ptatc

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) The Twins have the biggest home field advantage in baseball, basically. However, in the playoffs, they usually are up against teams with better records and thus are playing more road games than home games. Their postseason failures probably have a lot to do with that fact. This somewhat bears out in the fact that the Twins have never won a world series where they didn't have the home field advantage even going back to when they were the Senators.

What I think alot of people fail to realize is that over a season the averages play out and looking at OPS works. This is because they look at averages against all teams and players. Once you get to the playoffs, the dynamic changes. You are going to face only the best pitching staffs and only the best from these staffs. This is where offenses will struggle. A good pitcher may only make a few mistakes. This is where the going from first to third or scoring with fewer hits make the big difference. With the slugging lineup unless the player hits the mistake for a HR the run isn't scored because the slow slugger didn't score from first or second on a hit or from third with less than two outs. This is what Beane found out in Oakland. The OPS with slow guys with great eyes worked against average opponent throughout the year but once they hit the playoffs they got smoked. These concepts are going to come back to the front of baseball with PEDs being phased out and especially the amphetamines. The younger athletes will take the place of aging sluggers and the slugging will go down. I think we're seeing this trend already

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) I've always thought speed was overrated and no way see it as being essential in any spot in the lineup, I'd take a player with a high OBP and no speed over a player with a low OBP and lots of speed any day. Lineup construction is interesting to think about though and just recently I finished reading Tom Tango (and others') The Book and there's a chapter devoted to lineup construction, from their research they came to the conclusion that the optimal lineup would be set out as follows: 1. Your best three hitters hit in the 1, 2 and 4 holes with your best hitter batting 4th, second best hitter batting 2nd and third best hitter (or a hitter with high OBP) batting 1st. 2. Your fourth and fifth best hitter bat 3rd and 5th, with the fourth best hitter batting 5th and the fifth best hitter batting 3rd. 3. The rest of your hitters bat, in order from best to worst, in the 6-9 holes. So based on that our optimal lineup last season would have been: 1. Konerko 2. Thome 3. Alexei 4. Quentin 5. Dye 6. Crede (when healthy) 7. Swisher 8. A.J. 9. Cabrera 9b. Uribe (when Crede wasn't healthy, moving everyone else up one spot). Obviously this lineup would go against all conventional thinking and I'm not saying this is how I would construct my lineup but it is interesting to think about. I would disagree. Speed is important to a lineup. It allows for scroing without extra base hits and getting into scoring position. Of course eveyone would rather the high OBP, that is the first factor in front of the best hitters. But then the speed comes into play. I don't anyone would argur that the OBP is the most important factor. However in front of the best hitters speed plays an important role because getting muultiple hits to score runners is tough to do.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) which is when OBP can be overrated and SLG% can be underrated. If Jerry Owens could slug even .350 while getting on at a .330 clip, he'd be atleast adequate in the lineup. The problem from there lies in the fact that he plays mediocre to bad defense in CF and his arm is atrocious. Slugging could also be over rated if Owens has a good OBP and a high % in SB. He could also score from first on a 2B from someone. you need to have a good OBP with either the higher SLG% (the stats guys prefer this because it is more of a sure thing to measure) or the high % of SB. Either way you have a better chance of scoring with the 3-4-5 hitters not hitting a HR. I personally would prefer the speed guy because he has a better chance of scoring from first or going from first to third on a single and can be in a better position to score more often. However, either scenario would improve the offense.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) I want to know though, how many teams have a 3-4-5 that's not slow? #3 hitters who can steal 15-30 bases aren't exactly in excess, but sometimes people get carried away and talk as if we should have 3 or 4 of those guys in our lineup. this is true. That is why these types are hard to find and why other teams have this problem as well. While we complain about it we are not alone in our complaints.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) While I agree a leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once a game, you want guys who have a tendancy to get on base more than average hitting in front of your better hitters who can drive them in, and they usually are in the middle of the line-up. I will still be in shock if KW doesn't acquire a real leadoff hitter. this is also where I think speed is essential. Even if a guy gets on base at a good rate, will it take 3 consecutive hits to score him? This is a problem that results in "lack of hitting in the clutch." If this same player can score from first on a double, this team will have a more diverse and effective offense. It doesn't need to be the leadoff hitter but one of the players in the 1 or 2 position needs to have speed, because once it's JD, Thome and Konerko come up, it will take a HR or three hits to score them.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) I would concede that wins, over the course of a career, do have some value. I can't think of any s***ty pitchers that have 300 wins for example. At the same time, you have guys like Schilling who pitch their ass off, but lose a lot of games 2-1 because their team blows. Which probably hurts their chances at the Hall (and I think Schilling is a HOF pitcher, he has been straight $$ in the postseason and has great career numbers, except wins). But for a single season, I think it's entirely fair to say wins are a completely worthless stat and don't tell you anything because there are variables that can swing it too far in either direction. A really good pitcher can get 11 wins, a really mediocre one can get 18 wins. In a single season I would agree. Any pitcher can have a lucky season, just ask Steve Stone a mediocre pitcher with one great Cy Young season. Any pitcher can also have a hard luck season where they lose a number of 1-0 or 2-1 games. This is why I think that wins and "intangible things play a role just as the numbers do. The smart GM or fan even should combine both of the "scout view" and number. I think Schilling may be a bad example because he was such an ass that players tried to lose for him. I'm just kidding but he's right up there with Bonds, Sheffield and Clemens in attitude and personality with Sheffield slightly edging the others.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) I'm not really a big time believer in trying to look at a player from two different periods of time and saying he was not on PED at this point, but because he was all of a sudden hitting for so much more pop here at this other point in time, then he must have been on PED. But I have a difficult time imagining that in a period of time when so many guys are juicing that Griffey could just sit back and enjoy his natural ability to play the game, while others maximize their potential for power by getting these PED. When Bureau was on here he told me that many scouts estimated that 35% of MLB players are using PEDs, but about 70% of the "good" players use PED. That considered, this is supposed to be the post PED era (although it really isn't that much), so if more people used say 10 years ago, its hard to believe that much of anyone didn't use. If everyone's doing it, why bother hold back? When the sin becomes the norm it's no longer a sin. i don't know for sure but I would disagree. The just because everyone else was doing it arguement isn't one I would go with. In my estimation there were more than 35% of the MLB players on some PED (other thanamphetamines). But whose to know. When determining if someone was on them, I looked at body type, body change and injuries. These are somewhat more quantifiable than performance where players can change. The changes in bonds, McGwire, Giambi, I-Rod etc. were obvious. They abused the heck out of the PEDs. Griffey came up as an 18 y/o and thus should have put on muscle. He never however got the really thick muscluature that you would expect. Now you can lift differently to create a different effect but for baseball that really wouldn't help as much. The injuries he sustained in his career especially at Cin. would have been less likely if he were on the PED. Many football players take them to recover from injuries quicker. This didn't happen with Griffey. The ijuries that do occur with HGH and the like are more of the tendonitis and such that the McGwire had. So, while it's possible he was on them I don't think that is the case.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I think its laughable that people actually think Griffey didn't use PED. Threre've never been rumors and he really doesn't fit the mold so I don't see any reason for it.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:08 PM) I've always loved Bonds. MHizzle can back me up. Best player I've ever seen and will probably be the best I'll ever see. When it comes to athletes, I can't dislike someone with freakish abilities. The steroid things doesn't really bother me with any player either. Except Clemens, I just think he is an ass. If you think Clemens is an ass (which he is) then you need to take another look at Bonds. He makes Clemens look like a saint.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) I'm kind of surprised that Colon got a major-league deal, while Freddy could only muster a minor-league deal. Are there still serious velocity questions with Freddy? He doesn't seem that much less of an injury risk than Colon. Freddy injured a shoulder, had surgery and had a re-occurence in Winter ball where he had to shut it down. That is what was scaring the GM from signing him and why he got a minor league deal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) Why is it Keith Law, if he ever says anything negative about the White Sox organization, knows nothing, but everytime he says something positive, there's a thread acting like he is an excellent source? I agree. Take from it what you want. It looks like he is looking for the "new" find and get a jump on others.. According to him this past draft must be one of the best of all time. Beckham is #36 but there are I think 5 players from this past draft. That's roughly 15% of the best prospects in the have less than 1 year experience.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 09:30 PM) No it's not. Look at the Hall Of Fame. There's plenty of mediocrity in there. Jeff Kent is a Hall Of Famer. He probably will get in along this line of thinking but that doesn't mean he should be. There is plenty of good but not great players in there but again that doesn't mean I need to agree or perpetuate the poor trend. The HOF should be for the absolute best not the very good.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 08:32 AM) I think you really have to consider position. Catchers are a prime example - the aspects of the game that make a catcher great are just not the same as for other positions. And those areas that are the same, are at a different balance to each other. i personally wouldn't. I would take it into consideration in the way, was he a great defensive player? I compare defense obviously by position. However, it's not was he one of the best defensive catchers, it's is he one of the best defensive players of the era. Again, JMHO but I think there are far too many mediocre players in the HOF and usually revolves only around offense. This happens partially because voters will look at that there are only X number of 2B in so he compares well to them.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 11:40 PM) Kent is not a hall of famer in my mind, but I can see a case for him being made and I think his candidacy will be very interesting. He put up some nice offensive numbers, but was a brutal defensive player. He was not the best player at his position for a 7-10 year period, he has one underserved MVP award, no championships, 5 all star appearances, not to mention a massive tool. Roberto Alomar was the second baseman of his generation, and in my mind Kent doesn't even come close to him. i agree that he is not a HOF. He did have the one MVP so he gets consideration. Alot of the argurment for him is that he has great HR production for a 2B or was one of the best 2B of his time. The HOF is for the absolute best players, not for the top 10 2B or best 3B. People should not look at his performance compared to other 2B but to the performance of the absolute best players. Performance includes defense as well as offense. Just like with the stats of today, I think there is far too much emphasis on offense and too much comparing by position. The HOF is for the absolute best players not the best of each position. the only question that needs to asked is "is he one of the best PLAYERS of all time not is he one of the best 2B of all time." I will get down from my soapbox now and let the next person take a shot.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) McDowell had a good ERA and decent WHIP. He also pitched a s***-ton of innings--he was in the top 3 in the league for innings pitched 5 times (probably why he flamed out young). You don't need the win stat to show how good he was. he flamed out young due to a degernerative hip condition. Which is why the Sox wouldn't give him a long term contract.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins. We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree. The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning. Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) He's 25 and has barely two years of service time in the bigs. His cons are well known. There's plenty of time for him to (even if he never becomes good) improve in areas where he can be considered below average. Even if he doesn't improve, he's 10 times better than anything we've trotted out there the last three years. LOL. You say that like it's nothing. Does a CF have to be a combination of prime Willie Mays and Ken Griffey Jr. to impress people around here? The guy is young, athletic, has plus power/speed/defense (many believe Young should've won a GG last year). And most importantly room to grow. I'd gladly live with the K's and low OBP considering all the other things he provides. In the last three years, we've trotted out Brian Anderson, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Jerry Owens, Luis Terrero, Nick Swisher, and a 7-8 years past his prime Griffey Jr. to CF. And we've got people harpin' on Young's K rates in a futile attempt to make the trade not look as bad? Amazing. it's not nothing but it's nothing special either. I think BA could play as good defense with 20 some homers given the same scenario which isn't quite as good but not much off either. I would rather have the good starting pitcher (Javy) and the not quite as good BA than Young who isn't special. This scenario improves even more with acquisition of Flowers et al. from Atlanta. I think Flowers will turn into special hitter. He may be a DH, his defense has yet to be determined but I think he will hit. So as I said in another response the I think the Javy scenario is better than the Young scenario. Good pitching always is better than good hitting. You always get the good pitcher unless it's a special hitter. That is why trading Young was a good deal.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) Which sounds better than a lot of what we have now. not really. I think BA could come close to that, plus we got Javy who was a good starting pitcher for us. Then we turned him into the prospects from Atlanta and I think flowers is going to turn into a very good hitter. He might be a DH but he will hit and have a good OBP unlike the others we're discussing. So, personally I like the Javy scenario better than the Young scenario.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Chris Young's offensive stats look a lot more like Corey Patterson's than those of a "stud CF" to me. Everyone still talks about him so much like he's such a special player, but come talk to me when he puts up an OPS+ of 100 or more, his batting average is over .250 (he's never hit for a high average at any level btw, I don't think he's even broken .280), or his OBP doesn't look like a bottom of the order type hitter. I guess then I can be upset about what a great loss he is. At the time of the trade, I said he would be nothing more than Mike Cameron. Which is a good player but nothing special. Very good defensive CF with good power but will always be limited to the high strikeouts.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) Sox pitchers, namely Mark Buehrle, never perform well in these types of simulations or predictions because they use several sabermetric statistics in making their standings and Buehrle, like most Sox pitchers, never holds up well in these. Vazquez was always considered the Sox best pitcher using just raw numbers, but that never works. That's probably one of the biggest reasons why. This is because stats, as well as a number of people on this board, state that winning games is over rated by pitchers. They look at all of thenumbers other than wins to determine if you are a good pitcher. Buerhle "wins" more than his numbers show.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) It was always assumed he would be in the bullpen when he came back. If he came back earlier, do you think starting and throwing more pitches putting more pressure on the tendon could cause a major setback? Its great for Jose to work hard and try to get back sooner, but isn't there a danger even if it feels well now that it is the wrong thing to do? I have been one of Jose's biggest backers on this site, even when he was struggling. I think his rehab shows what kind of player he really is. I'm sure he has more than enough money to live the rest of his life pretty comfortably and he has another $10 million coming. There's really no telling how old he really is, so it would be easy for him to take a very conservate approach to rehab and if he couldn't pitch, he could just collect his paycheck and ride off into the sunset. He wants to earn his money. There is no substitution for pride. i don;t think the amount he throws will make a difference. It's the range that is needed to accomplish the motion that puts the stress on the tendon. As long as he has the range and strength and the medical staff feels the tendon has healed, you may as well let him throw. I have confidence in the Sox physicians as well as Herm Schneider that they wouldn't do anything that would jeopardize his health. As long as I have known Herm he has never been more aggressive than the condition warranted.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) This is about the answer I woulda given. The surgery doesn't repair the tendon. It just brings the ends of the tendons together and your body does the mending. And it isn't like a broken bone that heals in a few weeks. Takes a looong time. And in that time, there's muscle atrophy. Once it does heal, the tendon is stiff as hell and a lot of the rehab is stretching it back out and getting mobility back. Takes a good while before it feels "normal" again. My concern for Contreras was his age, which has more to do with it than him being an athlete because your body repairs itself better when you're younger. And also, the stress that a pitching motion over and over throughout the course of a game puts on the tendon is more than what an "average" person is going to put on it. But also, there's no doubt in my mind that he is getting the best treatment possible at a more accelerated pace. He undoubtedly spent a lot less time in a cast than others do and was put in a boot to allow for more motion as it is healing so that the muscle atrophy isn't as bad and range of motion comes back faster. And as pointed out above, I also believe he probably had some sort of sheath placed over the tendon to make it stronger and that probably aided in a faster recovery. The stitches themselves are most likely degradable, however I'm willing to bet that they put a permanent augmentation device with it and that's why they were able to progress him at an accelerated rate. The repair term was meant surgically. When the two ends of the tendon are reconnected as well as the tendon sheath using stitches or other devices, it's usually referred to as repaired. Of course we can't repair tissue at a cellular level. We can only give the tissue the best environment for healing. This is the purpose of surgeries and rehab. Unless it was a range of motion boot it is still immobilized. There is still atrophy. The range of motion that the ankle needs to go through is a lot more than the average person needs the dorsiflexion or bringing the toes up, needs to be more than for a normal activity such as walking or even running and this puts a great deal of stress on the achiiles tendon. The only sheath in the area is the tendon sheath. The achilles tendon is one of the tendons in the body that has it's own sheath. It must be sticthed up as well to maintain the nutirent flow.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) Wow someone posts good news and people feel they need to s*** all over this team. Sometimes I really wonder why people even read this board. Although I suppose they tuned out the debacle that was last year and are now coming back to wonder why the payroll is not $200M. If Contreras and Colon are healthy they will be in the rotation. The time off for his arm and body as well as the weight loss will only make him better and stronger. Although he did lose the only playoff game in 2005 so he must f***ing suck. What was the difference between his and Mike Brown's injury? Wasn't Brown ready for training camp = 10 months and then 100%. Jose is a physical speciman and was in shape therefore he was a tad ahead of the game in that regard. Remember it is also a contract year so he has additional incentive. Also maybe, just maybe he has the drive and desire to come back and is pushing hard for it........nah he sucks like everyhting else related to the White Sox and remeber he has to be 45 years old which is why he is sitting back couting his $10M. I am off to the Cub convention. it was the same injury. Being in good physical shape doesn't really matter in this type of injury. This isn't a joint rpoblem or a cartilage problem where the player has a surgery and it's just a matter of getting range of motion and strength back. for these problems the sronger you are before surgery the quicker you come back. This was a tendon repair where they had to stitch pieces of tendon together and allow them to heal before they could begin stretching or strengthening. It's usually 2-3 months before they even allow stretching which makes the muscle weaker. My best guess is that they used an augmentation device in the tendon and felt that it gave the tendon enough tensile strength to progress earlier and more aggressive. this is a bonus for the Sox and should help solidify the rotation.

QUOTE (Steff @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:26 PM) I don't understand why you are so surprised. Everything I have read about the recovery process for non-athletes has him right on schedule. If anything I would say he's being cautious and taking it slow considering his physical condition is much better than then average person which generally means a faster injury recovery time. The non-athlete part is why I'm surprised. For someone who isn't going to put a great deal of stress on it they can go faster. Someone who is going to be pushing off and stressing on it, they usually are much more conservative. Also, with his age and size, they is more stress on it. It's good to see he is doing well it's just surprising and unusual to be this aggressive with a pro-athlete at his age and size.