Youk to White Sox

[DwightFright]

Many projected that Youk would head to Chicago with a 'prove it ' attitude. Sure, for now he has a fire in his belly and can focus better in the absence of the Red Sox soap opera. A few pundits think this is the time to blow up the Sox, and they should be sellers at the TD. Youk was just a prelude to the whooosh sound we should soon witness.

[Bellhorn04]

Many projected that Youk would head to Chicago with a 'prove it ' attitude. Sure' date=' for now he has a fire in his belly and can focus better in the absence of the Red Sox soap opera. A few pundits think this is the time to blow up the Sox, and they should be sellers at the TD. Youk was just a prelude to the whooosh sound we should soon witness.[/quote']

 

'Sellers at the break' sounds good, but what do we have to sell now that will bring back a net gain for us?

[iortiz]

Seems like Youk was not comfortable in Boston anymore. The Fresh air of Chicago has helped him.

 

Apparently, He is finally healthy. What pisses me off is that we waited a lot time to get his ass healthy and now that he seems to be healthy, we traded.

[FredLynn]

'Sellers at the break' sounds good' date=' but what do we have to sell now that will bring back a net gain for us?[/quote']

 

Ellsbury, for one. I would try to trade Ortiz and Beckett, realizing that we will not get equal value in terms of talent. That would be balanced by ridding ourselves of their infectious bad attitudes. Maybe someone would give us a return for DiceK or Cook or Germano. There are always teams looking for SP. If we collect enough SP prospects then some of them may pan out.

[DwightFright]

'Sellers at the break' sounds good' date=' but what do we have to sell now that will bring back a net gain for us?[/quote']

 

The Sox success in the previous decade was fashioned on Billy Beane's sabermetrics model. Now Billy is back at it again, dumping vets and accumulating prospects and newcomers via trades to field a surprisingly competitive team now when he was only intending to build for the future. The Sox should build a team that meshes rather than a bunch of entitled egos living off past success. Dump the egos and bring in prospects and overlooked young, second-tier players. Sox fans have to be patient and appreciate healthy, developing players over declining or off-injured personnel. Sox baseball needs to be fun again. The problem with the Sox, however, is as much in the FO as it is on the field. It remains questionable whether the FO is on the same page for a rebuild vs. grasping at maintaining previous success. Where are egos causing the biggest problem...

[a700hitter]

The Sox success in the previous decade was fashioned on Billy Beane's sabermetrics model. Now Billy is back at it again' date=' dumping vets and accumulating prospects and newcomers via trades to field a surprisingly competitive team now when he was only intending to build for the future. The Sox should build a team that meshes rather than a bunch of entitled egos living off past success. Dump the egos and bring in prospects and overlooked young, second-tier players. Sox fans have to be patient and appreciate healthy, developing players over declining or off-injured personnel. Sox baseball needs to be fun again. The problem with the Sox, however, is as much in the FO as it is on the field. It remains questionable whether the FO is on the same page for a rebuild vs. grasping at maintaining previous success. Where are egos causing the biggest problem...[/quote']Billy Beane's model doesn't work. He had success early on due to a lights out pitching staff that included Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Zito. They had nothing to do with a sabremetrics or moneyball approach. They were the result of good scouting. When those guys were gone so was Billy Beane's success. In 2010 he rehired the scout that he had fired in 2002 over a dispute about the sabrementric approach. I guess Billy finally decided that good scouting is the key.

[jacksonianmarch]

Billy Beane's model doesn't work. He had success early on due to a lights out pitching staff that included Tim Hudson' date=' Mark Mulder, and Zito. They had nothing to do with a sabremetrics or moneyball approach. They were the result of good scouting. When those guys were gone so was Billy Beane's success. In 2010 he rehired the scout that he had fired in 2002 over a dispute about the sabrementric approach. I guess Billy finally decided that good scouting is the key.[/quote']

 

Moneyball does work. The problem is, once his method was found, other teams started valuing what he was valuing and players who were under the radar werent under the radar anymore. Hence, guys with low AVGs but high OBP's were paid a better market value

[a700hitter]

Moneyball does work. The problem is' date=' once his method was found, other teams started valuing what he was valuing and players who were under the radar werent under the radar anymore. Hence, guys with low AVGs but high OBP's were paid a better market value[/quote']He didn't invent this method. Before computer printouts and spray charts and whatever, Casey Stengel and the yankees employed a platoon system that pissed off a lot of their players. They realized that the platoon system lefty/right produced more baserunners and more runs. My Dad taught me the value of OBP in evaluating a player long before Beane was a busted first round pick. It was no great mystery. It's easy to replicate. Scouting and pitching is what makes the difference, and scouting is labor intensive thus giving the advantage to the bigger budget teams.

[jacksonianmarch]

Scouting gives you data. The stats give you data as well. You need to have good scouting and good statistical analysis to find players under the radar. Theo had that with Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, etc.

[a700hitter]

Scouting gives you data. The stats give you data as well. You need to have good scouting and good statistical analysis to find players under the radar. Theo had that with Ortiz' date=' Mueller, Millar, etc.[/quote']Theo signed Ortiz, because Pedro called him from a cafe and told him to sign the guy right after Ortiz walked into the place and told Pedro that he'd been cut. There was no sabremetric analysis going on. We were just lucky that Pedro was the first one to find out about Ortiz and he called Theo. He fell into our laps.

[wyo-sox]

Theo signed Ortiz' date=' because Pedro called him from a cafe and told him to sign the guy right after Ortiz walked into the place and told Pedro that he'd been cut. There was no sabremetric analysis going on. We were just lucky that Pedro was the first one to find out about Ortiz and he called Theo. He fell into our laps.[/quote']

 

My understanding was the only way he even got are bats early with Boston was that Pedro demanded Ortiz play when he pitched.

[a700hitter]

My understanding was the only way he even got are bats early with Boston was that Pedro demanded Ortiz play when he pitched.

They were playing Jeremy Giambi ahead of him.

[Brennan]

'Sellers at the break' sounds good' date=' but what do we have to sell now that will bring back a net gain for us?[/quote']

 

 

Anything they will buy at this point.

[SCM33]

They were playing Jeremy Giambi ahead of him.

 

....Millar and Hillenbrand too.

[jacksonianmarch]

.310/.370/.476 in 11 games with CWS

[SoxSport]

Youks another HR today to beat Toronto. He's making Ben & co look very bad.

 

Shame on Henry for selling low. He should know better.

[SoxSport]

Youks got a bad deal in Boston. Changed positions twice. 3B to 1B to 3B. Took a lot of crap from the media and his manager.Squeezed out of two positions. Too bad. He was one of the hustlers on the team with Pedey. My guess is he was pressing in Boston coming back from injury. It doesn't take much to throw a guy--or even a team--off mentally.

 

The worst part of it is they gave him away--by an owner who makes a living selling high and buying low.

[a700hitter]

....Millar and Hillenbrand too.

 

I forgot that we still have Hillenbrand in the beginning of 2003.

[Lionbush]

Moneyball does work. The problem is' date=' once his method was found, other teams started valuing what he was valuing and players who were under the radar werent under the radar anymore. Hence, guys with low AVGs but high OBP's were paid a better market value[/quote']

 

This, bang on.

[SoxSport]

On this moneyball stuff, sure high OBP is important. But it's really all about pitching. And defense is an important part of pitching. Just look at the standings vs team stats. The moneyball ideologues in baseball often forget about other aspects of the game.

[SemperFi Sox]

everyone thrives once they leave this s*** hole, we're like the opposite of the Patriots.

[Lionbush]

On this moneyball stuff' date=' sure high OBP is important. But it's really all about pitching. And defense is an important part of pitching. Just look at the standings vs team stats. The moneyball ideologues in baseball often forget about other aspects of the game.[/quote']

 

It wasn't just about that, it was about objective analysis vs subjective analysis. It also placed value on stats such as OBS much more than the stats such as batting average which were traditionally used as a barometer of successful play.

 

The Maths behind it all is sound. The formulas and correlation of such formulas to what makes a winning team is also sound.

[Emmz]

everyone thrives once they leave this s*** hole' date=' we're like the opposite of the Patriots.[/quote']

 

You started watching in 2005, didn't you?

[Emmz]

On this moneyball stuff' date=' sure high OBP is important. But it's really all about pitching. And defense is an important part of pitching. Just look at the standings vs team stats. The moneyball ideologues in baseball often forget about other aspects of the game.[/quote']

 

This is just flat out wrong. Run differential is not a one-way street. If you have the best pitching, you still won't win s*** if your offense can't score 3 runs or more consistently.

[FredLynn]

This is just flat out wrong. Run differential is not a one-way street. If you have the best pitching' date=' you still won't win s*** if your offense can't score 3 runs or more consistently.[/quote']

 

It IS mostly about pitching, winning rings that is. There is no team in baseball since at least the year 2000 that has not scored on average more than three runs per game. By far the worst team in terms of runs scored was the 2010 Mariners who scored just 513 runs all season. That works out to 3.16 runs per game. The vast majority of teams score many more than that. Yes, you need both offense and pitching, but of the two, pitching is the more important factor because, as the saying goes, "Good pitching shuts beats good hitting"..or something like that. We have seen it happen to the Red Sox many times this year where good pitching shuts our good offense down. We must be able to match that kind of pitching. Its hard to find that kind of pitching and relatively easier to find competent offensive players. Thats why our focus must be on locating, acquiring, and retaining great pitchers.

[Emmz]

That means they scored 0-2 a bunch of times, and came up short even when they scored 4-5 a lot.

 

What about the Phillies, 3 legit aces, no title. What about the Rays, constantly an elite run-prevention team, and no titles.

 

All of those A's and Twins teams with good pitching? How many titles they got? How about the Braves in the 90s?

 

Absolutely incorrect, this isn't even a matter of subjectivity. You are incorrect.

[Bellhorn04]

That means they scored 0-2 a bunch of times, and came up short even when they scored 4-5 a lot.

 

What about the Phillies, 3 legit aces, no title. What about the Rays, constantly an elite run-prevention team, and no titles.

 

All of those A's and Twins teams with good pitching? How many titles they got? How about the Braves in the 90s?

 

Absolutely incorrect, this isn't even a matter of subjectivity. You are incorrect.

 

Emmz, if you want a classic recent example of what you're talking about, the 2008 Blue Jays led the AL in ERA, by a good margin in fact - 3.49 to the Rays 3.82.

 

They finished 4th in their division.

 

Run differential is always the biggest correlator to W-L record.

[redsoxbeatz]

Kevin Youkilis with the Red Sox: .233/.315/.377, four homers in 42 games.

 

Kevin Youkilis with the White Sox: .347/.418/.571, three homers in 12 games.

[Guest]

That means they scored 0-2 a bunch of times, and came up short even when they scored 4-5 a lot.

 

What about the Phillies, 3 legit aces, no title. What about the Rays, constantly an elite run-prevention team, and no titles.

 

All of those A's and Twins teams with good pitching? How many titles they got? How about the Braves in the 90s?

 

Absolutely incorrect, this isn't even a matter of subjectivity. You are incorrect.

 

Sorry Emmz. It IS correct. You do need some ability to score runs too, but at least decent pitching is essential. I am making the assumption that the goal is a ring, not just getting into the playoffs.

In the last 12 years teams ranked worse than fourth in their league in ERA won the WS four times. Teams that were ranked worse than fourth in runs scored won the WS six times. The average rank for pitching for eventual WS winners in the last 12 years is 4.08; the average rank for eventual WS winners in runs scored in their league is 5.08.

More evidence: look at the Red Sox level of success in the playoffs (when they made them) and their relative ranking in pitching ERA in the AL:

 

2011: no playoffs, rank: 9th. First in runs scored.

2010: no playoffs, rank: 9th. Second in runs scored.

2009: lost 3-0 in ALDS, rank:7th. Third in runs scored.

2008: lost in the ALCS 4-3, rank: 4th. Second in runs scored.

2007: won the WS, rank: 1st. Third in runs scored.

2006: no playoffs, rank: 11th. Sixth in runs scored.

2005: lost ALDS 3-0, rank: 11th. First in runs scored.

2004: won WS, rank: 4th. First in runs score.

 

In each case when we had some success, we were ranked at least fourth in AL ERA. Even the 08 loss represented somewhat of a successful year as we nearly made it to the WS again, losing the deciding game by a close 3-1 score.

There is plenty of evidence that good pitching is more important than good hitting when it comes to winning rings. Not that you can have one exclusively, as Bellhorn showed with his example of the Jays having great pitching and getting nowhere. But of the two facets of the game, pitching IS more important.

Of note: in the last two full seasons we ranked 9th both times. This year we rank 10th in ERA and second in runs scored in the AL. In the past 12 years, maybe longer (thats as far out as I looked at), only one team, the 2006 Cards, won a WS ranked 9th or worse in ERA in their league during the regular season. That does not bode well for this team unless we can markedly improve our pitching. We already hit the baseball and score runs, but without good pitching, there will be no rings.

[Emmz]

You're not accounting for the importance of runs at all with your system. I've made my point.