ptatc

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:40 AM) No idea, I'd imagine not a very good one, though. The loan game is inherently unfair to the people that actually need to borrow money the most. Isn't this based on the fact that people who really need it have a greater risk of not paying it back? Wasn't this was one of the primary factors of the housing crash. Too many people who were at too great of a risk of not paying it back were loaned too much money. Or is this simplifying it too much?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 05:32 AM) Exactly what are they used for? Baseball is a game not a mathematical equation. Every player can have the exact same stats and teams could have a wide range of records. I actually read BP every year. My copy came yesterday. I doubt anyone in the White Sox front office is losing sleep over these projections. I also would imagine if they did win 78 games, like they are projected from this system, Robin Ventura would be considered even a bigger idiot than he currently is considered. LOL at accuracy. This system was off 39 games between the projected first and last place team in the AL East last season. They had the team that won 96 games finishing in last, and the team they projected to win 89 wins up in last. Ohhh. You're in trouble now you old guy that doesn't like stats.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 06:14 PM) 4 or 5 players being involved in a trade isn't important, it's the ability of those players. It's not like we traded away Anderson, Rodon (as PTBNL), etc. We traded from our biggest area of strength, middle infield, where we now have Sanchez/Johnson/Bonifacio/Saladino/L.Garcia/Beckham/Anderson... The ONE and only concern most have is that Bassit looked really good at times, but nobody knows if he can make it as a starter long-term. And that's the biggest area of weakness, the 4-5 spots. In the end, adding a 2-3 starter outweighed having insurance for a 4-5 starter in Noesi. And to reiterate, Ynoa still has lots of potential. Not to mention the fact that we've got plenty of catching options now (Soto/Kottaras/Brantly) and Nieto/Kevan Smith passed Phegley in the eyes of the front office. correct. My pint ios that this is a unique situation where the Soxwere able to trade lesser talent because he is a 1 year rental they hope he gives them a a better chance to sign him because he is from the area. These do not come along very often. Also, if the Sox continually trade 4 players for 1 year rentals, they will not sign all of them and the minors will be depleted. This type of trade was really good for the Sox. However, to say that this is what they should always be able to do with a strong minor league system is inaccurate because this situation doesn't come along very often. They weren't able to do it because of a strong system it was luck and the right scenario.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 06:07 PM) What? How did you possibly come to that conclusion from his post? The whole point of this thread, and his response in summary, is that the team has reached a point where it can AFFORD to make some moves with prospects and still be left with a middle-of-the-pack system. The key to maintaining that is moderation -- realizing that the cost of going ALL IN is too high and return too little in the current MLB environment, and that a balanced approach to remaining competitive without ebing the best team in the league allows you to also maintain a decent farm which leads to sustained competitiveness. What you just said I agree with is exactly the opposite of what I agree with. We are looking at the discussion from a different point of view then. his example of Smaardzja was in response to why it's important to have a minor league system as opposed to acquiring veterans with a minor league system. My point was that trades like that one would eventually deplete the minor league system so this example goes against anyone who wants to keep the minors intact.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 05:25 PM) Understanding this is essential if one is going to make an informed criticism of projections. Also, RE: the bolded -- the errors bars depend upon the confidence level you set. Usually people use 90 or 95%, so you might say "I'm 90% sure that the Sox will win between 71 and 85 games." If you want to be 95% sure, you've got to widen it. If you only want to be 50% sure, you can narrow it. The actual number these projections land on is the mean of whatever confidence interval they set. What they really need to do is come up with the Standard Error of Measure based on how far off they've been over the last decade or so. That would give them enough data to predict how far off they are likely to be.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 05:56 PM) As is the case in many white sox threads, we have experienced deviation From this board that deviation would be standard.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 03:43 PM) This is just a Hawk vs. Sabermetrics situation. Older guys don't appreciate statistics saying their team isn't good as they "feel like" it is. what some people don't understand is that computer algorithms are not stats in the pure sense of the word and do have biases. They have the biases of the people who created the algorithms. PECOTA is a complicated program but one of the biases that stands out to me is that it assumes that older players will regress and younger players will improve. Another is the assumed number of injuries and days off, especially from the pitching staff. I think this is why it predicts the Astros will only be one game worse than the White Sox. On paper they look a lot farther apart than that.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:58 PM) Yes, well put. So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now. Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned. He has gone 200 innings but his performance toward the end of the season really drops off. This is not the situation the sox want to be in if they want to go deep in the playoffs.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time. That's true. However, as you pointed out it is often more successful. So you will win more than you lose which is how you build a good team. The trading prospects away for Samardzja only worked because he is a one year rental and now will become very expensive to keep. It's the reason the price was so low, compared to the talent received. It's a somewhat unique situation where the team hopes to get a little hometown discount or at least an edge to keep him. So the sox may be giving away 4 players for a player for one year. Continuously doing that will deplete the farm system very quickly so you are really arguing against maintaining minor league talent if the Sox do this type of deal often. Unless they are willing to give out huge deals to veterans on a regular basis.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) I don't understand. Their shortstop had a 2.4 WAR last year. It's not a weakness for them. Their SS is as good as Alexei for waaaaay less money. They don't seem to think so as they have been in rumors trying to acquire a proven SS. Of course, they are rumors.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:07 PM) It doesn't change the fact that you're still gambling with major league players. Adam Dunn failed spectacularly while being paid quite a bit more than, say, Viciedo or Beckham. It's all basic probability with expected values. You're missing the overall point, though. We were able to spend big this offseason, trade prospects for good mlb talent, AND we still have a roughly top-15 system. You can have both a good minor league system and have a good, well paid, major league team. It's not one or the other. It is a gamble. It's always a gamble with the mix of players and egos. However, the gamble with proven veterans is less. I'm not saying that the building of the farm system to the exclusion of trading them is wrong. It can work and does in several cases. I'm just saying that teams to not NEED to have a top ranked system to succeed. I'm lean more to the philosophy of retaining young pitching due to the injury rate and trading position players to get more pitching. I think too many people get caught up in hanging on to prospects when obtaining proven players has a better rate of success of retaining talent. However, it is more expensive. I agree with your overall point but the first post in the thread was essentially challenging the people who prefer veterans over prospects. My basic point is that the aspect of having a top ranked system really isn't that important. Ron Schueler hoarded prospects and had a top ranked system in the 90's. Where did it get the Sox? Nowhere (although you can make a case for the 94 WS canceled team) until KW took over and started trading some of them for proven talent. Again I'm not arguing against the minors, I'm saying that you cannot hoard the prospects and expect all of them to pan out. You can to trade some for proven players to be successful.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) The difference between the two is the cost of hte players on your major league roster. Kids are cheaper than the vets you trade them for. True. However, it is also more of a gamble going with the prospects because you have no idea how good they will be. Plus it usually takes a couple of years for the young player to settle in, if they ever do. you have a better idea MLB proven player is going to do. It's less of a risk.

To test this hypothesis that this top 1/2 ranked MiLB system will help the White Sox win, track the current top 30 players today.. 1. How many make to to Chicago and contribute. 2. How many are traded and bring useful pieces. I saw we as a board make a separate thread with the current ranked players and track them all individually. It will show if this system is successful in helping the White Sox.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) how do you develop the minors if you have to trade prospects to get your "extra" pieces? The only purpose of the minors is to help the MLB team win. This can be done by bringing the players to the MLB team or trading them to another team for proven players. Either way the players developed in the minors and left the minors to help the MLB team.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:16 AM) I'm optimistic about the team and this year. Totally. But that said, those of you thinking about upper 80s to 90 wins are - in my mind - completely out of touch with reality. BP is projecting 78 wins, and while we usually beat PECOTA by an average of 7 wins/season, that STILL only puts us at 85 wins. Things would have to swing astronomically in the right direction for us to be in the playoff picture. 5 more wins is a lot to get out of this lineup/pitching staff. Not impossible - it happened in '05 - but unlikely. I don't think there's any world in which Robin gets fired this year UNLESS the team does worse than last year, which I also don't see happening. Side note. Gordon Beckham is a better baseball player than Emilio Bonafacio, so in that regard, I like the move. I think your predictions is off base. With the additions I do see an upper 80's win total.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 06:46 PM) My thoughts exactly. I wonder how many will be able to stick. Anderson should be ahead of Trea Turner but whatever. 4

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 08:57 PM) Have we seen any indication that Ventura's (or Hahn) envisioning a strict platoon system with LaRoche, or just our idea based on the splits? They will not do a strict platoon with any players. Just my feeling from comments but Ventura will play this new bench more but it will not be a strict platoon.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 04:51 PM) I think the Sox are a position where they know Sanchez isn't good enough and they know Micah isn't ready so they're relegating to Beckham. EDIT: Not a true starter, but would anyone be surprised if Beckham and Bonifacio end up getting significant time between 2B/3B? One of them starts against RHP and both against LHP. I think the idea is more what Hahn said. Ventura now has a veteran bench that he will have confidence in. They also have 2 players that he can slide in the IF positions if someone gets hurt. Young players typically do not make good bench players and now Ventura can use the bench. No one had confidence in Garcia last year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:32 PM) On the other hand, wouldn't he also be faulted later on for not properly saving for his own retirement? Doesn't matter. It is a 10-15 year loan. Pay the money back that you agree to pay back, then you can take the money you were using for the payment and put it toward retirement. You should have at least 20 years or so to save.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:19 PM) So I shouldn't take advantage of a program that exists. Instead I should make sure I have less money as I get older. I should act against my own self interest. In other words, I should act like the majority of folks who vote Republican. Got it. No you should follow the rules, which allow you to do this. However, the rule sucks. If you make money you need to repay the money you borrowed. If you down make money you don't have to repay the money you borrowed. If you have enough money to save for retirement, you should have to pay the money you signed for to borrow. Basically, I'm going to pay for your student loan because you aren't going to pay it. I don't blame you for taking advantage of it I would to. Unfortunately, I make some money so I'm paying back the loans. I paid 10 years for and undergrad loan and am in the middle of paying 15 for my graduate loans. It's not like I have kids getting ready to go to college or anything that I could put the money towards.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:52 AM) Ugh, thanks, I was hoping it was something more material than this. I agree with your opinion. Law has very much become supportive of the Sox in a number of different ways since Hahn has taken the GM spot. I don't know if Law had a bias against KW or a bias towards the more "new school" front office types but he's definitely changed his tune. It's worth noting that our system was utter trash from '08-'12. Before Dick Allen comes at me, yes, he was conservative on Abreu but the media was almost uniformly tepid on Abreu. Side note - I hate how talking about Law objectively makes me seem like a Law fanboy because his fanboys are lame. "Keith how did your cinnamon, gluten-free scallops turn out? Hope you enjoy your lunch today!" Yeah, It's pretty obvious it was KW for either or both of those reasons. His comments drastically changed once Hahn became GM.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 08:44 AM) haha krause really screw the pooch on that one. i believe he just let the success go to his head. the best would have been is stay in the background. that team had too many people with egos. It wasn't Krause's choice or idea. He was fine with the way it was. Jackson said he wanted more power or he was leaving. JR sided with Krause and let Jackson go.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:24 AM) Indiana will be expanding their Medicaid program: Healthy Indiana Plan expansion gets green light from federal government Indiana is in the black due to massive cuts in many areas in their current administration. Illinois cannot afford this as they refuse to cut spending. The latest figures I saw were 35 billion in revenues, 43 billion in projected spending and 12 billion in unpaid bills from last year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 09:41 AM) Baseball has been played this way forever. You can ignore numbers and say it is the reason scoring is down, but it is not. Again, if you have 3 guys on one side of the infield, there is one covering a lot of ground on the other. Learn to hit the ball to the other side of the field. It doesn't have to be hit hard. You do it a few times, your shift is gone. There is a reason radical shifts aren't used with runners on base very often. But look at Ted Williams's numbers. He had 3 guys on one side of the infield, and still pulled everything. Adam Dunn got the shift most times he was at the plate. The thing is, most of the time, you would have had the same result for him had they all shifted to the bench in the dugout. Cut down on the strikeouts. It's not just another out, like the guys playing today were told. Your batting average when you strikeout is .000. Your batting average when you put the ball in play is around .300. I don't diagree with the thought that it isn't the reason that scoring is down, necessarily. However, if it doesn't decrease scoring why are so many teams doing it and stats show it's effective? To the other point, it is not easy to hit the ball the other way with authority (in my Nuke Laloosh accent). If it was it wouldn't be such a valued skill. There is one player there and if you just hit it lightly odds are they will get to it. The other aspect is money. Players do not get the big contracts by lightly hitting the ball the other way. The Slugging and home runs get the big contracts that is what players will do. Some of this comes from the SABR group showing research that a strikeout is the same as any other out and that bunting is not an efficient tool. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you personally, I'm just saying theseare the way players think and what they are encouraged to do. The only disagreement is that it is easy to hit the ball against the shift especially when there is no incentive to it.