Is this bullpen Rick Hahn's fault?

[Chisoxfn]

I looked at the FIP numbers, and then I looked at the White Sox current ERAs. It was pretty simple it wasn't accurate. How come you don't give Chisoxfn any grief for what he posted about FIP?

 

I also doubt Hahn used FIP as the key to building his bullpen.

Like you, since FIP can fluctuate, I don't fully grasp why it is that great of a predictor of the future either? It would seem to me that future predictions can be largely based upon where a player is in the process, whether you can expect upward improvements or regressions based upon physical limitations, continued development, etc. It would seem to me, more then anything, that FIP is a predictor of what your current performance should have been indicative of, based upon a scan of other statistics available (basically trying to reduce the "luck" equation and statistical anomalies from the equation). I would think I would focus on stuff and then look at statistics and then more or less look at advanced stats to tell me is there something out (an outlier) there that might give me cause for pause. e.g., wow, judging by this, he was extremely lucky due to X, Y, and Z).

 

I think if you used FIP to just say it is a predictor of future production, you would be missing out on a whole lot of other variables. I think I could look at WHIP, Opponents BAPIP, K/9 and line drive rates and get an extrmely good picture of what their current performance was and then looking at stuff figure out where I think their arch is, what their flaws are, etc, to come up with whether something is a good / bad fit. However, again, I don't see how FIP is any better of a predictor then any of the other stuff, in fact, I think the other stuff combined is a much better way of viewing performance and can give you a much more holistic view.

[iamshack]

Yeah, but literally no one has made an argument that you should. Not the posters here, not the media pundits, not the general managers.

With the way some folks summarily dismiss or glorify certain players at times, it can certainly seem that way.

[harfman77]

So what is accurate?

 

Eyeball test.

[witesoxfan]

Why don't you tell me. The only thing I am blaming Hahn for is the Reed trade. I admitted I like the Beli signing. But many gang up on me and start making things up, how I think the Sox should max the payroll out... all I said was Hahn made a bad trade and keeping a $538k reliever would have had this team in contention.

 

The trade has been bad, but I don't mind the intention. The Sox made a similar trade overall with Arizona several years ago, but with the sides swapped, when they traded Brandon Allen for Tony Pena. What's ironic about that is that Pena, in his half season with the Sox, put up comparable numbers to what Reed is putting up now. Williams was raked over the coals for that trade.

 

Matt Davidson is still only 23 too, so while he's been very bad this year, there's some time for him to turn it around.

 

Yeah, but literally no one has made an argument that you should. Not the posters here, not the media pundits, not the general managers.

 

I don't think anyone has ever suggested it. Dylan Axelrod had great FIPs in the minors, and no one was upset to see him go. There's a zillion different things to look at when evaluating relievers.

[Eminor3rd]

With the way some folks summarily dismiss or glorify certain players at times, it can certainly seem that way.

 

To be honest, the only people I ever see citing the argument that there's "one perfect number" to use in player evaluations are those criticising sabermetrics. They're arguing against an offensive notion in their heads that has never actually existed in reality.

 

There are some numbers that are ideal for answering specific questions, but the broader the question being asked, the more information you need to answer it. And the more information you need to input, the less precise you can be. Most questions that fans want answered about players and teams are very broad and require a long look at a lot of different information. I don't think there is any proponent of sabermetrics anywhere in the public sphere that disagrees with this.

 

This applies to all statistics, btw, not the newish ones. "Who is the best hitter" is answered poorly by using just RBI, just as "who is the better pitcher" is answered poorly by using just WPA.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[caulfield12]

I'd probably start by looking at as many "failed" closers (the likes of Sergio Romo) I could find via trade or free agency...

 

But I would never buy one coming off a "peak" performance, like an Andrew Miller, Jim Johnson coming into 2014 or Craig Kimbrel or Trevor Rosenthal in the future, etc.

 

The idea of finding guys like Boggs, Guerra, Putnam, Cleto, wasn't horrible...in and of itself. If Lindstrom and Jones were healthy, Belisario and Putnam could have stayed in the 7th where they belonged.

 

Of course, we never would have discovered how good Petricka could be, for example. Or that Webb wasn't/isn't ready yet, and might never take that next step.

 

 

At any rate, I'd individually go through all that video and figure out exactly why those saves were blown (bad pitches, bad defense, bad "luck," BABIP, line drive/FO/GO and the traditional metrics) and try to find 2-4 guys that Cooper also really likes and targets them for acquisition.

 

Not overpaying for loogies, but looking for a lefty who can pitch at least one inning and without a hugely dramatic split against RHB's and LHB's would be another thing we definitely have to address. Surkamp obviously doesn't belong in that role. He just doesn't have the stuff OR the control/command.

[iamshack]

To be honest, the only people I ever see citing the argument that there's "one perfect number" to use in player evaluations are those criticising sabermetrics. They're arguing against an offensive notion in their heads that has never actually existed in reality.

 

There are some numbers that are ideal for answering specific questions, but the broader the question being asked, the more information you need to answer it. And the more information you need to input, the less precise you can be. Most questions that fans want answered about players and teams are very broad and require a long look at a lot of different information. I don't think there is any proponent of sabermetrics anywhere in the public sphere that disagrees with this.

 

This applies to all statistics, btw, not the newish ones. "Who is the best hitter" is answered poorly by using just RBI, just as "who is the better pitcher" is answered poorly by using just WPA.

I'm not even necessarily thinking of just one statistic, as much as I am that some statistics, but nothing else, should be the indicator of whether someone is a useful mlb player or not moving forward. It's usually a bit more complicated than that.

[caulfield12]

I would also look at how many runners are stranded..in RISP, and certain situations, like 2 outs and RISP.

 

Definitely not holds.

 

And also how many runners inherited in scoring position and with less than 2 outs were prevented from scoring...that would seem to be pretty obvious, of course.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not even necessarily thinking of just one statistic, as much as I am that some statistics, but nothing else, should be the indicator of whether someone is a useful mlb player or not moving forward. It's usually a bit more complicated than that.

 

I'd take it further and say it's ALWAYS a bit more complicated than that. I think part of the reason that we get so caught up in the stats on message boards is because we simply don't have access to the close looks and trainer-expertise that the teams do. The stats are the best nuggets of info that we laymen have, and I think you're right to suggest that we should remember that teams are making big decisions using a ton of information we'll never see.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[SCCWS]

Please explain to me how Nate Jones was mediocre last year.

 

His ERA was over 4 compared to 2.50 his rookie season. Now some people don't like ERA for relievers. How about opp batting avg??? they hit .247 against him compared to Reed .215. Look at the top 25 relievers and most have BA against in low .200 range. Do you like War??? It dropped from 2.5 to .5. Jones is a strike out reliever who gives up hits. That is mediocre. That is last year. He was better his first year.

Edited August 5, 2014 by SCCWS

[greg775]

I'm not calling them simpletons or anything similar, but when threads like these pop-up, I really DO question whether a lot of people here understand the plan. 10 months ago, at the end of the most excruciating Sox season I've ever experienced, 95% of our posters rightfully (IMO) wanted to clean house. Now halfway through the FIRST season of this, after some frankly incredible strides in the "cleaning house" plan having taken place, we're ripping baseball operations for not having enough bullpen depth to compete? You've got to be kidding me.

 

Yes I can complain about the bullpen because the guys he acquired to fix it, suck. Did he purposely acquire lousy relievers? No. So it is a part of Hahn's job he failed in miserably. Not to mention acquiring Paulino for gosh sakes.

It's that simple. Considering one lousy trade (Reed) really affected the bullpen negatively, some of us HATE that trade. Hahn made that trade.

[Eminor3rd]

His ERA was over 4 compared to 2.50 his rookie season. Now some people don't like ERA for relievers. How about opp batting avg??? they hit .247 against him compared to Reed .215. Look at the top 25 relievers and most have BA against in low .200 range. Do you like War??? It dropped from 2.5 to .5. Jones is a strike out reliever who gives up hits. That is mediocre. That is last year. He was better his first year.

 

His ERA was the ONLY thing that got worse last year, literally all of his peripherals improved substantially. He struck out more guys, walked fewer, and his HR rate stayed essentially the same (0.50 per nine to 0.58 per nine) despite his HR/FB normalizing to league average (~6% to ~9%). His groundball rate even went up. His fWAR actually doubled. The ERA increase can be almost entirely attributed to a huge swing in strand rate (85% all the way down to 62%), which, since he's a reliever and always throws from the stretch, is more likely attributable to luck/run sequencing than it would be if he was a starter.

 

With all due respect, friend: What are you looking at?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

If Hahn used FIP like has been suggested, he replaced Reed with Belisario. He replaced a 3.17 FIP with a 3.64 FIP and paid an extra $2.5 million.

 

I'm guessing he didn't use FIP.

[Eminor3rd]

If Hahn used FIP like has been suggested, he replaced Reed with Belisario. He replaced a 3.17 FIP with a 3.64 FIP and paid an extra $2.5 million.

 

I'm guessing he didn't use FIP.

 

Dick, you're the only one trying to make the argument that it boiled down to only FIP and nothing else. Please stop. Everyone has now claimed or acknowledged that it's way more complicated than that.

[witesoxfan]

If Hahn used FIP like has been suggested, he replaced Reed with Belisario. He replaced a 3.17 FIP with a 3.64 FIP and paid an extra $2.5 million.

 

I'm guessing he didn't use FIP.

 

I think he actually intended on having Jones replace Reed and then using Belisario in a middle reliever/setup role. Jones got hurt and then subsequently got hurt again.

 

I still think Jones would be a good closer, but it'll obviously be a while before we can ever find out (and we may never find out).

[Eminor3rd]

Yes I can complain about the bullpen because the guys he acquired to fix it, suck. Did he purposely acquire lousy relievers? No. So it is a part of Hahn's job he failed in miserably. Not to mention acquiring Paulino for gosh sakes.

It's that simple. Considering one lousy trade (Reed) really affected the bullpen negatively, some of us HATE that trade. Hahn made that trade.

 

But that's like when the girls on MY SUPER SWEET SIXTEEN complain about their brand new BMWs coming in the wrong color. You got gifted an awesome revamped offense that pushes your contention window up at least a year, and now you're complaining that the bullpen wasn't enough to be a WS contender instantly.

 

Just drive your new yellow BMW around town proudly, greg. There are starving people in Africa (Houston).

[Dick Allen]

I think he actually intended on having Jones replace Reed and then using Belisario in a middle reliever/setup role. Jones got hurt and then subsequently got hurt again.

 

I still think Jones would be a good closer, but it'll obviously be a while before we can ever find out (and we may never find out).

I've always liked Jones, but was actually kind of surprised he has never recorded a save. I would have sworn he had 4 or 5.

[witesoxfan]

I've always liked Jones, but was actually kind of surprised he has never recorded a save. I would have sworn he had 4 or 5.

 

Yeah, when I saw you mention that, I was surprised too, but it seemed that once Ventura got confidence in him, he was always one of the first to get the call with Reed going in the 9th.

 

In the conference call with Dan Fabian back in March, he mentioned that the Sox have sort of focused on getting good guys for the middle innings and that a closer doesn't have to necessarily be a great reliever but just someone who can get 3 outs. After the year they've had, I wonder if they are going to re-think the logic behind that. In theory, that is true - a lot of times, you'll have a 2 or 3 run lead, and you can afford to make a mistake or two. But in practice, it has been an absolute disaster. Maybe they will prioritize getting a really good bullpen arm for the end of games. It ultimately may cost more than what they got in return for Reed, but he could certainly be better than Reed too. Sometimes, the best way to learn is to get burned.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, when I saw you mention that, I was surprised too, but it seemed that once Ventura got confidence in him, he was always one of the first to get the call with Reed going in the 9th.

 

In the conference call with Dan Fabian back in March, he mentioned that the Sox have sort of focused on getting good guys for the middle innings and that a closer doesn't have to necessarily be a great reliever but just someone who can get 3 outs. After the year they've had, I wonder if they are going to re-think the logic behind that. In theory, that is true - a lot of times, you'll have a 2 or 3 run lead, and you can afford to make a mistake or two. But in practice, it has been an absolute disaster. Maybe they will prioritize getting a really good bullpen arm for the end of games. It ultimately may cost more than what they got in return for Reed, but he could certainly be better than Reed too. Sometimes, the best way to learn is to get burned.

 

I think a lot of what we have seen this summer is the result of the pen having no defined roles as guys have moved around to cover injuries and incompetence. Going back to the beginning I would have liked to have seen someone other than Putnam and Bellisario used in the 9th, not because I am going to pretend to "know" that he was going to fail like some people are doing, but because keeping the 7th and 8th innings stable makes for less moving parts, and less confusion out there. You would have been moving one guy into a new role instead of the entire pen.

 

Today I'd start trying to build backwards with Petricka closing and go from there. At this stage the entire pen is a wreck. If the internal judgement on Bellisario is that his problem isn't physical, I'd give him a few more chances at the 8th inning to show some confidence in him, and hopefully find some confidence in himself. But after that, I would try keeping guys in the same spots for at least a couple of weeks to see if they settle into roles and comfort. I'd see if some repetitions do them some good.

[SCCWS]

His ERA was the ONLY thing that got worse last year, literally all of his peripherals improved substantially. He struck out more guys, walked fewer, and his HR rate stayed essentially the same (0.50 per nine to 0.58 per nine) despite his HR/FB normalizing to league average (~6% to ~9%). His groundball rate even went up. His fWAR actually doubled. The ERA increase can be almost entirely attributed to a huge swing in strand rate (85% all the way down to 62%), which, since he's a reliever and always throws from the stretch, is more likely attributable to luck/run sequencing than it would be if he was a starter.

 

With all due respect, friend: What are you looking at?

 

I'll try and simplify it. Jones was an average reliever last year. If you take his ERA-Opp BA--WAR he was not above average. I said he had a good year w strikeouts but then allowed batters to hit .247. That is high when you consider Reed 's was .215. Regardless of the reason, look at the ERA of the top 25 AL relief pitchers and a 4+ ERA is on the high not the low side. In his rookie year his ERA was 2.39.

 

[Eminor3rd]

I'll try and simplify it. Jones was an average reliever last year. If you take his ERA-Opp BA--WAR he was not above average. I said he had a good year w strikeouts but then allowed batters to hit .247. That is high when you consider Reed 's was .215. Regardless of the reason, look at the ERA of the top 25 AL relief pitchers and a 4+ ERA is on the high not the low side. In his rookie year his ERA was 2.39.

 

Ok, you're saying that his RESULTS were mediocre. I can accept that. But, I would note that he PITCHED substantially better.

[SCCWS]

Ok, you're saying that his RESULTS were mediocre. I can accept that. But, I would note that he PITCHED substantially better.

 

The other part that many fans ignore is the mental makeup. When Reed was traded , some posters said anyone can close. That is not true. As good a set-up man Matt Thornton was he had problems closing. Obviously some of that may be attributed to being a lefty.

 

We don't know yet if Jones has the mental makeup to close.

[VAfan]

I'm not calling them simpletons or anything similar, but when threads like these pop-up, I really DO question whether a lot of people here understand the plan. 10 months ago, at the end of the most excruciating Sox season I've ever experienced, 95% of our posters rightfully (IMO) wanted to clean house. Now halfway through the FIRST season of this, after some frankly incredible strides in the "cleaning house" plan having taken place, we're ripping baseball operations for not having enough bullpen depth to compete? You've got to be kidding me.

 

Glad to know you aren't calling me a simpleton or anything similar.

 

But it's no excuse to not doing a better job of building a bullpen that could reasonably compete in 2014. As I've said, I think Rick Hahn had a plan to do that, it just was a VERY BAD plan. I also think he underestimated the value of a competent bullpen, or he would have put at least a little more attention to this area.

 

That DOESN'T mean that I thought he should have spent tens of millions to buy expensive bullpen pieces on a team not ready to compete for the World Series -- even if they were ready to compete for a playoff spot this year.

 

As I said above, rebuilding and contending are not mutually exclusive. And you can't convince me that Rick Hahn is allowed by Jerry Reinsdorf and Kenny Williams to make a plan going into a season that says -- "you know, we are going to ask our fans to back us, but we aren't really going to have a plan to compete this season, it's going to have to wait for another year or two." I just don't think the White Sox think that way.

[VAfan]

BTW -- why do you re-sign Paul Konerko if you don't think he can help you compete in 2014?

[LDF]

BTW -- why do you re-sign Paul Konerko if you don't think he can help you compete in 2014?

 

I will bet even money it was for 2 reason. 1 so the sox can give the fan fare they hoped that other team

will do as they did for jeter. that did not work. 2 the unknown factor >>> Jose A manning 1 b.