Mark Potash must be on some sort of mission. A mission to share ill-informed opinions about Chicago baseball. Poor town. So Potash spits out this article continuing his evaluation of Chicago baseball players:
Sorry White Sox fans, but Mr. Cub is Mr. Chicago.
Ernie Banks was an easy choice as the No. 1 Cubs player of all-time when the Sun-Times rated the top players in each of the city's major pro teams in February and March. Frank Thomas was an easy choice as the No. 1 player in Sox history.
But in a Cubs vs. Sox list of best players in the wake of the BP Crosstown Cup series at U.S. Cellular Field this weekend,
Wait, wait, wait. Chicago named their series the BP Crosstown Cup series? Brilliant timing Chi-Town. I'm planning on having a crosstown bicycle race here in Bronson, MI called the Kellogg's Special K Bowl.
Banks gets the edge over Big Frank as the best Chicago player of all-time. And actually, it's not that close.
I am vaguely familiar with each players career. I doubt that last sentence very much.
Banks put up unprecedented numbers as a shortstop -- from 1955-60 he averaged 41 homers and 116 RBI, won two home run titles, two RBI titles and back-to-back MVP awards in 1958-59.
That is a crazy 5 year period. It really is, especially for a short-stop. He put up a WAR of 48.8 during those 6 years. Thomas peak would be around 41.1. Looking deeper Banks WAR is being carrier by his fielding, which is equally hurting Thomas. Seriously as good as Banks was a fielding, Thomas was as bad.
And in 1960 he led the NL in home runs with 41 and won the Gold Glove at shortstop.
Neat-o!
Banks extended his career by playing first base. Thomas started at first base, tired of it and extended his career as a DH. In fact, Banks played more games at first base (1,259) than Thomas (971).
Don't care about any of that. Games played at first? Great. Was a DH? That's up to how you feel about DHing. If you hate it you're going to give Banks the edge.
But Thomas still gets his due in our position-by-position list of best Sox/Cubs of all-time. With Banks at shortstop, Thomas is the clear choice at first base over the great Dick Allen and the the Cubs' Phil Cavaretta, the pride of Lane Tech. And he deserves it. Thomas batted .275 with 29 home runs and 117 RBI per 500 at-bats as a first baseman with the White Sox. It's not like he couldn't play the position. He just preferred to hit.
I'm trying to decide how to make the case for Thomas. Stat by stat? Or one their lines on top of each other? Let's do both.
Banks .274/.330/.500/.830 OPS+ 122 WOBA .358 WAR 74.1 Fielding 54
Thomas .301/.419/.555/.974 OPS+156 WOBA .379 WAR 79.1 Fielding -68.2
I would say offensively it's not even close. When it comes to fielding Banks is so far superior they're not even playing the same game. The DH probably saves Thomas in WAR since his fielding constantly hurt him. My point though is, it's a close call. If you're a Cubs fan, you'll say Banks because he was the complete player. If you're a Sox fan you'll say Thomas because he was one of the greatest hitters of all time, far beyond Banks.
What I'm trying to say is this:
Banks gets the edge over Big Frank as the best Chicago player of all-time. And actually, it's not that close.
is bull.
Case Closed.
Showing posts with label Potash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Potash. Show all posts
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
How to Cherry Pick Stats
By Mark Potash. (Me in regular/him in Italics)
Like a shot of "5-Hour Energy," interleague play gives the White Sox a boost when they need it most. No crash later? We'll see about that.
On paper, the Sox are the second-hottest team in baseball, having won six straight games and 10 of their last 11 to reach the .500 mark (34-34), still 5 1/2 games behind the Twins and four behind the Tigers in the AL Central. (The Rangers have won eight straight and 11 of 12).
The big question is whether or not this is fool's gold. The bulk of the Sox' recent streak has come against the Cubs, Pirates and Nationals. The Cubs are in a season-long funk, losing 12 of their last 19 games; the Pirates have lost 18 of their last 23, including 12 in a row; the Nationals have lost 15 of their last 21 -- three of their six victories in that span came against the Pirates.
So far those are some pretty good reasons why this was a mirage. The White Sox Pythagorean btw is 32-36.
There's no doubt that interleague play is a drop in class for American League teams. It has been for years and this one is no different. The AL leads the NL 92-76 so far in 2010. American League pitchers in particular have an easier time against National League teams -- and vice-versa. Roy Halladay is 8-3 with a 1.51 ERA against NL teams this season. He's 0-3 with a 6.86 ERA against the AL. And he's been in the National League for less than three months.
Yes, let's take his ERA from this year as opposed to the 07-09 when he had an ERA of 3.03 in the AL (does include interleague games from those years. But still). And let's keep in mind he put those numbers up in the AL East. That is example #1 of cherry picking stats.
This is old hat for Sox fans. In 2008, a 12-6 record in interleague play helped keep them afloat in the AL Central and they barely hung on to win the division title. Last year the Sox were 28-33 when interleague play (they were 12-6 again) sparked a 15-5 run that put them 2 1/2 games back in the division. The momentum kept them in contention until August, when they lost nine of 10 against the Red Sox, Yankees and Twins and were done.
That right there just screams "We are not a playoff caliber team."
But as dubious as the competition has been of late, the current streak has a better feel to it this year.
So one reason this year is different is Mark feeeeeels differently about it. Solid.
The Sox are winning because they've been playing better baseball -- and not just because they're playing weaker competition.
Um, you just spent half the article pointing out how they were facing weaker teams. They beat the Cubs, Pirates, and Nationals. Went 8-1 against them. What was their record against the Red Sox, Yankees and Twins last year again? It seems you mentioned it earlier.
Stephen Strasburg literally looked like Sandy Koufax on Friday night...
Here is a picture of Koufax. Here is one of Strasburg. Or is this Koufax and this Strasburg? (side note, the chest hair in the second picture is nuts.) I can't tell because they LITERALLY look alike.
...and the Sox found a way to win. I don't recall that happening too often in previous years.
That's cause Strasburg wasn't in the league in previous years. And I'm willing to bet the White Sox won other games 1-0. Hey here's one now! (45 second to find that on bbref.com. Most of that was loading time.) Here's a game a Chicagoan should probably remember, especially if it's their job to cover sports. That's being specific. If I want to be a jerk I'll point out that the White Sox 'found' a way to win 79 times last year.
In the current 10-1 streak, the Sox have won with timely pitching,
I don't have any clue what that means. The pitchers get people out during the course of the game. Not before the game or after the game, but during. That's timely.
timely hitting and timely defense.
See previous joke.
They're 4-1 in one-run games (14-8 for the season). They've won four games with three runs or less.
One-run games are mostly luck. The other stat...I don't know what that signifies. At all.
They've pitched 32 of 34 scoreless innings with a one-run lead.
They have a good bullpen, but that stat seems more like luck than anything. Not the scoreless innings part, but when they come.
They've allowed 14 runs in 11 games after the fourth inning -- eight of them while they had leads of four runs or more.
I love baseball and baseball stats. I have NO IDEA what the first half of that means. He just randomly picked 11 games and randomly picked an inning as a cut off. It means less than nothing. Mark, listen, just say the White Sox bullpen is doing well and give their ERA.
They're scoring runs for Freddy Garcia (55 in his last nine starts) and playing defense for Jake Peavy.
I can imagine Paul Konerko standing up in front of all the starters on opening day:
"Alright, so we, the offense, have come to the decision that we are only going to play the games half-assed. So each of you have to choose: we can play immaculate defense for you; or we can rock the ball on offense for you."
Buehrle: "Why can't you do both?"
Paul sighs, "Mark you just don't understand baseball. Now everyone choose quickly, I gotta get to the Blackhawks game."
"But we have a game tonight!"
Paul shakes his head: "Mark, you're really starting to become a problem."
When Garcia allowed three runs in the fourth inning to fall behind 3-1 against the Nationals on Sunday, the Sox responded with six straight hits and four runs for a 5-3 lead. Garcia pitched two scoreless innings and the Nationals didn't score again.
Yeah the relief staff really shut the Nats down. Shame they don't get any press from Potash. I mean you can't even mention Putz (ERA+ 203)? Or Santos (ERA+ 173)?
Yes it was the Nationals. And the Cubs. And the Pirates. But I would submit that while the Sox aren't as good as Kenny Williams thought, they've been an underachieving team all season.
According to their Pythag they're OVERachieving.
Sometimes a team like that just needs a little boost to get them on track. Of course you have to see it to believe it -- this is the White Sox we're talking about. But I have a feeling this season is not over yet.
And as we already established, Mark's feeeeelings are what matter. That and his horrible interpretations on statistics.
Case Closed!
Like a shot of "5-Hour Energy," interleague play gives the White Sox a boost when they need it most. No crash later? We'll see about that.
On paper, the Sox are the second-hottest team in baseball, having won six straight games and 10 of their last 11 to reach the .500 mark (34-34), still 5 1/2 games behind the Twins and four behind the Tigers in the AL Central. (The Rangers have won eight straight and 11 of 12).
The big question is whether or not this is fool's gold. The bulk of the Sox' recent streak has come against the Cubs, Pirates and Nationals. The Cubs are in a season-long funk, losing 12 of their last 19 games; the Pirates have lost 18 of their last 23, including 12 in a row; the Nationals have lost 15 of their last 21 -- three of their six victories in that span came against the Pirates.
So far those are some pretty good reasons why this was a mirage. The White Sox Pythagorean btw is 32-36.
There's no doubt that interleague play is a drop in class for American League teams. It has been for years and this one is no different. The AL leads the NL 92-76 so far in 2010. American League pitchers in particular have an easier time against National League teams -- and vice-versa. Roy Halladay is 8-3 with a 1.51 ERA against NL teams this season. He's 0-3 with a 6.86 ERA against the AL. And he's been in the National League for less than three months.
Yes, let's take his ERA from this year as opposed to the 07-09 when he had an ERA of 3.03 in the AL (does include interleague games from those years. But still). And let's keep in mind he put those numbers up in the AL East. That is example #1 of cherry picking stats.
This is old hat for Sox fans. In 2008, a 12-6 record in interleague play helped keep them afloat in the AL Central and they barely hung on to win the division title. Last year the Sox were 28-33 when interleague play (they were 12-6 again) sparked a 15-5 run that put them 2 1/2 games back in the division. The momentum kept them in contention until August, when they lost nine of 10 against the Red Sox, Yankees and Twins and were done.
That right there just screams "We are not a playoff caliber team."
But as dubious as the competition has been of late, the current streak has a better feel to it this year.
So one reason this year is different is Mark feeeeeels differently about it. Solid.
The Sox are winning because they've been playing better baseball -- and not just because they're playing weaker competition.
Um, you just spent half the article pointing out how they were facing weaker teams. They beat the Cubs, Pirates, and Nationals. Went 8-1 against them. What was their record against the Red Sox, Yankees and Twins last year again? It seems you mentioned it earlier.
Stephen Strasburg literally looked like Sandy Koufax on Friday night...
Here is a picture of Koufax. Here is one of Strasburg. Or is this Koufax and this Strasburg? (side note, the chest hair in the second picture is nuts.) I can't tell because they LITERALLY look alike.
...and the Sox found a way to win. I don't recall that happening too often in previous years.
That's cause Strasburg wasn't in the league in previous years. And I'm willing to bet the White Sox won other games 1-0. Hey here's one now! (45 second to find that on bbref.com. Most of that was loading time.) Here's a game a Chicagoan should probably remember, especially if it's their job to cover sports. That's being specific. If I want to be a jerk I'll point out that the White Sox 'found' a way to win 79 times last year.
In the current 10-1 streak, the Sox have won with timely pitching,
I don't have any clue what that means. The pitchers get people out during the course of the game. Not before the game or after the game, but during. That's timely.
timely hitting and timely defense.
See previous joke.
They're 4-1 in one-run games (14-8 for the season). They've won four games with three runs or less.
One-run games are mostly luck. The other stat...I don't know what that signifies. At all.
They've pitched 32 of 34 scoreless innings with a one-run lead.
They have a good bullpen, but that stat seems more like luck than anything. Not the scoreless innings part, but when they come.
They've allowed 14 runs in 11 games after the fourth inning -- eight of them while they had leads of four runs or more.
I love baseball and baseball stats. I have NO IDEA what the first half of that means. He just randomly picked 11 games and randomly picked an inning as a cut off. It means less than nothing. Mark, listen, just say the White Sox bullpen is doing well and give their ERA.
They're scoring runs for Freddy Garcia (55 in his last nine starts) and playing defense for Jake Peavy.
I can imagine Paul Konerko standing up in front of all the starters on opening day:
"Alright, so we, the offense, have come to the decision that we are only going to play the games half-assed. So each of you have to choose: we can play immaculate defense for you; or we can rock the ball on offense for you."
Buehrle: "Why can't you do both?"
Paul sighs, "Mark you just don't understand baseball. Now everyone choose quickly, I gotta get to the Blackhawks game."
"But we have a game tonight!"
Paul shakes his head: "Mark, you're really starting to become a problem."
When Garcia allowed three runs in the fourth inning to fall behind 3-1 against the Nationals on Sunday, the Sox responded with six straight hits and four runs for a 5-3 lead. Garcia pitched two scoreless innings and the Nationals didn't score again.
Yeah the relief staff really shut the Nats down. Shame they don't get any press from Potash. I mean you can't even mention Putz (ERA+ 203)? Or Santos (ERA+ 173)?
Yes it was the Nationals. And the Cubs. And the Pirates. But I would submit that while the Sox aren't as good as Kenny Williams thought, they've been an underachieving team all season.
According to their Pythag they're OVERachieving.
Sometimes a team like that just needs a little boost to get them on track. Of course you have to see it to believe it -- this is the White Sox we're talking about. But I have a feeling this season is not over yet.
And as we already established, Mark's feeeeelings are what matter. That and his horrible interpretations on statistics.
Case Closed!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Mark Potash just made my blog
Congrates man. Now I know this was probably just a throw away introduction to the best White Sox players of all time, but you still spit the bit here. (Me in regular/Mark in italics)
No question Frank Thomas is the best hitter in White Sox history. But is he the best player?
Baseball purists probably would look elsewhere for the No. 1 player in the history of a franchise -- for somebody who not only produced at the plate, but in the field. Or at least played in the field.
That wouldn't be Thomas.
A valid assessment. Looks like you're going to pick someone else as the greatest players, maybe Shoeless Joe or Appling
As great of an athlete as he is, he was never a dancing bear at first base.
A dancing bear at first base seems like a promotional night from the ghost of Bill Veeck. And yes, it probably would have more range than Thomas. I think you might go with Luis Aparicio Mark, he was solid on both sides of the ball.
Eventually, his disdain for playing in the field tagged him as not only one-dimensional, but selfish.
Yes, it was selfish for him to not want to play a position he wasn't good at. Better he drag the team down with him, that's unselfish.
And counterproductive. As a designated hitter, Thomas batted .275 with 29 home runs and 94 RBI per 500 at-bats. As a first baseman, he hit .337 with 36 home runs and 117 RBI per 500 at-bats.
That's a really great job of cherry-picking statistics without giving any context. You see, Thomas played 1st base in the beginning of his career, when he was a monster. After age 30 he played DH mostly, when he was in decline and had nagging injuries. So of course his numbers as a DH are going to be worse. You're basically comparing two different players. A young healthy player in the prime of his career vs. an older player on his way out.
If he cares about his numbers as dearly as citics (sic) say he does, he should have been begging to play the field, maybe even working to get better at it.
No question Frank Thomas is the best hitter in White Sox history. But is he the best player?
Baseball purists probably would look elsewhere for the No. 1 player in the history of a franchise -- for somebody who not only produced at the plate, but in the field. Or at least played in the field.
That wouldn't be Thomas.
A valid assessment. Looks like you're going to pick someone else as the greatest players, maybe Shoeless Joe or Appling
As great of an athlete as he is, he was never a dancing bear at first base.
A dancing bear at first base seems like a promotional night from the ghost of Bill Veeck. And yes, it probably would have more range than Thomas. I think you might go with Luis Aparicio Mark, he was solid on both sides of the ball.
Eventually, his disdain for playing in the field tagged him as not only one-dimensional, but selfish.
Yes, it was selfish for him to not want to play a position he wasn't good at. Better he drag the team down with him, that's unselfish.
And counterproductive. As a designated hitter, Thomas batted .275 with 29 home runs and 94 RBI per 500 at-bats. As a first baseman, he hit .337 with 36 home runs and 117 RBI per 500 at-bats.
That's a really great job of cherry-picking statistics without giving any context. You see, Thomas played 1st base in the beginning of his career, when he was a monster. After age 30 he played DH mostly, when he was in decline and had nagging injuries. So of course his numbers as a DH are going to be worse. You're basically comparing two different players. A young healthy player in the prime of his career vs. an older player on his way out.
If he cares about his numbers as dearly as citics (sic) say he does, he should have been begging to play the field, maybe even working to get better at it.
I have no way to know if Frank worked on playing first base better or not. I wasn't at spring training or at their practices during the season. But I doubt a major league athlete with Thomas' ego just gave up and allowed himself to look like a minor leaguer at 1st base. And the idea that his hitting and fielding are directly correlated is ridiculous as I showed in the paragraph before.
If it were a close call, it would be tough to choose him. In 16 years with the Sox he played 971 games at first base, 960 as a DH.
Well, it looks like Mark is going to go with someone else from White Sox history.
But it's not a close call.
Wha?!?!?!
Besides being the Sox' all-time leader in home runs (448), RBI (1,465), doubles (447), runs scored (1,327), on-base percentage (.427) and OPS (.995), he has monstrous seasons that put him in a class with Ted Williams, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig among the best hitters of all-time. Two MVP awards, a second and two thirds.
Thomas' accomplishments are so far ahead of everybody else in Sox history, he is the clear choice as the No. 1 Sox player of all time. You can't say he didn't earn it.
SWERVE!!!! Someone went to the Vince Russo school of writing.
Case Closed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
