Jump to content

SI1020

Members
  • Posts

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SI1020

  1. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 06:52 AM) Horrible post. I agree. I won't say any more.
  2. Apparently Chris Sale isn't the first athlete to strongly protest a uniform, or to dictate what uniform to wear. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/17133591...protest-uniform
  3. QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Jul 23, 2016 -> 10:39 PM) Let's list the corrections: 1. I went through this in a column a few years ago. If MLB had a two division format say starting in 1951, the Sox would have gone to the playoff six times between 1951 and 1967. 2. Just like now, playoffs would have been a crap shoot. The Sox would have had as good a chance as anybody because of that pitching. You usually don't have a lot of high scoring games in the post-season. Jerry Koosman told me it's actually harder to win in the playoff then the regular season because it's a short series. Koosman said one bad call by an umpire, one fluke injury like a twisted ankle, one fluke play and you could be eliminated. 3. The Sox lost the first 10 that year to New York but as Sox announcer Milo Hamilton told me the reason the Sox lost the pennant that year was because of a key DH loss to the Washington Senators against two pitchers who were terrible that year. The Sox to their credit won the last nine straight to close the 64 season, unfortunately the Yankees won 23 of their last 30 games that year. Pretty tough to stop anybody who does that. Mark My bad on number 3, but the Sox did go 6-12 against the Yanks, although they did sweep a 4 game series in August in old Comiskey and looked like they had a good shot at the pennant. It was a different era and I actually liked that you had to win something in order to compete in the post season. We'll never know for sure what would have happened but those Yankee teams really were great. They truly were the class of baseball no matter how much I hated them. Looking at the 17 year run of the go go Sox I would like the chances of the 1955 and 1964 teams the best. Don't forget Cleveland was really good in the 50's too. Still I remember the only time the Sox broke through and won a pennant was a year in which the Yankees were not a factor. The doubleheader with Washington that you referred to must be these games. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WS...196409071.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WS...196409072.shtml
  4. QUOTE (michelangelosmonkey @ Jul 23, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) I'm not a young fan...but this is a totally silly comment by you. Baseball in 1960 was a different game. Exactly one team from each division went to the playoffs. From 1957 to 1967 those speed/defense/pitching Sox teams won an average of 90 games a year and went to ONE playoffs. From 63-65 they won 94, 98 and 95 games and never went to the playoffs. IF in that ten season stretch the playoffs were like today...the Sox would have gone to and won a few world series because they had GREAT pitching, defense and speed. In a seven game series they would have beaten the Yankees a few times. But in that day you had to have a fully balanced team. You don't have to do that today. When the Diamondbacks won the WS they had Randy Johnson and Curt Shilling and a juiced up Luis Gonzalez and not much else. We learn every year that it is no longer who had the best team over 162 games as it was before the 1970's...it is who is hot with great starting pitching in the playoffs. No, I remember that go go era very well. Those 63-65 teams were good and fun to watch but they lacked a Frank Thomas caliber bat. However even if there were extended playoffs back then I don't know that the outcome would have been that much different. The 1949-64 Yanks were a well balanced juggernaut. In fact between 1951-64 the Sox went 118-174 against the Yanks, a .404 winning pct. The 1964 team had one of the best one year pitching staffs of all time but the team still lost to NY the first 12 times they played them. They won the last 6 but it was too little too late. If they go just 7-11 it's the Sox vs Cardinals in the WS. The Sox just could not beat the Yanks when it counted back then, traumatizing my childhood greatly.
  5. QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Jul 23, 2016 -> 12:17 AM) No one is giving up hope after one bad loss. 23-39 after the first 33 games which makes this one of the worst teams in baseball over the last 62 games. Anderson looks good but I would argue Beckham will have a better first year and we all know how that turned out. Far from guaranteed to be a star but he has the potential - just zero plate discipline. Pretty doubtful that Engel would be any better than someone like Shuck. We don't have time to give Engel 2-3 years to develop. The time to develop players was 3-4 years ago. This team's window is closing fast. Ok, Collins will be automatically better than Avi if he can hit MLB pitching. The DH hole could've easily been patched by bringing in Loney or Morse earlier this season at minimal cost though. Why wasn't that move made? Instead Morneau is added and by the time he can contribute the team is out of it. Avi Garcia has 9 lives in this organization. Beckham never corrected that awful hitch in his swing and pitchers learned to exploit that. Anderson swings away, hardly ever takes a walk. Sooner, rather than later pitchers are going to realize you don't have to throw strikes when he is at bat. I really like Anderson and think he could be a good one for a long time but he needs some help and coaching on his hitting approach. Something the Sox don't seem particularly good at.
  6. QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) I've said it before, I'll say it again: nothing improves as long as KW is president. I firmly believe KW gambled--and won--in 2005 (and we thank him for that) but then became convinced he's on a par with Theo Epstein. 11 years and one losing playoff appearance later, here we are. More like Juan Epstein. But yes, KW is there because of JR so things may never change as long as JR is owner. Someone here once said that JR's M.O. is that he won't pay big bucks for management or unproven talent. While the latter might make sense, how's the former workin' out for ya, Jer? I mean FFS after Ozzie the big splash was "Hey, Robin: here, put on this hat, you're a manager now!" I'm sure Robin didn't cost much. We need to do what--gasp--the Cubs did and the Blackhawks did. Start from the top down. That said, might as well load up on prospects now with a fire sale--until you think: do we trust these guys to even do that right? No, I absolutely do not. JR has to just about completely clean house for me to think about believing again. That or sell the team.
  7. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 06:37 PM) You have to be kidding me . You honestly think he could've framed that 3rd strike pitch to Cruz or sold it as a strike ? Do you not understand anything about catching ? About momentum ? How the hell do you sell that pitch as a strike ? I don't know why I am bothering but lets try to look at this logically and scientifically since you believe in pitch framing stats . I wish I could do this with .gifs or still frames because it would be so much easier.Let's say we can agree Navarro set up 4 inches off the plate outside on that pitch. This is going to be a very lengthy post and I will be as objective as possible to the point that I will point out my flaws in understanding pitch framing data. I am doing this because catching is a very difficult position to play. It is extremely physically demanding. There is a term for the catchers gear that used to be more commonplace but is hardly heard now. The gear was called "the tools of ignorance" ? Now if you have never thought about that phrase, it's because to be a catcher you must be "ignorant" of the toll it takes on the body squatting inning after inning , getting hit in all parts of your body by foul balls, getting hit by bats, blocking fast, curving , knuckling pitches that you throw your body in front of getting hit in the hands, legs, crotch, getting run over my runners. Now of course catchers are not ignorant of these facts but the phrase is a colorfully descriptive way of saying you have to be either insane or ignorant of the dangers to play catcher. So I am very empathetic to catchers. Now just because some mathematicians say they've discovered a way to grade pitching framing does not mean I automatically believe in it. I prefer to question things . I do not blindly follow the Shepherds of Sabermetrics because it is a fairly new science fraught with flaws like all fairly new sciences, especially the defensive metrics. Now for my flaws. I am no mathematician or scientist. I do not comprehend that level of math. But I am in a position to look at things very logically and without emotion. Now do I believe that some catchers are more graceful and fluid in their abilities then others ? Absolutely, without question. It would be foolish not to . Now let's look at the main pitch in question in depth and logically. Let's say for the sake of argument that you have no preconceived knowledge of Navarro's pitch framing stats so we can look at this without any bias. We will just look at the count on the hitter, where Navarro set up and where the pitch went and try to apply a little logic to it all. Actually I'll look at 2 pitches to Cruz that occurred on the 1-1 count and the 2-2 count to be even more objective about this. The 1-1 pitch to Cruz, Navarro set up on the outside corner glove low and over the plate but on the edge. I notice that as Robertson releases the ball Navarro's glove starts to drift up. I don't know why or if that is common for catchers receiving a curve since a curveball like Robertson throws will start higher and end up lower.Maybe it is actually a flaw with Navarro. Very hard to say not having studied how other catchers catch a curve. I freeze the pitch right before it hits his glove. It looks like a perfect pitch, over the plate but on the very edge and approx at the lower knees. Looked like Navarro caught it fairly well since the pitch ended up pretty much where it was designed to go . I have to question Navarro because his glove starts low ,drifts higher, then has to go back down again. The CSN pitch tracker indicates the ball is low. No part of the ball is touching the lower line of the strike zone but it does indicate it was over the plate on the edge. So I also have to question the pitch tracker. But maybe it is right because I also have to question the camera angle which we always see to the right of the pitcher so we can view both the pitcher pitching and the area around home plate. Joe West (the ump) calls it a ball. So pitch trax says its a ball, the ump says its a ball , my eyes ( with that camera angle mind you) say its a strike. Could it have been called a strike with a different catcher ? A different ump ? Of course the answer is yes. Borderline pitches can go either way but lets remember according to pitch trax and the ump it was a ball . The 2-1 pitch Navarro sets up low and away on the plate . Pitch goes up and in catching a lot of the plate. So Robertson misses his spot badly but it's a fastball that Cruz misses so the count is now 2-2. So now the 2-2 pitch. Navarro sets up again low and away perhaps 3-4 inches off the plate. What does this tell you ? Most likely indicates a pitch designed to be a ball outside the zone to try and get Cruz to fish. Since Cruz is right handed and Navarro is right handed ,catching a ball outside to a right hand hitter means he catches the ball backhanded if it goes where its designed. Again Robertson misses badly. Looks like a fastball since the radar on Comcast says its 93 MPH. It whips in there inside . In the strike zone . Pitch trax had half the ball in the strike zone and half out on the lower edge and the ball definitely over the plate perhaps 3-4 inches on the inner third of the plate. It's called a ball. No surprise there since Robertson missed his intended target badly and Navarro had to sweep his glove from the from the plate outside to the inner third inside. This seems to be where those who say Navarro could have framed it better and myself disagree. Many umps will call a pitch like that a ball. Navarro stayed on his backhand to catch the pitch which might not be the ideal way to catch it but again it missed badly .This is where we apply some logic and a little science. Home plate is 17 inches wide . Set up 3-4 inches outside off the plate , caught the ball 3-4 inches on the inner third. So he had to move his glove basically 17 inches or the whole width of home plate. That might not seem like a lot to some of you but lets apply more science here. Robert Adair, author of The Physics of Baseball and a professor from Yale, said that a pitcher’s fastball takes about 0.45 seconds to arrive in the catcher’s mitt. eFastball reports the typical pitch reaction time (for hitters) for big fields as .424 at 90 MPH. Catchers have a very slightly longer time to react since a hitter is closer to the pitcher.Not sure if they are taking the pitchers stride into the equation which will further cut reaction time but lets says .424 is accurate for a catcher catching a 93 ( not 90) mph pitch. Each baseball weighs between 5- 5.25 ounces and at 93 MPH creates a lot of force. How much ? No idea . But I am pretty sure when you combine how much Navarro had to move his glove in a very short period of time ( basically a blink of an eye) with the force behind the pitch I can logically conclude that even if Navarro had very quick reaction time to seeing where that pitch was headed ,the force behind the pitch and his own momentum of moving his hand from one place to another in the blink of an eye means that particular pitch was not framable. Oh I forgot I brought up how Navarro was set up to catch that pitch backhanded for a reason. Navarro had to move his glove approx 17 inches to catch that pitch. But he stayed on his backhand the whole way which appears very awkward and his glove strayed way off the plate inside after catching it. Perhaps another catcher flips his glove over and catcher it on the fore hand. I think that would take slightly more time. He only had so much time to react to that pitch and the route his glove took to get to it appears efficient and direct if not the most graceful looking. But that will happen when a pitch misses it location by so much and at that speed. I know this won't change very many minds on the subject. I'm not even sure anyone will read it all the way through and actually give it some thought. After all this is a message board where we hardly ever discuss things at length . I am just asking us to question things more and not blindly follow the new age of stats and apply some baseball knowledge, common sense and logic. source: http://fantasybaseballdugout.com/2010/09/0...l-reaction-tim/ Excellent post. Whether one agrees or not it is definitely worth a read and you deserve credit for an in depth analysis when attentions spans get shorter and shorter. I bolded the part I especially agreed with. A few years ago I sent baseball-reference.com a lengthy note expressing my misgivings with sabermetrics, doing my best to give chapter and verse on specific examples and areas of disagreement. This was after noting that they had completely revised their pitching WAR and D WAR stats, pitching WAR at least twice. In reply I was given a terse condescending reply and I learned my lesson. Don't try to debate this as you're dealing with the fervor of fundamental religion. I dislike sabermetrics and especially despise defensive metrics. I will look at OWAR and Pitching WAR but don't give defensive WAR the time of day. As for pitch framing stats I'm not even going there. That being said, as one poster has mentioned Navarro has made me miss Tyler Flowers who ironically was rated to be among the best at framing pitches. In any case, that is way down the list of what I expect and hope for in a catcher. Regarding the pitches in question I am on the fence as to whether Navarro could have done a better job at helping Robertson, who needed all the help he could get in that inning. Again, thanks for a noble attempt at taking the debate to a higher level.
  8. QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:09 AM) Any interview with Sox hater Dan Bernstein is going to have a lot of negativity toward the White Sox. Stone and Benetti are terribly annoying so among the changes, they both need to go. They are annoying but I still find Stone to be among the best analysts I've ever listened to.
  9. QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 08:36 AM) All very vague stuff. Fact is this is about a .500 or slightly below roster in talent, it should be no surprise this is where we are right now. Agreed. This is in no way shape or form a good team and worse the team does not look to be a real contender any time soon. I wish it were not so but that is our reality. Only Jerry can change that.
  10. QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 05:27 PM) Sale is a future hall of famer in his prime. Ventura should have let him START the inning at the very least. His command started to fade in the 8th inning, but he has earned the right to finish what he started. If he let someone get on base, then pull him, but give him a chance for the shutout. On the bright side, he was throwing more changeups last night than he had all season and he dominated...so hopefully he continues that trend against Detroit on Saturday. As for Robertson, I've never really liked him. He's a slightly above average closer making elite closer money. I'd definitely move him if there is a taker and let Jones move into the closer role. I agree. I would also like to add that apparently according to the hidebound modern day "book" of managing you gotta let the closer close even if he's in a bit of trouble. You wouldn't want to hurt his feewings and make him go run and hide in a safe space. As the inning unfolded I thought there was more than a good chance Robertson was going to blow the game and I would have taken my chances on someone else getting that last out. If that failed I'll take the heat but I am so sick of the "book' which often shackles a manager's ability to actually manage.
  11. QUOTE (harkness @ Jul 11, 2016 -> 04:12 PM) Abreu has appeared to be declining.. the basic numbers are straight forward. BUT its more than a little early to be making any conclusions on him. He still has a lot of career to go... after this season is over we can assess more reasonably. He is still driving in runs... which to me is the most important stat for him. Couldn't say it any better.
  12. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 02:34 AM) B Expectations were probably too high. My main issue with Rodon right now is that he almost always gets hurt throwing 91-93 MPH fastballs when he can throw 95-97 and even hit 99 once or twice today. (Seems he's trying to emulate Sale, but lacking his command...maybe this comes from Don Cooper and wasn't Carlos' idea, in order for him to pitch deeper into games). He's got TWO plus pitches in the A fastball and slider. He walks too many, sometimes his pace/rhythm gets all out of whack and he tends to really get hurt with RISP and two outs. That said, he's got two plus pitches, he's a lefty and he's only 23 still. Carlos could be a dominant pitcher if he remembers how good his stuff is and has that swagger he had the 2nd half last year and in his career at NC State. The curveball and change are works in progress, and he probably needs to choose just one of the two and junk the other. He also needs to stop leaving them up in the strike zone when he does throw them. Excellent assessment of Rodon.
  13. QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) Nope. I see his posts and see how long they are that there is no way his keyboards can survive. The thought of reading a real book must give you a headache.
  14. QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jun 18, 2016 -> 05:12 AM) I desperately want the Sox to rebuild from the ground up, but there's really no point to it as the Sox can't scout and develop young talent anyway. This franchise is a wreck. There really isn't anything else to say. You nailed it.
  15. QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:23 AM) it's been proven, with stats, that it's not repeatable. Your attitude is like sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "2+2 isn't 4 it's 5". There is not a single data point that says "clutch" exists. Notice that I'm not claiming that "choking" doesn't exist. Just that no player has ever, ever been proven to be able to raise his game in any sort of statistically significant (I'm using this term in a very precise way in a statistical test application) way. Not a single one. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-ou...fference-081414 Even God admits it might be possible. http://www.si.com/mlb/2010/01/01/james-clutch No .270 hitter is going to bat .450 in the "clutch" but you can definitely find players who hit statistically better in high leverage situations than they did the rest of the time. Is "clutch" overrated in baseball? Definitely but there are always hitters and pitchers you'd want when the game is on the line. I am an apostate, not a strict believer in the religion of saber. In fact most of the time saber geeks give me a headache. I do love stats though.
  16. QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 11, 2016 -> 01:57 AM) When I watch a game in any sport, I listen for a few things. If the color guy is brilliant, I want the pxp man to serve him up 77 mph hangers all game and let him do his thing. I look for humor. I listen for genuine care and conversation between the two. In Bennetti and Stone's case, they have it. Hawk and Stone do not. Stone sounds excited and happy during home games and quite the opposite during away games. I cannot blame him, because Hawk's cliches, consistent interruptions and homerism get rather old. Hawk and Stone have never had good chemistry. He had it with Tom Paciorek until he ran him out of the booth. My problems with Hawk are in the personal realm, I have no problems with his broadcasting style, which I know many of you hate. His ego, imperiousness and slavish devotion to Sox management are what bother me. As for Benetti he is a modern day cookie cutter announcer with a little extra flair, and a lot of his own brand of nerdy pop culture would be humor. There aren't going to be any more like Mel Allen, Bob Prince, Harry Caray, Ernie Harwell etc. etc. Times are much blander and vanilla in the broadcast booths these days.
  17. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 9, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) 2011 the team wasn't even .500, they lost Buehrle for nothing. Many experts predicted they would finish in the basement. They set a major league record for rookie pitchers used, and won 85 games, yet Ventura sucked. Only White Sox fans. No I would beg to differ. I would say only the White Sox would allow this state of affairs to continue. In a hidebound and stubborn manner I might add. Many baseball fans who have no rooting interest whatsoever in the Chicago White Sox can see what a shipwreck this franchise is currently. Of course it's not all on Robin, almost everything is wrong at this point. However in no reality is he a good manager no matter how many Joe Torre references some might make.
  18. QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 9, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) No it's not and that would be the worst way to run a team. In a way they are. They can decide to show up or not, which they are already deciding to do.
  19. My vote would be for Hawk and Wimpy.
  20. QUOTE (TitoMB @ Jun 9, 2016 -> 03:46 AM) That's fine that you believe that, but Kenny has always had a hardon for Shields. He absolutely was the man behind this trade. That trade screams KW. I agree with you.
  21. QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 04:12 PM) I was under the impression managers actually conducted and oversaw events called practices where they went over hitting, fielding, pitching, bunting, and real game situations to help the players get better. Guess I was wrong. Great post.
  22. QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) What if this is Abreu being Abreu? He's been pretty bad since July/August last year, so perhaps the league has figured him out and this is the player that he will forever be. I'm afraid that you may be right.
  23. QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jun 1, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Depends whether or not we feel this team is for real as a post season threat. If this team continues to be terrible, anything is on the table, IMHO. I laugh when people call this trolling. It's a fair question. I thought it was a fair question too. This is not a playoff caliber team. After a decade of floundering and 6 losing seasons out of 9 nothing should be left off the table. Whatever the Sox have been doing it hasn't been working. New ownership is not on the horizon. Hopefully new and better strategies are. I like Frazier, but the Sox aren't going to contend this year, there is precious little on the farm so it's time to see if you can do any good with what you do have. Nobody, not even Chris Sale should be off limits. Times are tough.
  24. QUOTE (greg775 @ May 31, 2016 -> 05:35 AM) Sell the team. Move the team to Naperville for gawd sakes. Build a fricking palace (like the one they had in Arlington; same principle; Arlington is not Dallas). The suburbs will go CRAZY for White Sox baseball. Very true you are offending a lot of loyal baby boomer south siders who don't wanna come out to suburbia. That's sad, but how many people you talking about there? 10,000 max true South Siders who go to games? The true blue collar Sox fans from the south side probably can't afford tickets/parking/food anyway. New owner. New palace in suburbia privately funded. Just.Do.It. Naperville is the spot. The only people against it would be 50 to 70 year old white guys who live on the south side and eat their beef sandwiches and drink their Schlitz/Old Style. True, they won't be caught dead driving to Naperville, but there's not a ton of them anyway. The money is in suburbia anyway. Make us the elite team. New rich owner! New awesome stadium! The Chicago White Sox play in Naperville!!! Can you dig it? Various surveys have shown that White Sox fandom, what is left of it is concentrated in the City of Chicago and suburban Cook County. The only part of suburban Chicagoland that has more Sox fans than Cub fans is probably in the SW suburbs.
  25. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 31, 2016 -> 02:14 AM) No, not at all.If I were to make a list of major companies, landmarks, events etc. that used to be part of the south side of Chicago and no longer exist it would be a very long one. Given the massive demographic shifts in the US the last 5 decades or so there is nothing etched in stone that says Chicago has to have 2 MLB teams. Do I think they will move in the next 15-20 years? Right now I'd put the odds 60-40 or so against it, but if I'm still around and it happens I won't be shocked.
×
×
  • Create New...