about 42% of 12.76.

 

 

 

Now, how does this translate into a value for POs? Multiply the RE change times the frequency in which it occurred and then add them all up to get a weighted average.

 

 

 

Runners

 

 

Frequency

 

 

PO Freq.

 

 

PO Value

 

 

Weight

 

1

 

 

0.053

 

 

0.42

 

 

0.152

 

 

0.064

 

2

 

 

0.019

 

 

0.15

 

 

0.258

 

 

0.038

 

12

 

 

0.013

 

 

0.10

 

 

0.496

 

 

0.051

 

3

 

 

0.012

 

 

0.09

 

 

0.134

 

 

0.012

 

13

 

 

0.011

 

 

0.09

 

 

0.101

 

 

0.009

 

23

 

 

0.011

 

 

0.08

 

 

-0.080

 

 

-0.007

 

123

 

 

0.009

 

 

0.07

 

 

-0.016

 

 

-0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.167

 

 

 

So it all adds up to.167.

 

 

 

So every player had a BR figure calculated. Then the value of their productive outs was calculated (PO*.167). That PO value got added to their BR. Then I found the correlation between BR and the BR with the PO value added in (the adjusted PO). The correlation was .9986. Almost a perfect 1-to-1 relationship. So, by that, looking at productive outs adds very little to what we know about a hitter’s value.

 

 

 

When I made the value of a PO .2, just in case I underestimated it, the correlation was still .998. I also tried an out value of -.30 instead of -.25 (the base-out data immplies -.30). The correlation was still .984. With PO value = .2 and out value = -.30, the correlation was still .9846.

 

 

 

With an out value of .167, only 9 players increased their BR by as much as 5 runs and the highest was Randy Winn (who had the most productive outs with 39), was at 6.513. If I made the value of a PO .2, 16 players increased their BR by 5 or more runs with Winn at 7.8. Since it takes 10, maybe 11 runs to make one more win, the PO value seems insignificant

 

http://cyrilmorong.com/PRODA.htm

 

Yeah, I know it’s been done to death, even I’ve already taken one stab at it, but I’d like to look at Buster Olney’s Productive Out Percentage (POP) one more time. Olney first proposed using POP to guage good and bad teams in April of this year. Larry Mahnken has been the chief debuker of the Olney hyothesis. In his analyses (here and here) he has found no support for Olney’s idea, which Tigers hitting coach Bruce Field explains: “That’s how games are won and lost — productive outs, advancing baserunners and getting guys in from third with less than two out.” To measure team’s ability to play “small ball” Olney developed the POP metric, which is defined as to capture this ability. POP is simply the percent of productive outs in productive out situations. According to Olney a productive occurs when:

 

* A baserunner advances with the first out of an inning

* A pitcher sacrifices with one out

* A baserunner is driven home with the second out of an inning

 

I admit, that I am a little sympathetic to Olney’s idea. I mean, compared to an out when a runner advances versus one where a runner does not advance, I prefer the former. However, using this one statistic to evaluate the offense of a team all by itself is a bad idea. Olney has tried to sell the statistic as some kind of alternative to the Moneyball strategy of winning baseball games. Since I don’t wish to argue exactly what a Moneyball strategy might be, I’ll just say that Olney takes issue with the belief that OBP and SLG (sometimes united as OPS) are the best way to measure offensive prowess. Well, that is just silly. Anyone with an Excel spreadsheet can run a simple regression of OPS on runs per game by team. Depending which year you choose, OPS will explain between 90-95% of variance in runs scored across teams. Replacing OPS with POP explains a whopping 3%, and it has a negative but insignificant impact on runs.

 

If there is anything of use in POP it must be in addition to the impact of OBP and SLG, not an alternative measure. Olney’s argument ought to be: all else being equal, teams that have a higher percentage of productive outs will score more runs than those that do not. This means that when two teams have identical OPSs the one with a higher POP will score more runs. So, what happens when I run a regression including both OPS and POP, which allows me to control for the run-scoring abilities of teams due to OBP and SLG, to capture any additional POP effect? Well, not much. Using the 2004 team data provided by ESPN.com I find that POP has no effect on run-scoring. Though the coefficient is negative it is not statistically significant.

 

So, why doesn’t it have an effect? I mean, clearly logic dictates that productive outs are preferred to non-productive outs. The problems lies in the fact that productive out situations are also productive at-bat situations. While productive outs are preferred to non-productive outs, non-outs are even better. A team that is producing productive outs is still producing outs. While the time to put away POP has passed, now it’s really time. Let’s hope ESPN decides not to waste resources paying Elias to calculate this statistic for 2005.

 

 

So, why doesn’t it have an effect? I mean, clearly logic dictates that productive outs are preferred to non-productive outs. The problems lies in the fact that productive out situations are also productive at-bat situations. While productive outs are preferred to non-productive outs, non-outs are even better. A team that is producing productive outs is still producing outs. While the time to put away POP has passed, now it’s really time. Let’s hope ESPN decides not to waste resources paying Elias to calculate this statistic for 2005.

 

 

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/ind...out-percentage/

Edited December 22, 2009 by qwerty

[iamshack]

Qwerty, these studies are saying do not make productive outs in lieu of taking a regular PA. But I wonder what the difference is when you factor in outs that were productive even though they weren't intentional sacrifices.

 

I'm sure you see the distinction.

[BaseballNick]

I still want to know where you get the idea that the Sox aren't taking the profits them make annually and applying them towards the next years team, because there is nothing to indicate that money goes back to the shareholders/investors.

 

I want to preface by stating that I don't think the White Sox are cheap. I think Kenny and Rick do a terrific job year in and year out with the numbers they are given to work with, and that the people in charge have been fiscally responsible. They do good job of keeping the team competitive, and keeping the "business" profitable at the same time.

 

However, Forbes singled out the White Sox as being one of the more profitable franchises in baseball in 2008, yet the 2009 opening day payroll took the largest percentage drop of any team in the league. Couple that with increased ticket prices (11%?) in the midst of a recession, and you're going to have an upset fanbase. I thought that was a poor move and it got a lot of people questioning whether profits really are reinvested into the team.

[qwerty]

Qwerty, these studies are saying do not make productive outs in lieu of taking a regular PA. But I wonder what the difference is when you factor in outs that were productive even though they weren't intentional sacrifices.

 

I'm sure you see the distinction.

 

I personally have not seen any thorough studies done on what you are looking for... as it is rather broad... and would take a significant amount of time and dedication to conclude anything worth noting.

[Ranger]

Half Price Monday nights seem to draw about 15,000 - 20,000 more fans than what they would have if they didn't offer the half price tickets. And those extra fans obviously don't count the season ticket base, who still pay full price on those evenings. So you still get the full revenue charge from that season ticket base, but even with only the half price of the ticket revenue generated by those extra 15,000 - 20,000 extra fans, you still get the FULL revenue expended by those fans on food, beverages, and all of the extras offered around the ball park. Thus, I'd say they make a hell of a lot more on those half-priced Mondays than they do on an "average night". I mean, heck - why do you think they even have these half-price night offers in the first place!

 

 

This is also a misconception. A lot of fans think that whatever they lose on the half-price deal to sell the extra 10,000 or so tickets, they make up in concessions. Actually, they don't and it isn't even close. It's not really my place to go into detail on that subject but you would be shocked at how much more they make on a regular-price night with 25,000 attendance compared to a half-price night with 35,000. The difference is actually staggering. Keep in mind they don't get all of that concession money.

 

Think about it: if they were really making that much more money on half-price night, why wouldn't they do that every night?

[iamshack]

This is also a misconception. A lot of fans think that whatever they lose on the half-price deal to sell the extra 10,000 or so tickets, they make up in concessions. Actually, they don't and it isn't even close. It's not really my place to go into detail on that subject but you would be shocked at how much more they make on a regular-price night with 25,000 attendance compared to a half-price night with 35,000. The difference is actually staggering. Keep in mind they don't get all of that concession money.

 

Think about it: if they were really making that much more money on half-price night, why wouldn't they do that every night?

 

I hope, for their sake, that they have done studies to recognize the ideal price-point for their tickets, which results in optimum revenue production.

 

 

[Ranger]

I hope, for their sake, that they have done studies to recognize the ideal price-point for their tickets, which results in optimum revenue production.

 

Well, yeah. All teams do that.

[caulfield12]

I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios.

 

Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times.

 

Too bad we weren't able to step in and get Edwin Jackson, Granderson or Cabrera. Dombrowski would have been grilled/vilified, although I'm sure at least half of Detroit wouldn't mind dumping Cabrera after the curious events of September, 2009.

 

However, at least DET and CLE seem to be weakened to the point where they will struggle mightly to contend, leaving the White Sox and the Twins on their new field as the two main contenders left standing.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Well, yeah. All teams do that.

 

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.

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights.

 

I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend.

 

Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries.

Peavy was acquired on July 31st, so the Sox were only paying for 2 months out of 6. At $8M that means they were paying him something like $2.67M. Alex Rios was acquired on August 10th, 1/3 of the way through August. That's 1 2/3 months of Rios at $5.9M for the season. The Sox paid him something like $1.64M. In total, that's about an extra $4.31M. Not exactly a lot of money in baseball terms.

 

It is very possible that the Sox had this small amount left over going into the season, but they didn't make another signing because they couldn't get much for it. Rather, since the Sox had so many veterans in the last years of their contracts (i.e. so many tradable pieces), they decided to wait and see how they were doing first, and then either dump some veterans if they were out of it or use the little extra cash to make an acquisition that would help the team in 2009 and beyond. Or maybe the Sox really were at their budget like they said, and Uncle Jerry and the rest of the crew decided to take on that whopping $4.31M extra as a means to improve the organization for the next several years afterwards.

 

The Sox DID NOT take on a lot of money this season. All that money starts coming in 2010.

[Dick Allen]

Peavy was acquired on July 31st, so the Sox were only paying for 2 months out of 6. At $8M that means they were paying him something like $2.67M. Alex Rios was acquired on August 10th, 1/3 of the way through August. That's 1 2/3 months of Rios at $5.9M for the season. The Sox paid him something like $1.64M. In total, that's about an extra $4.31M. Not exactly a lot of money in baseball terms.

 

It is very possible that the Sox had this small amount left over going into the season, but they didn't make another signing because they couldn't get much for it. Rather, since the Sox had so many veterans in the last years of their contracts (i.e. so many tradable pieces), they decided to wait and see how they were doing first, and then either dump some veterans if they were out of it or use the little extra cash to make an acquisition that would help the team in 2009 and beyond. Or maybe the Sox really were at their budget like they said, and Uncle Jerry and the rest of the crew decided to take on that whopping $4.31M extra as a means to improve the organization for the next several years afterwards.

 

The Sox DID NOT take on a lot of money this season. All that money starts coming in 2010.

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?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

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.

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.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[bmags]

No matter what, I don't think anyone can argue that it was a disgrace to open up the season with Wise as our starting CF and leadoff hitter. Especially in an offseason where Abreu garnered a paltry sum and O. Hudson was had for reasonably. It was a stupid strategy that we probably paid for in losing the division.