The ChiSox are bad because they have bad players that produced a total of 31.6 WAR in 2016, which translates to 79.6 wins. Couple that with their slightly unlucky 23-29 record in 1 run games, and they ended up winning 78 games.Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry
For almost any team you can sum up their total player WAR, add 48 to it, adjust by their luck in 1 run games, and get very close to their actual win total.
Does that work for projected WAR, too? (Just kidding. Some of the discussions on here seem to indicate that you can. If that were the case, you'd never have the 91 Braves, but you wouldn't have the 2014 Braves, either.)
Rangers just got Ross for $6M plus incentives. I would much rather have seen the Braves sign him for that deal than any of the 3 pitchers they acquired this offseason.
To be fair, I don't think anyone thought Ross would be non tendered when the offseason began.
Ivermectin Man
I don't think Ross will be good this year. There is a reason he signed for so cheap.
Can't imagine why it matters which one year deal the braves inked, but I'd think that colon and Garcia are as good a bet to perform in 2017.
Ross pitched 6 innings last year and had thoracic outlet surgery in October. If his recovery goes well, I wouldn't expect him to pitch more than 120 innings in 2017.
Enscheff, what are the projected facts on Tyson Ross?
Understand what you are saying but is it Cause and Effect or Effect and Cause?
Their Group of players may have had a WAR of 31.6 in 2016 which was determined AFTER they had played. But, is there any way to know that the 31.6 achieved was the maximum possible that they could have achieved? I think they vastly underachieved. The sum of the parts as a team was not greater than the individual parts taken separately and summed.
That's why I think they had a bad mix and is an example of the much discussed "bad clubhouse" phenomena. And that's why I think they decided to blow it up and rebuild (which was the right move for them IMO).
If you look at other teams in their division right now: Detroit is about to implode (getting to old, too fast and doing nothing to address that); KC is getting ready to implode (too many core players moving into FA too quickly and not enough young talent to halt the slide - probably consciously done because they were winning a WS); Twins are floundering (Complete mismanagement with a big part of it in tying up way too much payroll in an unproductive fan favorite (Mauer); Then you have the current belle of the ball at Cleveleand which will win for now but isn't built for the long haul.
The Chisox should have a mini-dynasty in the AL Central in 3-4 years if they do this rebuild right (and they are well on their way).
Does the "why" really matter? If that group of players can't perform, for whatever reason, then it's time to get another group of players.
The leading theory I've always heard about the ChiSox is they took the "stars and scrubs" model too far. They have a few excellent players, and the rest are so bad they can't compete. I'm not sure how legit that assessment is, but I did notice many negative WAR players when I summed up the production of their roster.
The why is all that matters.
How? If the problem was the mix of players, how would you fix it other than getting different players? Isn't that exactly what they are doing?
But which players? The why helps make a better decision.
Natural Immunity Croc
I agree TT. The why is informative for the Chisox..."It should have worked but didn't so why so we don't make the same mistake again."
The why is informative for others in baseball willing to learn from another's mistakes...."What they did should have worked better than it did. What happened?" Maybe it was one or two bad apples who destroyed the mix. If so, it would be good to know who those bad apples are. I'm thinking Sale might be one of them just like I think Harper might be hurting the gNats...Great individual players but can they mix on a team in a team game? If their individual WAR is 6 or 7 but their antics detract 4-5 WAR from the team total by making it difficult for others to play to their potential, then what is their true value?
To a certain extent Bonds was that way. Hell, maybe ALL great players have a little diva in them and detract from the team to varying degrees. I remember when Maddux didn't want Javy as a catcher. Not a huge thing but it had to throw some doubt into the other pitchers who had no choice but to work with Javy.
It's part of the difficult to quantify human element that is part of all team sports.
So a team with a bad mix of players put together a roster that, according to you, underperformed because that mix was bad. Obviously the team can't pinpoint what makes a "bad mix", so how are they going to determine which players?
Ha.
Applaud the White Sox for trading great players with years of control for prospects if you want, but it ain't that hard to do that and it is a bit puzzling all things considered. But I'm sure they know what they were doing.
So which teams will be hampered by "bad mix" in 2017. If "bad mix" can only be known ex post it is useless as a tool for building a team. Do the Braves have "good mix" or "bad mix" going into 2017? Inquiring minds want to know.
Indeed. Can you guys please enlighten us?
I have no idea what any of what you just posted has to do with the ongoing conversation. My point is that the Chisox did not play to their potential. That is history AND obvious. My thoughts are that they failed because they had a bad mix of players. Feel free to discuss your ideas.
I never said ANYTHING about determining the mix of a team as a determining factor for predicting the future. I doubt that could be done with any certainty and would have to be a judgmental call, ie. Bonds is a prima donna and would not mix well with Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz no matter what his gifts are...
As for your inquiring mind, that's a good thing, one day you might learn something if you don't let your smarmy superior attitude get in the way.
See above.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote