White Sox get Vazquez according to ESPN

[BigbadB]

 

And just for the sake of argument, how many people here would have predicted that the White Sox would have a better team ERA than either the Yankees or Boston prior to the start of last season?

 

I sure wouldn't. And I woudn't predict them to do it again, either.

 

so just because you didn't think they'd be good, the fact that they were means it was luck? i don't get what you're saying.

 

i'm really surprised by all the white sox hate here. i don't know how anyone can deny that kw has done better than hendry over the past few years. kw is working w/ a lower payroll, an armpit of a stadium that they can't fill, and a rookie manager. hendry has a huge payroll, one of the most beloved stadiums filled w/ fans, and supposedly one of the best managers in baseball. yet the white sox won the WS and the cubs finished in 4th place. come on...things are looking pretty good for the white sox right now, and the last two years of hendry has been nothing short of a big fat F.

 

and to everybody clamoring about how the sox were lucky...does everyone remember what type of hitter dlee was before he flirted w/ .400 and the triple crown? or what kind of hitter barrett was before he became the best offensive catcher in the nl? or what type of pitcher dempster was before he became one of the best closers in baseball last season? how about murton hitting .320 straight from AA? ramirez going from flop to stud?

 

Nope. You missed it entirely, my friend. I said that the Yankees, Boston and St. Louis were better teams than the White Sox last year. That's it. Nothing more. That's still giving them credit for having the 4th best team in baseball. That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

I gave KW credit, and I said he's had a great offseason so far this year.

 

And it had very little to do with luck. I have a question for you. Going into the 2005 season, could you honestly (and I do mean honestly) tell me that the White Sox starting pitchers (Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, El Duque and Garcia) were going to have a better season than (Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright and Shawn Chacon) or (Curt Schilling, Matt Clement, Wade Miller, Tim Wakefield and David Wells)?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

I am so happy to write this post because at long last I agree, 100%, with every word you wrote. If all of those guys repeat those performances it would be a miracle, and I think you only get one of those in a generation. Now they have acquired Vazquez and everybody expects him to be lights out. I am not so sure. The White Sox and Williams are the flavor of the month for the media, so every move is gold. Why do I get the feeling that if the Cubs had just acquired a guy with Vazquez's numbers who makes what he makes and giving up a good prospect and two major leaguers in the process the media would not be as supportive.

 

:shock:

 

Welcome to the dark side....

[brfahey]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

I am so happy to write this post because at long last I agree, 100%, with every word you wrote. If all of those guys repeat those performances it would be a miracle, and I think you only get one of those in a generation. Now they have acquired Vazquez and everybody expects him to be lights out. I am not so sure. The White Sox and Williams are the flavor of the month for the media, so every move is gold. Why do I get the feeling that if the Cubs had just acquired a guy with Vazquez's numbers who makes what he makes and giving up a good prospect and two major leaguers in the process the media would not be as supportive.

 

:shock:

 

Welcome to the dark side....

 

More than likely it won't be a habit but who knows.

[UBlink]

And it had very little to do with luck. I have a question for you. Going into the 2005 season, could you honestly (and I do mean honestly) tell me that the White Sox starting pitchers (Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, El Duque and Garcia) were going to have a better season than (Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright and Shawn Chacon) or (Curt Schilling, Matt Clement, Wade Miller, Tim Wakefield and David Wells)?

 

Isn't the whole point of being a GM trying to see value where others don't, and taking advantage of your players that are overvalued? The whole goal is to get the players who will outperform the market's expectations, and trade away those the market has overvalued. With that as the objective, you can't judge the trades relative to expectations at the time the trade was made.

[stitchface]

Jon,

Do you really believe there is any way to judge a GM other than his team's record? I could making an argument on sample size, ie one season could be a fluke, but the GM is paid to put together a team to win. Therefore wins are the judgement criteria. I could see normalizing for payroll but long-term, wins are what GMs are paid to create. I honestly don't see any basis for claiming GMs don't influence won-lost record. Definitely this should be measured over a long period of time, but I think Goony has made some great points regarding KW's track record.

A systematic quantitative way of judging and ranking GMs? Probably not. And I'm not really concerned about having one. As I said, I think if you can follow the moves, you can form a judgement for yourself and look at a GM independently of other GMs. But I also don't see how a win-loss record is any more accurate. And I never claimed they don't have influence. I said they don't control results. Big difference.

 

I'm not going to say it's the same, but it's almost like judging a starting pitcher based on wins and losses. Sure they have a big influence in the game, but enough to use records to evaluate them? Why use records if you can evaluate each move?

 

What? It is nothing like pitchers wins and losses which are based on team performance. Your argument is more akin to judging players on visual observation instead of on statistics. The big picture is not a weekend of games, its the overall record at the end of the year. GMs are paid to put a team together to win games - that's how they should be judged. Evaluating individual moves is short-sighted and not comprehensive. What looks like a bad move initially may turn out to be a good move in the long run.

[Jon]

What? It is nothing like pitchers wins and losses which are based on team performance. Your argument is more akin to judging players on visual observation instead of on statistics. The big picture is not a weekend of games, its the overall record at the end of the year. GMs are paid to put a team together to win games - that's how they should be judged.

How isn't it? Pitchers are paid to win ballgames (I'd imagine most people within baseball would tell you that) as much as GMs are paid to win ballgames. I'd argue that pitchers are paid to pitch well (and can be measured in various ways not using records) and GMs are paid to negotiate, make trades, figure out who to keep, who to hire, etc. They can't be evaluated like pitchers can, but does that mean you rely on wins and losses? I'm not seeing how you can use other means of evaluating a pitcher while going with records to judge a GM. The wins and losses for each are the same and they're both based on team performance. They both have a say in what happens but don't have complete control.

Evaluating individual moves is short-sighted and not comprehensive. What looks like a bad move initially may turn out to be a good move in the long run.

And why can't long-term evaluations of moves be made? I specified that earlier as part of any evaluation of a move. If anything, going by wins and losses is not comprehensive.

[stitchface]

No, pitchers are paid to get outs. they contribute to a win. GMs don't contribute to putting the team together, they do it. The only goal of putting the team together is to win as many games as possible. Thus, wins are the best measure of success. What factors are out of the GMs control? Certainly luck plays a role but each move carries risk that can be evaluated. Over a long period of time, the role of luck is reduced to appropriate evaluation of risk. Poor GMs will be hurt more by bad luck than good GMs because they take bad risks.

 

As is well-documented on this site, wins are not a good measure of a pitchers performance. runs prevented is a much better measure because it is more within a pitchers control. Really, I find this is a very bad analogy. Being a GM is not comparable to being a pitcher.

[noisesquared]

I said that the Yankees, Boston and St. Louis were better teams than the White Sox last year. That's it. Nothing more. That's still giving them credit for having the 4th best team in baseball. That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

I strongly disagree. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Cards may have had better players than the White Sox, but the White Sox had the best team. I personally define team as being the sum of its parts, and while the White Sox lacked the outstanding individual performances that the Yanks, BoSox, and Cards had, the cumulative White Sox performance was the best record in the AL and a dominant 11-1 postseason. The 2005 White Sox were the best team.

 

If the Yankees won 99 games with an 11-1 postseason in 2005, the media would be calling them one of the greatest teams in history. The White Sox get called lucky. Amazing.

 

 

 

**edited to correct statistical error

[Andy]

and to everybody clamoring about how the sox were lucky...does everyone remember what type of hitter dlee was before he flirted w/ .400 and the triple crown? or what kind of hitter barrett was before he became the best offensive catcher in the nl? or what type of pitcher dempster was before he became one of the best closers in baseball last season? how about murton hitting .320 straight from AA? ramirez going from flop to stud?

First, I was never trying to imply that Hendry is better than KW. This offseason in particular has shown that Williams is a better GM.

 

But your examples are completely flawed. One by one here:

 

DLee - Everyone knew he had the tools. He had a hole in his swing and fixed it.

 

Barrett - Part luck, part talent.

 

Dempster - Should have been closing all along in 05, and it was Dusty's stupidity that kept it from happening.

 

Murton - Everyone knows he is good. Even when we got him in the Nomar deal, a lot of people were surprised that we could have plucked him. Bill Simmons, a Sox fan, expressed shock that we got the best player AND the best prospect in that deal.

 

Ramirez - He had one bad year in Pittsburgh. That was the fluke, not what happened afterwards.

[Jon]

No, pitchers are paid to get outs. they contribute to a win. GMs don't contribute to putting the team together, they do it. The only goal of putting the team together is to win as many games as possible. Thus, wins are the best measure of success. What factors are out of the GMs control? Certainly luck plays a role but each move carries risk that can be evaluated. Over a long period of time, the role of luck is reduced to appropriate evaluation of risk. Poor GMs will be hurt more by bad luck than good GMs because they take bad risks.

 

As is well-documented on this site, wins are not a good measure of a pitchers performance. runs prevented is a much better measure because it is more within a pitchers control. Really, I find this is a very bad analogy. Being a GM is not comparable to being a pitcher.

GMs put teams together, but how does that equal a win or loss? Here are some factors out of a GM's control, some that I've stated earlier:

 

-Individual motivation and performance, including career years

-Luck, including timely hitting and pitching (I don't really believe in "clutch")

-Fluke and unforeseeable injuries

-Managerial decisions, which is quite different from hiring a manager

-Coaching effectiveness and strategy, again, different from hiring them

-How good and competitive opponents are

 

Things like that also have big impacts in whether games are won or lost. That's not too far off from the things a pitcher can't control.

 

Basically, GM moves do not equal wins or losses. They play an important part in the season's results, but by no means is it up to them to win games. And because of that, wins and losses, which are a collection of efforts from the GM, the manager, the coaches, the players, the minor leagues, luck, etc., should not be used to tell whether or not a GM is doing a good job.

[Slugger_16]

What? It is nothing like pitchers wins and losses which are based on team performance. Your argument is more akin to judging players on visual observation instead of on statistics. The big picture is not a weekend of games, its the overall record at the end of the year. GMs are paid to put a team together to win games - that's how they should be judged. Evaluating individual moves is short-sighted and not comprehensive. What looks like a bad move initially may turn out to be a good move in the long run.

 

I think it's just like pitchers win-loss record. You can't judge a GM based on the team's win-loss record at the end of the year, just like you can't judge a pitcher's performance and value based on win-loss record. There are too many factors that play into it and that will ultimately affect it. Is it a GM's fault when a player has a fluke injury or if a player that had previously been productive doesn't perform well? The GM's job is to put the pieces into place, it's then up to the team to do the work. Likewise, the pitcher's job is to put his team in a position to win, and it's up to his teammates to score him runs and make plays on defense, and his bullpen to hold a lead.

 

You say that evaluating individual moves is short-sighted and not comprehensive, but how is it less comprehensive than looking at the whole picture? When you look at each move, you can determine individually if it was a good move based on what was given up, the cost of the player, and the cost that you'll be paying both potentially in salary or prospects given up in the future.

 

What move may have initially looked good in the beginning may not end up looking all that great in the end either. Is that always the GM's fault? I think most were happy when Latroy Hawkins was signed, but that didn't exactly end up as planned. I liked the move and I think most everyone else did too, and when he doesn't perform like he was prior to the signing, is that the GM's fault?

 

Poor GMs will be hurt more by bad luck than good GMs because they take bad risks.

Which do you think was the better signing, Hermanson or Hawkins? By your logic, Hermanson was because he contributed to more wins. I think Hermanson's 4.00+ ERA each year since '98 would say that signing was more of a risk than the Hawkins signing.

 

For years before 2005 Kenny Williams was considered by many to be a joke of a GM. Why is he some genius now? It's not like during the offseason the light came on and he finally got this whole GM-ing thing. He just happened to aquire players that played out of their minds for a season.

[Jon]

The other thing is how would you evaluate a GM like Cashman, whose team consistently goes to the playoffs with a high payroll but can't win a championship? The win totals are there. And how would you evaluate a GM of a team that is slashing their budget? Or a team like the Devil Rays? Are all those GMs bad? I haven't followed Florida that closely, but it's been my impression that they've made some very good moves this offseason given their circumstances. But that's not going to show up in their record. Is there any other way to judge them besides their moves?

[jmajew]

 

And just for the sake of argument, how many people here would have predicted that the White Sox would have a better team ERA than either the Yankees or Boston prior to the start of last season?

 

I sure wouldn't. And I woudn't predict them to do it again, either.

 

so just because you didn't think they'd be good, the fact that they were means it was luck? i don't get what you're saying.

 

i'm really surprised by all the white sox hate here. i don't know how anyone can deny that kw has done better than hendry over the past few years. kw is working w/ a lower payroll, an armpit of a stadium that they can't fill, and a rookie manager. hendry has a huge payroll, one of the most beloved stadiums filled w/ fans, and supposedly one of the best managers in baseball. yet the white sox won the WS and the cubs finished in 4th place. come on...things are looking pretty good for the white sox right now, and the last two years of hendry has been nothing short of a big fat F.

 

and to everybody clamoring about how the sox were lucky...does everyone remember what type of hitter dlee was before he flirted w/ .400 and the triple crown? or what kind of hitter barrett was before he became the best offensive catcher in the nl? or what type of pitcher dempster was before he became one of the best closers in baseball last season? how about murton hitting .320 straight from AA? ramirez going from flop to stud?

 

Nope. You missed it entirely, my friend. I said that the Yankees, Boston and St. Louis were better teams than the White Sox last year. That's it. Nothing more. That's still giving them credit for having the 4th best team in baseball. That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

I gave KW credit, and I said he's had a great offseason so far this year.

 

And it had very little to do with luck. I have a question for you. Going into the 2005 season, could you honestly (and I do mean honestly) tell me that the White Sox starting pitchers (Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, El Duque and Garcia) were going to have a better season than (Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright and Shawn Chacon) or (Curt Schilling, Matt Clement, Wade Miller, Tim Wakefield and David Wells)?

 

I know i'm jumping in this convo a bit late and I apologize for that. But all you are doing is listing all the very good to great players these teams have. I do not believe that you can build a great "team" by throwing together a bunch of allstars. IMO, there is a huge difference between a team that plays well together and a team that has a bunch of players who are individually great. With that said I do not think you can build a World Championsihp team just by throwing together allstars. There has to be something extra there which is brought about by teams that work well together.

 

I hope this makes sense. I am having a hard time getting my ideas out tonight.

[NorthsideAvenger]

For years before 2005 Kenny Williams was considered by many to be a joke of a GM. Why is he some genius now? It's not like during the offseason the light came on and he finally got this whole GM-ing thing. He just happened to aquire players that played out of their minds for a season.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9

 

The Cubs and the Sox HAD VERY SIMILAR offensive seasons.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=pitching&season=2005

 

The White Sox were clearly better then the Cubs in 05, pitching wise, but not significantly better.

 

In other words: anybody who considers Williams a "genius" and Hendry a "idiot" clearly is not using facts. What separated the WSox and the Cubs is the Sox found the "formula" first, that's it....otherwise....Sox and the Cubs were VERY similar in 2005. I'm not knocking the Sox for their great season, but they were a fluke, and most likely they would have finish as badly in 2006, as the RSox did in 05--if the WSox made the playoffs (hence the reason why they went out and got Thome and Vazquez, they are trying to disspell the truth that they are flukes).

 

And I will argue till the end of times that KWilliams is a genius, which he clearly IS NOT.

[CubfaninCA]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

 

And which team was better? The Sox had the second best record in baseball (only one game behind the Cards). They were four games better than the next three teams in the AL during the regular season (Yankees, Angles, and Red Sox). Two of the three teams they easily beat in the playoffs losing one of eight games. They then swept the World Series. To me that's a pretty convincing argument that they were the best team.

 

The White Sox had a much softer schedule than some of those teams. If you don't see that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What teams were better? The Yankees, Boston and the Cardinals were all better teams than the White Sox as much as I hate to admit it. Of course, I don't really take any joy in saying the White Sox were good either. :D

 

Perhaps the Cardinals were better, but the White Sox swept Boston, and New York's 10 man or whatever rotation wasn't worth much in the playoffs when depth isn't nearly as important.

[Diffusion]

I am so on JonMDavis' side of this argument.

 

There are three main conversions that take place...

 

Resources > Talent > Individual Performance > Team Performance

 

The GM's biggest job is to squeeze as much accessible talent (via moves/non-moves) out of the resources he's given (or convinces his superiors to give him), and then to aid the conversion of that talent into individual and team performance (through the appointment of the right staff below him). That's all there is to being a GM. He has maybe a tiny bit of influence over the resource input, complete control over the first conversion, which if done right has a little bit of play in terms of the second and third conversions, and then he has some but not much influence besides that over the second and third conversions (via who he chooses as manager etc.). That means he doesn't control everything, far from it, and so judging him on win-loss record is foolish. Like judging a Formula 1 racing car driver solely on his placing at the end of a race.

[Guest]

And why can't long-term evaluations of moves be made? I specified that earlier as part of any evaluation of a move. If anything, going by wins and losses is not comprehensive.

Agreed. If you are only concerned with how many World Series rings they bring to the table then Wayne Huizenga and Jeffry Loria could be classified as good owners. Of course that would be ignoring the fact that each man's greed and/or incompetence played a huge role in destroying a pair of MLB markets. (Loria in Montreal, Huizenga gets most/all the blame for Florida's dire predicament.)

[BigbadB]

Perhaps the Cardinals were better, but the White Sox swept Boston, and New York's 10 man or whatever rotation wasn't worth much in the playoffs when depth isn't nearly as important.

 

No, the Cardinals wouldn't be better by your standards either, because they couldn't even finish higher than Houston in the playoffs.

 

I guess I can't put as much weight on a playoff series as I would on a full season. I also can't give as much weight during a full season to a team that had an easier schedule to reach the wins they did.

 

Would the White Sox have won the division with 99 wins if you switched them with Boston or New York in the NL East? I don't think so.

 

How about this? Boston, New York and St. Louis all had better teams than the White Sox last year, but the White Sox played the best baseball during the playoffs!

 

Does that let me off the hook on this subject? :D

[abuck1220]

and to everybody clamoring about how the sox were lucky...does everyone remember what type of hitter dlee was before he flirted w/ .400 and the triple crown? or what kind of hitter barrett was before he became the best offensive catcher in the nl? or what type of pitcher dempster was before he became one of the best closers in baseball last season? how about murton hitting .320 straight from AA? ramirez going from flop to stud?

First, I was never trying to imply that Hendry is better than KW. This offseason in particular has shown that Williams is a better GM.

 

But your examples are completely flawed. One by one here:

 

DLee - Everyone knew he had the tools. He had a hole in his swing and fixed it.

 

Barrett - Part luck, part talent.

 

Dempster - Should have been closing all along in 05, and it was Dusty's stupidity that kept it from happening.

 

Murton - Everyone knows he is good. Even when we got him in the Nomar deal, a lot of people were surprised that we could have plucked him. Bill Simmons, a Sox fan, expressed shock that we got the best player AND the best prospect in that deal.

 

Ramirez - He had one bad year in Pittsburgh. That was the fluke, not what happened afterwards.

 

my point is, you can say that the cubs were lucky just as easy as you could say the sox were lucky. you're just making excuses for why the cubs' unexpected successes were, in essence, expected. you could do the same for the sox. dye has always had potential, same w/ jenks, same w/ cotts, same w/ garcia, buerhle, hermanson, etc.

 

and if you think bill simmons had one clue about who matt murton was the day of that trade, you're nuts.

[Backtobanks]

As we all know, it is not a simple answer as to why a team does well in a certain year. Such things as luck, injuries, which division they play in, players having "career years", etc. all figure into the mix. Obviously, competence and genius (see Atlanta) also figure in the formula. I think Kenny Williams took a few chances in 2005 and they all paid off. Was that genius or luck? It did help to be in the AL Central, especially when the Twins had an off year and the Indians were still to young to win the division. The playoffs are always a crapshoot because so much depends on which team has been the hottest lately and can 1 or 2 players get hot for a 2-week stretch. Obviously, the Sox will remain competitive in 2006 because of their starting pitchers. Will Thome be healthy? Will they miss Rowand? Will their relief pitchers respond like 2005? Will there be any key injuries? Will the Twins improve and the Indians mature enough to compete? That's why they play the games. In the meantime, Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen have a ways to go before I label them "geniuses".