FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. We’re fairly numbers savvy here, so if you don’t like the linearity of rankings, add a point system with a higher number, so that, say, Pittsburgh can be 12/100 and the White Sox can be 25/100, even if there are no teams between them.

    Comment by Byron — March 18, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

  2. Not a bad idea. Perhaps we’ll implement something like that next year.

    Comment by Dave Cameron — March 18, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

  3. Pretty accurate. For the future, Danks, Flowers and Viciedo all have to succeed in order for the offense to be acceptable. That will still leave some holes to fill – especially since Viciedo and Flowers can’t both play 1B. Hopefully, the recent reviews of Flowers behind the plate are accurate and he can stick there. Viciedo at 3B looks like a fantasy at this point. So with those three guys, Quentin, Beckham, Ramirez and Rios (assuming they are all healthy and good) you only need a 3B and some bench players. But boy, that’s a lot of “if’s.” Being wrong at LF, RF, 1B or DH is OK, not hard to fill that hole. Being wrong at several of them could cause problems and is entirely possible.

    The pitching looks OK for the near future and it had better be.

    Comment by MikeS — March 18, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

  4. Interestingly Dave,
    Do you regret your process on Rios? You took a very decisive (and contrarian) stance that he was absolutely worth the contract.

    From my perspective the sox are already out 2 million, and returned significant negative equity to date. With the further collapse in prices in Wins above replacement, this contract is looking really bad, and while it’s not to say that 2 months isn’t a small sample (it is), but for this contract to work out to fair value there will need to be some major outperformance, especially as the season where the whitesox needed him most (2009!) he delivered the least.

    Comment by TheUnrepentantGunner — March 18, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

  5. CHONE projects Rios as a +2 win player in 2010. Even in this market, that’s worth ~$8 million per year. I disagree that the contract looks “really bad”. At this point, he’s slightly overpaid, and if he returns to prior form, he could be a bargain.

    I still support Williams’ decision to claim Rios. It was a worthwhile gamble.

    Comment by Dave Cameron — March 18, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

  6. Seems like a complicated answer to a simple(ish) problem. Why don’t you just tier the rankings around obvious gaps, like between the White Sox and Pirates. Call the bottom group the Contest Division or something like that.

    Comment by Cosmo — March 18, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  7. This is gonna be way off. Makes zero sense but hey, keep doing what your doing. Love the site. This is just wrong though as far as ranking goes.

    Comment by Matt — March 18, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

  8. Brilliant analysis.

    Comment by Jr. — March 18, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

  9. Can you bring back the review from last year too? I recall last year’s articles at the tops had rankings for the previous, e.g. the 24th team had links to 25,26,27,28,29,30…can you guys bring that back? I’m too lazy to flip through the previous pages.

    Comment by Omar — March 18, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

  10. I’m not sure which way to go here…

    Dave posits his position and explains how he reached his conclusion and brings up facts about contract status and payroll while all discussing expect performance levels of the players.

    Matt says Dave makes zero sense.

    I’m tempted to go with Matt here based solely on the strength of his arguments but I’d like to know how Matt has done in the past with his baseless claims. Does anyone have Matt’s CARC numbers (Comments Above Replacement Commenter) for the past three years?

    Comment by TerryMc — March 18, 2010 @ 10:02 pm

  11. I regret getting down on a level of name calling, for that I’m sorry. I’m not excusing anybody’s behavior, but next time I’ll just do what I always do and just ignore the insults. I don’t get it, but whatever…

    Comment by erik — March 18, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

  12. Trust me, my friend. The fact is that this is so off I don’t even have to analyze it or “show my work”. The White Sox are consistently underrated and just as consistently exceed expectations. Not saying the stuff he wrote was wrong, Dave makes valid points. It’s the number and the equations that led to that number that are flawed.

    Comment by Matt — March 19, 2010 @ 1:29 am

  13. And for the love of all things holy get a better sense of humor.

    Comment by Matt — March 19, 2010 @ 1:30 am

  14. I feel like Kenny Williams is a league average GM. He had a career year in 05, was really clutch when we needed it in 08.. some obvious strengths, some obvious weaknesses.. but looking forward, you expect him to do a good enough job to bat 5th or 6th and provide average defense in a corner position.. I feel like he is capable of keeping the White Sox mostly in the 85 win range, where they seem good but aren’t great. Thus he’ll keep his job and we won’t see what an elite GM would do with the club and budget. But hey, there’s value in league average. And part of me is always sure this is the year he breaks out. He swings out of the zone a lot, but he’ll hit his share of home runs.

    Comment by Newcomer — March 19, 2010 @ 2:22 am

  15. Mohs Scale of Organizations is fine with me. If you implement a scoring system of points/100 or something similar, then you’d need to explain how those numbers were derived, including the 100. Seems like too much work for a piece like this. Your explanation in the article addressing the gap is adequate.

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — March 19, 2010 @ 10:18 am

  16. Personally I think its ridiculous to have the White Sox this low but I do understand the nature of such lists. To Matt’s point above the White Sox are consistently underrated and I disagree with the statement about a lack of bargains on the roster. Arb eligible players certainly count towards that goal and having player like Danks and Quentin in addition to the contracts of Alexei and Floyd certainly make it possible to afford the likes of a Peavy.

    I’d guess an evaulation of these type of lists in the past decade and the White Sox actual performance is in stark contrast. Hell it wasn’t long ago (2007) how I read consistently they wouldn’t compete again for the foreseeable future and they won the division in 08. I suspect all these middle of the road projections will reach a similar fate.

    Comment by Terry — March 19, 2010 @ 10:20 am

  17. My idea was to state clearly that the numbers were in no way scientifically derived, they were just there to demonstrate how close together or far apart teams are.

    Comment by Byron — March 19, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

3.540 Powered by WordPress