Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Chicago White Sox Top 20 Prospects for 2008

Jeri_avatar_tiny by mssickels on in News

John just sent me this to post "stat." So here it is.

Chicago White Sox Top 20 Prospects for 2008

All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change.

I was about to post this when word of the Oakland trade came through. As you can see, this trade guts the top levels of the White Sox system.

  1. Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+ (ranks second on Oakland list)
  2. Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (ranks third on Oakland list)
  3. Aaron Poreda, LHP, Grade B+
  4. Jack Egbert, RHP, Grade B-  (A major sleeper)
  5. Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop. Ranks 12th on Oakland list)
  6. Lance Broadway, RHP, Grade C+
  7. Nevin Griffith, RHP, Grade C+ (great ceiling, needs polish)
  8. John Ely, RHP, Grade C+
  9. Kyle McCulloch, RHP, Grade C+
  10. Charlie Haeger, RHP, Grade C+
  11. John Shelby, 2B, Grade C+
  12. Jimmy Gallagher, OF, Grade C+
  13. Jose Martinez, OF, Grade C+
  14. Fernando Hernandez, RHP, Grade C+
  15. Oneli Perez, RHP, Grade C+
  16. Brian Omogrosso, RHP, Grade C+
  17. Ehren Wasserman, RHP, Grade C (solid role pitcher)
  18. Christian Marrero, 1B, Grade C
  19. Clayton Richard, LHP, Grade C
  20. Leroy Hunt, RHP, Grade C
Other Grade C guys include Dewon Day, Lydon Estill, Maurice Gartrell, Archie Gilbert, Francisco Hernandez, Nathan Jones, Johnnie Lowe, Donny Lucy, Sergio Miranda, Heath Phillips, Adam Russell, Salvador Sanchez, Micah Schnurstein, and Kaneoka Texeira.

Basically the Sox took a mediocre farm system and lopped the three of the top five players off the list with one trade. There isn't much depth, and position players are especially weak.

Again, don't get all pissy about exact placement on this list. The grades are more important than someone being ranked 15th instead of 13th.

Of course, full statistics and reports on over 1,000 other players will be in the 2008 Baseball Prospect Book, now available for pre-order. Ships the first Monday in February!

0 recs | Comment 67 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Chi-Sox..
A guy who really intrigues me is Salvador Sanchez. I also like Nick Marin and some sites have him in the top 10. This sytem took a huge hit with todays Swisher deal..but some interesting young guys

by NYSOX on Jan 3, 2008 3:19 PM EST   0 recs

i think you;re sleeping on clayton richard
white sox organization depth report is available at the link in my signature.
ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (gio, fautino, and el nino)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 3, 2008 3:19 PM EST   0 recs

Alexei Ramirez
Anyone care to comment on Alexei Ramirez and where he would fit?  He's a bit older than most prospects but he might be the number one guy in this system after the trade.

by ncassman on Jan 3, 2008 3:39 PM EST   0 recs

Fernando Hernandez...
Wasn't he taken in the Rule 5? Or was that someone else?
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jan 3, 2008 4:32 PM EST   0 recs

correct, the A's took fernando
kenny decided to protect donny lucy, cole armstrong, and carlos vasquez...

oh, heath phillips was DFA'd

southsidesox.com

by The Wizard on Jan 3, 2008 4:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

You spoke too soon...
1,2 & 5 are now A's

Gio, Sweeney and De Los Santos for Nick Swisher.

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Jan 3, 2008 4:48 PM EST   0 recs

my bad...
Didn't see John's note, that he already knew, but was leaving it as is.
If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Jan 3, 2008 4:49 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

WOW
What a great trade for Kenny.  For an All Star caliber CF, all he had to give up was one blue chip SP, a 4th OF and an A ball pitcher who's exceedingly overrated.  With Swisher (who could hit 40-45 HRs in the Cell), Dye, Konerko & Crede (if healthy), they have a lineup that rivals the top 4 teams in the AL.  This naturally eviscerates their farm system though, but if they surprise us all and make a run for the Series, it just might be worth it.  Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 3, 2008 5:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Wait
The White Sox got an all star CFer in addition to Nick Swisher(a corner OFer and 1B)?? That WAS a good deal!

Seriously, this was a bad trade for Kenny Williams. Gio is MLB ready and could have really helped them. Fautino looks incredible. I wouldnt have traded him for anything.

by alskor on Jan 4, 2008 1:18 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Nah
I would.  In a heartbeat.  I seriously think Fautino has been incredibly overrated here, especially in that other thread.  I remember all the bitching and moaning up on the North Side when we traded Hee Seop Choi & others for Derrick Lee.  In my mind, this is a similar deal.  You've gotten one proven commodity for 3 huge question marks.  You all think it's a given that Fautino will even make the Major Leagues when that's far from the truth.  My god, he only has 24 IP at the high A level and you guys are ready to anoint him the 2010 Cy Young winner.  Personally, I think Gio is by far the best prospect in the deal.  Much longer track record and had alot of success at the AA level which is the real proving ground.  Oh well, I know I'm in the minority with this but it'll be that much sweeter when I'm proven right in 5 years.  :)  Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 4, 2008 11:25 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

pissy
i'm all pissy!  these rankings suck!

chris marrero was awesome last year, how can you give him a C

by wily mo on Jan 3, 2008 4:55 PM EST   0 recs

Nevin Griffith
I like him as a sleeper for this year but maybe a breakout in 2009. What is everyones thoughts on him?

by FishHead on Jan 3, 2008 4:56 PM EST   0 recs

nice upside
potential #2 I think. Has decent low 90's heat, a nice slider and change-up but he relies on his fastball a little too much. Sometimes he will try to overthrow it and ends up rushing, getting off balance and losing accuracy. Once that stuff gets corrected he could get to mid 90s I believe. His stuff is fairly typical of most HS stud pitchers here in Fl. I wish some of these coaches would make kids use their offspeed stuff more but most don't.

One thing that is not "typical" of him is his terrific mound presence. He's way ahead of most players his age there, just great poise. Watching his face & the way he plays you wouldn't know if he was ahead 10 runs or down 10 runs. He just needs to throw his curve & c-up more, get some confidence in them. They're not bad pitches now, he just doesn't use when he should or as often. He's big 6'2 and closing in on 200 lbs, so nice projectable frame. I'm kind of a homer on most cen. Fl. kids but my prejudices aside there really is a lot to like with him. The WhiteSox seem to do a good job developing young pitchers as well, so another good sign.

Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.

by dew on Jan 3, 2008 5:47 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Geez
The knuckleballers never get any love.

by KCSlayer on Jan 3, 2008 7:41 PM EST   0 recs

question
Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+ (ranks second on Oakland list)
Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (ranks third on Oakland list)
Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Grade B+
Daric Barton, 1B, Grade B+

so you'd slot both gio and FDLS ahead of barton? really?

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 11:48 PM EST   0 recs

Pillaged
Wow, this definitely hurts the ChiSox from 2010 and beyond.  Apparently with Dye, Thome and their aging pitching staff, KW feels he is in a win-now mode.

I am also curious if this has anything to do with the talent that KC, Cleveland and Minnesota are assembling?  Either way, the AL has further separated itself from the NL.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 4, 2008 2:13 AM EST   0 recs

What?
The A's play in the AL, you know. This was an intraleague trade.

It doesn't even increase the number of contending teams, as it turns one fringe contender into a nonfactor and one nonfactor into a fringe contender.

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 2:47 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I Understand
But the A's were already looking like a poor team entering this season (they finished 10 games out of last place and had dropped their #1 starter).  The team also didn't have a whole lot of promise -that is, the lineup is not stocked with young talent with whom one could expect to improve their game, such as with the Rays, Royals and Rangers.

So what this trade did is more a team like the ChiSox -whom were devastated with MAJOR injuries and disappointments- from MUCH MORE then a fringe contender to arguably one of the top 7 teams in baseball.  Its funny how quickly people forget that the White Sox, with essentially the same team, made the World Series in 2005 and posted 90 wins in 2006.

I believe the White Sox before the draft entered the 2008 season as the obvious choice for a rebound, the trade of Swisher only further enhances this.  As is, I would take the ChiSox team, top to bottom over the Tigers in the Central.  Even as an Indians fan, I can't see how they can compete with Chicago or Detroit unless both teams are again bitten with the injury bug.

So what this trade REALLY did, was turn a fringe contender like the White Sox into a serious threat.  And a terrible team like the Athletics into a...Terrible team. LOGIC

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 4, 2008 12:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm sorry
but if you think a team like the '07 White Sox had even the remotest chance of contending, there's not much I can say. PECOTA predicted the team to win 72 games last season-- and, voila, sure enough that's pretty much exactly how many they won.

As for the Tigers comparison... wow. Don't make me fall off my chair laughing.

Platoon/Quentin-- White Sox
Granderson/Swisher-- Tigers
Mags/Dye-- Tigers
Cabrera/Fields-- Tigers
Renteria/Cabrera-- Wash
Polanco/god knows who-- Tigers
Guillen/Konerko-- Tigers
Rodriguez/Pierzynski-- Tigers
Sheffield/Thome-- White Sox

Buerhle/Verlander-- Tigers
Vazquez/Bonderman-- White Sox
Contreras/Rogers-- Tigers
Danks/Willis-- Wash
Floyd/Robertson-- Tigers

Jenks/whoever-- White Sox
Rest of 'pens-- Tigers

Ladies and gents, that's a blowout.

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 2:18 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Thats Laughable!
I GUARANTEE that had you made that list entering 2007 you would have flipped more then half of the comps.

Lets go over your, "I've jumped the bandwagon" comparisons:
First, no way entering 2007 would you have placed Ordonez as a more valuable player then Dye.
Second, Renteria v. Cabrera?  Maybe you are forgetting, but Edgar was an epic flop in the American League.
Third, Guillen over Konerko?  Again, another issue of short sighted memory.  Guillen is undoubtedly a valuable short stop, but 20 odd HRs from a first basemen is well below league average.
Forth, Granderson is far from a sure thing.  Hes the better fielder, but overall, hes the lesser hitter.  Unless of course he has a massively lucky season.
Fifth, Pudge over Pierzynski?  I'd say that is a wash at best.  Hes taken significant steps backward in fielding, and his bat has been on par with AJs the last 3 seasons.

Overall, you clearly have blinders on and have forgotten how good of players Konerko and Dye are.  No one in their right mind would rate Guillen as a better 1B then Konerko, and when you consider regression to the mean, Magglio and Granderson are both in for something scary!

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 4, 2008 3:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

i think
i lost IQ points reading that post.

by nms on Jan 4, 2008 4:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Explanation...
It must have been because I actually explained things, people on this site seem more content with blind opinions then facts and reason.
The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 4, 2008 5:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

you just say things
without any backing.."No one in their right mind would rate Guillen as a better 1B then Konerko, and when you consider regression to the mean, Magglio and Granderson are both in for something scary!"

Guillen has been a better hitter than Konerko in 4 out of the last 5 years.  And you have no idea what regression to the mean is if you think it means Mags and Granderson are inline for "something scary".  Regresion to the mean does not mean a guy goes from an all-star to a crap hitter.

Ordonez has a carer OPS+ of 129 and has been an above average player every year of his career since his rookie year of '98.
Granderson meanwhile is 26 and has been an above-average to great player every year he has been in the league.

Is it unlikely that both will put in MVP caliber seasons again?  Suuure.  But how in the hell do you project "something scary" to happen to them.

That isn't how regression TOWARD (not "to", theres a significant difference in meaning) works.  It doesn't mean you suck the year after you are great

by nms on Jan 4, 2008 6:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

"Something Scary"
Ordonez
Magglio's career EQA prior to 2007 was under .290.  In 2007 he hit .336.  Thats nearly a 50 point increase.  To put this into perspective, that would be like Albert Pujols going from his the year he had in 2003, to the year he had in 2002.  Yes, a 45 point drop in average and OBP and a 50 point drop in ISO.  However, unlike Magglio, Pujols had something working in his favor, the fact that he was yet to reach his prime.  Magglio, on the other hand, has reached and passed his prime.  Thus, I am personally expecting Maggs to post a line worse then his career averages.

Granderson
Another player who saw a massive jump in EQA however mostly unexplainable.  The guy can't tell a ball from a strike.  You take away 30 points in BABIP (this is even being generous) and Bill James is taking away 30 points in ISO and we have a much lesser season.  Is it still a solid one?  Yes, especially for one with such a lethal glove.

So I never once said either player will suck.  I simply stated that they would have lesser seasons then their counterparts on the South Side.  With Swisher's move to a vastly improved ballpark, with a vastly superior lineup, he will out slug and reach base more often then Granderson.  I anticipate Dye to return to form and for Magglio to also 'return to form'.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 1:29 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Regressing to the Mean
While you're regressing guys toward the mean, you might want to take a look into Javier Vazquez. Also, how do you figure the Sox are going to replace Garland without having Gonzalez and Fautino as options?

That guy above was too kind on the starting rotation. Here's how I see it;

Buerhle/Verlander-- Tigers-beating
Vazquez/Bonderman-- Tigers
Contreras/Willis-- Tigers-violent violent beating
Danks/Rogers-- Tigers-beating
Floyd/Robertson-- Tigers-violent violent violent violent beating

by rwperu34 on Jan 5, 2008 1:46 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Error...
You should use numbers in your comparisons.

Buehrle v. Verlander - Verlander by a hair, having a superior NRA by 13 points.  Although, without Buehrle's 2006 season, in which he was 100 points above his career average and 50 points above his previous career high, I'm certain we can safely call this a wash.  He may not be as flashy as Verlander, but he is just as effective, all things being equal.

Vazquez v. Bonderman - Actually, statistically it is Vazquez.  Even if you think about regression to the mean.  Vazquez's career NRA is 4.27 (4.00 2 year average in Chicago-we've all heard the much publicized media issues Vazquez endured in NY).  Bonderman's career NRA is 4.81.

Overall, if one were to choose a top two, they would have to go with Chicago's.

Contreras v. Willis - Willis wins out here, although theres reason to believe it will be VERY close, 4.19 v. 4.57.  We'll see how Willis adapts to pitching in games that matter in front of people.

The rest of the rotation is obviously in Detroits favor.  I disagree that Floyd v. Robertson is a "violent violent violent violent beating".  Last year Floyd posted a 5.11 NRA whereas Robertson posted a 4.59.  If 52 points in NRA is a "violent violent violent violent beating" out of the #5 slot, where the league average ERA is 5.76.  Lets also remember, that in Floyd, the ChiSox have a 25 year old.  Its almost a given, with his track record that he will show signs of improvement, much the way you anticipate Willis, Bonderman and Verlander to.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 2:12 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Putting words in your mouth?
you said they were in-line for "something scary".  To me that means a bad year, I dunno about you.

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:44 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Bad Year
Going from an MVP candidate to not making the all star game...That my friend, is something scray.

Put it into perspective.  Take Albert Pujols, and have him put up a Paul Konerko season next year.  Still a strong season, but a terrible downgrade from what he did the year before...

Or, "something scary".

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 4:21 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

you call a guy
coming off the best year of his career "past his prime"?  Yes he is older than the "prime physical age" but many hitters improve in their early-mid 30s and it makes little logical sense to expect a guy to drop below his career averages after coming off of his best year.

"Another player who saw a massive jump in EQA however mostly unexplainable."

Mostly unexplainable?
It was his second full MLB year..its called GETTING BETTER.  You expect a guy to never improve from his first year or two?

"I simply stated that they would have lesser seasons then their counterparts on the South Side.  With Swisher's move to a vastly improved ballpark, with a vastly superior lineup, he will out slug and reach base more often then Granderson."

Once again explain to me how playing in a better hitters park makes you a better hitter.  THAT..MAKES..NO..SENSE.  Your stats will be better yes, but that doesn't make you a better hitter.  It makes you the same hitter playing in a better park.  Seriously, that is the most inane thing I have heard in some time.

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:48 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm Done...
Sorry, but the "Your stats will be better yes, but that doesn't make you a better hitter" line just set me over the edge.

If we are to not judge and grade a player based on their performance and statistics, then what are we to judge and grade them on?  The way they look?  How nice they are?  How hard they try?  COME ON!  When Swisher posts a vastly superior line to Granderson, I don't care how he got there, hes the one who will have had the better season.

Also, when did I even mention about being a 'better hitter'.  I simply stated 'he will out slug and reach base more often'.

Please read a persons comments thoroughly before commenting.  Otherwise, it makes a discussion very tiring.

Lastly, in terms of Granderson and Magglio's EQA, it was heavily influenced by the luck as I mentioned previously.  I'm not going to go back over it.  So expecting a decrease in stats (as Bill James does to an extreme degree) is logical.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 4:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

No I'm not done
you said his stats will be better BECAUSE OF HIS BALLPARK.  Putting up improved numbers because a guy moves to a friendly hitters park doesn't make him a better hitter.  Otherwise half the Rockies would be the best hitters in the league

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:58 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

His Stats
Will be better...
I don't care who the nicer looking hitter is, I care about the one who performs at a higher level.  That said, if Swisher posts a superior OB and Slugging percentage, there isn't a person who would argue that he had the better season, thus, the comp between the two would be in Swisher's favor.
The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 3:26 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Also...
The four year averages of Guillen v. Konerko in EQA is 291 v. 290 in favor of Guillen.  Thats a 1 point deviation.

I guess I just envision that the majority of teams would prefer a slugger at first base v. a Guillen type hitter-who in and of himself is an OUTSTANDING hitter, but his skill set is obviously better served at SS.

Back to Ordonez.  He does have a career OPS+ of 129.    Since his 30th birthday however, his OPS+ (excluding a Barry Bonds renaissance season) is at 113.  Again, not knocking him, I would just take Dye who should be around a 120 OPS+ guy.

Oh, and I think Dye is a good example of regression to the mean.  In 2006 he posted a monster season, far exceeding the talent and skills he possesses.  In 2007, to follow the law of averages, he dropped well below expectations.  That being said, A 110-115 OPS+ is probably where one can figure Maggs to sit this year, still, a solid season.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 2:00 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

how is his
offensive style better suited for first?   Players don't bring their fielding gloves to the plate.  Runs are runs.  If Guillen is producing comparable or better offense its not holding down your offensive attack, its not like he is a punch and judy guy either.  Also Konerko plays in a park the boosts homers, and Guillen plays in one that cuts them down..you ever think this MIGHT be a factor?

"Back to Ordonez.  He does have a career OPS+ of 129.    Since his 30th birthday however, his OPS+ (excluding a Barry Bonds renaissance season) is at 113.  Again, not knocking him, I would just take Dye who should be around a 120 OPS+ guy."

He was also coming off some huge knee injuries in 05 and 06.  In 2007, finally healthy, he flourished.  There are factors involved in players outside of their stat sheets.

"Oh, and I think Dye is a good example of regression to the mean.  In 2006 he posted a monster season, far exceeding the talent and skills he possesses.  In 2007, to follow the law of averages, he dropped well below expectations."

THATS SIMPLY NOT HOW THAT CONCEPT WORKS!
NOT AT ALL!
First, it is regression TOWARDS the mean, not TO.  That is a significant difference when you think about it...In any field, not just baseball stats.  You regress in the general direction of the mean but not necessarily right back down to it or below.
Second, a guy having a big year is NOT..AT...ALL more likely to have a poor one the next year just because he had a big year.  It happens sometimes, but having a great year does not make you MORE likely to have a poor one BELOW your usual standards.  You simply do not know what you are talking about when you say that.

Furthermore, like Mags, Dye is an injury case as well.  As a guy who has followed Dye since his ATL debut I would actually argue Dye's 2006 as good as his talent and skill suggest his "best year of career" should be.  The young, healthy Dye was a great athlete with some beautiful power, strong arm, and a smooth, graceful gait in the outfield with above-average speed.
But that really doesn't matter anyways.

Point being, Dye's poor 2007 has a lot more to do with injuries and age catching up to him than his previous statlines.

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:43 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

A Couple Things
But first, "You regress in the general direction of the mean but not necessarily right back down to it or below"

If you are going TOWARDS something are you not going TO it?  In the same sense, if you are going TO something are you not also going TOWARDS it?  That said, there is no need to nitpick grammar, I understand what regression 'towards' the mean is, and I also understand that if one says, 'regression TO the mean' they are inferring the same thing.  Save the grammar lesson for someone else.

Ordonez
Actually the major knee injury was in 2004, he rehabbed in 2005 and was 100% in 2006.  The reason why his numbers fell in 2005/06 was that he was hitting as a 32 year old with a career 880 OPS coming from a hitters park to a pitchers park.  In 2007, he was incredibly lucky.  He posted a career year by a wide margin!  He hadn't done anything even close to this, especially when you consider the park factors.  

In terms of luck factors, how is this:
BABIP: .385 - Previous career high .323, career average .315.
To suggest that the guy will not take a major step backwards, is to be blind to logic.  Again, as a .300 hitter he is still a quality OFer, well above league average, but as a .360 hitter he was an MVP candidate.

Dye
Save it, I don't care if you grew up with Dye.

The problem here is, you are missing out on the fact that the season Dye posted in 2006 was well beyond his skill set.  He was, like Magglio, very lucky in his career year.  His HR/FB jumped nearly 10% higher then his career average, and his BABIP jumped more then 30% from his career average.  These are facts, not some made up opinion.

With that in mind, he also followed that season up with a dud.  It had little to do with age as essentially all of his numbers remained the same.  K%, BB%, LD%, essentially, anything that matters when projecting a hitter.  The only major changes occurred in his GB/FB rate.  I'm not certain if this is to be a trend, I would suggest not as too many of his other indicators have remained the same.

Guillen v. Konerko
RC/G over the last 4 seasons:
Guillen - 6.79
Konerko - 6.76

Essentially a wash.  I'm still prepared to take Konerko here.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 3:37 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Nah
I very much doubt you had very many to start with.  Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 4, 2008 5:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

also
you base your entire "analysis" of Renteria on ONE year he had THREE YEARS AGO!

by nms on Jan 4, 2008 6:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

oh
and in that ONE YEAR you cherry picked of Rentaria's he still outhit Cabrera by a decent margin (who was also playing his first full year in the AL)

by nms on Jan 4, 2008 6:25 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Cabrera
Did he, or did he not adjust?  It is yet to be seen if Renteria will adjust, but lets also remember that Renteria has been in the NL since and will have to go over the learning process all over again.

Also, remind me why you are talking purely about 'hitting'?  In 2005 Cabrera posted a WARP of 3.5, Renteria a 1.6.  So in 2005 Renteria may have marginally 'outhit' Cabrera, but that just makes all the other contributions Cabrera provided that much more obvious.  That being said, any day of the week I take the marginally worse hitter if he is going to be that much more dominant of a fielder or base runner.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 1:34 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

"adjust"
uh, kind of?  He went from a below-average hitter to a fringe-average hitter.  Thats fine for shortstop, he just didn't really get markedly better.  And you are buying way too much into this percieved adjustment process.  Its the big leagues, he knows how to hit, hes not going to be starting from scratch here.

Do you really think an AL 91, 95 OPS+ streak is better than a 105, 125 NL one?  Rentaria has also been a significantly better hitter over the balance of their careers as well.

And yeah, Cabrera is a better fielder but its not a huge advantage anymore.  Cabrera is aging and has had back problems.  Cabrera is a lesser hitter with a better glove, they are comparable enough.

My biggest contention was you idiotically using one year in Boston as your sole basis for evaluating the two

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:32 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Actually
The stats show that between leagues there is a major deviation.

Look at the WARP's of the respective hitters (Warp 1 and 3):
2007
Renteria-5.8 and 7.4
Cabrera-6.1 and 9.0

2006
Renteria-4.9 and 6.4
Cabrera-4.1 and 6.4

2005
Renteria-1.6 and 3.4
Cabrera-3.5 and 5.3

As you can see, Cabrera has overall been the superior player.  This also shows that the numbers a player brings over from the NL, needs to be taken with a grain of salt when coming to the AL.

Also, the adjustment period is much larger then you think.  It is not as great as it is for those coming from the AL to the NL, but for those to the NL to the AL, it is substantial.

The Hardball Times did a study on this topic, search it out, its a great read.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 3:46 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Granderson/Swisher
Granderson and Swisher are the same age their career offensive numbers are pretty much equal.  Granderson has a higher career average and slugging and Swisher has a higher SLG. Their OPS+ are two points apart.  And Granderson, as you said, has a large advantage on defense and a massive advantage on the bases after going 26 for 27 stealing last year.

And how does Granderson need a "massively lucky" season to outhit Swisher again last year?  He did it last year at 26.  A 26 year old going from an above-average player to a very good one is hardly a fluke, its how good players develop.  And if he outhits Swisher again next year it won't be flukey at all considering he will have done it two years running at ages 26 and 27

by nms on Jan 4, 2008 6:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

BABIP
Learn about it

Granderson posted a .362 BABIP line in 2007.  His previous season was .337, essentially nothing else changed, except for his FB%, which if I am not mistaken, typically lowers a players BABIP.

That said, you shave some 30 points from Granderson's BABIP and his batting average, on base percentage and slugging percentage all drop.

Also, I wouldn't go to the bank on Granderson's slugging percentage.  23 triples is a lot to repeat, and with the inflated BABIP, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of those fell for outs in 2008-conversely, Swisher is moving to a ballpark that should increase his HR total by some 30%, not to mention hitting in a superior lineup.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 1:42 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

first off
you can't just throw BABIP out there and say that explains everything.  Its not that simple.  Its not some golden rule that shows everything.  Anyways, you would expect a developing big league hitter to improve his BABIP from his first full year to his second.  A guy's first year isn't the be-all end-all, you cant just look at everything thereafter as a fluke.  That simply makes no sense.

Furthermore that is NOT all that changed for Granderson from 06 to 07, he struck out 33 times less in 07 despite registering more ABs.  Also, his extra-base hits and pct of hits that went for extra-bases improved.

"Swisher is moving to a ballpark that should increase his HR total by some 30%, not to mention hitting in a superior lineup."

That makes no sense.
That doesn't make him a better hitter.  How many of Granderson's doubles and triples would get over the wall if he didn't play in Comerica

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 2:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Come on...
Furthermore that is NOT all that changed for Granderson from 06 to 07, he struck out 33 times less in 07 despite registering more ABs.

I'll take that, but I raise you this.
2007
BB% - 7.8

2006
BB% - 10

So while Granderson saw his strikeout percentage decline, he also opted to lift his bat off his shoulder more frequently.

first off

you can't just throw BABIP out there and say that explains everything.  Its not that simple.  Its not some golden rule that shows everything.

Did I do that?  I'm sorry, I figured,

"Granderson posted a .362 BABIP line in 2007.  His previous season was .337, essentially nothing else changed, except for his FB%, which if I am not mistaken, typically lowers a players BABIP."
would have been a more then sufficient explanation.

You really don't need to worry about teaching me about this stuff.  I won't use or discuss numbers that I don't trust or understand.

As for the Swisher-Granderson comp, I don't really care how many of his hits would be HRs outside of Comerica.  Are we not talking about Granderson in 2008 on the Detroit Tigers v. Swisher in 2008 on the Chicago White Sox?  Yes, we are.  So with Swisher moving from a ballpark that supressed home runs some 15% to a ballpark that inflates home runs by 30%, we have a guy that should see his HR total increase by 30%.

In addition to this, who was hitting around Swisher in 2007?  Chavez?  Anyone else of worth?  In 2008, Swisher is potentially going to be hitting in front of Thome or Konerko or behind Dye.  We have all seen what that can do to a hitter through the years of duds hitting in front of Bonds.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 3:56 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

you are a raving lunatic
a guy in a better hitters park is not a better hitter just because his raw stats are better than the guy who hits in Comerica.  you are nuts

by nms on Jan 5, 2008 3:02 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Can You Remind me...
When I started calling Swisher a 'better hitter'?  All I ever said was that he would have a better season then Granderson.  I use statistics and actual evidence, you used opinion.  This conversation is pointless as I need raw facts, you are content without such and chewing semantics about the definition of a word.
The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 5:23 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

the point is
with better raw statistics in a better hitters park is not necessarily having a better year.  That is common sense.  I mean, if a guy hits .300 with 30 homers (or, say, .300/350/500) in Denver then is traded to Miami and hits, say, .280 with 20 homers (280/330/460), or whatever a normal dropoff based on parks would look like, he didn't have a better year in Denver.  He had a year of equal quality in a different offensive environment

by nms on Jan 7, 2008 12:50 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

sarcastic post of agreement....
....labelled as  such so no one gets confused.

"I made $200,000 this year, but I was thinking of moving to India, improving my productivity. I'll be a WAY better earner over there. I bet I could clock 6 or 7 million rupees like nothing."

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 7, 2008 1:29 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Tigers 2008?
I think there's a little too much Tiger Hoopla going on, but I still have them pegged for 94-99 wins.  I have no idea how the White Sox are going to come close to 90 wins.

Here's an article on the Tigers: link.

FWIW, the White Sox are up to 30/1 odds to win the World Series now in Vegas.  Tigers remain at 9/2.

Also, that 72-win projection by BP was just bad projections cancelling each other out.  Go back and see what they projected player-by-player.  The fact that BP projected much more offense from the 2007 version of the White Sox backs up some of the White Sox support here - these hitters were thought to be better a year ago than they are now.

by BobbyMac on Jan 4, 2008 11:27 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Hooooooplaaaa!!!
If you don't give the hoopla to the teams projected for 94-99 wins, who do you give it to;)

Anywho, my initial thought was that the White Sox were fools for making this deal, but I've softened on that stance. Swisher is a good major league talent and signed at a discount for four years. The White Sox will be able to trade him and recoup some, if not all, of the losses any time they choose. In the meantime, they get to give off the appearance that they are a contender, even though they really aren't. I predict another fourth place finish.

by rwperu34 on Jan 5, 2008 1:34 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Kittens
I respect Dombrowski for his moves... he boldy addressed all the biggest needs (except closer, and I'm not sure what he's doing there, but hoping for the Zum-avalry to ride into town in September isn't in indefensible position, given the contracts given to other guys with the Big Red "C" on their chests this off-season).  I guess by the "Hoopla" comment, I meant that they are now 9/2 odds in Vegas, which means that to bet profitably on them, you have to believe they have more than an 18% chance to win the World Series... that seems a bit optimistic.  I'm not really a gambler, but I think that sort of adequately represents popular opinion now, and puts a metric on it.  When you consider the chance that both NY and CLE finish ahead of them (again), coupled with the chance that they lose in the playoffs, 18% seems awfully high.  

But, yeah, 94-99 is a lot of wins, and I'll be surprised if they're not in the playoffs, and downright shocked if they're eliminated with more than a handful of games remaining in the season.  Before this "kinder, gentler" Jim Leyland, he might have just let all his starters complete their own games, and not worried about a  bullpen. :>  As it stands, we'll see what happens with the pen arms in 2008 - it's really the only likely potential chink in their armor.

P.S. consider this a +1 to all your points below on the White Sox.

by BobbyMac on Jan 5, 2008 3:31 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Vegas Line
I would be willing to bet that the line was created do to a flood of bets that were placed after the Cabrera trade.  The bookies have to cover themselves as the Tigers are going to be a sexy pick entering this season.  However, you are incorrect in stating that they have addressed their biggest needs.  There actually isn't a way you can argue they addressed a single need.  They worsened their infield defense and improved on of the best hitting lineups in the majors.  That said, whether they win a game 8 to 4 against the Royals of 12 to 4, a win is a win (thus the major flaw in the Pythagorean theory).

This team still has no pitcher outside of Verlander.  It will be the pitching which wins the AL this year, as multiple teams are better loaded in the rotation and the bullpen.  I would say the Tigers have about the 4th best pitching in their division and I hate to see what they expect to do when the injury bug bites them (no Miller no Juurjins-sp?, no Durbin).

And lets not forget, outside of Willis, they don't really have any horses.  So this team is going to consistently hand the ball over to terrible relievers in the 6th, 7th and 8th innings.  Not to mention the mediocre closer they run out there for the 9th.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 4:19 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

White Sox and 90 Wins
My thinking on this is that the team appears to be a superior team to the one that was fielded in 2006, a team that finished with 90 wins.  By comparison, that same year the Detroit Tigers won 95 games.  In my opinion, both teams obviously improved their offensive lineups, defensively it is debatable for the Tigers, with the ChiSox remaining about the same.

The big issue, however, is pitching.  The difference top to bottom isn't anything that will have too large of an effect on either side, except for the bullpens.  In 2006 had an incredible bullpen-mostly in part to outstanding performances from Rodney and Zumaya.  However, in 2007 both bullpens hit the toilets.  The ChiSox appear to be focused on improving such, the Tigers appear content having no one in their pen.

That said, its no wonder the Tigers dropped 7 games in the standings through their bullpen alone.  I would say, even with the addition of Cabrera and Renteria, this is a 90 win team.  If the ChiSox can get their bullpen to near league average (which I believe they can), what is a reason they won't at least repeat their 2006 campaign?

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 1:51 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

The Reason
The first reason is, their position players aren't as good as that 2006 team. Dye posted a career high OPS+ of 151 that year (quick note-Dye and Magglio are the same age, but Magglio has a career OPS+ advantage of 19 points). Thome shouldn't expect to be as good as his 155, and likely won't be as healthy to play in 146 games. Konerko and Pierzynski are two years older and on their way out of prime seasons (especially the catcher). Crede posted an OPS+ 15 points above his career average that year, and while Fields might be able to replace that offense, there will be a defensive hit. They have effectively downgraded from Iguchi's O at 2b to Cabrera's O at SS. While they've upgraded offensively in the OF going from Podsednik/Anderson to Quentin/Swisher, they will be taking a significant downgrade on D. The O might be equal to 2006 and it might not, but the D will be much worse.

The second reason is, their starting pitching won't be as good. They got about what you'd expect from the Buehrle/Vazquez/Contreras trio as a group in 2006. In 2006, they got 427 above average innings from thier other two starters, Freddy Garcia and Jon Garland. Danks and Floyd will be significantly worse than those two. On top of that, in 2006 the White Sox were extremely lucky with regards to starters injuries. They gave a whole three starts to pichers outside their top 5, and two of those went to Brandon McCarthy.

Let's not forget that the 2006 White Sox, while they won 90 games, had a pythag of 88...fourth best in the division. The core of that team is older, to the point where they should see a decline in production, and the team is outright worse at a couple of key positions.

This is a fourth place team. They might be a good fourth place team, but they are still a fourth place team.

by rwperu34 on Jan 5, 2008 3:01 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Wow...You Actually Looked at Numbers there?
I'm not sure I can go on, but I really need to tear this comment apart.

I can agree with a regression of Dye, Konerko and Thome from what they did in 2006.  However, they are all bound to be significantly better then they were in 2007.  I would say the hitters will be closer to the 2006 marks then 2007, given what they have done throughout their careers.
Konerko and Pierzynski are in fact on the way out of their primes.  So too is Ordonez, Polanco, Guillen, Rodriguez, Jones, Renteria and Sheffield.  Each team has identical age concerns.
But, They have effectively downgraded from Iguchi's O at 2b to Cabrera's O at SS?  According to WHAT?!?  The fact that in 2006 Iguchi had a career year?  Theres no doubt in anyones mind that Cabrera will be at least the hitter Iguchi was.
And, While they've upgraded offensively in the OF going from Podsednik/Anderson to Quentin/Swisher, they will be taking a significant downgrade on D.  Again, according to what?  In 2006 Anderson and Podsednik combined for 6.2 fielding win shares.  Swisher posted a 3.4 last year while being thrown all over the diamond and by all accounts Quentin is a plus defender.  So if they don't post a 6.2, that will be just sad.

They got about what you'd expect from the Buehrle/Vazquez/Contreras trio as a group in 2006.
The pitching they got out of Vazquez, Buehrle and Contreras in 2006 is actually substantially worse then anyone would expect of the trio for 2008.  Contreras was the only one who played up to expectations, while Buehrle had the worst season of his career and Vazquez as well below his career norm.
That said, the 2007 version is closer to what they should expect from that trio, although I would argue a substantial improvement from Contreras.

This is a fourth place team. They might be a good fourth place team, but they are still a fourth place team.

So you're a Tigers fan?

Lets just say we agree to disagree.  I'm going to be posting predictions on my blog in about two months.  That will be an official record, one that I will not be able to step back from.  Hopefully you are capable of accepting how incorrect you were at seasons end.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 4:13 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Incorrect?
Iguchi is a better hitter than Cabrera, regardless of career year. But yes, Iguchi had a career year in 2006, so there is a 0% chance that that offense will be replaced, and that is part of the reason the 2008 White Sox will not be as good as the 2006 White Sox.

As for the age thing, yes, the Tigers are getting older. Thing is, they added one of the elite sluggers in the game and eliminated one of the most impotent offensive players on a championship caliber team. The Tigers should score as many, if not more runs in 2007. Same can be said about the White Sox. Problem is, the Tigers scored 184 more runs than the Sox last year, despite playing in less of an offensive park. Nick Swisher and regression towards the mean is not going to make up that difference. I wouldn't be suprised if the Tigers put a triple digit beating on the White Sox in runs scored in 2008!

As for the no pitching comment, that seems kind of bizarre coming from a guy touting the White Sox. The Tigers have five quality starters and the White Sox two. The difference in the bully is specifically Bobby Jenks. After that, the Tigers are as good or better.

So yes, I think the Tigers will score more runs and give up less than the White Sox. The Indians too. The Twins will give up less runs, and offense will be close. The White Sox are a lot closer to the Royals than they are the Tigers/Indians.

by rwperu34 on Jan 5, 2008 5:05 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Could You
Please supply your resources that grade Iguchi as the superior hitter?

According to THT's Hitting Win share (3 year average):
Iguchi - 11.7
Cabrera - 11.8

Apparently major league executives agree:
Iguchi - $3.85M (final year of a 1 year contract)
Cabrera - $9M (final year of a 4 year contract)

The last part may be debated, but keep in mind how little Johnny McDonald is being paid.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 5:11 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Quality Starters
First, if you are going to call Robertson and Willis quality, then you have to give Contreras a nod there as well.

Second, you don't know what type of pitcher Floyd or Danks are going to be.  It is reasonable to suggest that the White Sox #4 and #5 will be worse then the Tigers #4 and #5.  But we are talking #4 and #5 starters here.  Yes they are important, but if Floyd and Danks post better then league average numbers for those slots (which they should) who cares.

Third, the pens are vastly different!  Who else do the Tigers have?  Rodney?  I'll take Linebrink over him.  Grilli?  Thorton is the better pitcher there as well.  Seay?  Give me McDougal any day of the week!  Byrdak?  I'll take Logan.
Now I'm sure you will focus on last years numbers alone, as that seems to be the protocol here, but make sure you look at ALL of the numbers.
But also consider that it isn't all about the numbers.  Who is going to take the ball from Verlander in the 5th or 6th inning?  Bonderman in the 5th?  Robertson in the 5th?  Thats a lot of innings to be eaten by some pretty terrible pitchers.

Forth, you are obviously a Tigers fan.  There is no doubt the Tigers will score loads of runs, no one questions that.  But after Verlander, they are close to having 4 pitchers who will be giving up 4+ runs a start.  I'm also not certain Verlander can take being a #1, I don't know if hes there yet.
However, the White Sox have three pitchers at the top of their rotation who will all post seasons below all but the Tigers #1.  Not only that, but each of the three are horses.  The team will know that 3 of 5 games they will be able to make it a 7 inning game, something the Tigers don't have the luxury of.

I'm not going to debate this any longer.  I wish I could have heard how many of you were predicting the Indians to win the division in 2007, the Tigers to be the team were in 2006 or even the White Sox to win it in 2005.  I gather none of you had any clue about any one of those instances.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 5, 2008 5:24 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Alexei Ramirez anyone?
I'm surprised nobody has commented on Alexei Ramirez.  John, any thoughts on him?  Is he just another over-hyped Cuban defector or can he be a solid major league starter at SS or in the OF?  Thanks.

by ncassman on Jan 4, 2008 10:47 AM EST   0 recs