SI on Paulie and our lousy future

[Eminor3rd]

My favorite story I've ever read was one where they took a league full of 30 completely average teams in every way - neutralizing for anything and everything - and they ran 1000 seasons worth of simulations. At the end of nearly every single one of those seasons, you had a fair number teams with 88-92 wins and a fair number of teams with 70-74 wins. The conclusion was that the only determining factor in all of those teams was merely luck.

 

Not everything is that cut and dry in the majors today, but more of it is than people realize. I think, talent wise, this Sox team was probably about 79-81 wins coming into the year. Due to injury and trades, they are going to finish well below that 10 game threshold, but if they end up around 64 or 65 wins, it's going to end up right around that mark (Peavy is at 1.3 fWAR and Thornton at 0.3 fWAR in Boston, Rios is at 0.7 fWAR in Texas, and Gavin Floyd is typically a 2-4 fWAR pitcher who was out for the year and struggled previously due to injury). If the Sox make solid additions and are bold but smart with their offseason moves, I definitely think they can go into next year with a team that's got 85-87 win talent and then you hope you get the breaks from there.

 

Yes, this is so important for everyone to understand. That was either in The Book or Baseball Between the Numbers, right? It's also critical for the anti-SABR crowd to understand what you mean when you say "luck" there -- it's not luck that determines those events on the field, it's a player's distribution of performances. From a front office perspective when trying to project how its team will perform, event distribution "acts as luck" because it cannot be reliably predicted. So he's not saying players just run out there flail around and get lucky or unlucky, just that where their successes or failures fall and how they coincide with those of their opponents is beyond the player's control. A .300 hitter will get the hit 3 out of ten times, but which three of those ten will be hits is effectively random when trying to make a projection over the course of a baseball season.

 

Front offices need to be confident their team's talent is within those error bars, and then it's up to the players to go out and succeed. Run this season over again, and the Blue Jays and Red Sox might switch places. AA and his team put enough talent on the field to compete, that just just didn't compete. A lot of little things can ad up in one direction or the other over 162 games.

[southsider2k5]

De Aza is second on the team in home runs, silly.

 

Ideally, he is your #2 hitter and he reverts back to the .280/.350/.400 guy he can be and someone with better on base skills leading off. In my world, that's Semien.

 

I'd rather he revert back to tracking and catching baseballs.

[Eminor3rd]

Why would you want to keep a player who nobody would offer anything of value for?

 

Because unlike all those other teams, you have already committed $15m to him. That money is a sunk cost. That no other team wants him for $15m does not make him valueless. We don't want him at $15m either, but we already bought him at $15m.

 

If you bought an expensive car, realized it wasn't worth it, but couldn't get anyone to buy it from you for enough that you could recoup your loss, would you give it away? Would you leave it in the garage and buy another car instead? No, because you still need to drive to work. The money you paid is gone, and the car is still your best way to get to work, even if you overspent on it. So until a better option for transportation presents itself, you drive the car.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, this is so important for everyone to understand. That was either in The Book or Baseball Between the Numbers, right? It's also critical for the anti-SABR crowd to understand what you mean when you say "luck" there -- it's not luck that determines those events on the field, it's a player's distribution of performances. From a front office perspective when trying to project how its team will perform, event distribution "acts as luck" because it cannot be reliably predicted. So he's not saying players just run out there flail around and get lucky or unlucky, just that where their successes or failures fall and how they coincide with those of their opponents is beyond the player's control. A .300 hitter will get the hit 3 out of ten times, but which three of those ten will be hits is effectively random when trying to make a projection over the course of a baseball season.

 

Front offices need to be confident their team's talent is within those error bars, and then it's up to the players to go out and succeed. Run this season over again, and the Blue Jays and Red Sox might switch places. AA and his team put enough talent on the field to compete, that just just didn't compete. A lot of little things can ad up in one direction or the other over 162 games.

 

I think this is also where the non-stat crowd gets some ammo. The same group of individual, high priced talent, has bombed for the second year in a row as a group. The problem might not be the individuals, but how they all fit together. The Sox have had the same thing happen over the years too.

[Eminor3rd]

I think this is also where the non-stat crowd gets some ammo. The same group of individual, high priced talent, has bombed for the second year in a row as a group. The problem might not be the individuals, but how they all fit together. The Sox have had the same thing happen over the years too.

 

No doubt -- and that's a part of the job that AA has to do too. The due diligence about how the team will work together. It's just interesting that we never really get a large enough sample of a group of guys to be able to definitively tell if it is a chemistry issue or not, and so we have to rely on intuition both in building the team and evaluating the results. This is another factor that simply cannot be predicted reliably, though you can do better with intuition here than with something like event distribution. Very difficult to be a GM.

[witesoxfan]

Yes, this is so important for everyone to understand. That was either in The Book or Baseball Between the Numbers, right? It's also critical for the anti-SABR crowd to understand what you mean when you say "luck" there -- it's not luck that determines those events on the field, it's a player's distribution of performances. From a front office perspective when trying to project how its team will perform, event distribution "acts as luck" because it cannot be reliably predicted. So he's not saying players just run out there flail around and get lucky or unlucky, just that where their successes or failures fall and how they coincide with those of their opponents is beyond the player's control. A .300 hitter will get the hit 3 out of ten times, but which three of those ten will be hits is effectively random when trying to make a projection over the course of a baseball season.

 

Front offices need to be confident their team's talent is within those error bars, and then it's up to the players to go out and succeed. Run this season over again, and the Blue Jays and Red Sox might switch places. AA and his team put enough talent on the field to compete, that just just didn't compete. A lot of little things can ad up in one direction or the other over 162 games.

 

This also brings about the idea of "clutch." In almost every circumstance, there is no such thing as "clutch." Guys will have "clutch" seasons but they will also have seasons where they are not "clutch," when in reality their numbers will not be signficantly different. Now, you can surely find areas where some guys are better or worse, but at the end of the day, Dunn's splits with RISP - .224/.395/.457/.852 - and with no one on base - .238/.345/.496/.842 .

 

The other thing it brings up to me, and this was read in Baseball Between the Numbers, which is a BP book, is that Mike Redmond hit like .500 in his career against Tom Glavine. There are extreme sample size issues though, and while Redmond may have had a bead on Glavine, over time that would have evened out and Redmond only would have been a .300 hitter (or whatever) against Glavine in his career. When you hear people (Hawk) say "he sees him well, he's 4 for 9, 2 of those hits left the yard," you should say to yourself "that means absolutely nothing whatsoever because he could just as easily go 0 for his next 3 and suddenly he's not even hitting that well.

 

These two were both way off topic, but they popped into my head right away.

[Eminor3rd]

This also brings about the idea of "clutch." In almost every circumstance, there is no such thing as "clutch." Guys will have "clutch" seasons but they will also have seasons where they are not "clutch," when in reality their numbers will not be signficantly different. Now, you can surely find areas where some guys are better or worse, but at the end of the day, Dunn's splits with RISP - .224/.395/.457/.852 - and with no one on base - .238/.345/.496/.842 .

 

The other thing it brings up to me, and this was read in Baseball Between the Numbers, which is a BP book, is that Mike Redmond hit like .500 in his career against Tom Glavine. There are extreme sample size issues though, and while Redmond may have had a bead on Glavine, over time that would have evened out and Redmond only would have been a .300 hitter (or whatever) against Glavine in his career. When you hear people (Hawk) say "he sees him well, he's 4 for 9, 2 of those hits left the yard," you should say to yourself "that means absolutely nothing whatsoever because he could just as easily go 0 for his next 3 and suddenly he's not even hitting that well.

 

These two were both way off topic, but they popped into my head right away.

 

Yep. When SABR guys say "clutch" doesn't exist, they aren't saying that pressure and emotion are not parts of performance, they are simply saying that "clutch" does not exist as a predictive statistic. Largescale studies have shown, overwhelmingly, that no matter the particular "pressure" situation (i.e. versus a pitcher, in the ninth, RISP, playoffs, etc.), his career numbers are a better predictor for his future outcomes than his previous performance in similar situations. It's a matter of smaller sample data. Clutch is real, it just isn't something you can use to make roster decisions.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Soxfest]

So that we can lose 90+ games next year and Marty can be happy.

Konerko needs to stay home with his bad back in Scotsdale.

[Iwritecode]

It's amazing how the two architects of the 05 title, Kenny and Ozzie, predictably couldn't sustain it and flopped. Kind of like Ditka/Ryan. I guess we should be very very happy the Bulls sustained with Jordan, winning multi titles. And the Blackhawks more than one, with the future also looking bright. I happen to love Ozzie in the KW/Oz duo. A lot of you despise him and like KW, who I despise. Funny how that works. Both have the ultimate prize, but both also could be considered huge failures by others because of their lack of sustainability.

 

I guess we should be just happy attendance is good enough to prevent anybody from hinting the Sox might move. The Sox may rise again. How long is anybody's guess.

 

Sustained winning is difficult in any sport. A couple of teams have figured it out but they are the exceptions to the rule.

[greg775]

You are paying him regardless.

There is no one even remotely blocked by Adam Dunn.

There is always the chance that he has value to someone later.

And as you are fond of saying, it makes no difference for next year.

 

Good post, especially since it is the only Greg haiku format. I used to post in this visual manner, but have stopped the last 2 years. Even though I despise Dunn, it is funny to look at this team on paper w/out him. Will we even have a guy hit more than 10 bombs next year? Crazy.

[Eminor3rd]

Luck had nothing to do with this year. Timely injuries, horrible defense, and even worse baserunning are the big problem.

 

Right, so from a front office/roster building perspective, luck had EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Balta1701]

Good post, especially since it is the only Greg haiku format. I used to post in this visual manner, but have stopped the last 2 years. Even though I despise Dunn, it is funny to look at this team on paper w/out him. Will we even have a guy hit more than 10 bombs next year? Crazy.

We have 7 guys with more than 10 HR this year. And Avisail Garcia is not one of them.

[witesoxfan]

Right, so from a front office/roster building perspective, luck had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Yes, this is right. The part of the season where numbers drop off that isn't luck are when the replacement players come in, Purcey for Thornton, Rienzo for Peavy, and Garcia for Rios. When you make those moves, you EXPECT to get worse because your talent level has worsened.

[The Ginger Kid]

PK's right about the cycle of life of an MLB team. And FWIW, I'd rather it be happening now when you consider what the tigers have built, a formidable team that will contend again next season. Sox don't have the talent or resources to go toe-to-toe with them right now.

[Quin]

PK's right about the cycle of life of an MLB team. And FWIW, I'd rather it be happening now when you consider what the tigers have built, a formidable team that will contend again next season. Sox don't have the talent or resources to go toe-to-toe with them right now.

 

And hopefully we'll be ready to go once they start their expensive decline.

[greg775]

And hopefully we'll be ready to go once they start their expensive decline.

 

I hate being negative ALL the time but I have to continue a bit longer ... how many years in a row did Atlanta make the playoffs? Detroit is going nowhere possibly for a long time. They are committed to spending lots of cash. Let's see if the Sox get that payroll back up there in an attempt to rebuild quickly thru free agency. I'm hoping but I also could see us pulling a Minnesota and going on the cheap. It's up to Jerry and how much he wants to see the Sox rally in his lifetime when his Bulls are looking pretty darn good.

[Quin]

I hate being negative ALL the time but I have to continue a bit longer ... how many years in a row did Atlanta make the playoffs? Detroit is going nowhere possibly for a long time. They are committed to spending lots of cash. Let's see if the Sox get that payroll back up there in an attempt to rebuild quickly thru free agency. I'm hoping but I also could see us pulling a Minnesota and going on the cheap. It's up to Jerry and how much he wants to see the Sox rally in his lifetime when his Bulls are looking pretty darn good.

 

Verlander is declining and Fielder and Cabrera have about the least healthy frames possible.

 

Those three combined are like what, $75M?

[LittleHurt05]

I hate being negative ALL the time but I have to continue a bit longer ... how many years in a row did Atlanta make the playoffs? Detroit is going nowhere possibly for a long time. They are committed to spending lots of cash. Let's see if the Sox get that payroll back up there in an attempt to rebuild quickly thru free agency. I'm hoping but I also could see us pulling a Minnesota and going on the cheap. It's up to Jerry and how much he wants to see the Sox rally in his lifetime when his Bulls are looking pretty darn good.

 

Aren't you the one who started a thread declaring that teams should never give out $100 million contracts? Yet now you want the Sox to spend, spend. Spend.

[greg775]

Verlander is declining and Fielder and Cabrera have about the least healthy frames possible.

 

Those three combined are like what, $75M?

 

Are any of those 3 projected to start sucking? Seems to me they are still in their primes. We can hope they start to stink but I wouldn't bank on it for a while. Also not to cheap shot Robin, but they have a pretty darn good, LaRussa-type manager.

Edited September 21, 2013 by greg775

[Jordan4life_2007]

Are any of those 3 projected to start sucking? Seems to me they are still in their primes. We can hope they start to stink but I wouldn't bank on it for a while. Also not to cheap shot Robin, but they have a pretty darn good, LaRussa-type manager.

 

I agree with greg here. Verlander, Miggy and Prince are 3 of the best in the world. It's totally loser thinking to sit back and wait for them to get worse in order for the sox to get better. Sounds like Bulls fans - "No, we're not really better, but Wade's knees are going to give out at some point. Then we've got 'em!!!" Lame.

[LittleHurt05]

Are any of those 3 projected to start sucking? Seems to me they are still in their primes. We can hope they start to stink but I wouldn't bank on it for a while. Also not to cheap shot Robin, but they have a pretty darn good, LaRussa-type manager.

 

Which means you don't even watch baseball. Verlander doesn't deserve to be in the playoff rotation and Prince is having the worst season of his career.

[2nd_city_saint787]

I hate being negative ALL the time but I have to continue a bit longer ... how many years in a row did Atlanta make the playoffs? Detroit is going nowhere possibly for a long time. They are committed to spending lots of cash. Let's see if the Sox get that payroll back up there in an attempt to rebuild quickly thru free agency. I'm hoping but I also could see us pulling a Minnesota and going on the cheap. It's up to Jerry and how much he wants to see the Sox rally in his lifetime when his Bulls are looking pretty darn good.

 

The Braves streak 91-04 was the result of having young magnificent pitching. The streak began with John Smoltz(24), Steve Avery(21), and Tom Glavine (25) as 3 of the 4 starters, then 2 years later they went out and got even more filthy with a prime, 27 year old Greg Maddox.

 

In contrast all the Tigers pitchers are in their upper 20's and their "streak" has just begun. They're at 2 in a row right now, I would be shocked if they made it past 5.

 

So it's hard to really compare those 2 teams.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Which means you don't even watch baseball. Verlander doesn't deserve to be in the playoff rotation and Prince is having the worst season of his career.

 

Prince and Verlander get the benefit of the doubt until a legitimate pattern forms. The Sox are a terrible organization from top to bottom. Detroit is the least of our concerns.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Jordan4life

[2nd_city_saint787]

Prince and Verlander get the benefit of the doubt until a legitimate pattern forms. The Sox are a terrible organization offensively from top to bottom. Detroit is the least of our concerns.

 

Fixed. The Sox look to be in good shape pitching wise from top to bottom.

[Quin]

I agree with greg here. Verlander, Miggy and Prince are 3 of the best in the world. It's totally loser thinking to sit back and wait for them to get worse in order for the sox to get better. Sounds like Bulls fans - "No, we're not really better, but Wade's knees are going to give out at some point. Then we've got 'em!!!" Lame.

 

All those games where Leyland decided to let him go 120+ pitches may be catching up to him. I wouldn't be shocked to see him fall off like Zito did.

 

Prince is just unhealthy and once he's out of his prime he'll be done.

 

Which means you don't even watch baseball. Verlander doesn't deserve to be in the playoff rotation and Prince is having the worst season of his career.