Who will hurt us more?

[ThunderBolt]

do you have a mandate that suggexts you need to put "empirical" in all of your posts now?

I actually just reread my post and noticed that i really did say empirical twice in, like, two sentences. Should i be concerned?

[Kyyle23]

I actually just reread my post and noticed that i really did say empirical twice in, like, two sentences. Should i be concerned?

 

I noticed it in multiple posts in the past few weeks, thats why I asked. Maybe it was just the word of the day on your dictionary calender

[ThunderBolt]

I noticed it in multiple posts in the past few weeks, thats why I asked. Maybe it was just the word of the day on your dictionary calender

I really must have been doing it subconsciously and It’s odd because it has been cropping up in a lot of my posts.I think it’s because of my ECON class; I’ve just had a lot of that statistical jargon bouncing around in my head.

[Ranger]

Yeah I don't get that either. No matter how much you liked a player for the Sox, I can't see how you root for them on a division rival. Not to be cliche, but isn't the name on the front of the jersey most important?

 

You should never want another player to hurt your team, especially out of spite or so you can be the one to say, "I told you so." That's just stupid.

 

I'm really getting tired of this justification. An improved DH means an improved team, and that has nothing to do with Carlos Quentin.

 

As I've said before, the DH position is really no longer the best offensive player on the team which has been the trend for the last several years now. The keys of the Sox offense will be Q and Rios, which is something we've been saying since the end of last season. Another hitter would have made the istuation more comfortable from a certainty standpoint, but the DH wouldn't carry this team anyway. Even if they acquired Damon and Quentin and Rios suck, the offense would suck. If they don't, it will probably be good enough.

 

It worked for them last year, didn't it? Crede wasn't a huge factor for them, but they certainly don't regret signing him.

 

 

Are you serious? Go take a look at his line and tell me if you think you would call that "working out" if a player did that for the Sox. Aside from hitting 15 HRs in 90 games, Crede did not have a good year.

[greg775]

In his first game back in Chicago, on April 10, 2009, Crede received a standing ovation from the White Sox fans before his first at bat. In the background, the song All Out of Love by Air Supply was played as Crede stepped to the plate. In that at-bat, he hit a home run to left field. As Crede rounded the bases, the White Sox fans booed him.[6]

[edit]

 

I'm not saying Crede had a good year, he didn't, but this was a pretty epic moment for him I'm sure. Wikipedia.

Who's gonna sign Joe for this year? Anybody? He should get MLB minimum salary plus a ton of incentives.

[Ranger]

The difference is that Jones and Kotsay aren't declining. They've declined, they're shells of the players they once were. Any theory about Thome and Damon declining is conjecture and projection. Their's no daming empirical evidence that points to them being inadequate this year. Meanwhile, we have ample reason and empirical support to the belief that Kotsay and Jones aren't going to cut it.

 

First, let's be honest here and say that nothing is empirical in baseball except for the examination of what has already happened. Anything that we think might happen from this day forward is projection and there is no amount of numbers that will "prove" what a player is going to do in a given season. Any player at any time is liable to have a dropoff in any given season. Just as there is reason to think Jones/Kotsay will not be good enough, there is also plenty of reason to think that Thome will be inadequate. While his numbers have been good enough over the last several seasons, he has been in a steady decline since 2006. And for a a guy that's going to be 40 in August, has such a violent swing and a history of back problems, there is reason to think that at any moment, his back will give out. There is also reason to think, because of the type of player he is, that he won't be nearly as productive as usual if he doesn't play every day, which is how it sounds he'll be used.

 

It's possible, though, that he has a good year. And it's also possible that Jones has a bounceback year.

[gatnom]

As I've said before, the DH position is really no longer the best offensive player on the team which has been the trend for the last several years now. The keys of the Sox offense will be Q and Rios, which is something we've been saying since the end of last season. Another hitter would have made the istuation more comfortable from a certainty standpoint, but the DH wouldn't carry this team anyway. Even if they acquired Damon and Quentin and Rios suck, the offense would suck. If they don't, it will probably be good enough.

 

So you are arguing that since nobody else matters on offense that they should just step back and try to fill the rest of the positions as cheaply as possible? This is such a ridiculous argument Ranger, and you know it. I can understand that they did not sign Damon because he was too expensive for them, but to say that the position doesn't matter because of Quentin and Rios is just a ridiculous statement. What if both Quentin and Rios perform as well as they can in addition to good production from your DH? Is that not a better team with a higher chance of not only getting to the playoffs but doing something in them?

[MattZakrowski]

Are you serious? Go take a look at his line and tell me if you think you would call that "working out" if a player did that for the Sox. Aside from hitting 15 HRs in 90 games, Crede did not have a good year.

 

Crede put up 1.9 WAR, thanks to his great defensive value (23.4 UZR/150)

[Ranger]

So you are arguing that since nobody else matters on offense that they should just step back and try to fill the rest of the positions as cheaply as possible? This is such a ridiculous argument Ranger, and you know it. I can understand that they did not sign Damon because he was too expensive for them, but to say that the position doesn't matter because of Quentin and Rios is just a ridiculous statement. What if both Quentin and Rios perform as well as they can in addition to good production from your DH? Is that not a better team with a higher chance of not only getting to the playoffs but doing something in them?

 

It's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is assuming the offense is an automatic failure only because of the DH (or lack thereof).

 

I didn't say it doesn't matter, but I said that position was never going to be responsible for the bulk of the Sox offense. Of course, Damon would've made them better. I think it's arguable as to exactly how much better he would've made them as far as his effect on the number of total wins, but he would've probably been an improvement. The point is that Quentin is one of the big boys (and really, the biggest boy). If he doesn't produce, they're probably going to be in trouble. On the other hand, if he does, and Rios does, and Konerko does, the DH is probably not going to make or break them. The days of the David Ortiz-type monster DHs are about behind us. The major offense is coming from the position players. It's Quentin that has the 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, .950+ OPS potential, not Damon. He's going to be more important than any other individual offensive player.

 

I'm not saying the DH is not important. All of the spots in the lineup are, but there are varying degrees of importance. The truth is that Q will be more important than anyone. If he's having a good year and the other guys I mentioned are relatively productive, I think they'll be able to get by regardless of who is or isn't the DH. Obviously, improvements are improvements, but in the end, how much difference will it actually make?

 

 

 

Crede put up 1.9 WAR, thanks to his great defensive value (23.4 UZR/150)

 

So because of the suggestion of UZR, you honestly think he had a good year? I guarantee that if a Sox player puts up those kind of offensive numbers, you would not consider it to be a good season.

[Special K]

It's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is assuming the offense is an automatic failure only because of the DH (or lack thereof).

 

I didn't say it doesn't matter, but I said that position was never going to be responsible for the bulk of the Sox offense. Of course, Damon would've made them better. I think it's arguable as to exactly how much better he would've made them as far as his effect on the number of total wins, but he would've probably been an improvement. The point is that Quentin is one of the big boys (and really, the biggest boy). If he doesn't produce, they're probably going to be in trouble. On the other hand, if he does, and Rios does, and Konerko does, the DH is probably not going to make or break them. The days of the David Ortiz-type monster DHs are about behind us. The major offense is coming from the position players. It's Quentin that has the 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, .950+ OPS potential, not Damon. He's going to be more important than any other individual offensive player.

 

I'm not saying the DH is not important. All of the spots in the lineup are, but there are varying degrees of importance. The truth is that Q will be more important than anyone. If he's having a good year and the other guys I mentioned are relatively productive, I think they'll be able to get by regardless of who is or isn't the DH. Obviously, improvements are improvements, but in the end, how much difference will it actually make?

 

 

 

 

 

So because of the suggestion of UZR, you honestly think he had a good year? I guarantee that if a Sox player puts up those kind of offensive numbers, you would not consider it to be a good season.

 

 

Please don't hate on Crede, Ranger. He da man.

 

[MattZakrowski]

So because of the suggestion of UZR, you honestly think he had a good year? I guarantee that if a Sox player puts up those kind of offensive numbers, you would not consider it to be a good season.

 

I do. Crede's value has always been mainly defensive.

[witesoxfan]

If you want one game where Crede made a difference, he did hit a walk off grand slam against Detroit on May 13th. If not for Crede, maybe the Twins lose the division by 1 game. I think they're happy with what they got out of Crede.

[Ranger]

I do. Crede's value has always been mainly defensive.

 

 

If you want one game where Crede made a difference, he did hit a walk off grand slam against Detroit on May 13th. If not for Crede, maybe the Twins lose the division by 1 game. I think they're happy with what they got out of Crede.

 

Well, you can through every single players statistics and find at least a game or two that a big hit of theirs gave the team the win or one good play helped preserve a victory.

 

I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good? Something about that strikes me as odd considering his 2004 season was statistically better, yet I remember vividly many, many Sox fans trying to run him out of town before the '05 season. Then people should have also been satisfied with Juan Uribe's contributions the last couple of Sox seasons, yet it sure didn't sound like they were. I'm assuming that you were also satisfied with Brian Anderson's 2006?

[iamshack]

Well, you can through every single players statistics and find at least a game or two that a big hit of theirs gave the team the win or one good play helped preserve a victory.

 

I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good? Something about that strikes me as odd considering his 2004 season was statistically better, yet I remember vividly many, many Sox fans trying to run him out of town before the '05 season. Then people should have also been satisfied with Juan Uribe's contributions the last couple of Sox seasons, yet it sure didn't sound like they were. I'm assuming that you were also satisfied with Brian Anderson's 2006?

I agree. It's a lot easier to put up with unacceptable performance/production when it's not your player.

 

Crede did nothing but set back the Twins more in their quest for a longterm competent third baseman for the first time since Corie Koskie departed.

[gatnom]

It's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is assuming the offense is an automatic failure only because of the DH (or lack thereof).

 

I didn't say it doesn't matter, but I said that position was never going to be responsible for the bulk of the Sox offense. Of course, Damon would've made them better. I think it's arguable as to exactly how much better he would've made them as far as his effect on the number of total wins, but he would've probably been an improvement. The point is that Quentin is one of the big boys (and really, the biggest boy). If he doesn't produce, they're probably going to be in trouble. On the other hand, if he does, and Rios does, and Konerko does, the DH is probably not going to make or break them. The days of the David Ortiz-type monster DHs are about behind us. The major offense is coming from the position players. It's Quentin that has the 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, .950+ OPS potential, not Damon. He's going to be more important than any other individual offensive player.

 

I'm not saying the DH is not important. All of the spots in the lineup are, but there are varying degrees of importance. The truth is that Q will be more important than anyone. If he's having a good year and the other guys I mentioned are relatively productive, I think they'll be able to get by regardless of who is or isn't the DH. Obviously, improvements are improvements, but in the end, how much difference will it actually make?

 

Instead of going off on another tangent about whether or not you think a DH matters, I'm just going to reply to the bold part because that was part of the point of my original post. Who cares? Who actually cares whether or not our DH is good enough to supplant Quentin as the "key" to our offense? I'm not arguing that Johnny Damon would be more important to us than Carlos Quentin. I'm not arguing that any DH would be more important to us than any other part of our offense. I am just tired of seeing people write off the fact that we have people being penciled into positions that they do not belong because it isn't the most important part of our line up. Was Dewayne Wise any less of a hole because he played on the same team as the "key" to our offense?

[iamshack]

Instead of going off on another tangent about whether or not you think a DH matters, I'm just going to reply to the bold part because that was part of the point of my original post. Who cares? Who actually cares whether or not our DH is good enough to supplant Quentin as the "key" to our offense? I'm not arguing that Johnny Damon would be more important to us than Carlos Quentin. I'm not arguing that any DH would be more important to us than any other part of our offense. I am just tired of seeing people write off the fact that we have people being penciled into positions that they do not belong because it isn't the most important part of our line up. Was Dewayne Wise any less of a hole because he played on the same team as the "key" to our offense?

To expand on your point, there is a big danger in continually saying position after position will not "make or break" this offense. These things add up; they are often the difference between mediocrity and success.

[MattZakrowski]

Well, you can through every single players statistics and find at least a game or two that a big hit of theirs gave the team the win or one good play helped preserve a victory.

 

I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good? Something about that strikes me as odd considering his 2004 season was statistically better, yet I remember vividly many, many Sox fans trying to run him out of town before the '05 season. Then people should have also been satisfied with Juan Uribe's contributions the last couple of Sox seasons, yet it sure didn't sound like they were. I'm assuming that you were also satisfied with Brian Anderson's 2006?

 

The comparisons aren't valid. 2006-2008, Uribe's WAR came in at 0.9, -0.1, and .2. Anderson's came in at 0, -.5, and .1.

[Ranger]

Instead of going off on another tangent about whether or not you think a DH matters, I'm just going to reply to the bold part because that was part of the point of my original post. Who cares? Who actually cares whether or not our DH is good enough to supplant Quentin as the "key" to our offense? I'm not arguing that Johnny Damon would be more important to us than Carlos Quentin. I'm not arguing that any DH would be more important to us than any other part of our offense. I am just tired of seeing people write off the fact that we have people being penciled into positions that they do not belong because it isn't the most important part of our line up. Was Dewayne Wise any less of a hole because he played on the same team as the "key" to our offense?

 

I'm not sure what "tangent" you're referring to as I was speaking directly to the topic at hand.

 

Dewayne Wise hit leadoff, and was dismissed before he was even given a chance to play last year (see opneing day booing). And before he was injured, did actually begin to start playing better. Now, my issue is with those that have completely written off the offense based on the DH alone. The idea that since the Sox do not have a legit DH (at least that we know of) they will have a poor offense. My opinion is that while a DH would help the cause, it will not be the difference between a good offense and a poor one. However, the difference will reside in the heart of the order.

 

You can come back to me in July and declare your victory if I'm wrong, but as Quentin and Rios go, so will go the Sox offense. If they're bad, then the Sox offense will be bad. But if they're good and the DH isn't all that great, the Sox will still probably be a "good enough" offense.

 

 

To expand on your point, there is a big danger in continually saying position after position will not "make or break" this offense. These things add up; they are often the difference between mediocrity and success.

 

Well, of course. If all of those things combined go wrong, the team won't be good. That goes for every team. What I've been clearly stating, though, is that if the Sox get good years from Quentin and Rios (and Konerko to an extent), it's likely the DH isn't going to make or break them. Just about every winning team has a guy in the lineup that isn't all that good. Very few teams are really strong 1-9. Those teams get contributions from the rest of the lineup, which is what the Sox have to do.

 

I also think that people here are writing off Teahen before he even starts, which I think is a mistake. The problem seems to be that people are automatically assuming the realization of worst possible scenario for every position on the field before the season starts.

 

I think part of what's going on here is that many people are thinking of this whole thing as if Jones, Kotsay, and Vizquel are all going ot be in the lineup at teh same time. They are not. They're essentially making up one spot in the order. If they were all playing together, well then there would probably be a problem.

 

 

The comparisons aren't valid. 2006-2008, Uribe's WAR came in at 0.9, -0.1, and .2. Anderson's came in at 0, -.5, and .1.

 

WAR is a nice tool to use, but it isn't of the Bible. Neither is UZR. Uribe played excellent defense, as did Anderson, regardless of what UZR suggests. And their offensive years were comparable to what Crede did last season.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Ranger

[gatnom]

I'm not sure what "tangent" you're referring to as I was speaking directly to the topic at hand.

 

The "tangent" I was referring to was getting into a battle over semantics of an issue that is really pretty meaningless (whether or not you were saying that the DH spot was completely unimportant).

 

Dewayne Wise hit leadoff, and was dismissed before he was even given a chance to play last year (see opneing day booing). And before he was injured, did actually begin to start playing better.

 

I really had no intention of trying to attack Wise if that is what you were thinking. I was just trying to make a parallel between people being penciled into positions that they really don't belong.

 

Now, my issue is with those that have completely written off the offense based on the DH alone. The idea that since the Sox do not have a legit DH (at least that we know of) they will have a poor offense. My opinion is that while a DH would help the cause, it will not be the difference between a good offense and a poor one. However, the difference will reside in the heart of the order.

 

You can come back to me in July and declare your victory if I'm wrong, but as Quentin and Rios go, so will go the Sox offense. If they're bad, then the Sox offense will be bad. But if they're good and the DH isn't all that great, the Sox will still probably be a "good enough" offense.

 

Well, I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I hold any of those beliefs. I do believe that a good DH fills a hole in our lineup, which makes our offense better regardless of any other player on our roster, and I am tired of people justifying a hole in our team because it won't "break" it. A hole is a hole. If you want to give a legitimate reason for not filling a hole like we couldn't afford players X, Y, and Z , that's fine (though it is false because we could afford Thome), but don't give me this BS that it doesn't matter because of Quentin, Rios, or anybody else.

[qwerty]

Well, you can through every single players statistics and find at least a game or two that a big hit of theirs gave the team the win or one good play helped preserve a victory.

 

I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good? Something about that strikes me as odd considering his 2004 season was statistically better, yet I remember vividly many, many Sox fans trying to run him out of town before the '05 season. Then people should have also been satisfied with Juan Uribe's contributions the last couple of Sox seasons, yet it sure didn't sound like they were. I'm assuming that you were also satisfied with Brian Anderson's 2006?

 

I'm not quite certain his 2004 season was better.

 

2004- His slash line was .239/.299/.418.

 

16.5 K%

0.42 BB/K

.180 ISO

.309 wOBA

84 wRC+

83 OPS+

19.5% O-Swing%

 

2009- His slash line was .225/.289/.414.

 

16.8 K%

0.48 BB/K

.189 ISO

.305 wOBA

86 wRC+

83 OPS+

31.5% O-Swing%

 

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

 

Nothing stands out in his batted ball percentages. Though two things do when it comes to his plate discipline, his 12% increase in O-Swing%, and a 7.4% increase in his O-Contact% in 2009 compared to 2004. You likely already know his defensive metrics for the two years in question, which was pretty drastic, considering the significant amount of difference in games played (54 games). Crede WAR was 1.9 in 2009 compared to his 1.2 WAR in 2004. He was worth his contract.

 

To answer your question, i would take a .225 average, with a sub .300 obp, that is of course if their defense is good enough to make them worth 2-2.5 wins annually. Admittedly, the defensive numbers one would have to produce annually with that sort of offensive production would be rather low. If i were running a team not looking to contend, and for the stop gap type, he could possibly be a terrific pick up. Now if i were a team with a good chance to contend, i would only be looking in his direction if his lack of offense could be made up else where in the line-up, and my team was maybe a bit thin defensively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SoxAce]

I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good?

 

Since when did defense become overlooked? I thought that and pitching is what win championships.

Edited February 25, 2010 by SoxAce

[Ranger]

I'm not quite certain his 2004 season was better.

 

2004- His slash line was .239/.299/.418.

 

16.5 K%

0.42 BB/K

.180 ISO

.309 wOBA

84 wRC+

83 OPS+

19.5% O-Swing%

 

2009- His slash line was .225/.289/.414.

 

16.8 K%

0.48 BB/K

.189 ISO

.305 wOBA

86 wRC+

83 OPS+

31.5% O-Swing%

 

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

 

Nothing stands out in his batted ball percentages. Though two things do when it comes to his plate discipline, his 12% increase in O-Swing%, and a 7.4% increase in his O-Contact% in 2009 compared to 2004. You likely already know his defensive metrics for the two years in question, which was pretty drastic, considering the significant amount of difference in games played (54 games). Crede WAR was 1.9 in 2009 compared to his 1.2 WAR in 2004. He was worth his contract.

 

To answer your question, i would take a .225 average, with a sub .300 obp, that is of course if their defense is good enough to make them worth 2-2.5 wins annually. Admittedly, the defensive numbers one would have to produce annually with that sort of offensive production would be rather low. If i were running a team not looking to contend, and for the stop gap type, he could possibly be a terrific pick up. Now if i were a team with a good chance to contend, i would only be looking in his direction if his lack of offense could be made up else where in the line-up, and my team was maybe a bit thin defensively.

 

The question really isn't whether he was worth his contract or not, but I think it's debatable whether or not he was worth $2.5 mil last year. You could argue the two seasons were comparable, though the greater point is that we're considering his 2009 to be satisfying, while is 2004 was not. We should put the numbers down for a second and remind ourselves that, not only was his offense not good last year, he barely played more than half of his team's games. That's not satisfactory, which was my point.

 

 

Since when did defense become overlooked? I thought that and pitching is what win championships.

 

It hasn't been overlooked. I'm just fairly confident that there would be very few people here that would be pleased with those numbers, even with good defense. They certainly weren't satisfied with Uribe as an offensive player even though he was good defensively.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Ranger

[qwerty]

The question really isn't whether he was worth his contract or not, but I think it's debatable whether or not he was worth $2.5 mil last year. You could argue the two seasons were comparable, though the greater point is that we're considering his 2009 to be satisfying, while is 2004 was not. We should put the numbers down for a second and remind ourselves that, not only was his offense not good last year, he barely played more than half of his team's games. That's not satisfactory, which was my point.

 

 

His 2009 was better than his 2004 season by 0.7 wins and he did so in 54 less games. In 2008 and 2009 teams were spending roughly 4.5 million on one win, which means he was more than worth the 2.5 million he received. I do not see room for debate. Also, i was in no way trying to imply what you described as satisfactory.

[chunk23]

I'm not sure what "tangent" you're referring to as I was speaking directly to the topic at hand.

 

Dewayne Wise hit leadoff, and was dismissed before he was even given a chance to play last year (see opneing day booing). And before he was injured, did actually begin to start playing better. Now, my issue is with those that have completely written off the offense based on the DH alone. The idea that since the Sox do not have a legit DH (at least that we know of) they will have a poor offense. My opinion is that while a DH would help the cause, it will not be the difference between a good offense and a poor one. However, the difference will reside in the heart of the order.

 

You can come back to me in July and declare your victory if I'm wrong, but as Quentin and Rios go, so will go the Sox offense. If they're bad, then the Sox offense will be bad. But if they're good and the DH isn't all that great, the Sox will still probably be a "good enough" offense.

 

The DH spot was the last chance to improve the meager offense. The other chances, OF and 3b, were filled with below average offensive players. That is why people are writing off the offense. Not just because of the DH. When Pierre was picked up people said, don't worry, KW will get a slugger for DH. He didn't. And now the Sox are slated to go into the season with a bad offense.

[longshot7]

And now the Sox are slated to go into the season with a bad offense.

 

I disagree. I'm not worried.