ptatc

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) It's been brought up several times that running such a system would be problematic when trading and bringing in new players. I can't help but think that this will end up not being an issue by taking a look at football. 3-4, 4-3, cover 2 defenses don't use players interchangeably across schemes (nose tackles, DEs, OLBs), and it still works because the player pool is so vast that while you are limiting your options, you still can find people to fit your scheme. The biggest trouble comes at the point where you decide to switch schemes and need to overhaul personnel. Being the trailblazer of a new scheme is very risky from the standpoint of minimizing your margin for error with your bosses simply because you deviated from the norm. However, if you find a scheme that places value on skills and traits that aren't valued in traditional schemes, suddenly you're tapping a talent pool with no competition to drive up cost. The essence of Moneyball. Victory goes to the bold my friends, not the cautious trend followers. Some of the issues you discuss in football are philosophical differences based on physical attributes. A 3-4 nose tackle is physically different than a 3 technique in a 4-3. A cover 2 safety has different physical attributes than a team that uses primarily cover 1. In baseball pitching is pitching. Much if it is mental but it's also physical and the attributes are similar. People are always trying to exploit some of these tendencies such as a groundball pitcher in a small park but these are more team specific not an over all deficiency. Out of the box thinking is always good to try to get advantage but so far in the post-PED era it looks like the best pitching wins.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) Yeah, I think that's what he'll probably do regardless. But when you look at our system, it seems like it's either Anderson or an underpay, IMO. That's why I think the deal will involve Rameirez if it's done. The A's need a shortstop this season. They have top SS prospects.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) "Do they Know It's Christmastime?" is not John Lennon. It's a British celebrity song from the '80s. "So, This Is Christmas" is John Lennon. THANK YOU. I knew Do they know it's Christmas Time was the compilation song for charity but couldn't for the life of me figure out the Lennon tune. I was determined not to look it up and try to think of it but never did.

Been awhile since anyone added, so I'll do it.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) This is what I think, too. I just can't see this deal happening without it being nonsensical for one of the two sides. Either we give up way too much for a short term gain, or the A's take way too little for a good #2 starter. Is there a scenario where Beane "gets something rather than loses him for nothing at the end of the year" and acquires another pitcher by another means?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 11:16 PM) I'm hoping for Brandon McCarthy and a trade of an OF. Sale-Quintana-McCarthy-Rodon-Noesi/Bassitt could be a really quality rotation. That's a very solid 1-3, Noesi and Bassitt battle in the #4 and #5 spots until June when Rodon comes up, winner takes the #4 spot, loser takes long man job. I could definitely live with that if Hahn can get us an impact OF bat. Rodon will not be pitching a full MLB year so figure that into the equation.

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) Well, I may be way off base, but if we do get another front line right hander for a starter, what good would it do, if we are just going to go through what we did last year. We are not going to have a Baltimore Orioles rotation from 1971 that will have a total of 71 complete games. I do believe that Petricka and Putnam experienced growing pains, but still will not have the (&*&%^&'s) to be able to be "lights out" "Game over" closers on a consistent reliable basis. So, if if overpaying someone like DR is not done...the what confidence will fans have if we go into games with a lead late in the game and still have second raters at the end?. Then the question begins.......Do we really want to win with "just hoping" with some "grit your teeth and bear it" "get by-ers" or do you want to help solidify the rotation by giving it a lights out back end? If not Robertson, then who else for 3-4 years to go along with the starters that are locked up for years to come? Could it be Montas?? If so, if winning NOW is our objective...how long do we wait on him? Don't know much about him, so maybe someone can shed some light? At least in theory, another top starter would allow RV to use the bullpen less. Thus, he would go to the lesser bullpen arms less frequently. Part of the problem last year was that with the down year of the rotation the Sox used the bullpen alot more, which is never good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) But of course, that makes no sense for the White Sox, even if we get back a "High level prospect" in return, because we're trading for a "win now" pitcher on a 1 year deal and then leaving ourselves with a gaping hole at shortstop with literally no one ready to fill it. No one can tell me that having either Semien, Sanchez, Tim Anderson, or Saladino as our #1 starting shortstop in ST next year looks like a competitive, could win the central division roster. Ditto any "SS Prospect" Beane is willing to give up - if he had one ready he wouldn't trade or Alexei. That would leave the White Sox deciding whether to spend money on Jed Lowrie, Stephen Drew, or Asdrubal Cabrera to fill that SS hole. In other words, we'd commit $10 mil next year to JS, another $5-$10 mil next year to a veteran shortstop, we'd upgrade the rotation but we'd downgrade the offense and the defense while giving up a year of team control for the key piece. That could make sense for an 87 win team again, but we're right back into "Why are we doing this" territory to me without an unreasonable, unexpected, long-term discount on the pitcher. I could see it as one more year of a guy they would plan on getting next year. Hahn is using the rental year to convince him to sign in the offseason. So it isn't guaranteed he will sign but a calculated risk. This is all predicated on the fact that Hahn is convinced the one of the prospects can handle SS defensively at the MLB level or he is working a deal with one of the vets. The reason to do it is get another top prospect from the A's system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:39 AM) I wouldn't either, and I can't fathom why Billy Beane would give up Samardzija for less than that. Giving up a top 50-ish prospect in MLB for a pitcher like Samardzija should actually make sense for several teams around baseball. Just not the White Sox. From his perspective, if he thinks one of his top SS prospects is 1 year away, he could get Rameirez on a two year deal and flip him after one. He needs to trade for a MLB ready SS as he doesn't have one. This is why I think Rameirez will be in the deal if it happens.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) I can't come up with parameters of any deal that makes sense for the White Sox to my eyes unless Samardzija gives the White Sox a large hometown discount that he wouldn't give the Cubs. Otherwise, moving anyone of even minor value from the White Sox's system for Samardzija seems silly to me and a much worse option than going and spending that huge, 9 figure money on someone like Shields or Scherzer. The only way I see it as a good deal is if other players come to the Sox with him. For example the sox send Rameirez and Semien and the sox get JS and one of the top SS prospects they have plus another lower tier prospect.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 08:33 AM) Losing always sucks Must happen occasionally.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 11:49 PM) I would pitch my traditional closer in the 1st inning against the best hitters, 1-4. Then your usual 7th inning guy in the 2nd or 3rd and then 8th inning in the 3rd or 4th to again face the 1-4 guys, etc and then bring in the traditional starter around the 4th or 5th and have them close it out. Now if you are down big early, maybe you don't bring in the good starter later and just give him the day off and go with a usual long reliever guy. By having your SP type guy get skipped on those occasions you are losing, it allows for your best 4 usual SP to get the bulk of the work and the usual 5th SP type often would probably get skipped which would lead to better pitchers out there typically. If your traditional closer needs a day off, you just bump everyone up an inning to get your typical bullpen guys their rest. The problem with this scenario is that your bullpen guys must pitch everyday. When do you decide to put the mop up 12 pitcher from the pen in the game. Even the most durable relievers pitch in only 100 games, most in the 80 range.You are essentially throwing those game knowing you will lose. This will not go over well with the players or the fans.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 02:34 PM) The Yankees are going to go with a purely defensive shortstop, to replace Jeter. In trading for Gregorius, they have pretty much decided to accept the fact that SS will not provide any significant offense. That approach would be fine with me, as far as our Sox go. I really still don't know just how good Alexei is defensively, at this point in his career. We have gone round and round on this board, and I don't sense that there is any consensus. Let me ask the question this way; If the Sox could fill another major hole, by trading Ramirez, is there anyone who could fill his shoes, defensively? A few of you seemed to think that Saladino is the best defensive SS, who is reasonably close to Major League ready. That surprises me, as I didn't think that he was more than an average SS. L. Garcia is supposed to be pretty good with the leather, but his offense is pretty much a "black hole". Although scouting reports say that Diaz is a good defensive SS, with a very good arm, everyone here completely dismissed the notion that he might get regular playing time, if Alexei is traded. Semien is not a plus defender, and Sanchez is much better suited for 2ND. I'm interested in this issue, because it still seems quite feasible that the front office could view Ramirez as one of their only good trading "chips". With all of the middle infielders this organization has, it's pretty disappointing if none of them are good enough to fill the hole at SS, that would be created by the departure of Alexei, especially if we are only talking about a really good defensive SS, with little consideration to offensive production. If the Sox could acquire a middle of the order bat, for that last outfield spot, is it really that important if they get much production out of SS? The Yankees don't seem to mind going that route, and they have bigger shoes to fill than the Sox would, if Alexei left. He's been good, but he isn't the icon that Jeter has been in N.Y. We all know that Jeter was not really a very good defensive SS, in recent years. Nevertheless, it is N. Y. and they are replacing a "legend" with a no hit, defensive wizard. I agree. If Alexei goes, it should be the best defensive option available especially if Hahn continues to acquire groundball type pitchers.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 02:32 PM) Don't speak Spanish in this thread. Falsch!

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 08:33 PM) i really respect your knowledge and general overall skills. however, i will take this with a grain of salt. i really didn't believe it when it was posted before and i still don't. it reminds me of spinning a bad situation. but then again, what the hell do i know. This was just from what was reported and I'm taking at face value. KW said from about 2007 on that eventually they would do a complete rebuild when they thought the time was right. At tgat time he said that they still had a number of veterans performung well and they didn't feel it was time. Thus is not some i side knowledge, just quotes from KW.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) Thanks for posting. I see the last few weeks serving as the Sox checking the market and doing a cost-benefit analysis of what they have and what they can get. I expect one "major" trade probably filling the OF need and maybe one smaller move like a relief pitcher. I'm going with the major trade will be to acquire pitching probably a starter although not necessarily a mlb veteran.

Cinco cerveza fria por favor

QUOTE (black jack @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) WITCH! BURN HIM! Actually it's the opposite. While I don't like the idea of throwing the side sessions in games on a regular basis. I think his idea of throwing more(but with lesser intensity) would benefit pitchers.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:40 PM) I have always wondered why they don't flip flop the order in which pitchers pitch. RP type guys starting a game and going a few innings and letting the SP type guys finish out ball games. It does seem like the bullpen's of today really get rocked at the time when they have the most pressure and most on the line in terms of having a shot to finish out and win a game. I suppose you can argue that a RP just isn't as good typically as a starter, but often times, I think the pressure is their largest detriment to them being successful. Perhaps SP would be able to handle the pressure better at the end of the game than most RP's. This is one I've never heard before. My first thoughts are that unless you have a pre-determined number if innings/pitches for the reliever, you essentially have the same scenario as Lillian stated that you always have a group of pitchers together on a given day. Unless you have the "reliever" pitch every third day and the "starter" go every 5. It's interesting, this way you have the "better" pitcher at the end of the game unless he fatigues. I guess that's the question, how long does the reliever go to ensure the starter is there at the end of the game? It's one to cogitate upon.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 6, 2014 -> 12:24 AM) What? You don't know German?

Verstehts du.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 08:47 PM) I will say this...it's not like the current practices are keeping guys healthy either. nope. this is why it's a huge field of research and why different people are still coming up with new models of mechanics. we are keeping them healthier as a whole. I still thin Lillian idea of throwing more will be the one that wins out and we'll see it slowly increase over the next decade.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:13 PM) Yes he has. Let him keep doing what he's doing. We don't need to revert to the KW philosophy. KW philosphy is Hahns philosophy. Remember KWwanted to start the tear down 1 year earlier but JR wanted to try it for one more year with the veteran team. KW agreed with the change in the team direction. He always said there was a time when it was going to need to happen.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) I just want to re-iterate how awesome you are. Its more a factor of being old and being in the field forever but i appreciate the comment.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to read this article, which I just found: http://jonahkeri.com/2010/09/13/pitching-i...es-and-rangers/ It's quite long, but very interesting, and addresses many of the points that can be made on both sides of this issue. I read that back when it first came out and you're right there are many things it addresses on both sides of the issue. I do have some positives and negatives in relation to it. negatives 1. Nolan Ryan. You really can't go by much of his training/pitching philosophies. This is like Micheal Jordan telling a 5'5" guy to dunk by just jumping because that's what I did. He is a gentic beast who did thing no one else could. His pitching came with Tom house and subsequently Larry Rothschild (homewood-flossmoor guys). This is the classic "towel drill" and throwing the football guys for pitching. Studies have shown how terrible these mechanics are for the shoulder and to a lesser extent the elbow. Just because aguy could throw 95 in his 40's doesn't mean everyone can. On the positive side his ideas of how to train the lower legs and trunk as opposed to the arm are excellent and I really push for pitchers. 2. Vazquez uses his theories of training revolving around pushing the lactate level as justification. We know through research that lactate levels have nothing to do with strength/power/soreness/recovery or anything related to muscle function. Muscle fatigue mostly comes from a combination of a disruption of the calcium channels to activate the muscle and a reflex action from the interneurons in the spinal cord which connect to the individual motor units in a given muscle. Again some of the power activities from the lower extremity are valid though. Positives. The key aspect to the whole article revolves around Glenn Fleisig's comments. He is one of the primary researchers in pitching today. He stated that pitchers should be pushed to the point of fatigue in training and pitching but not beyond it. Mechanics will breakdown and microtears will begin in the static support structures if this happens This is the key concept about your idea. I agree tht pitchers should throw more. However, it should not be when they are fatigued. If they throw in a game a day or even two after a previous outing, they will accumulate the fatigue and the wear and tear will be too much and everything will breakdown. I push for more throwing between starts but not at game intensity and definitely not with the large number of breaking pitches at that intensity that would be required to get MLB hitters out without proper rest