The White Sox thread

xpost yeah my friends would say how boring soccer is, and I think that's being narrow-minded and equating scoring with excitement. Americans want results!

MERCY.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=cws&ym=200506

it's nice to be on the good end of AJP's bat after years of despising him and his Sox-killing ways. between last night and Thursday's win over the D-Backs, it's been a helluva week. the Flubs getting flat-out embarassed over three games in the Bronx is just the icing on the cake.

hey, also, check your email BBT...

When you include pitchers, Podsednik is 13th on the *team* in VORP, behind Neal Cotts. Rickey he's not.

does that make sense?

VORP should take SBs into account, btw. (but 38/47 /= 11/14!!!!! there's a big cumulative effect there.)

One idea that occured to me is that if a SABR formula could factor SBs into SLG (ie, bases per AB), that may add a proper contextual weighting adjustment. Then again, I just ate lunch and am a little lightheaded from climbing the 10 flights of stairs just now.

it's strange to think that if Podsednik wasn't a SB threat at all, but he had an additional 29 "bases" because of extra base hits (bases that would be taken into account via slugging %), his OBPS would be higher and he wouldn't be called overrated, really.

but RBI are just a counting stat anyway!! xpost

>(but 38/47 /= 11/14!!!!! there's a big cumulative effect there)

Barry B can clarify this one, but as far as I understand the concept, no. The principle being that the 6 extra CS hurt the Sox about as much as the 27 extra SB help them (depending on the specific situations).

2005
38 SB - 9 CS = net 29 SB
BA .287
OBP .363
SLG .336
OPS .699

2005 Adjusted Slugging
AB 244
H+ netSB = 70 + 29 = 99
2B = 12*2 = 24
3B = 0
HR = 0

Adjusted Slugging:
Adjusted Total Bases = 123 / 244 AB = .504

Adjusted stats:
BA .287
OBP .363
adjSLG .504
adjOPS .867

'Gax I think you are still lightheaded, cuz a guy's SBs don't advance guys ahead of him on the bases, just himself. I see what you're trying to do, but it's still overrating the running game, I think.

I thought a quick & dirty way to calc this stuff is to count a CS as -2 SB, or more? & break even stealing percentage = 70%, right? For Pod's SB success to truly mitigate his Woemackian lack of powah, he'd probably have to be around 92%*, and run A LOT.

*percentage courtesy of my ass

morbius, that's completely counter-intuitive . podsednik steals at an excellent clip (80%). well above the break-even point. the more bases you steal above the 70% (or whatever) mark, the more you're helping your team. what you seem to be suggesting is that no one should ever steal unless they never get caught.

gear - vorp & eqa both take SBs into account. they don't evaluate each one individually, although i think it would be interesting if someone did develop a system that leveraged every hit, out, stolen base, etc over the course of a season.

Situation-neutral calculations have shown that the cost of a CS is about twice the benefit of a SB. Basically, giving up the out is twice as bad as the benefit gained by stealing the base.

38/47 translates to 38*1 - 9*2 = 20 "bases"
11/14 is 11*1 - 3*2 = 5 "bases"

So, Podsednik still comes out on top. However, the numbers wouldn't have to be tweaked too much for them to even out ... for instance, 37/49 and 15/17 are more or less even, and if Podsednik was 37/49 instead of 38/47, then most of his boosters would be singing the same song.

The real problem with somebody like Pods is that his OBP is too low to give much credence to the supposed benefit of stealing all of those bases. It was the same thing with Tony Womack when he played for Arizona, people claimed that he was "energizing the lineup" with a .300 OBP, which is BS. The "he's getting into scoring position" argument is weak when you're the leadoff guy and you're only scoring 80 - 85 runs in a year.

In fact, if you look at Womack's career numbers (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/womacto01.shtml), his runs scored are completely uncorrelated with his SB's (despite very good SB %ages every year), and are strongly correlated with his OBP.

I guess the numbers crunched re: the chances of scoring runs based on baserunners & outs show that the gains in production from a running moving one base on a steal aren't worth downside of possibly losing that runner, unless absolutely necessary (cf. bottom of the 9th / extra inning type of situations).

[xpost]

Actually, Pod's OBP this year's a respectable (tho probably not lead-off worthy) .360, isn't it?

xpost

i don't see how anyone can conclude that! a beltran/podsednik type shd clearly be given the green light just about always, since the averages will almost always work in your favor in the end. the #'s clearly state that anything above the magic % is adding runs. er don't they?

John, how'd I dispute the basic break-even view? Except I think it's closer to 75% -- that's when you START helping your team. In other words even a GOOD clip like Podsednik's, or an EXCELLENT one like Carlos Beltran's career rate, doesn't help AS MUCH as the MSM would like us to think. If you wanna be an offensive force, start bangin'! As DR said, gimme a leadoff/on-base guy with some pop like prime Rickey, or Damon.

There's a quote in the Alan Schwarz book which has the nascent Bill James muttering over one of Rickey's flashier SB years (before his pct rose), "Four extra runs a year and they wanna make him the MVP."

Yes, .363 is good (still only 51st in MLB), but you're right in that his complete lack of power is an equally big whammy in this case -- considering OPS instead (as with Womack as per my comment above) is more telling.