ptatc

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2017 -> 10:10 PM) The email that was sent out by him made it pretty clear it was a little more than a joke: Here is the issue. If the consensus of the scouts is that he has serious hit issues why are any of the other baseball people Badler etc. ranking him so high? Do that not have access to the same scouts?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:29 AM) The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value. Thought exercise: A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence. But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence. But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win. So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third. The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control. I agree with this. I agree that the pitcher has the most control but doesn't have total control of the outcome. The issue with only looking at things he does have control over is that you lose the big picture when looking only at the little pieces. The only things he has control over is k, BB. He was somewhat control over HR but that also includes park factor and flyball rate and other things. what about a pitcher who has a high GB%. He'll have less HR but then is more dependant on the defense. Can the high flyball rate pitcher be effective with a high HR rate. I agree that you can look at all of the minutiae and determine if he was individually good. But how do you determine if he was effective in helping the team win? Just like the hitter and the RBI or runs scored? Those are largely dependent on other players performance but are they important in helping the team win? determining the value of a player is more than just the stats that only he can absolutely control, it's also how much he contributes to helping the team win. WAR attempts to do this but it's flawed. This is why getting as much information as possible is important and completely ignoring things like wins, RBI and runs scored is a mistake.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:52 AM) But it's reasonably fair comparing players across eras. Pitching wins, by comparison, is NOT a stat. The flaw of WAR is that it only includes what one group of people consider important. It's not an individualistic look at a player. In the 1920's there were far fewer teams and people playing the "elusive" replacement player would be different than today's player. WAR still uses the same stats for every era but every era is different even if just for the players let alone things like difference in the height of the pitching mound or ball construction.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Win count does nothing to support your claim. Wins are meaningless. You're talking about innings pitched, pitch count. Which all leads to wins. Looking at total wins will give you a good idea of all of those in combination without looking at the individual parts. Wins show more of the combination of all of those work to together to show effective the pitcher has been. This is in contrast to how good he was individually. Take a guy like Nolan Ryan. He had a great number of K but also a great number of BB. He couldn't win game for the life of him. His average year was 14-12. Now as a GM a guy who is trying to win games to win a world series. How do you judge a pitcher who can never seem to win? Will all of his K and some dominant games be worth it to help the team win? This is where wins can help judge his overall effectiveness. Again ti's not the only thing to look at and the value has decreased over time due to starters usage but it does have it's place.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2017 -> 07:53 PM) Lots of concern over his mechanics and injuries he's already had Those guys were pretty good. I agree with their statement s about his lower body. He creates a great deal of passive valgus at his right knee. He has far too much trunk flexion early on. The Sox would take of that with their "standing tall" philosophy. I disagree a little with the elbow position concern. i wouldn't be too worried about this guy. It's all very correctable especially with a professional strengthening program.

QUOTE (GermanSock @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) The problem is that the modern bullpen use does not only decrease the wins but also other counting stats like IP, Ks and even WAR because the pitchers simply pitch less. Starters have given up part of their value to the bullpen. The question now is how to handle this. Absolutely. The more "objective" the game stats gets, the more "subjective" the HOF will get.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/active-star...o-shot-at-hall/ It's an issue. The problem isn't which stats you decide are important, it's a complete denial of the fact that the game evolves and is really old and therefore norms for counting stats don't hold up over time. We can argue over whether or not wins are important all day -- but the reality is that pitcher usage has changed drastically to the point that wins can simply no longer be accumulated at nearly the same rate as they used to be. The way the game is played today, no pitcher will ever accumulate 300 wins, no matter how good they are, so 300 wins is a stupid way to judge a pitcher. Even if you like the win as a stat, the number 300 is simply not applicable in today's game. This is why so many arguments based on "traditionalism" are nonsense. It's not to say that your preferred aesthetic can't be to preserve tradition, but the world changes and many old ideas and memes just don't hold up, regardless of how you feel about them. This is very true. You cannot compare the number of wins today compared to earlier eras. Starting pitchers do not pitch anywhere near the amount of pitches, innings and games as their predecessors. So absolute number of wins should not be a yes or no criteria. Due to the usage of relievers, more HOF attention should be placed on this group. However, it's going to become a debate like positional players. How much offense does a great defensive shortstop need for the HOF? How do you rate a reliever who has a advantage in the advanced metrics (K,BB,FIP) as he will rarely pitch tired thus have better numbers than a starter.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. Your example is a perfect example. A 3 ERA pitcher is (generally) better than a 3 ERA pitcher. A 20 win vs 10 win pitcher tells you almost nothing. i think you are wrong here. The value of them has decreased, rightfully so, but they are not meaningless. A 20 win pitcher vs. a 10 win pitcher, generally stayed in the game longer, was able to be more efficient with pitches, was able to be more competitive deeper into games. As someone said earlier it has decreased significance in a single season as in your example but carries a little more weight over multiple seasons or even a career.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ May 24, 2017 -> 07:53 AM) Agreed on Felix. I think that should be the most appropriate model for modern day HOF standards How would you determine that Hernandez is one of the best pitchers of all time?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 23, 2017 -> 08:16 PM) I just read Keith Law's book actually. He talks about his time with Toronto in there. He was basically their only "data analyst". He wasn't choosing players. He was basically a lesser version of what Dan Fabian is for the White Sox today. He said in there that he wouldn't be qualified for the same position today. Law has said that Luis Robert could become a 3-4 WAR CF and he didn't scoff at an Adam Jones comp if everything goes right. White Sox fans are embarrassing themselves tonight. He also said that he hasn't heard anyone use that name as a comp but Jones has a much better arm but Robert has better speed. He agreed that it was good for the the Sox to go ahead and spend the money because this is the last time it can be done. He said again that it is a big risk as all of the scouts he has talked to agree that he may not have the hit tool to be more than average or slightly above average in the MLB. This is where Garfein and I think others have an issue. If every single scout agrees he may be just average, why were some teams willing to spend that kind of money?

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ May 23, 2017 -> 06:47 PM) I tried to take the high road with him and stand up for Chuck. He really just is a jerk. <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"> He quickly blocked me after telling me "it'll be a cold day in hell before i take advice on professionalism from some coward tweeting from behind a pseudonym" Dang, he really is insecure.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 23, 2017 -> 05:31 PM) Probably sick of carrying this offense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 23, 2017 -> 03:23 PM) He is getting exactly what he wants, which is lots of clicks. He is turning into the Jay Mariotti of minor league prognostication. Nice comp!

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2017 -> 05:59 PM) I think you are confusing two things here...the joke about the title "Why I hate the White Sox," and the discussion in the podcast. That being said, he comes off as a major DB in the podcast. I'd bet a lot of money that the "general consensus" of the scouting community isn't that he would be a mid-1st round talent. You're right. I was referring to just the interview portion.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ May 23, 2017 -> 05:38 PM) You do know he's kidding, right? He's been getting tweets from Sox fans all day asking why he hates the Sox because they read his write-up on Robert whom he's been less than impressed with since this whole thing started. The only national writer I've ever thought really had an anti-Sox lean was Dayn Perry though I can't remember the specifics so it may have just been youthful naivete. It didn't sound like he was joking. He sounded angry at a perceived slight to his sources or that he was gullible to believe lies from his sources.

QUOTE (SouthSide2004 @ May 20, 2017 -> 08:56 PM) I think there's a ton of value in having a bilingual manager. Did Robin even have any Spanish speaking coaches on the team? Renteria, the guy that took his job.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 23, 2017 -> 03:01 PM) Why? They're under contract. That doesn't make sense. Is Alexei Ramirez still on the roster? He can't go anywhere now that Jose Abreu is... oh wait. It makes a good deal of sense to have someone to look after your prized prospects who are currently teenagers for when they get to the MLB. By many reports Moncada is still a little immature. None of this was the case with Ramirez.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 23, 2017 -> 01:20 PM) PTATC: Not doubting you of course not with your background. Then I have to ask why did the Sox from day one call it bicep soreness? That doesn't sound so bad...certainly not like when you start saying it's a shoulder injury. Could that have been part of the reasoning? Fan reaction?? Because it very well could be bicep soreness. It just the part of the bicep that attaches in the shoulder so Rodon feels it in the shoulder. I don't know why they said it other than it is the medical diagnosis. The more I think about it the worry would be and could be that his shoulder capsule is loosening and the humeral head is moving anterior anterior in the joint capsule, which is common in most shoulder issues. In this case however the bicep could be acting as a secondary anterior stabilizer which is why it's still giving him issues. If this is the case and the bicep issue is the secondary problem, it could explain the length of time for this issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 23, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) Hard throwing HS pitchers are always a gamble. Adding a TJ surgery to that uncertainty scares me badly. I am really glad the deal fell apart. Would you prefer soft tossing HS pitchers?

QUOTE (bmags @ May 23, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) I would be thrilled if that were the case. I'm worried it's more "something is wrong but they don't know what" so we just keep seeing heavy rest and light load and hope it magically clears up. With the shoulder anything is possible.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 23, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) Yea right? And he said that now it's sort of a dull ache after he throws instead of a stiffness. I mean, that's not exactly great news either. I dunno, I just hope there's nothing structurally wrong with his shoulder. It's a death knell. That said, he's obviously ramping up his throwing, almost seems to be where he was around the middle of March as far as workload, so that's positive. Hopefully he throws another sim game, gets to 60-80 pitches, then makes a couple rehab starts in AAA and is ready in July. This is a really long time. it's still just so odd.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 23, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Here's the Sun-Times story on Rodon: http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/carlos-...long-road-back/ What I found very interesting is that he says the injury is not to his bicep...but to his shoulder. It's the same thing. The bicep attaches to the labrum right under the supraspinatus tendon of the rotator cuff. So most of the bicep injuries to pitchers are in the shoulder, just the very superior aspect of the bicep.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ May 22, 2017 -> 04:10 PM) Does he have a lot of helium? More like methane.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 22, 2017 -> 03:10 PM) Christians have been "picking and choosing" pieces of that religion to follow for hundreds of years. Whats to stop them now? I think that's funny too.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ May 22, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) Right, talk about confusing. The only way to pronounce his name right is to say half of it in Spanish and half in English. No different than Alexei Rameirez. Half Russian, half Spanish. Got to love baseball.