CaliSoxFanViaSWside

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 10:57 PM) That's Jake Petricka's reliever entry music! I did not know that or maybe I am Jake Petricka . Any who yeah 1st I went through Nirvana songs then Pearl Jam. It's very hard to match up song titles to games . Figured I go with a Seattle area band since we were plying Seattle.

Lawrie, Melky and Frazier go deep. Bullpen pitched well. Including Fulmer The rock theme song is by the Seattle band the Foo Fighters called "The Pretender " . Interpret that any way you please.

Toddbomb !!

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:37 PM) Wtf is wrong with Abreu Looked like Alexei there afraid of contact. Maybe that glove hand has something wrong with it.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:21 PM) Avi didn't do anything wrong That's what I basically said for those who jumped on Avi about it.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:12 PM) This ump struggles with accurately calling pitches to his left Both sides actually Q got 2 straight pitches off the plate according to pitch trax in the early innings with a righty up so those were to the umps right.

Beautiful inning by Duke.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:10 PM) Avi f***ing sucks I actually thought they had a shot at Frazier at home when I saw where he was when the ball was cut off. So I'll accept the Avi out in the rundown .Otherwise maybe they get Frazier at home.

QUOTE (South Side Fireworks Man @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:02 PM) Bad first strike call on Lawrie. Danley is terrible.

Melkbomb !

QUOTE (Insp @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 08:44 PM) How many double plays have we hit into tonight? 3 ,all by our 3 and 4 hitters. But on the plus side I finally got my record player set up 2 years after moving .

Kerwin Danly HP Ump just called 2 off the plate pitches by Q strikes. Is that because of Navarro or the ump ? #pitch framing.

Lawrie solo shot 1-0 Sox.

Eaton ground out to pitcher. Anderson line shot to left for a hit .Abreu GO DP. Promising start.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 06:56 PM) These game threads are so barren nowadays. Can't even get a mod to pin it and it's almost game time.

QUOTE (Condor13 @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 06:48 PM) Same lineup as last night, still no Morneau vs a lefty Avi as usual has 9 lives with that 2 hit 1 walk night and that sweet slugging %, OPS, OPS+ etc etc.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 12:52 PM) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-ca...-sox-prospects/ Looks with video at Fulmer, Collins, Reyes, more. Just found that and was going to post it here. You beat me to it.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 08:24 AM) Lollygaggers Bull Durham

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 03:58 PM) Um, 'cause Longoria doesn't suck. Yet another insightful comment but the Longoria contract is HUGE . He is signed through 2022 with a team option for 2023 .From 2017 to 2022 his contract has $94M left on it plus whatever is left on his $11.5 M this year if/when he is traded. He is also been injury prone. Why anyone, even the Dodgers, would want that is beyond me. Frazier on the other hand is arbitration eligible next year. this year he makes $8.25M so lets say he gets $10M in arb next year plus whatever is left over from this year if the trade is made. Lets call it $14M for a year+ of Frazier in age 30-31 vs. 6+ maybe $98M for Longoria in his age 30-36 years. Throw in Longoria's history of injuries . $84M difference to get a better player this year and next seems a very steep price to pay. But it's the Dodgers so they have money to burn . But they did bring in Andrew Friedman to supposedly stop some of that free wheeling spending.

Dodgers are interested in Longoria so why not Frazier ? They have these kids named Thompson and Montas.... Seriously why not ? Puig is available supposedly.. Would anyone do Frazier for Puig straight up ? Not sure I would since Puig has been trending down and is a big head case. Dodgers have 2 pitchers in top 20 Urias and DeLeon and another at 53 in Holmes, Montas at 83, Cody Bellinger 1B/OF 89, Alex Verdugo OF 90 , Yusniel Diaz OF 98.

The Pirates have 6 guys in the top 100 ( 4 in the top 50 ). Those include 2 pitchers Taillon and Glasnow a C, OF, 1B and 3B. Pirates are looking for starting pitching help preferrably someone under control. Sale is that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 11:41 AM) The White Sox are always stupid as long as the results aren't good! Or to put it another way. We have many people here who post, so different people have different opinions. One will say the Sox are stupid for letting him pitch in a blowout game and another will say the Sox are stupid for not letting him pitch in a blowout game. Not really any trend unless you can find the same person saying both things. The only trend is we have people who think differently. Not really a shocker since we are all thinking and emotional beings.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) Navarro has been worst or near-worst in the league in pitch framing for almost every season he's been in the league. There is little doubt that he cost Robertson big time in that inning. Robertson's command was still bad and that's why he ultimately got burned, but an average job of framing very probably could have gotten Robertson out of that inning. The reason to be frustrated is that Avila is hurt—he's not good when it comes to framing, but he's considerably better than Navarro on a year in, year out basis—and that Navarro hasn't hit as well as hoped. I guess I should ask at this point why you or anyone believes in pitch framing stats or even if they are accurate why its such a big deal? You cannot say with 100% accuracy that another catcher with the same ump or another catcher with a different ump gets those calls because in that moment at that time there was only one guy catching and one guy umpiring and there is no other dimension where that can be changed . So saying Navarro cost him " big time" is pure conjecture. I go through the time necessary to break some pitches down. You say " cost him big time" . Thanks for your in depth analysis and precise conclusion.

QUOTE (harkness @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 06:59 AM) Honestly I don't agree. I'm a bit confused why you are making excuses for him. I went back and watched it also. I'm 100% sure he could have framed those pitches better. Were they easy to frame? No but he made ZERO effort to sell them as strikes. It's bad catching period. He is well known for his inability to frame pitches. This isn't anything new. http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php 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/

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 11:05 PM) Just how bad of a miss by West it was. I thought Navarro could have been under a little more control on that pitch. There were two curves that were close to being strikes that he caught with the glove heading down and gave Robertson no chance of getting the call. But thats how Robertsons curve acts ,starts high and then dives down. A lot of umps are bad at calling a good knee high curve ball a strike because lots of catchers have to dip their gloves beneath the strike zone to catch it because that's where it goes. I only watched the 1st 3 hitters slowed down pitch by pitch . The 3rd pitch to Cruz was a very nice curve. Navarro set up low and away and Robertson threw it there. Stopped it when I thought ball crossed the plate and it looked perfect. The downward action on the ball made Navarro bring his glove down but he didn't dip his glove . Pitch trax called it a ball and so did the ump. I honestly couldn't blame Navarro on that one either. After the Cruz AB I stopped. Umps miss a good curve ball for the same reason hitters do.They call it a 12 to 6 curve for a reason . It starts off high on the clock (12 o'clock) then dives down to 6 .