Friday, May 16, 2008
Fannie Mae Ends Declining Markets Policy
In just a few months, Fannie Mae has ended their declining markets policy in favor of a nationwide policy that requires reasonable down payments on loans regardless of geography. The policy is a win-win for Fannie and the fair housing community as it addresses both sound underwriting practices and fair lending concerns.
You can read Fannie Mae's press release here or this from Reuters.
update: Freddie Mac follows suit.
You can read Fannie Mae's press release here or this from Reuters.
update: Freddie Mac follows suit.
Labels: fair housing, housing policy
The State of Fair Housing 2008
This week, The Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance released its 2008 State of Fair Housing Report for the 6-County region. The report provides statistics on the frequency of discrimination complaints in the Chicago region and a narrative on the structure of segregation and inequality throughout the region.
It also includes a Blueprint for Change that recommends ways to foster integration, improve access to housing options, and promote sustainable development throughout the region.
You can view it here.
It also includes a Blueprint for Change that recommends ways to foster integration, improve access to housing options, and promote sustainable development throughout the region.
You can view it here.
Labels: civil rights movement, fair housing, housing policy, integration and segregation
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Lebetter v. Goodyear and the Future of Civil Rights
In case you don't pay attention to civil rights, I'll give you the quick summary of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Ms. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear a long time, decades actually. And, when she retired she became aware that she made about $6,000 less annually than her male cohorts. As this was the first she became aware of the disparity, she filed a complaint against Goodyear for the pay she didn't receive on the basis of pay equity.
No one disputes Ms. Ledbetter's qualities as an employee of Goodyear. She was a fine employee. But, the Supreme Court ruled against her claim because she filed it too long after the company violated her rights.
This ruling is due to what employment discrimination folks call "temporal proximity" -- in other words, was the complaint filed shortly after the alleged act of discrimination. Shortly is often considered within 90 days but can be even shorter in some cases. The problem with the Supreme Court's ruling is that temporal proximity is really aimed more at retaliatory actions and not, as in Ms. Ledbetter's case, systemic acts of discrimination. The Court is simply wrong in its ruling.
What's even worse is that with this ruling, the Court essentially said to employers, "You can discriminate against your employees as long as they don't find out in time."
Congress is attempting to amend the laws so that the EEOC and the courts will have to allow for longer periods for filing cases. The House passed an amendment to make the language fairer. Republicans are holding it back in the Senate. The President is promising to veto the bill.
No one disputes Ms. Ledbetter's qualities as an employee of Goodyear. She was a fine employee. But, the Supreme Court ruled against her claim because she filed it too long after the company violated her rights.
This ruling is due to what employment discrimination folks call "temporal proximity" -- in other words, was the complaint filed shortly after the alleged act of discrimination. Shortly is often considered within 90 days but can be even shorter in some cases. The problem with the Supreme Court's ruling is that temporal proximity is really aimed more at retaliatory actions and not, as in Ms. Ledbetter's case, systemic acts of discrimination. The Court is simply wrong in its ruling.
What's even worse is that with this ruling, the Court essentially said to employers, "You can discriminate against your employees as long as they don't find out in time."
Congress is attempting to amend the laws so that the EEOC and the courts will have to allow for longer periods for filing cases. The House passed an amendment to make the language fairer. Republicans are holding it back in the Senate. The President is promising to veto the bill.
Labels: civil rights movement, employment
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Integration Makes the Tribune
The Chicago Tribune has written an article about integration and the Oak Park Regional Housing Center's new program opening a Berwyn Housing Center. The article features some quotes from me as the Executive Director.
As with all news articles, there is never enough space to thoroughly address everything. Because of this, there are two things I'd like to clarify:
1. The Housing Center has outstanding support from the community and few detractors. Yet, quotes from detractors are included while quotes from supporters are not.
2. The additional service area was never intended to have a detrimental effect on black families hoping to move to Oak Park. We provide, and always have provided, listings in Oak Park to all clients regardless of race.
In addition, we are aware of the barriers, including perceptual barriers, African Americans face when considering affirmative moves in other communities in the western suburbs. The second service area was established to assist black clients interested in those other suburbs.
As with all news articles, there is never enough space to thoroughly address everything. Because of this, there are two things I'd like to clarify:
1. The Housing Center has outstanding support from the community and few detractors. Yet, quotes from detractors are included while quotes from supporters are not.
2. The additional service area was never intended to have a detrimental effect on black families hoping to move to Oak Park. We provide, and always have provided, listings in Oak Park to all clients regardless of race.
In addition, we are aware of the barriers, including perceptual barriers, African Americans face when considering affirmative moves in other communities in the western suburbs. The second service area was established to assist black clients interested in those other suburbs.
Labels: integration and segregation
Monday, July 09, 2007
Realizing Integration
I posted a very similar entry at From Poverty to Opportunity.
In July 6th's New York Times, David Brooks wrote a column that lamented the failures to integrate our society. In it, he suggests that we should give up on integration and accept that people want to live in a segregated society. It's a depressing read both for its suggestion and for the inaccuracies that Brooks uses to support it.
Brooks isn't alone in his thoughts. Many wonder why it is that we haven't integrated. They usually begin with the same premise. Since the civil rights movement guaranteed people the right to live wherever they want, they must be living apart because that is what they prefer.
This is counter to what most research shows. In actuality, people of all races express interests in living in diverse communities. People of color often express an interest to live in communities that have similar demographics to the regions they live in. Even whites, who express an interest in living in communities where they make up the majority, still indicate preferences to live in diverse neighborhoods. A recent example is the Chicago Area Study performed by professors Maria Krysan and Tyrone Foreman at the University of Illinois at Chicago that found this exact result.
Unfortunately, providing rights is not enough. In order to undo generations of segregation, we need programs that actively -- or as we say in the business, affirmatively -- further fair housing rights. In fact, the Fair Housing Act and many state human and civil rights acts have language explicitly stating that government has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Alas, HUD and its state equivalents frequently ignore this duty.
Meanwhile, real estate steering, linguistic profiling, and hate crimes are among many problems that continue to reinforce segregation.
The evidence shows that segregation itself perpetuates racial and ethnic inequality. This is something else Brooks fails to consider as he suggests that maybe segregation is just fine. The Chicago region is an excellent example of how patterns of racial segregation correlate almost exactly with patterns of opportunity*. In the 6-county area, 94% of African Americans and 83% of Latinos live in low-opportunity communities. This is roughly equivalent to the 86% of families in poverty that live in low-opportunity communities.
In these low-opportunity communities residents suffered from:
Simultaneously, high-opportunity communities continue to add jobs, improve schools, expand infrastructure, and offer lower taxes. Yet, while high-opportunity communities make up 40% of the region, they have very little affordable housing -- only 4% of the housing affordable to households making 30% of the area median income. Consequently, only 9% of those in poverty live in high-opportunity communities despite the fact that they make up 29% of the total population of the region.
The geography of segregation makes it easy to provide for some while denying others. As a result, it exacerbates every problem we face in America. Giving up on the dream of integration is essentially to give up on the dream of equality and the guarantee of basic human rights we all deserve.
see Lukehart, John et al., The Segregation of Opportunites
In July 6th's New York Times, David Brooks wrote a column that lamented the failures to integrate our society. In it, he suggests that we should give up on integration and accept that people want to live in a segregated society. It's a depressing read both for its suggestion and for the inaccuracies that Brooks uses to support it.
Brooks isn't alone in his thoughts. Many wonder why it is that we haven't integrated. They usually begin with the same premise. Since the civil rights movement guaranteed people the right to live wherever they want, they must be living apart because that is what they prefer.
This is counter to what most research shows. In actuality, people of all races express interests in living in diverse communities. People of color often express an interest to live in communities that have similar demographics to the regions they live in. Even whites, who express an interest in living in communities where they make up the majority, still indicate preferences to live in diverse neighborhoods. A recent example is the Chicago Area Study performed by professors Maria Krysan and Tyrone Foreman at the University of Illinois at Chicago that found this exact result.
Unfortunately, providing rights is not enough. In order to undo generations of segregation, we need programs that actively -- or as we say in the business, affirmatively -- further fair housing rights. In fact, the Fair Housing Act and many state human and civil rights acts have language explicitly stating that government has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Alas, HUD and its state equivalents frequently ignore this duty.
Meanwhile, real estate steering, linguistic profiling, and hate crimes are among many problems that continue to reinforce segregation.
The evidence shows that segregation itself perpetuates racial and ethnic inequality. This is something else Brooks fails to consider as he suggests that maybe segregation is just fine. The Chicago region is an excellent example of how patterns of racial segregation correlate almost exactly with patterns of opportunity*. In the 6-county area, 94% of African Americans and 83% of Latinos live in low-opportunity communities. This is roughly equivalent to the 86% of families in poverty that live in low-opportunity communities.
In these low-opportunity communities residents suffered from:
- fewer jobs and transportation options
- poorer schools
- higher crime
- less green space
- more pollution and health problems
- slower appreciation in housing values and older housing stock
- fewer day care slots
- reduced civic participation
Simultaneously, high-opportunity communities continue to add jobs, improve schools, expand infrastructure, and offer lower taxes. Yet, while high-opportunity communities make up 40% of the region, they have very little affordable housing -- only 4% of the housing affordable to households making 30% of the area median income. Consequently, only 9% of those in poverty live in high-opportunity communities despite the fact that they make up 29% of the total population of the region.
The geography of segregation makes it easy to provide for some while denying others. As a result, it exacerbates every problem we face in America. Giving up on the dream of integration is essentially to give up on the dream of equality and the guarantee of basic human rights we all deserve.
see Lukehart, John et al., The Segregation of Opportunites
Labels: integration and segregation
Friday, June 01, 2007
New Format
You'll notice that I have widened the links frame and added links. As I rarely post anymore, I'm using this page more as a link site than anything else. These links should be helpful for anyone looking for information on fair housing, housing policy, civil rights, and race relations.
Labels: civil rights movement, fair housing, housing policy, race in America
Monday, April 09, 2007
The Problem with Imus and so many others
It's been a long time since I've posted. I do not really have time to go looking through the news and give my opinion anymore. But, I feel compelled to talk about Imus.
I'm getting to this late because I don't hear Imus (although, I did listen regularly in Albuquerque when we lived there) and don't really look into stories about him. He's not on in Chicago (or most cities). And, I didn't see a headline about it until yesterday.
Anyone who's ever heard him knows Imus is a misanthrope. My biggest problem is with Imus's go-to excuse. He claims to be an "equal opportunity offender." This misses the point. When Imus makes fun of white people he makes fun of their intelligence or of their lifestyle choices or of their judgment in a banal ornery way. But, when Imus does the same about black people and other minorities and disfranchised groups, he makes fun of their race by using racist (or at least racial) language.
I doubt Imus misunderstands this reality. His job is to speak and he uses language daily to spar with his co-hosts and guests. So, to say that he doesn't understand the difference is a lame defense.
This is true for so many of us though. We often want to be funny by using words that have racial overtones or subtexts. Worse, we use epithets to be funny. It turns out ugly more than it turns out funny.
In fact, this is one place where I agree with Sarah Silverman. While I don't think she's as funny as conventional wisdom would have it, she thinks about how she's going to use racial language to be funny. After the Michael Richards incident, she explained it with a funny line about the difference between her and "Kramer" that basically went, "I spend time planning my racist jokes." Typical of Silverman, she provided a sentence with a double meaning. The serious meaning being that she takes care in the use of language.
Imus doesn't do this. Or, if he does, he seems to take care to be mean and racist.
I'm getting to this late because I don't hear Imus (although, I did listen regularly in Albuquerque when we lived there) and don't really look into stories about him. He's not on in Chicago (or most cities). And, I didn't see a headline about it until yesterday.
Anyone who's ever heard him knows Imus is a misanthrope. My biggest problem is with Imus's go-to excuse. He claims to be an "equal opportunity offender." This misses the point. When Imus makes fun of white people he makes fun of their intelligence or of their lifestyle choices or of their judgment in a banal ornery way. But, when Imus does the same about black people and other minorities and disfranchised groups, he makes fun of their race by using racist (or at least racial) language.
I doubt Imus misunderstands this reality. His job is to speak and he uses language daily to spar with his co-hosts and guests. So, to say that he doesn't understand the difference is a lame defense.
This is true for so many of us though. We often want to be funny by using words that have racial overtones or subtexts. Worse, we use epithets to be funny. It turns out ugly more than it turns out funny.
In fact, this is one place where I agree with Sarah Silverman. While I don't think she's as funny as conventional wisdom would have it, she thinks about how she's going to use racial language to be funny. After the Michael Richards incident, she explained it with a funny line about the difference between her and "Kramer" that basically went, "I spend time planning my racist jokes." Typical of Silverman, she provided a sentence with a double meaning. The serious meaning being that she takes care in the use of language.
Imus doesn't do this. Or, if he does, he seems to take care to be mean and racist.
Labels: race in America
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
White Sox Preview
I’m not sure why I hate the White Sox so much, but I can tell you with certainty – I hate the White Sox. It’s not because they’re rivals of the Tigers. The Twins and Indians are both rivals of the Tigers. So are the Royals. I don’t hate any of those teams, and in fact I respect the Twins and the Indians quite a bit. I’d probably even like those teams if they weren’t in the American League Central. But not the White Sox. Oh, I do respect them for assembling a quality club, but that doesn’t mean I don’t hate them.
It’s not the players, either. I have no beef with Jermaine Dye. Paul Konerko seems like a pretty genuinely good guy. Iguchi, Crede, all those good pitchers, they’re all fine in my book. A.J. Pierzynski’s a bit of a douche, but he’s probably just that team’s Rasheed Wallace. When he’s on your team, you’re fine with him. When he’s not, you’re not. But mash them altogether and there’s no two ways about it. I hate them. So let’s talk about the players who will be on the receiving end of my very polarized feelings toward this team.
In 2006, what went right for the White Sox was their lineup, and what went wrong for the White Sox was their pitching. Since what’s bad for the Sox is what’s good for Tiger fans, let’s start there. The real unfortunate part for Sox fans – the real gut shot – was that it wasn’t their bullpen that really let them down. Sure, a couple of the steadier pitchers out of their 2005 bullpen – Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte – were awful, but overall it wasn’t a bad group. Take those two and their cliff diving 2006 seasons out of the equation and the White Sox pen was actually pretty good. What let the Sox and their fans down in 2006 was their starters. It was almost cruel to see.
Starting Rotation
You have the same guys as the previous season, with the weakest link replaced with a guy who could very well have become the staff ace. The five of them make all but three of the team’s starts in the entire season and as a crew they throw more innings than the starters of any team in the American League. That was Ozzie Guillen’s genius from 2005, right? Letting his starters work out of their jams and earn all those victories heaped upon them. Well, he got a ton of innings out of them again in 2006 and all they could muster was a 4.63 ERA (not counting the three starts from McCarthy and Haeger). The real poetry of it was the thing people blamed for their struggles as a staff were all those innings in 2005.
Don’t feel too bad for the Sox, though. Kenny Williams assessed the situation, saw he had some pitchers that would most likely be leaving soon, and scrambled things up. He shipped out Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy and brought back some pretty good prospects. Two of them are fighting for the fifth spot in the rotation, so let’s start there. John Danks came over from the Rangers in the McCarthy trade. He was part of the “DVD” trio the Rangers had assembled and he’d better hope his fortunes turn out better than the other two have or a better nickname would have been “Beta”. Luckily for Sox fans, he’s considered the best of the three. He’s a young (22 next month) lefty who has three good pitches that include a low-90s fastball, a “1 to 7” curveball and an improving changeup. (Nod to Baseball America) His opponent for that fifth spot was acquired in the Freddy Garcia trade, and his name is Gavin Floyd. Floyd was once supposed to be a top flight pitcher, but he hasn’t been able to live up to his early promise. Even in 2004, when he earned a couple starts with the Phils in his first full pro season, he had some control problems that really came out in the majors, when he walked 16 in 28 innings. In 2005, every body wondered what happened to him as he got torched down in Scranton-Wilkes Barre before he earned a promotion to Philly to get torched worse by better hitters. It wasn’t much better for him in 2006, but at least he did okay in AAA this time before things went south again in Philly. I’m not pretending to know the Sox pitchers better than they do, but if Floyd gets the job to start the season, I bet 2007 will be the last season anybody argues about which of these two is better.
Whoever wins that competition for the fifth spot, the other four will be the same as last year. Surprisingly, the most successful starter for the team for most of 2006 was Jose Contreras. He was fantastic in April and May and then on June 1st he was tagged for six runs. June never got much better, and although he recuped a bit later in the season, he never duplicated that early success. Still, he was the only Sox starter to allow less hits than innings pitched. He was also able to use a very low walk rate (2.5 BB/9) to give him a good K:BB ratio despite an only average strikeout rate (6.2 K/9). Sox fans should take heart in the fact that the rest of his numbers didn’t seem very flukey so they can reasonably expect similar results next year.
Many would probably disagree, but I’d say the next most successful starter last year was Javier Vazquez. He gave up barely more hits than innings pitched. He struck out 184 batters, which was easily the most on the team. His walk rate was among the highest of the starters, but 2.5 walked per nine innings is certainly nothing to complain about. He gave up less home runs than he had since his heyday with the Expos. You can go right down the line of his stats and aside from a slight jump in his BABIP compared to his career average (.321 in 2006, .309 career), nothing offers much of an explanation as to how or why his ERA ballooned up to 4.84. If you’re a Sox fan, that’s good news for 2007 as such luck probably won’t repeat itself.
Moving on to the next starter in terms of the quality he offered in 2006, you have Jon Garland. This dude gave up a ton of hits in 2006. In fact, nobody in the American League gave up more hits than his 247 hits. You may think he had some fundamental collapse that opened the door for all those hits, but it would appear it was just a case of all the bad fortune he had avoided in prior seasons coming home to roost. In 2005, when he was giving up only 212 hits in 221 innings, he enjoyed a .268 BABIP. In 2006, the main explanation for the difference in his stats was that number jumping up to .313. That’s not such good news for Sox fans because that 2006 number is a lot closer to normal. They’ll just have to hope he gets it back to something like his career average, which even after 2006 lies at .284.
That brings us to the most celebrated pitcher of this bunch, Mark Buehrle. I was accurate when I mentioned nobody gave up MORE hits in the American League than Jon Garland’s 247. However, I would also be accurate in saying nobody gave up more hits in the American League than Mark Buehrle. While any Sox fans reading that try to figure out how that’s possible, I’ll look at just what happened to Mr. Buehrle in 2006. Even when things were going well for Buehrle, he gave up a lot of hits. He would just minimize the damage of all those hits by giving up hardly any walks and very few home runs. These things were enough to compensate for all the hits that came with his low strikeout totals. Well, in 2006, even more hits came because he struck out even less batters (4.3 K/9). Stir in career-high fly ball rate with a career high percentage of fly balls turning into home runs and you have unhappy South Siders and a disastrous ERA that was 0.01 shy of five. This was quite shocking from a guy who, as a starter, had only once before had an ERA that started with a four. I’m sure I’m not the only one who expected an injury to be revealed during the offseason, but the news never came. Even more baffling to me is the fact that everybody seems to think it was just a blip in his career and anxiously awaits his free agency. I hope that winning ticket comes with a good surgeon’s number on the back.
Lineup
As I mentioned before, it’s a shame the pitching didn’t show up for the Sox because, boy, their hitting did. This team mashed in 2007 to the tune of 868 runs. They smacked 236 long balls and as a team hit .280/.342/.464. They had two guys whose OPS cleared 1.000 (Thome and Dye) and most days neither one of them batted fourth. That’s all behind them, though. The important question not just for the Sox, but the whole American League, is can they do it again?
If their doing it again requires Jermaine Dye maintaining the numbers he produced in 2006, I’d say it’s probably a resounding no. Now 33, you cannot reasonably expect Dye to again clear what had been his career high slugging percentage by 60 points. It’s also probably not reasonable to again expect one-fourth of his fly balls to leave the yard. Similarly, reproducing his .334 BABIP when his career average (even after this past stellar season) is only .305 seems unlikely. If he can even come close, though, Juan Uribe should be able to pick up some of the slack. Uribe forgot how to watch ball four (13 walks in 495 plate appearances) and because of it saw his on-base percentage drop to an astounding .257. That’s not a batting average folks. Since he will be a free agent if the Sox don’t pick up his option at the end of this year, I can almost guarantee they will get a better on-base percentage than .257 from their shortstop whether it’s Uribe giving it to them or not. The good news for Juan is he’s just as unlikely to duplicate his .244 BABIP as he is that putrid OBP.
Another position where the White Sox have almost nowhere to go but up (as far as offense) is center field. Brian Anderson is supposed to be a fantastic center fielder, but even if he could split into two Andruw Joneses out there, he’d have a tough time making up for his .225/.290/.359 line from last season. From what I’ve read about the Sox, their outfield situation is still a little murky, but that’s a pretty low bar to clear no matter who they settle on. Then again, one of the potential candidates to fill in out there is Darin Erstad. If anybody could trip over the bar when it’s already lying on the ground, he’s probably as good a bet as anybody. The Sox will probably need to add some runs at the position, though, because somebody is likely going to have to make up for Jim Thome coming back down to earth a bit. Not only do I not see Thome again banging out a 1.014 OPS, I also wouldn’t want to have to count on him clearing 600 plate appearances again.
While we’re talking about players backsliding, I’d feel pretty confident throwing Konerko into that mix as well. I wouldn’t look for him to reproduce his career high batting average of .313, which came on the strength of a career high BABIP of .333. But even if those numbers come down a bit, Konerko’s power and walk rate should still keep him pretty effective and while there might be a slight decline, I bet it’s not much. Slight or not, it’s hard to come up with the position that will make up for any loss in production Konerko might have. Pierzynski is 30, a catcher and played right around his career averages last year. Improvement wouldn’t seem to be the smart bet on him. At least the Sox signed Toby Hall to back him up. He will almost certainly improve on what the Sox got out of last year’s backup catchers, Chris Widger and Sandy Alomar. I see Iguchi in a very similar light to Pierzynski. He’s 32, plays a pretty challenging defensive position, and has been pretty remarkably consistent the past two seasons. I’d bet on him staying the same again a lot sooner than I’d bet on significant improvement.
That leaves third base, left field and the bench. Joe Crede had a pretty big breakthrough last year, hitting thirty home runs and slugging .506. Just expecting him to match those numbers when they smoked anything he had ever done in a full season seems optimistic. Asking him to improve on them seems downright greedy. In left field last year they had Scott Podsednik most days. He was a turd, hitting .261/.330/.353, and it would certainly seem like they could do better than that. But if Podsednik is out there, he’s a 31-year old player who draws most of his value from his speed and just played his first spring game because he had a hernia surgery in January. Mackowiak and Ozuna both could probably bump up the productivity at that position a bit, but looking at their outfield candidates, it’s easy to see why a lot of Sox fans are calling for Ryan Sweeney and Josh Fields to get time out there. That pretty much covers the offensive side of things for the Sox.
Bullpen
Once the starters are out of the game, I would look for the Sox to get pretty good innings out of their bullpen again this year. That statement is dependent on Jenks’ arm staying healthy, which I believe was a concern early in Spring Training. He says he’s fine, but he wouldn’t be the first pitcher to kid himself when it comes to his own health. In front of the big boy, they will probably count on Mike MacDougal and Matt Thornton for quality innings. Both were great for the Sox last year and they’ll have to hope Thornton maintains the control he finally found and MacDougal maintains his health.
Beyond those three, they’ll hope pitching coach Don Cooper can continue to work his magic on Andy Sisco, the 6’10” giant. Sisco showed a lot of promise as a rookie in 2005, but then realized he was a Royal in 2006 and pretty much crapped the bed. He’s supposed to be a bit of a head case, but being on a winning team clears up those problems a lot of the time and we know Ozzie Guillen won’t take any crap from him even if he is giving up more than a foot and one hundred pounds. The rest of the bullpen will depend on how many bench players Ozzie wants, but it’s pretty sure to be some fresh faces whether that face belongs to knuckleballer Charlie Haeger, former Cub David Aardsma (another fireballer the Sox seem to love in their pen), Boone Logan, Nick Masset or one of their other youngsters. We should have a pretty good idea soon because Ozzie Guillen is expected to cut the roster down from 40 to 28 in the next couple days. That doesn’t leave a whole lot of wiggle room for roster decisions.
Defense
I’m going to touch on the defensive facet of this team very briefly. They’re returning the same guys at almost every position, and that’s probably not great news for their defense since they’re an older team that will just be one year slower at almost every position. Not only that, but one of the positions where they were very strong was center field and Brian Anderson doesn’t seem to have really good job security, so that will likely be another step backward for the defense.
Summary
So taking all this information into consideration, where do I see the White Sox in relation to their 90 wins from last year? I’d look for them to take a step backward. I don’t think their starters will bounce back as much as many people think. Vazquez will probably improve on his bad luck, but I have a feeling Buehrle might be heading for a fall and may not bounce back as much as people expect. Then even if Contreras and Garland hold steady, Danks and/or Floyd might not have an easy time replacing Garcia’s numbers from last year. Factor in an aging offense that may have a hard time repeating last year’s success and what seems to be an improved division and things get a little hairy for the Pale Hose. I may be blinded by that hatred I was talking about before, but the Sox stepping back to something like eighty-four or eighty-five wins seems more likely to me than picking up the two or three extra wins that would probably be needed for the division.
Notes: I used just about all of the General Baseball sites found at the right of the page to compile this preview and a special mention goes out to fangraphs.com.
It’s not the players, either. I have no beef with Jermaine Dye. Paul Konerko seems like a pretty genuinely good guy. Iguchi, Crede, all those good pitchers, they’re all fine in my book. A.J. Pierzynski’s a bit of a douche, but he’s probably just that team’s Rasheed Wallace. When he’s on your team, you’re fine with him. When he’s not, you’re not. But mash them altogether and there’s no two ways about it. I hate them. So let’s talk about the players who will be on the receiving end of my very polarized feelings toward this team.
In 2006, what went right for the White Sox was their lineup, and what went wrong for the White Sox was their pitching. Since what’s bad for the Sox is what’s good for Tiger fans, let’s start there. The real unfortunate part for Sox fans – the real gut shot – was that it wasn’t their bullpen that really let them down. Sure, a couple of the steadier pitchers out of their 2005 bullpen – Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte – were awful, but overall it wasn’t a bad group. Take those two and their cliff diving 2006 seasons out of the equation and the White Sox pen was actually pretty good. What let the Sox and their fans down in 2006 was their starters. It was almost cruel to see.
Starting Rotation
You have the same guys as the previous season, with the weakest link replaced with a guy who could very well have become the staff ace. The five of them make all but three of the team’s starts in the entire season and as a crew they throw more innings than the starters of any team in the American League. That was Ozzie Guillen’s genius from 2005, right? Letting his starters work out of their jams and earn all those victories heaped upon them. Well, he got a ton of innings out of them again in 2006 and all they could muster was a 4.63 ERA (not counting the three starts from McCarthy and Haeger). The real poetry of it was the thing people blamed for their struggles as a staff were all those innings in 2005.
Don’t feel too bad for the Sox, though. Kenny Williams assessed the situation, saw he had some pitchers that would most likely be leaving soon, and scrambled things up. He shipped out Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy and brought back some pretty good prospects. Two of them are fighting for the fifth spot in the rotation, so let’s start there. John Danks came over from the Rangers in the McCarthy trade. He was part of the “DVD” trio the Rangers had assembled and he’d better hope his fortunes turn out better than the other two have or a better nickname would have been “Beta”. Luckily for Sox fans, he’s considered the best of the three. He’s a young (22 next month) lefty who has three good pitches that include a low-90s fastball, a “1 to 7” curveball and an improving changeup. (Nod to Baseball America) His opponent for that fifth spot was acquired in the Freddy Garcia trade, and his name is Gavin Floyd. Floyd was once supposed to be a top flight pitcher, but he hasn’t been able to live up to his early promise. Even in 2004, when he earned a couple starts with the Phils in his first full pro season, he had some control problems that really came out in the majors, when he walked 16 in 28 innings. In 2005, every body wondered what happened to him as he got torched down in Scranton-Wilkes Barre before he earned a promotion to Philly to get torched worse by better hitters. It wasn’t much better for him in 2006, but at least he did okay in AAA this time before things went south again in Philly. I’m not pretending to know the Sox pitchers better than they do, but if Floyd gets the job to start the season, I bet 2007 will be the last season anybody argues about which of these two is better.
Whoever wins that competition for the fifth spot, the other four will be the same as last year. Surprisingly, the most successful starter for the team for most of 2006 was Jose Contreras. He was fantastic in April and May and then on June 1st he was tagged for six runs. June never got much better, and although he recuped a bit later in the season, he never duplicated that early success. Still, he was the only Sox starter to allow less hits than innings pitched. He was also able to use a very low walk rate (2.5 BB/9) to give him a good K:BB ratio despite an only average strikeout rate (6.2 K/9). Sox fans should take heart in the fact that the rest of his numbers didn’t seem very flukey so they can reasonably expect similar results next year.
Many would probably disagree, but I’d say the next most successful starter last year was Javier Vazquez. He gave up barely more hits than innings pitched. He struck out 184 batters, which was easily the most on the team. His walk rate was among the highest of the starters, but 2.5 walked per nine innings is certainly nothing to complain about. He gave up less home runs than he had since his heyday with the Expos. You can go right down the line of his stats and aside from a slight jump in his BABIP compared to his career average (.321 in 2006, .309 career), nothing offers much of an explanation as to how or why his ERA ballooned up to 4.84. If you’re a Sox fan, that’s good news for 2007 as such luck probably won’t repeat itself.
Moving on to the next starter in terms of the quality he offered in 2006, you have Jon Garland. This dude gave up a ton of hits in 2006. In fact, nobody in the American League gave up more hits than his 247 hits. You may think he had some fundamental collapse that opened the door for all those hits, but it would appear it was just a case of all the bad fortune he had avoided in prior seasons coming home to roost. In 2005, when he was giving up only 212 hits in 221 innings, he enjoyed a .268 BABIP. In 2006, the main explanation for the difference in his stats was that number jumping up to .313. That’s not such good news for Sox fans because that 2006 number is a lot closer to normal. They’ll just have to hope he gets it back to something like his career average, which even after 2006 lies at .284.
That brings us to the most celebrated pitcher of this bunch, Mark Buehrle. I was accurate when I mentioned nobody gave up MORE hits in the American League than Jon Garland’s 247. However, I would also be accurate in saying nobody gave up more hits in the American League than Mark Buehrle. While any Sox fans reading that try to figure out how that’s possible, I’ll look at just what happened to Mr. Buehrle in 2006. Even when things were going well for Buehrle, he gave up a lot of hits. He would just minimize the damage of all those hits by giving up hardly any walks and very few home runs. These things were enough to compensate for all the hits that came with his low strikeout totals. Well, in 2006, even more hits came because he struck out even less batters (4.3 K/9). Stir in career-high fly ball rate with a career high percentage of fly balls turning into home runs and you have unhappy South Siders and a disastrous ERA that was 0.01 shy of five. This was quite shocking from a guy who, as a starter, had only once before had an ERA that started with a four. I’m sure I’m not the only one who expected an injury to be revealed during the offseason, but the news never came. Even more baffling to me is the fact that everybody seems to think it was just a blip in his career and anxiously awaits his free agency. I hope that winning ticket comes with a good surgeon’s number on the back.
Lineup
As I mentioned before, it’s a shame the pitching didn’t show up for the Sox because, boy, their hitting did. This team mashed in 2007 to the tune of 868 runs. They smacked 236 long balls and as a team hit .280/.342/.464. They had two guys whose OPS cleared 1.000 (Thome and Dye) and most days neither one of them batted fourth. That’s all behind them, though. The important question not just for the Sox, but the whole American League, is can they do it again?
If their doing it again requires Jermaine Dye maintaining the numbers he produced in 2006, I’d say it’s probably a resounding no. Now 33, you cannot reasonably expect Dye to again clear what had been his career high slugging percentage by 60 points. It’s also probably not reasonable to again expect one-fourth of his fly balls to leave the yard. Similarly, reproducing his .334 BABIP when his career average (even after this past stellar season) is only .305 seems unlikely. If he can even come close, though, Juan Uribe should be able to pick up some of the slack. Uribe forgot how to watch ball four (13 walks in 495 plate appearances) and because of it saw his on-base percentage drop to an astounding .257. That’s not a batting average folks. Since he will be a free agent if the Sox don’t pick up his option at the end of this year, I can almost guarantee they will get a better on-base percentage than .257 from their shortstop whether it’s Uribe giving it to them or not. The good news for Juan is he’s just as unlikely to duplicate his .244 BABIP as he is that putrid OBP.
Another position where the White Sox have almost nowhere to go but up (as far as offense) is center field. Brian Anderson is supposed to be a fantastic center fielder, but even if he could split into two Andruw Joneses out there, he’d have a tough time making up for his .225/.290/.359 line from last season. From what I’ve read about the Sox, their outfield situation is still a little murky, but that’s a pretty low bar to clear no matter who they settle on. Then again, one of the potential candidates to fill in out there is Darin Erstad. If anybody could trip over the bar when it’s already lying on the ground, he’s probably as good a bet as anybody. The Sox will probably need to add some runs at the position, though, because somebody is likely going to have to make up for Jim Thome coming back down to earth a bit. Not only do I not see Thome again banging out a 1.014 OPS, I also wouldn’t want to have to count on him clearing 600 plate appearances again.
While we’re talking about players backsliding, I’d feel pretty confident throwing Konerko into that mix as well. I wouldn’t look for him to reproduce his career high batting average of .313, which came on the strength of a career high BABIP of .333. But even if those numbers come down a bit, Konerko’s power and walk rate should still keep him pretty effective and while there might be a slight decline, I bet it’s not much. Slight or not, it’s hard to come up with the position that will make up for any loss in production Konerko might have. Pierzynski is 30, a catcher and played right around his career averages last year. Improvement wouldn’t seem to be the smart bet on him. At least the Sox signed Toby Hall to back him up. He will almost certainly improve on what the Sox got out of last year’s backup catchers, Chris Widger and Sandy Alomar. I see Iguchi in a very similar light to Pierzynski. He’s 32, plays a pretty challenging defensive position, and has been pretty remarkably consistent the past two seasons. I’d bet on him staying the same again a lot sooner than I’d bet on significant improvement.
That leaves third base, left field and the bench. Joe Crede had a pretty big breakthrough last year, hitting thirty home runs and slugging .506. Just expecting him to match those numbers when they smoked anything he had ever done in a full season seems optimistic. Asking him to improve on them seems downright greedy. In left field last year they had Scott Podsednik most days. He was a turd, hitting .261/.330/.353, and it would certainly seem like they could do better than that. But if Podsednik is out there, he’s a 31-year old player who draws most of his value from his speed and just played his first spring game because he had a hernia surgery in January. Mackowiak and Ozuna both could probably bump up the productivity at that position a bit, but looking at their outfield candidates, it’s easy to see why a lot of Sox fans are calling for Ryan Sweeney and Josh Fields to get time out there. That pretty much covers the offensive side of things for the Sox.
Bullpen
Once the starters are out of the game, I would look for the Sox to get pretty good innings out of their bullpen again this year. That statement is dependent on Jenks’ arm staying healthy, which I believe was a concern early in Spring Training. He says he’s fine, but he wouldn’t be the first pitcher to kid himself when it comes to his own health. In front of the big boy, they will probably count on Mike MacDougal and Matt Thornton for quality innings. Both were great for the Sox last year and they’ll have to hope Thornton maintains the control he finally found and MacDougal maintains his health.
Beyond those three, they’ll hope pitching coach Don Cooper can continue to work his magic on Andy Sisco, the 6’10” giant. Sisco showed a lot of promise as a rookie in 2005, but then realized he was a Royal in 2006 and pretty much crapped the bed. He’s supposed to be a bit of a head case, but being on a winning team clears up those problems a lot of the time and we know Ozzie Guillen won’t take any crap from him even if he is giving up more than a foot and one hundred pounds. The rest of the bullpen will depend on how many bench players Ozzie wants, but it’s pretty sure to be some fresh faces whether that face belongs to knuckleballer Charlie Haeger, former Cub David Aardsma (another fireballer the Sox seem to love in their pen), Boone Logan, Nick Masset or one of their other youngsters. We should have a pretty good idea soon because Ozzie Guillen is expected to cut the roster down from 40 to 28 in the next couple days. That doesn’t leave a whole lot of wiggle room for roster decisions.
Defense
I’m going to touch on the defensive facet of this team very briefly. They’re returning the same guys at almost every position, and that’s probably not great news for their defense since they’re an older team that will just be one year slower at almost every position. Not only that, but one of the positions where they were very strong was center field and Brian Anderson doesn’t seem to have really good job security, so that will likely be another step backward for the defense.
Summary
So taking all this information into consideration, where do I see the White Sox in relation to their 90 wins from last year? I’d look for them to take a step backward. I don’t think their starters will bounce back as much as many people think. Vazquez will probably improve on his bad luck, but I have a feeling Buehrle might be heading for a fall and may not bounce back as much as people expect. Then even if Contreras and Garland hold steady, Danks and/or Floyd might not have an easy time replacing Garcia’s numbers from last year. Factor in an aging offense that may have a hard time repeating last year’s success and what seems to be an improved division and things get a little hairy for the Pale Hose. I may be blinded by that hatred I was talking about before, but the Sox stepping back to something like eighty-four or eighty-five wins seems more likely to me than picking up the two or three extra wins that would probably be needed for the division.
Notes: I used just about all of the General Baseball sites found at the right of the page to compile this preview and a special mention goes out to fangraphs.com.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
My New Site
I believe in the past I mentioned how over the offseason I wanted to start a Tiger website with profiles of minor leaguers and other cool things. Well, about a month or so ago, I was able to finally get that site up and running, and it's taken off nicely. For a while, I had not wanted to mention that site here, because this site was getting decent regular traffic as well and I didn't want to sap that away. I figured I would just post at both, and everybody would be happy. Well, it turns out when you start putting a lot of links and tables in your posts, posting at both turns out to be a bit of a problem. I probably spend too much time on these posts as it is (my dog is thinking, "Yup, you do") and taking the time to format a second time just adds more time sitting up in the computer room by myself. So, while I'm not saying I'm not going to post at this site anymore, to be fair to regular readers who have been coming to this site for a while to read about the Tigers, I just wanted to point out that I may be doing stuff that doesn't make it up at this site.
Why didn't I just put the new features here? To be honest, I couldn't seem to get other baseball sites to take ID seriously as a place to come for baseball because we've always had more than just baseball here. It turns out my concerns on that matter were legitimate because as soon as I started Talking Tigers, (I hate the title, too) links to that site popped up all over. No baseball blogs I know of ever linked here, despite almost identical content. I guess when people want to read about the Tigers, they don't want links to Fair Housing at the right of the page or the occasional rant about our country's shortcomings. That's probably not entirely accurate, but I'd bet it's also not entirely wrong. And, while I don't care (much) about gaining recognition at other baseball sites, I do enjoy gaining as many readers as possible and those links from other sites really help in that regard.
So, good and loyal readers, do with this information what you will.
Why didn't I just put the new features here? To be honest, I couldn't seem to get other baseball sites to take ID seriously as a place to come for baseball because we've always had more than just baseball here. It turns out my concerns on that matter were legitimate because as soon as I started Talking Tigers, (I hate the title, too) links to that site popped up all over. No baseball blogs I know of ever linked here, despite almost identical content. I guess when people want to read about the Tigers, they don't want links to Fair Housing at the right of the page or the occasional rant about our country's shortcomings. That's probably not entirely accurate, but I'd bet it's also not entirely wrong. And, while I don't care (much) about gaining recognition at other baseball sites, I do enjoy gaining as many readers as possible and those links from other sites really help in that regard.
So, good and loyal readers, do with this information what you will.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
City Room
Anyone interested in Cook County politics should listen to this story that WBEZ produced. It chronicles the reform movement of four Cook County Commissioners and the changes that have taken place since the "Four Horsemen" first challenged the County Machine.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Back in the Saddle
I have returned from my much welcomed, much needed vacation and am fully refreshed. I took some efforts to catch up on what I missed on Sunday and rather than recap will just assume you ventured elsewhere to stay abreast of the Tigers’ week. There are two links, though, that I found particularly interesting. The first comes from Baseball Think Factory’s Carlos Gomez, and is about Kenny Rogers. He compares regular season Kenny to postseason Kenny and brilliantly points out the differences that provide evidence the postseason Gambler was really going balls out to get some additional velocity on his fastball. After all, the regular season version of his mechanics resulted in an 85 mph pitch and the postseason version ramped it up to 94 mph. Now, at the end of the article there are comments from readers, and just as I expected, the PED argument came up saying it’s the more likely explanation for Rogers adding almost 10 mph in the postseason.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I just wanted to point out a couple of things. First, while the pitch Gomez has video of was an 85 mph fastball, Rogers pretty regularly touched the upper 80s during the regular season. Additionally, I remember ESPN and FOX’s guns consistently showing Tiger pitchers at a couple mph over what they achieved over the course of the entire regular season. For example, Rodney supposedly hit 100 mph when I never recalled him getting above 98 in the regular season. Finally, I’m guessing Gomez picked the 94 mph pitch because it was the upper limits of what Rogers reached that night. What does all this mean? It means in a typical Rogers start he probably topped out at 88 or 89, and in this start against the Yankees he probably actually touched about 92 or 93. It’s a lot easier to believe he willed himself to throw two or three extra mph, and I personally think that’s possible without whatever drug people are suggesting he took. Perhaps that’s naïve of me, but I’ve grown tired of every exceptional performance being explained by PEDs.
The other thing I noticed was Billfer’s piece about Carlos Guillen and his willingness to take a gamble to keep Guillen in Detroit. He’s basically saying he’d be willing to give Guillen something close to what the Rangers gave their star shortstop, Michael Young – five years and $80M. He makes a good case, even though I don’t believe a player who is no longer effective at shortstop can be expected to be effective at second base (there may be a future study in that statement). Still, if I’m the Tigers, I cannot see offering Guillen a five year deal. I can see beating the average salary in the Young deal with something like three years and $54 or $57M, but I would just be too anxious about that fourth and fifth season. I agree entering 2008 without Guillen is not a happy thought, and if he wants to go hard line for a longer deal, I might try to appease him with options for 2010 and 2011. I just can’t see giving him a deal as long as what Young received, and if Guillen wants to walk to get five years on the open market, the Tigers will just have to get creative in the next offseason. My suggestion would be to find a defensive wiz who doesn’t cost as much and try to make up the lost runs at the plate at a less expensive position. My gut tells me this fretting is all for naught, though. I bet Guillen gets brought into the fold, and I bet people will be surprised at what his camp accepts.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I just wanted to point out a couple of things. First, while the pitch Gomez has video of was an 85 mph fastball, Rogers pretty regularly touched the upper 80s during the regular season. Additionally, I remember ESPN and FOX’s guns consistently showing Tiger pitchers at a couple mph over what they achieved over the course of the entire regular season. For example, Rodney supposedly hit 100 mph when I never recalled him getting above 98 in the regular season. Finally, I’m guessing Gomez picked the 94 mph pitch because it was the upper limits of what Rogers reached that night. What does all this mean? It means in a typical Rogers start he probably topped out at 88 or 89, and in this start against the Yankees he probably actually touched about 92 or 93. It’s a lot easier to believe he willed himself to throw two or three extra mph, and I personally think that’s possible without whatever drug people are suggesting he took. Perhaps that’s naïve of me, but I’ve grown tired of every exceptional performance being explained by PEDs.
The other thing I noticed was Billfer’s piece about Carlos Guillen and his willingness to take a gamble to keep Guillen in Detroit. He’s basically saying he’d be willing to give Guillen something close to what the Rangers gave their star shortstop, Michael Young – five years and $80M. He makes a good case, even though I don’t believe a player who is no longer effective at shortstop can be expected to be effective at second base (there may be a future study in that statement). Still, if I’m the Tigers, I cannot see offering Guillen a five year deal. I can see beating the average salary in the Young deal with something like three years and $54 or $57M, but I would just be too anxious about that fourth and fifth season. I agree entering 2008 without Guillen is not a happy thought, and if he wants to go hard line for a longer deal, I might try to appease him with options for 2010 and 2011. I just can’t see giving him a deal as long as what Young received, and if Guillen wants to walk to get five years on the open market, the Tigers will just have to get creative in the next offseason. My suggestion would be to find a defensive wiz who doesn’t cost as much and try to make up the lost runs at the plate at a less expensive position. My gut tells me this fretting is all for naught, though. I bet Guillen gets brought into the fold, and I bet people will be surprised at what his camp accepts.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Granderson and Strikeouts
If you've been checking around the papers or pretty much anything about the Tigers, you may know that Leyland has said he wants better baserunning this year and better approaches with two strikes. Lee Panas of Tiger Tales did a good job showing who precisely needs to work on their baserunning, and Billfer of the Tigers Weblog did a good job of showing the Tigers' approach with two strikes differed from the league in much the same way their overall approach differed from the league...fewer walks, but more power.
With all this talk about strikeouts, it's only natural the conversation would turn to Curtis Granderson. He is, after all, the reigning leader of the American League in strikeouts. These facts led an interviewer to pose this question to Jim Leyland, "For Granderson to be an effective leadoff hitter, how much would he have to reduce his strikeouts by?" The rest of the linked article is Leyland's answer which reportedly lasted four and a half minutes. But never mind Leyland's answer. He basically gave the answer last season when he said as long as his walks were right around half his strikeouts, he could put up with the strikeouts. I'm more interested in the question because I think it's ridiculous.
How much would he have to reduce his strikeouts to be an effective leadoff hitter? Do you know who was next among American League leadoff hitters in strikeout percentage after Granderson? Grady Sizemore. Yes, the Grady Sizemore who was the most effective leadoff hitter in the league and by a large margin. Also, in the first half of the season - you know when Granderson was an effective leadoff hitter with a line of .287/.373/.482 - guess what his strikeout percentage (K/PA) was. It was 24.8%. Do you know what it was at the end of the season, after he slumped badly and closed out the season having dropped to .260/.335/.438? It was 25.6%. So there you have it. The difference between an effective Granderson and an ineffective Granderson - 0.8% in his strikeout rate. That can't be right, can it? That's probably a little too caustic way of making my point, but these simplistic arguments make me nuts especially when they come from guys whose jobs are to think and write about baseball.
Leyland's answer was almost five minutes long because hitting is complicated and there are a lot of different ways to get it done. Of course, by saying one of his main focuses is approach with two strikes, he's bringing these types of questions on himself. Judging by the putrid numbers batters put up after being in two strike counts (Thanks Billfer), I'm guessing what sets apart the great hitting teams isn't what they do with those two strike counts. It's more likely what they do to avoid the two strike count in the first place.
Now, hopefully it will be next week when somebody asks how many stolen bases Granderson needs to be an effective baserunner, since I will be on vacation and won't have to read it.
With all this talk about strikeouts, it's only natural the conversation would turn to Curtis Granderson. He is, after all, the reigning leader of the American League in strikeouts. These facts led an interviewer to pose this question to Jim Leyland, "For Granderson to be an effective leadoff hitter, how much would he have to reduce his strikeouts by?" The rest of the linked article is Leyland's answer which reportedly lasted four and a half minutes. But never mind Leyland's answer. He basically gave the answer last season when he said as long as his walks were right around half his strikeouts, he could put up with the strikeouts. I'm more interested in the question because I think it's ridiculous.
How much would he have to reduce his strikeouts to be an effective leadoff hitter? Do you know who was next among American League leadoff hitters in strikeout percentage after Granderson? Grady Sizemore. Yes, the Grady Sizemore who was the most effective leadoff hitter in the league and by a large margin. Also, in the first half of the season - you know when Granderson was an effective leadoff hitter with a line of .287/.373/.482 - guess what his strikeout percentage (K/PA) was. It was 24.8%. Do you know what it was at the end of the season, after he slumped badly and closed out the season having dropped to .260/.335/.438? It was 25.6%. So there you have it. The difference between an effective Granderson and an ineffective Granderson - 0.8% in his strikeout rate. That can't be right, can it? That's probably a little too caustic way of making my point, but these simplistic arguments make me nuts especially when they come from guys whose jobs are to think and write about baseball.
Leyland's answer was almost five minutes long because hitting is complicated and there are a lot of different ways to get it done. Of course, by saying one of his main focuses is approach with two strikes, he's bringing these types of questions on himself. Judging by the putrid numbers batters put up after being in two strike counts (Thanks Billfer), I'm guessing what sets apart the great hitting teams isn't what they do with those two strike counts. It's more likely what they do to avoid the two strike count in the first place.
Now, hopefully it will be next week when somebody asks how many stolen bases Granderson needs to be an effective baserunner, since I will be on vacation and won't have to read it.
