Look at Ray Ray Run

I actually would be surprised if they did. Going year to year on Madrigal, given how Arbitration treats players of his skill set, seems like the smarter choice. Nothing Nick does will break the bank - he's not going to put up gaudy SB or HR totals and he's not winning any MVP's. Given how anti-players-like-Madrigal the Arbitration process is and has been, I think they'll just play this one out. Robert and Eloy had the chance of getting near MVP levels which escalates the payouts so much that those two make more sense.

Yeah, good point; definitely worse for pitchers. They should be up earlier. To expand on Stiever - I'm actually doing a research piece on pitchers like Stiever right now - there's a lot of reason to be really excited about Stiever. In the game today, we have become obsessed with youth velocity - reality is, you're better off not having your high school/college guys throwing their peak velocities at that age - you want guys to grow into velocity in pro-ball with proper former and teachings. Stiever actually has a LOT in common with the elite starters in baseball over the past decade +; what exactly? Well: 1. Northern kid who didn't throw over 90 MPH as a high school pitcher (he threw 88 at PG) 2. Went to a midwest school and didn't have the wear and tear of constant pitching. He was also an all-state Wide Receiver so he DID NOT play baseball year round. This is a major key. He played baseball during baseball season up north. 3. Played travel ball but took falls off - winters mostly as well. The wear and tear on Stievers arm today is similar to that of a high school kid in the south or out west. 4. He has grown into his velocity in pro-ball - Steiver has NEVER thrown harder in his life than he has this year and last. This is a huge key to Stiever's success; guys who throw 95-100 in high school and college are NOT holding up. The velocity too young is just an issue; an issue I would avoid. Look at at the list of top starters over the last decade; they all grew into velocity. None of them were throwing 100 MPH in high school - even Stras who started throwing 100 in college wasn't doing it in high school. Verlander (not a big prospect out of high school) Greinke (played SS a lot and didn't have peak velocity until the minor leagues) SCherzer (Took him years to find velocity and command in professional ball) Sale (Came into velocity in pro ball) Kershaw (Started throwing harder as a professional than amateur) Cole (Found more velocity after draft) Stras was a stud but he was nothing out of high school I have found that the best pitchers in the game typically weren't throwing 100 MPH in high school or even early college. Velocity can destroy a young arm. The combination of Stiever pitching up north, playing football, and coming into his velocity as a professional has been a heck of a predictor of elite big league success. I'm not saying that'll be Stiever, but the pedigree there is really exciting. Northern kids who don't throw over 90 MPH as kids but develop as pitchers first and then find big velocity have gone on to be elite arms in baseball over and over again.

I think the players are making one hell of a case for why service time manipulation and the minor league hold downs in general are completely meaningless; this year has allowed so many guys that were supposedly a year or two away to show that they're not actually that far off at all. The gap between elite amateurs and professionals may be closing in baseball.

Your car is public property? Damn, you might want to look into that. I think you're being ripped off! Dude, it's just a game. Saying the Cubs suck is just in good fun; if someone reads that shirt and gets deeply offended maybe they can attend their local therapists office and figure out why they're so mentally weak.

Nice to see the constant negativity, fighting and b****ijg in the game thread of a 6-2 big win vs your divisional foe. I swear some fans are happier being miserable than winning.

Jaysus, some people just don't like the cubs guy. I think you've put way more thought into this than the "blowhards" who are having a little fun.

I can't wait for everyone to tell me how much better McCann is defensively.

The Rickettes are terrible people; I have no idea what I'd do if my favorite teams were owned by such heinous people. Jerry is a lot of things, but he's not a Rickette.

What an absurd take; I learned to hate the Cubs from my father and Uncle, who grew up in the 50's and 60's.

It hasn't amounted to anything, and I haven't actually looked fully at video etc, but I think Mazaras swing has been much better the past 10-14+ days. His rhythm as well. He has felt inbetween all year.

They both just faced the same opponent, and Reylo was better. This is the back up QB concept; always asking for the back up to someone who isn't good. I hope Stiever is awesome, but guy has thrown 3 2/3 inning above A ball and the Sox are in a pennant race. Reylo can be maddening, but he's also been a below avg MLB starter which is better than a lot of bad arms.

What has Stiever done to start over Lopez? Honest question. I like Stiever, but by no means has he earned anything over Lopez.

The no off days isn't great for the Sox starting pitching depth; or lack there of.

And managers really having no say over roster construction; for example, if he wanted to move on from Edwin it wouldn't be his choice and while he's there I'm sure there's directive to play him out of his struggles. Bottom line, the stuff fans think matters so much because they watch it just doesn't matter that much. A guy who is not the 100% right choice will still work out as the right decision 48-49% of the time. In some seasons, the non-optimal thing will actually work more than optimal one. The margins we are discussing on a bullpen move or lineup decision is like .01% each time. Sure over 162 games it might impact a game or two over a sample size 10,000 seasons big, but in reality each decisions right and wrong choice with professional ball players involved has a difference of expected outcome so small that b****ing about it and focusing on it as the main deciding factor in how good a manager is simply is wrong imo.

@Green Line, what do you think the Sox results/stats/record would be with a GOOD manager by your definition who made optimal moves?

How can someone who is getting results that are much better than projected outcomes be making awful decisions all year?

Renteria, to me from afar, seems like a heck of a guy. A guy who grinded the minor league managing jobs for 10 years - which is a shitttttttty career - to get a shot in the big leagues. Earned a chance with the Cubs after 15+ years coaching, then gets handed a shit roster and develops some young guys... nothing bad ever said about him or his clubhouse. Then the Cubs get good and can the guy. He then comes to the Sox, shit roster, never complains - no fighting in house, and everyone likes each other despite years of terrible terrible performance. Team gets good, guys swear by Ricky, he deflects all credit and all attention to the players; guy is literally crying after the Giolito no hitter because of how hard he knew Giolito fought and how much he loves his guys. People call me a Renteria stan, and while I hate plenty of decisions just like the rest of fans because I'm an "expert" too, you're right that I respect Renteria the coach and would have loved to play for a guy like him as all his players seem to love. That's what matters to most players, but I get why fans overlook something like that - which in baseball, means so much more than anything else.

Again, we all knew this before the season started. If people told you that on September 15th the Sox would have the 8th most WAR from SP and the 7th most from RP's you would have said no chance.

I know, it's insane! Brilliant business man who have built their empires on continuity in their professions - maintaining top employees and etc over searching for hopefully slightly better replacements - succumb to the peer pressure of their customers even though their customers peer pressure is the wrong move 99% of the time. It's baffling and something that has always infatuated me. The Bears fired LOVIE SMITH. He had won the 4th most games over a 10 year period in football. He had just won 10 games. The players loved him. He led a professional organization how you want it led. They fired him and replaced him repeatedly with lesser leaders. It's hilarious how often teams do that.

Yes, yes, yes. This is exactly statistical EVIDENCE that what fans view as optimum decision making means next to nothing. How can one argue with Renteria's bullpen or SP decisions? No one on this site think the White Sox have 4 good SP's, and plenty hate half of the bullpen... yet that unit has been one of the tops in baseball. Clearly the people who are responsible for putting them in positions to succeed have done that this year. I can be critical of things all I want, but the fact is the Sox have outperformed projections and etc. That is 99.9999999% the players themselves as it ALWAYS is, but that .0000001% is the coaching staff and they've done a terrific job. Everyone wants to fire Coop and Renteria and the PD department... and the Sox are sitting in 1st place, with the best team in the AL and at the start of this year 90% of this board was just HOPING to be competitive.

Yeah, I also find it ironic given how hard Steve has been on the negative fans and how much he's been telling them to enjoy the product you've been waiting for.

I agree with you by the way, and I certainly don't think it was a huge deal or a big lapse in judgement by the manager. I just thought the optimal move would be to play Dyson, but as I've always said there are personalities and etc involved. I'd imagine Eloy will want to stop embarrassing himself at some point though.

Why would McCann sub in? Who would Yolmer replace? What? Who is getting hurt? I'm being attacked for "defending" Renteria and "attacking" Renteria in the same thread. This is pretty hilarious. Gotta love the internet.

Fans are idiots for the most part Roache; I am in that group of idiots. Everyone has the answers from their couch. It's just the way sports and athletics make us feel. Reality is there's much more to many of these decisions and painting them all as black and white is fun for forums but not reality. In reality, turnover is really bad. The professional world teaches us that continuity drives success, but in sports that is ignored often because of fan and local pressures.

Bevington and it's not close.