ptatc

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) " Good teams dictate the matchups, bad teams try to make them as favorable as they can." That strategy works in terms of facing a bullpen, but your starting lineup is based on who is starting against you. It is a reactionary concept. You can't force a matchup against your lineup. It's not ike the opposition has a "pinch pitcher" you are gonna force them into starting because of the card to took to the ump before first pitch. Shouldn't that really be "Good pitchers dictate matchups." Most of the time, in relation to who the hitter is anyway, that is the only variable worth considering. I can think of many times when a team has shuffled a pitching rotation to get the best matchup for a team going into an important series.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 11, 2010 -> 01:51 AM) Henderson's (ages 20-29) numbers before returning to Oakland - .290/.399/.437/.836, 1286 H, 120 HR, 367 XBH, 701/875 SB/ATT, 135 OPS+ in 5930 PAs Henderson's (ages 30-44) numbers after returning to Oakland - .268/.404/.407/.810, 1600 H, 171 HR, 468 XBH, 612/760 SB/ATT, 122 OPS+ in 7416 PAs Is it possible he used? Sure, considering his line after leaving Oakland for a second (technically third, since he was traded for Toronto for half a season) time was .247/.388/.357/.745. Then again, he was 37 by the time he started going on his tour of the baseball nation. I would say it's much more likely and probable that he did use amphetamines before games. Everybody used amphetamines before games late in the seasons. I've always said banning these will make a bigger impact on baseball than steriods because everyone used them. The older players wear down much more by the end of the season.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) Has anyone thought that Boras is in tight with Detroit and is actually using that to his advantage to play the Sox and get the Sox to pony up more. Detroit benefits because if it works, Boras gets the Sox to spend more dough or even walk away from the chase and Boras benefits because it either gets another team to jump in (Braves) or gets the Sox to maybe pay a bit more? nothing would surprise me with Boras. Any scenario is feasible.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) It's amazing to me that some people are actually buying into the rotating DH philosophy. One could say that it's amazing that some people are stuck into the old-fashioned antiquated concept of the DH only player and are to closed minded to try something new. If you look at the Red Sox, they know no one will outhit the Yankees. No one has the kind of money to do that so they went the way of pitching and defense. Without PEDs and greenies older players will need more rest The sox have a right fielder who is always hurt. It makes sense to try to rest these players more. I don't know if this will work But I also realize that these lifetime baseball guys may have an idea that will work so I'm willing to give it a shot. While I started in professional baseball about the same time as KW, I certainly don't think I know more about the game and scouting then him. Also, my job certainly isn't riding on trying this, so it will be interesting to watch.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Also, laying down a bunt is not exploiting a matchup. If anything it avoids it. This is something I'm very interested in watching. Most people who have done weightlifting has heard of the research where you do 3 sets of 10 repetitions 2-3 times per week to increase strength This was the standard The problem with this is the research was done on the Olympics weightlifters in the 70's What was prevalent at the time? The first steriod boom. All of that research has been invalidated by new research. Olympic weightlifters now lift each body part now more than 2 sets of a max of 8 reps 1 time per week. All of the research by Bill James showing that bunting and stealing bases hurts your offense because the percentage that an extra base hit can score the player more effectively was also done during the steriod era of baseball. I'll be interested to see if this changes over the next few years with the possibility of hits and extra base hits decreasing Bill James research may also be invalidated. As stated before it looks like some teams including the white sox think so. Another thing just popped into my conspiracy oriented mind. I recall that during the last Owners/GM meetings wasn't there talk of getting rid of the DH? I wonder if JR and some of the other owners know that this is on the way and are building their teams to get ready for it?

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 12:22 PM) I think what he is trying to say is you can't include these guys as the starting DH. They would be occasional DH. If you count them in the rotation then you are putting a bad hitter at C (castro), 1b (kotsay) or RF (whoever the 4th OF is). None of those guys you would want to be your regular DH. So if you include the starting C, 1b or RF as your DH you are really counting them twice in the lineup. This is correct, however where are you going to find a really good hitter who wants part time play?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) We have a glarding hole in our offense that Stevie Wonder could see. This is unacceptable to have a "maybe" in the most important offensive position on the team. I know you don't like the concept but sooner or later you're going to have to realize that the Sox are not going to have a single designated hitter this year. The Sox like the idea of resting some of the older or injury prone position players by playing them at DH. When Quentin, or Konerko need a break Jones and Kotsay will play the field in those respective positions. These replacements will improve the defense during these times. So, unless you can find a guy who can play first as part of the rotation, Kotsay will stay. Ozzie likes his bat against RHP. This player will also need to be ok with playing part time I'm not sure you can find that player

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2010 -> 07:29 PM) It just seems to me kind of odd, the best Damon could do yesterday was a one year contract for $4 million with half of it deferred, and now today he's at over $14 million for 2 years. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either he doesn't have that particular offer on the table or Boras scammed someone into believing that another team had made a similar offer. I can't see 2 teams all of a sudden going that high. For one year and $7 million, maybe $8 million, yes, but not 2 years. Maybe the Sox are offering him 1 year at $5-6 million with some incentives. At least then if he gets paid, he's put up some numbers. Not when Boras is deceiving everyone involved. I'm sure all of the numbers you are hearing are made up by Boras and eventually one team, not the Sox, will believe them and sign the player for the imaginary number. This is what he is great at, getting teams to bid against themselves through any means possible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 11, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/orber-moreno.shtml the name sounded familiar, now i know why. He was with Lansing when I was Kane County. He had a name similar to the failed Bears quarterback of about the same time. His name stuck so he must have done something to make a good impression. He had good control as I recall and the stuff was pretty good as well. Thanks for posting that because it was driving me nuts trying to remember where I knew the name from.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 05:54 AM) Those didn't seem to be the worst super bowl commercials ever. It more just seemed like "10 super bowl commercials I remember and will create comments to try and fit my title" No kidding. Number 5 has Farrah Fawcett for the men and Namath for the women. It doesn't matter what it's about. Again, it has Farrah Fawcett in it, IT CANNOT BE BAD.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) I just never got into WInter Olympics, even as a kid. None of the sports interest me. I'll watch hockey this year, but nothing else. i was the same way until I got assigned to work the speed skating and figure skating teams a few years ago. My appreciation for the sport and athletes really changed. Now I'll even watch the figure skating with my wife (but complain about it the whole time to save face).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 12:58 PM) Kubel played 58 games in the outfield last year, and that was when the Twins had Gomez too along with Young, Span, and Cuddyer. Delmon Young is a terrible defensive LFer - barely better than Kubel - and he is obviously much worse offensively than Jim Thome against right handed pitching. I still think Thome gets close to 100 games at DH next year, barring injury. You could be right but I don't think so.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) Fair enough. Yeah, when they beat the Cardinals (I think it was them) and Braves in 1987 and 1991, it was 4-3 both times, with the home teams all holding serve. Flowers makes a lot of sense for USCF if he stays at catcher especially....if not, he fits into "others" fighting to replace Konerko at 1B or for at-bats at DH. Viciedo, hopefully, will figure in there was well by the beginning of 2011. I personally don't see Morel ever making it as a regular with the big league club, but then I've watched Chris Snopek and Greg Norton as starters over there. I'm more optimistic about Danks or Mitchell having breakthroughs than relying on Morel to play at close to maximum potential. The rumor was alway that KW felt offense was what helped to draw bigger crowds, and that he'd rather error on the side of building offensively-minded clubs both for the fanbase and to tailor it to the stadium itself...of course, die-hard Sox fans know that winning trumps everything else in terms of attendance. It's only fun if you have a Wisconsin, Butler or Iowa style of team (the baseball equivalent being us offensively unless Quentin returns to MVP form) if you actually win games with it, otherwise it really sucks for the fans. I think a lot of the frustration is with the idea of having only a two year window for this team...and the fact that we're starting out at a competitive disadvantage because of the DH situation, just as we limped out of the gate last year in CF, 3B and with Lillibridge getting many important at bats. The pitching and defense is the way to which it seems teams are going. Look at Boston. They changed Bay and Lowell for Cameron and Beltre. They gave up a ton of offense to focus on pitching for their very good starting pitching. Fenway is similar to Comiskey where offense should rule however the player with the most homeruns last year is Ortiz with 28 and his BA was around .230. I do think Morel will make it as a regular in the majors. The only thing he lacks is power and as I've stated I think the trend will be away from that style of play. I not sure if he'll ever be an All-Star but I think he'll do fine.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) I still don't think Thome's a bench player in Minnesota. They aren't going to bench Kubel, who also cannot play the field. With Young, Span and Cuddyer there's no room in the outfield anyway.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 11:48 AM) I thought this was an interesting read. Today's 36+ year olds compared to just a few years ago. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...in&hpt=Sbin The time frame for olders players playing more is interesting, 1992. Right about when PEDs really started becoming popular.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) Yes, but the Mariners are playing to the strengths of that ballpark, and they have exceptional defenders (they did lose Beltre) at multiple positions. We have one starter on our team that you know is going to be better than league average in Rios. You could include Pierre in LF, although that arm's obviously a weakness. Sure, Ramirez, Beckham and Quentin COULD theoretically be improvements at their respective positions, but you're going from abysmal to average, which is an improvement but I'm not sure we could call it a philosphical change like in Seattle. Of cousre, we don't have many reasons (besides what seems like the blip/anomaly on the back of his baseball card in 2009) to feel confident that Pierre's offensive game will translate well to USCF. Once again, if they were playing at PetCo or Safeco or similar parks that play big, their changes would make a lot more sense. But it's hard to argue they're not putting themselves behind the 8 ball with all the things that have to go right offensively, which would put us somewhere around 7th-10th in the AL if EVERYTHING breaks right. 2005 showed we can win a championship with dominant pitching, but the timely/situational hitting and bullpen were also outstanding that season... We can and should do better. We keep hearing that Pierre was pretty good in 2009 or that Rios was good 2-3 years ago or Andruw Jones or Mark Kotsay or Omar Vizquel was an impact player offensively 10 years ago, but it's not like Jim Thome was bad last year. There's absolutely no reason a Jones/Thome platoon wouldn't have worked, and they wouldn't have needed to give him more than $2-3 million. It's not like it would have broken the team payroll. I don't disagree with most of the post. However, the team does not want a guy like Thome on the team. 1. He has shown to be a poor pinch hitter/part time player and the sox want to rotate the players, 2. They want to rotate the players to keep them fresh while still maintaining some consitency, so they weren't going to sign a DH only player. While the team plays 1/2 of the games at home, they are also going to play 1/2 of the games on the road. If you tailor your game too much to your own park you may do well at home but then have difficulty on the road. Take the Twins, they have had the best home field advantage in hte last decade. This has helped them to division tiltes but they have gotten nowhere in the playoffs. I believe (I'm sure someone will check this) that even when they won the Wrold Series titles in the 90's they never won a road game. I would rather go with the better overall team and to me that's pitching and defense, than to tailor it strictly to the ballpark. Ideally, you would blend both but under budget contraints I'm not sure that's possible. I'm not sure if this plan will work this year but I do think it's a good plan and a good way to continue building the team with guys like flowers, hudson and Morel on the way. Those players seem to fit the mold of this plan.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) The Sox have a pretty mixed history in recognizing decline. In the past, i'd be willing to write off a lot of it on KW taking gambles, and i was fine with that as long as it wasn't for the detriment of the team. I find Jones and Kotsay to be beyond reason. I could potentially see the percentage in starting Jones everyday, if he was in shape and playing the OF, but a straight platoon with Mark Kotsay is unacceptable. I still don't see this situation as being that bad. If you look at the splits kotsay had a .290 BA , and a .347 obp against rhp last year and jones had a .367 obp against lhp with a poor ba last year. While these numbers aren't great they aren't awful in light of two reasons. 1. they spent their money and off season moves on peavy and rios, so the sox were going to down grade somewhere. I, personally would rather have peavy and rios than a thome type at dh. 2. the sox want a more athletic defensive oriented team and kotsay provides this with backing up 1B and jones provides this with backing up the of. I think ozzie and kw got tired of seeing dye konerko, thome and aj getting on base but not scoring because it took 3 hits to get them home. The replacements may not get on base as much but have a chance to score on fewer hits. The sox are counting on the lineup working as a team as opposed to the fanasy stats of thome only scoring if he hits the homerun. It will be quite the different team built along the same lines of boston, angels and seattle all of whom shed power for pitching and defense this year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 08:00 AM) The reality is...unless they really like someone who drops, saying "BPA" in the MLB draft at this position probably puts you with a selection of 10 guys, any of whom could be considered the BPA on a particular day. Not only that, but KW has repeatedly said that when there is indecision they will draft pitching. This is because everyone needs pitching and they tend to be more valuable trading pieces.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 07:50 PM) ? Sorry, showing my age. It's an 80's movie with Michael J. Fox. The entire story line is a guy who can't get a job because he is a college grad with no "real world" experience. "If he would have gone straight from high school into their training program he would have been ready 2 years ago."

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 11:26 PM) In my opinion, the biggest problem is what that you need to have a college degree to do work that barely requires a high school degree. I was working at one of those online colleges (don't even get me started) as an admissions advisor for awhile. It is basically being a glorified telemarketer, with one of the requirements being a college degree. I also don't understand some of these online schools can be accredited by the same body as state schools. The idea that you have to have a college degree to advance in a job, or even attain one is making thirty and forty somethings throw $20-60 thousand dollars on a degree that (in my opinion) they are not getting that much from. What needs to happen is that either some of these entry level jobs need to become more easily obtainable, or a college education need to become more beneficial. They make students take so many general education requirements that are not necessary, but very costly (for those who don't know general education requirement are subjects such as english, history, art, science, etc. They take up 2 years worth of credits, are often light extensions of what they teach you in high school, usually have nothing to do with what you are majoring in, and most of them seem very unnecessary). I have found that the majors where they repeatedly beat information into your head and build on it with each class are the most beneficial. Majors like accounting and construction management seem to prepare students well to work in a specific industry and be successful at it. If you major in something more general like marketing, business administration, psychology, sociology, history, etc. you will probably be working at something that you did not need your degree for. Sales and retail management trainees are two very common fields that many different majors end up in. I was a Psychology major and I am preparing to go to graduate school in the fall for Industrial Organizational Psychology. I can't help but think that if instead of taking so many freakin' general education requirements, I could have taken more specific classes that focus on information that is specific to what I want to get into, then maybe I wouldn't have to shell out some much more cash for a couple years of more school. A bachelor's degree is the new high school degree, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. If colleges did a better job of preparing students to enter into specific careers where they would have a general level of expertise, entry level jobs could open up to individuals without a college degree, and more of those with a degree could enter into the field they specifically studied. Then if you want to enter a specific field that requires some sort of proficiency or expertise a bachelors degree will give it to you. If you don't, then maybe you wouldn't need a degree to work at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, or Sherwin Williams anymore. There is still something to be said for having a well rounded individual. For example, what do people think of athletes who aren't well spoken? They think they are idiots even if they aren't. Many of them also require writing for the same purpose, if you don't elevate your writing skills, especially in this day and age of shortcut texting habits, you will have difficulty with many jobs. While they aren't "necessary" for a specific job, many students don't know what they want to do yet and these can help make that decision. It is never a bad thing to have a more well rounded, educated society.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) I'm going to get back to this thread later on this evening when I have more time. But one point I would like to make for you to chew on now, is that if you have any experience in the lower level job market (positions for recent college grads or employees in the beginning stages of their career), you know that employers almost would rather you not be highly trained in their field. Many corporations have individualized training programs and would rather train you in their method and manner than have to waste the time "untraining" you and then re-training you. This is in large part why the value of a college degree has decreased and willingness to start at the bottom rung of the latter with a desire and willingness to move up has gained more of a foothold than in previous job markets. Wow, somebody has watched "Secret of my Success" too many times (although Helen Slater may have been worth it)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) Trouble is, that's sorta the same everywhere. California, for example, the State Universities are a disaster area because the funding that used to be there from the state has dried up. The faculty members there have been required to take unpaid furloughs for a couple days a month, basically working without pay several days, to help the state cover its budget gaps. I wouldn't take a job at a UC system school right now if they gave me the best offer in the history of mankind. And it's getting like that everywhere. That's right. Most states are heading this way. Illinois and California are just the two worst examples. The educational institutions are good institutions they just aren't going to be as affordable as they previously were. If people want to go to college they are going to have to pay more. U of I is doing the unpaid furloughs as well. Luckily we haven't hit that point yet but it may. It's not just universities. Peotone school system (south of Chicago) is owed so much money from the state that they are shutting everything down. No sports, music, library etc. With the state not paying schools at all levels are in trouble.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 04:50 PM) And at that point you will see less people applying for college which will result in college tuition going down. What is funny is that if you ask college professors, etc they would ikely say that they are underpaid and underfunded. Being a university professor and involved with a state university, I can tell you that your first statement will not happen for state schools. We are slowly going from state schools to state supported schools to state associated schools. All of which will drive up costs with no change in services. We have not received the money for our budget from the state since September. The state owes us millions. Because of this we are having to run the school on generating our own income like private institutions. Most of this money comes from tuition which means we need to raise the tuition to offset the money budgeted to us by the state. However, the state put a cap on how much we can raise tuition in an "attempt" to keep us affordable. This is why an in-state student is having difficulty getting into U of I because the university can charge the out of state student more. This encourages students to leave the state, which is not good for the state.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...%3F&f=false I don't have the book with me, but this is part of the article from the book itself. This part of it divulges into whether certain hitters are simply better against certain pitchers or not, and the title of the article is something along the lines of "Does Mike Redmond own Tom Glavine?" These are looking very small sample sizes - I think the minimum they use is 25 plate appearances - but they likely range up into the area of 100+ plate appearances - Mike Redmond was 21 for 48 against Glavine with 3 walks, while Tony Gwynn was 39 for 91 against Greg Maddux with 10 walks and 2 sacrifices. The article basically points to the fact that, while these guys may hit a certain type of pitcher better than others (Redmond is known to hit lefties very well, and Gwynn was a fantastic hitter period), their actual splits against these single pitchers is not necessarily accurate of how good or bad they actually were simply because they didn't have enough plate appearances to prove it. This same thought process works exactly the same with a hitter in a specific ballpark as well - just because a hitter has a good stretch of about 185 plate appearances at a ballpark doesn't necessarily mean they are actually that good in the ballpark but rather they've had a good stretch. Anyways, after rambling about information that is generally common sense, I would guess that you'd want to be looking at 400-500 plate appearances at the minimum, and the more and more you get the more statistically relevant it is. You probably want atleast a year's worth of data, which is around 500-600 plate appearances to determine traits of a hitter against a certain pitcher (whether specific or type) or ballpark. 185 plate appearances suggests basically that a guy got hot for 2 months worth, and he might put up worse numbers over the next 4 months worth of playing time. I understand what you mean and obviously the more the better. However, why not just run a power analysis to determine the actual number of at bats needed to make the statistical formula valid for a season or group of seasons then determine what is needed to be statistically significant. This is basic statistical analysis. This is some of the problem I have with the SABR guys. I'm the first one to look at numbers with all of the research I do. However, if you are going to use any type of numerical analysis you need to back it up to make sure the numbers are meaningful.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) It's about sample size too. He put up an OPS of less than .600 there last year, but it was in a limited sample size. Less than 200 plate appearances doesn't dictate how well a player is actually going to play there, and thus really makes Boras look dumber rather than smarter, and Dombrowski and company know that. Out of curiousity, if you run the power analysis for an entire season what is the number of at bat needed to consider the methodolgy valid? I've never seen this posted.