Part Time Thome Kills Sox Again

[LittleHurt05]

Hence the concept of "Wins above replacement" where a replacement player = the average production at that position for the league. It's therefore a 50/50 chance whether the Twins would get better or worse production if they just plugged anyone in at that position.

 

Hell, look how some of the AL contenders have struggled with their DH slot by just throwing anything and everything at it. The Rays and the White Sox are the examples there.

 

Knowing the Twins, all of their minor leaguers become above replacement players when they get to the majors, so they probably would have gotten better production than average given their history.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Unfortunately for you...thanks to the availability of Pitch F/X data, this unsupported contention can now actually be checked, because PFX categorizes pitch types.

 

Last year, in 2009, Jim Thome Saw the 4 seam fastball 52% of the time.

 

This year, in 2010, Jim Thome has seen the 4 seam fastball 39.5% of the time.

 

In both cases we're talking about well over a thousand pitches, so this is a very statistically significant difference.

 

Jim Thome is seeing vastly fewer fastballs this year. Therefore, your contention that Thome is performing better because of the lineup around him causing him to see more fastballs is simply wrong.

When I saw that post with the assumption of what pitches Thome was seeing I knew yours wouldn't be far behind checking the data. That's pretty much why I only editorialize and don't throw things out there I can't support.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Maybe Thome isn't going to cost the White Sox the playoffs, but its hard to see how he being a White Sox right now and not a Twin wouldn't enhance the White Sox chances.

 

 

Look at Vlad and Matsui's stats last year and this. Thome's were better. Vlad has an .851 OPS this year. Jim Thome had an .864 OPS with the Sox last year playing with a bad heel. Thome is playing for a fraction of what they are playing for this year

 

Thome was truly underrated and under appreciated during his time with the Sox. Its a shame a pretty significant part of the White Sox fanbase for some reason never embraced him and enjoyed what he was able to accomplish from the batter's box. For all the defending I see of guys like Manny Ramirez, giving him credit for others getting big hits, its almost sickening.

 

KW's quote about Manny the other day really struck me. He was asked about his hair and he said that guys with over 500 homers we will bend the team rules for a bit. I know a guy with over 500 homers that wouldn't think about doing anything outside the team rules.

My stance is very similar to yours but let me add one thing. Not only was Thome under appreciated by many on this board but apparently in baseball front offices too. I know a lot of older slower one dimensional players were not given significant contracts offers but leave it to the Twins to see the value of the guy when so many could not. You forget just how damn good the guy is because he quietly goes about his business. The media is all over Manny so he's in the minds of fans and apparently GM's too .

[Mr. Wedmesday]

Unfortunately for you...thanks to the availability of Pitch F/X data, this unsupported contention can now actually be checked, because PFX categorizes pitch types.

 

Last year, in 2009, Jim Thome Saw the 4 seam fastball 52% of the time.

 

This year, in 2010, Jim Thome has seen the 4 seam fastball 39.5% of the time.

 

In both cases we're talking about well over a thousand pitches, so this is a very statistically significant difference.

 

Jim Thome is seeing vastly fewer fastballs this year. Therefore, your contention that Thome is performing better because of the lineup around him causing him to see more fastballs is simply wrong.

 

I don't see why this is in any way "unfortunate" for me, since being "simply wrong" on this board is utterly irrelevant in the larger context of my life.

 

If being "right" is meaningful to you, congratulations. I didn't realize that the conversations here were a zero sum game.

 

I would rephrase my speculation from "fastball" to the more debatable "better pitches to hit", but I'm sure there is, as they say, "a stat for that".

 

Please feel free to shoot holes in the specifics. The overall point, which still seems logical to me, is that the ever-more-tiresome Jim Thome, as with most hitters, performs better surrounded by a better lineup up offering more protection.

 

Again, feel free to feel more fortunate than me when you find the stat that proves you to be simply "right". I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

Edited September 14, 2010 by 11and1

[Dick Allen]

I don't see why this is in any way "unfortunate" for me, since being "simply wrong" on this board is utterly irrelevant in the larger context of my life.

 

If being "right" is meaningful to you, congratulations. I didn't realize that the conversations here were a zero sum game.

 

I would rephrase my speculation from "fastball" to the more debatable "better pitches to hit", but I'm sure there is, as they say, "a stat for that".

 

Please feel free to shoot holes in the specifics. The overall point, which still seems logical to me, is that the ever-more-tiresome Jim Thome, as with most hitters, performs better surrounded by a better lineup up offering more protection.

 

Again, feel free to feel more fortunate than me when you find the stat that proves you to be simply "right". I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

I don't know if there's a stat for it, but its pretty laughable. For most of his White Sox career, Thome was sandwiched in between some solid hitters who match up to Cuddyer and Young pretty favorably. The entire protection issue is overrated if you ask me, especially with guys who will take walks. And even if you think its a huge issue, Thome was well protected during his days with the Sox.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[ktssox]

KW's quote about Manny the other day really struck me. He was asked about his hair and he said that guys with over 500 homers we will bend the team rules for a bit. I know a guy with over 500 homers that wouldn't think about doing anything outside the team rules.

 

Wow. I know this is a Thome thread, but this is disgusting. So, not only does Kenny sign/embrace a cheating, me-first type of player, but he then tells the rest of the team that this player (who doesn't play the game the right way) gets treated differently because he is better than you? Nice way to run a team, Kenny. That'll be good for morale. Disgusting.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't see why this is in any way "unfortunate" for me, since being "simply wrong" on this board is utterly irrelevant in the larger context of my life.

 

If being "right" is meaningful to you, congratulations. I didn't realize that the conversations here were a zero sum game.

 

I would rephrase my speculation from "fastball" to the more debatable "better pitches to hit", but I'm sure there is, as they say, "a stat for that".

 

Please feel free to shoot holes in the specifics. The overall point, which still seems logical to me, is that the ever-more-tiresome Jim Thome, as with most hitters, performs better surrounded by a better lineup up offering more protection.

 

Again, feel free to feel more fortunate than me when you find the stat that proves you to be simply "right". I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

You may not have liked the way I phrased it...but let me be as clear as I can as to why I came off harshly. You posited a theory. You posited a theory which is based on specific data; that Thome is hitting better this season because he's seeing more fastballs. The problem is...there is plenty of data out there to check on your theory...and you didn't take the time to do it; you left it to other people. That, IMO, is why I went after your post; you didn't take the time to investigate whether the data you needed to back up your case existed.

 

I'm going to disagree with you, like DA, on the concept that Thome is a better hitter in Minny because of the quality of hitters around him. My theory is that he's a flat out better hitter when you give him more rest. I can back this up; for example, his numbers have fallen in the 2nd half every year since 2006 except this year, where his at bats were limited in the first half. I offered a little bit of data to back mine up; you're just throwing things out there and saying "why doesn't someone go prove them wrong".

 

If you want to make the case that Thome has had better protection this year...please do so, I'd be interested to read it, but don't just ask me to make it for you.

[kitekrazy]

The Sox obviously thought they were going to win with pitching (not too big an assumption despite the fact the bullpen sucked in 2009) but not defense (Teahen at third, nobody knew Lexi would be this improved at short, Juan was known for a weak arm, CQ somewhat statuesque in right, AJ not getting any younger throwing people out) and speed was supposed to be a strength like the pitching.

 

I still think you can win with pitching and defense, even in the AL, but our pitching wasn't good enough again and our defense sucked early on, thought it turned out to be very solid up the middle with Rios, Becks and Lexi and AJ having a better year throwing wise.

 

For us to win with this formula, the starting staff is going to have to DOMINATE and not be graded about a Bminus or B at the best, which is what they were this year. And the bullpen was a C at best. Not good enough without huge pop in the lineup.

 

As far as Thome, I still consider the argument moot had we acquired a lefty bat like Dunn at the break which I guess he was impossible to get.

 

I'd prefer to go back to the station to station thing next year but it is still going to all boil down to our pitching and defense.

 

Sox fans do love their station to station baseball. People will go far to bring up stats how Thome would make a difference this year and to prove it they will bring up Kotsay's stats. (yawn)

The Sox didn't really do much when they had Thome but he is glorified for game 163 which didn't have to be played if the Sox wouldn't lay down against Royal like teams.

 

So far it looks like the Sox are doing just as well without Thome.

 

Many people forget how bad this team was at the season. They dug a deep hole and it was deep enough that the percentages are against winning a division.

 

[whitesoxfan99]

Sox fans do love their station to station baseball. People will go far to bring up stats how Thome would make a difference this year and to prove it they will bring up Kotsay's stats. (yawn)

The Sox didn't really do much when they had Thome but he is glorified for game 163 which didn't have to be played if the Sox wouldn't lay down against Royal like teams.

 

So far it looks like the Sox are doing just as well without Thome.

 

Many people forget how bad this team was at the season. They dug a deep hole and it was deep enough that the percentages are against winning a division.

 

They won a division in 08 and won 90 games in 2006 despite Buehrle and the pitching staff s***ting the bed. But I guess the pitching staff sucking in 2006 was Thome's fault. But I see you come from the Ozzie school of never admitting when you are wrong so you have to rip Thome whenever he comes up without any facts to support your argument.

 

Also, the argument that the Sox didn't do much with Thome is unbelievably stupid. What did the Red Sox win with Ted Williams? What did the Rangers win with Alex Rodriguez? What did the Mariners win with Ken Griffey Jr? The list goes on and on.

Edited September 14, 2010 by whitesoxfan99

[Mr. Wedmesday]

You may not have liked the way I phrased it...but let me be as clear as I can as to why I came off harshly. You posited a theory. You posited a theory which is based on specific data; that Thome is hitting better this season because he's seeing more fastballs. The problem is...there is plenty of data out there to check on your theory...and you didn't take the time to do it; you left it to other people. That, IMO, is why I went after your post; you didn't take the time to investigate whether the data you needed to back up your case existed.

 

I'm going to disagree with you, like DA, on the concept that Thome is a better hitter in Minny because of the quality of hitters around him. My theory is that he's a flat out better hitter when you give him more rest. I can back this up; for example, his numbers have fallen in the 2nd half every year since 2006 except this year, where his at bats were limited in the first half. I offered a little bit of data to back mine up; you're just throwing things out there and saying "why doesn't someone go prove them wrong".

 

If you want to make the case that Thome has had better protection this year...please do so, I'd be interested to read it, but don't just ask me to make it for you.

 

 

So that me makes me lazy as well. Perhaps. But considering that I was unaware of the exisitence of much of the data you are citing, that may indeed be a bit harsh.

 

And where in my post do I ask anyone to do anything for me? You disagree with my theory, you choose to spend your time and utilize your familiarity with databases unknown to me, more power to you. And I certainly appreciate the info. But I certainly wasn't taunting you or anybody else, just posting a theory that seemed logical to my statistically challenged mind.

 

I'm just a Sox fan with fewer than 100 posts on the forum. I've read thousands of posts on hundreds of threads that were discussing theories not supported by what I'm sure were available stats. Neither the OP or the participants were called out for not doing so.

 

I DID take the time to read the guidelines, where there is no mention of requiring hard facts when posting thoughts and/or theories. Is there a supplementary set of guidelines I should be aware of that contains this provision?

 

I enjoy this site but always wonder why people here get so chippy sometimes. Seems to me Sox fans get enough grief everywhere else in this town. Can't understand why it happens here. That has always struck me as characteristic of the "other" team's fans.

 

And I go out of my way to avoid getting in any way personal in my posts, no matter how uninformed they may be.

 

Nevertheless, I will think twice before posting anything in the future for fear that I have not supplied an adequate bibliography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So that me makes me lazy as well. Perhaps. But considering that I was unaware of the exisitence of much of the data you are citing, that may indeed be a bit harsh.

 

And where in my post do I ask anyone to do anything for me? You disagree with my theory, you choose to spend your time and utilize your familiarity with databases unknown to me, more power to you. And I certainly appreciate the info. But I certainly wasn't taunting you or anybody else, just posting a theory that seemed logical to my statistically challenged mind.

 

I'm just a Sox fan with fewer than 100 posts on the forum. I've read thousands of posts on hundreds of threads that were discussing theories not supported by what I'm sure were available stats. Neither the OP or the participants were called out for not doing so.

 

I DID take the time to read the guidelines, where there is no mention of requiring hard facts when posting thoughts and/or theories. Is there a supplementary set of guidelines I should be aware of that contains this provision?

 

I enjoy this site but always wonder why people here get so chippy sometimes. Seems to me Sox fans get enough grief everywhere else in this town. Can't understand why it happens here. That has always struck me as characteristic of the "other" team's fans.

 

And I go out of my way to avoid getting in any way personal in my posts, no matter how uninformed they may be.

 

Nevertheless, I will think twice before posting anything in the future for fear that I have not supplied an adequate bibliography.

Don't give up so easily. Some people will give you a hard time if/when you post something that can be directly refuted statistically. But that's how we learn, and of course, stats aren't everything, and there is no perfect one.

 

[Dick Allen]

Wow. I know this is a Thome thread, but this is disgusting. So, not only does Kenny sign/embrace a cheating, me-first type of player, but he then tells the rest of the team that this player (who doesn't play the game the right way) gets treated differently because he is better than you? Nice way to run a team, Kenny. That'll be good for morale. Disgusting.

KW has been more forgiving lately. Cowley, who I hate, really called him out on it and had quotes of his from last year concerning Manny. It was the polar opposite as to what he was saying now. Either he was so desperate and wants to keep Manny happy or there is something else. Only speculation, but supposedly he is going through a divorce. Maybe he's thinks some things about him are going to come out and he may be a guy looking for a little forgiveness that probably would need to show he's willing to give some.

[SoxAce]

So that me makes me lazy as well. Perhaps. But considering that I was unaware of the exisitence of much of the data you are citing, that may indeed be a bit harsh.

 

And where in my post do I ask anyone to do anything for me? You disagree with my theory, you choose to spend your time and utilize your familiarity with databases unknown to me, more power to you. And I certainly appreciate the info. But I certainly wasn't taunting you or anybody else, just posting a theory that seemed logical to my statistically challenged mind.

 

Lesson learned. If your going to make a point, make sure you have the facts to back it up, instead of just spilling out what you think is the case (or rephrase it differently, saying "IMO" or "it seems" helps), so other posters like Balta won't call you out (own you) on it. Hey, happens to even the most knowledgeable of posters so don't feel too bad (ego won't be too shot) about it.

[hogan873]

So that me makes me lazy as well. Perhaps. But considering that I was unaware of the exisitence of much of the data you are citing, that may indeed be a bit harsh.

 

And where in my post do I ask anyone to do anything for me? You disagree with my theory, you choose to spend your time and utilize your familiarity with databases unknown to me, more power to you. And I certainly appreciate the info. But I certainly wasn't taunting you or anybody else, just posting a theory that seemed logical to my statistically challenged mind.

 

I'm just a Sox fan with fewer than 100 posts on the forum. I've read thousands of posts on hundreds of threads that were discussing theories not supported by what I'm sure were available stats. Neither the OP or the participants were called out for not doing so.

 

I DID take the time to read the guidelines, where there is no mention of requiring hard facts when posting thoughts and/or theories. Is there a supplementary set of guidelines I should be aware of that contains this provision?

 

I enjoy this site but always wonder why people here get so chippy sometimes. Seems to me Sox fans get enough grief everywhere else in this town. Can't understand why it happens here. That has always struck me as characteristic of the "other" team's fans.

 

And I go out of my way to avoid getting in any way personal in my posts, no matter how uninformed they may be.

 

Nevertheless, I will think twice before posting anything in the future for fear that I have not supplied an adequate bibliography.

I wouldn't take it so hard. Many of us have been chastised for posting a theory or thought that was wrong. There are tons of data out there that most of us casual posters don't know about. I see anagrams for stats like WAR, OPS+, FART, etc. that I don't usually look at. But I have to say that I've learned a lot about stats by using this site. Like another poster said, stating IMO or "it seems to me" might keep the "you're wrong!" posts down.

 

[Balta1701]

I guess I probably ought to publicly flog myself a bit here and say yeah...I was too harsh. For that I apologize.

[Mr. Wedmesday]

I guess I probably ought to publicly flog myself a bit here and say yeah...I was too harsh. For that I apologize.

 

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.