ptatc

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 07:46 PM) I can't believe walker's getting bashed already and position players haven't even reported yet. I do love baseball.... It's an epidemic in this town. If the team performs poorly blame the coaches or management. It's never the fault of the players. The coaches just can't coach the players properly.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) IIRC the danger in Crede's surgery wasn't if it would take or anything like that, but rather the delacacy of the back that nerves could be damaged in the process or something along those lines. It appears he's OK. I really don't know how long Crede's back has been an issue. It is possible its been a problem his entire major league career, and possible he is now healthier than he has ever been. I think the White Sox will really regret letting him go if they get garbage in return. It's pretty rare that a nerve is injured during a microdisectomy. The success rate of this surgery is high if the patint is chosen properly. Crede fit the criteria for this procedure. One of the first professional athletes to have it was Joe Montana. He had it toward the end of his 49er career. The surgery and recovery for the surgery is relatively easy. There is minimal invasion of tissues and he had been on a rehab program prior to surgery so he was strong. The significant issue is wear and tear on the spine. The constant bending during fielding and rotation swinging a bat will continue to put and excessive amount of force on already weakened tissue. His injury and subsequent surgery will definitely shorten his career. Once you have a lumbar spine problem it is a question of managing it. It never totally goes away. He may be mostly painfree for 2 years or 8 years but it will eventually return. I hope for Joe's sake that he can play at least another 6-8 years. He is one of the good guys in the game.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 11, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) Who is G-Rod? Blagojevich? Wouldn't R-Bla be better? Because he is Bla!!!!

Another advantage to this type of weapon is that with no "explosion" to launch it, the launch is difficult to detect and thus becomes a stealth weapon to surprise it's victims.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) I don't know if his winter workload had any effect on his 2007 season, I just found it funny that the White Sox use 12 extra games in October has such a profound effect on the entire pitching staff, and then start spouting off about a guy who pitched an extra 20-25 games in November and December. It wasn't consistent. Unless Masset can cut down his walk rate, he can add 10 MPH on his fastball and he will still suck. You look at history and it shows how starting pitching usually suffers the following year. It's not just the number of innings but the "stressful" innings. I do agree with Masset could have been effected by the winter innings depending on his workload the season before. Too much during winter ball can definately make a difference.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) Pitching is more important, and I recall the 2005 team hitting 200 home runs and homering in all but 2 playoff games. Sorry, I was referring to the offensive side. Pitching is always the most important factor. Which is why I consider the speed and defense the more important part of the position player role.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) Pitching is more important, and I recall the 2005 team hitting 200 home runs and homering in all but 2 playoff games. Sorry, I was referring to the offensive side. Pitching is always the most important factor. Which is why I consider the speed and defense the more important part of the position player role.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) I played the OF for several years. Usually in CF, but I did play RF and a couple in LF. Major leaguers should not have problems with that. Balls hit right at them, or knuckling, perhaps, but slices and hooks aren't difficult to judge. If they are having problems with that, I will say they shouldn't be getting paid millions of dollars to be out there, and obviously there are quite a few guys who are not good outfielders, but because the are fast they get away with it, or because they hit well, their lack of defense is tolerated. IMO, just because a ball may slice off a RH hitters bat to RF, isn't the reason its generally considered tougher to play than LF. Its the throws. OFs throw the ball to 2nd,3rd and home. The RF has it a lot harder than the LF in that department. Ok, we can disagree then. My experience with working in the minors and MLB was that many players have trouble reading the ball off the bat and take poor routes. Not the best ones of course but many of them did. The ones hit right at them make them look the silliest and are the toughest.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) Is owens really a defensive specialist though? Cabrera i can see having that claim. Konerko for cabrera straight up? The team trading konerko would easily net cabrera and the other player thrown into the mix would seemingly have to be much better than owens at the major league level. to make it even close. Owens seems like a legitimate fifth outfielder/4a type player and nothing more, but with time we shall see. Your point is accurate. I was referring more to the type of players as opposed to the actual players. The jury is still out on JO. If it were these players at this point in their careers PK is the choice. I know I'm in the minority but I think speed and defense will win in the playoffs and world series more than the HR.

Tiger Woods. I would like to live and even walk past the age of 50.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) Player b, konerko in this case, would win in a land slide, each and every single time. Owens has to rely on himself and his teamates just to get into second, and later on score. Konerko (player b/ whoever you wish to imagine) relies on no on other than himself to touch all four bases. For some reason i think a homerun just might be a bigger rattle to a pitcher than someone stealing a base. On base percentage is a great thing and all but you need people to slug them home time from time. People always say that you cannot rely on a homerun.... but more so the same goes for sitting back and waiting for the ''small ball'' approach (yes, i know that won it all for the white sox in 2005). I think most people would agree with you. Chicks and GMs did the long ball. This will also drive his price up. Would PK be worth more than JO and Orlando Cabrera? Two speed and defense vs. one HR guy? I'M SO DAMN CONFUSED!!!! That's why I love baseball and it's offseason!!!!!

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) While a ball slices if its hit down the line and hit a certain way, the same thing happens down the LF line with LH hitters and RH hitters the ball will hook. The reason RF is more difficult in general, obviously ballpark configuration and sun and wind can change this, is the throws. Very rarely does a LF have to throw the ball to 1B. The throw to 3rd is a lot more difficult from RF. Besides, anyone who has played the OF regularly will have figured out "slices and hooks" especially major leaguers. If that's difficult for them, they shouldn't be out there. I disagree. The better outfielders can figure this out but not all of them. The harder the ball is hit the less hook or slice it will have. Think about a curve ball vs. a slider. The harder thrown ball (slider) will break less. In the outfield the same concept applies. The harder its hit, usually the pulled ball, the less it will move. The slicing ball will move more. There are many games where the outfielder took "the wrong route" to the ball. It happens almost every game. It's not because the didn't see it, it's because they read it wrong. This happens all of the time. when you watch games. It's alot more difficult than most people think because of how hard the ball is hit.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) The problem of course is that the OBP isn't the only part of the equation. If you give me 2 guys with identical slugging numbers, one steals 50 bases at an 80% clip but has a .1 lower OBP than a guy who steals 2, of course you take the 50 steals guy. But if the guy with the higher OBP also has a significantly higher slugging percentage and hits a lot more home runs...well, if Konerko and Owens had identical OBP's, Owens stole 60 bases, Konerko bopped 40 home runs, which one would you pick? This is a question I always go crazy thinking about and the only way I can answer it is to take the easy way out: it depends on the make up of the rest of the team. I always lean towards pitching and defense. In that case the speedster hopefully (although not always) provides that extra defense at either the outfield or middle infield which is important. The other side is a high OBP doesn't necessarily mean much in the playoffs because there is a lower OBP across the board due to the fact that you don't get to face the other teams 4-5 starters 40% of the time that you do in the regular season. Santana may make one mistake that PK can hit for the homer but you may not get the 2 base hits you need in an inning for JO to score. I see advantages for both sides but lean toward the defense along with the OBP.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) I'm certainly not going to say that a player with a .330 OBP but who can steal 50 bases is more valuable than any number of .330 OBP/.450 SLG types that you can find every offseason. You see... I prefer the player that doesn't have to steal second base -- I prefer the player that's already on second base because he hit a double and doesn't have to worry about stealing second. That puts stress on the pitcher too -- if he gives up a single, he gives up a run. And I'm no way against a player being fast, by the way -- it's a great tool to have. But the people that still think these .270/.330/.350 (but with SPEED!) LFers (or CFers when there's a much better option available -- see Owens, Jerry versus Quentin, Carlos) are in any way good gives me a nice chuckle. This is true depending on the difference between the two players. Is a .05 better OBP worth having the slower guy on base? Here's a thought. How many GIDP did PK have with Pods on in front of him vs. having slower player in front? A faster runner will cause PK's horrible GIDP numbers to be lower, which again only helps the team. Currently, I don't know who is the better player JO or CQ. Obviously, if one is far ahead of the other you pick that one but so far I'm not sure either has.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 04:59 PM) Ok, so what are qualified as stressful pitches? And where's the evidence that shows that a high number of said stressful pitches leads to a higher ERA, WHIP, more pitches thrown, or rate of injury? I've never seen any. I'll agree that "statheads" tend to blindly throw stats around without considering any other factors, but you can't just say "this works this way" without any sort of evidence to back it up. Stressful pitches are usually referred to pitches where the pitcher is in trouble of getting scored upon or as the saying goes "he must bear down." The evidence I go by is the reports on how hard the pitcher perceived he was working. Did he feel it was an easy inning or did he need to work hard. It may be physical, it may be mental either way it wears the pitcher out. I know most of the people here disagree and I can't quantify it myself. I'm working on a research project right now with pitchers and I'm throwing around (pun intended) the idea of how to do this. I like looking at the numbers as much as the next baseball fan but there are some things that I've observed that I can't quite prove yet. But worrying about a runner who may steal, whether successful or not does wear on a pitcher. Ask any pitcher who has been in minors or MLB and most will agree that in crucial situations if this type of person is on base they need to work harder and this can only help the opposing team.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) It's all about the arm. Holding runners from getting from 1st to 3rd on a single. Covering ground fits into that equation as well. If you are slower getting to the ball, the opposition knows to try and get to 3rd on that single to right. While this is true, I think people get far too caught up in the arm strength and throwing runners out. The more important aspect is running down and catching the ball. RF is generally more difficult to play a ball because with more RH hitters the "slicing" ball is more difficult to judge than the more straight trajectory hit "pulling" the ball to left. There are many more chances to catch (or miss) the ball than "holding runners."

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) If you were constrained by salary, you could certainly make an argument that MB at $13 million a year is more valuable to a team than Johan at $25 million a year. For a team like the Mets clearly they take the better pitcher because they can afford him. The more the salary impinges upon you though, the more you have to worry. Here's one way to think about that. Who wins you more games, Johan Santana plus a $1 million 1st baseman (Ross Gload, Doug Mientkiewicz or someone of that ilk) or Mark Buehrle + Paul Konerko? If you have the salary available to go for Santana and Delgado fine, but if you don't, then it probably makes more sense to spread it around. Unless you have a sh*tload of young guys. This is especially true when you look at the length of the deal. He will not be healthy for the 5-6 years. He had to alter his game last year due to elbow problems. If you figure he's healthy for only 75% of that contract, it really puts a strain on the budget and who will need to take his place.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:29 PM) I've seen him play CF and wasn't impressed. I agree. I would prefer to give Anderson another shot as opposed to him.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 06:04 PM) lol i find it so funny that we have FINALLY cut the waste out of the lineup in uribe, pods, and even erstad and owens, and people are still clamoring to find a fit for a guy like owens or crisp....if we want to have crisp on the bench, im fine with that as long as we are able to swap bad contract bench guys like uribe or crede for crisp, that way you swap a 5 mil contract for a 5 mil contract, but are sacrificing good D of the bench at one position for good D off the bench at another (CF, where we need the D) thats an ok deal, but its unlikely to improve our team a whole lot what is likely to improve our team a whole lot is getting cabreras .340 obp in the lineup over uribes .280, swishers .380 over pods/erstad/whoevers .320 and quentin's potential .350-.360 over owens .310-.330 you still need a guy in the mold of crisp or owens at the top of the lineup. Say what you will about the "numbers and OBP" is all that matters but I'll bet if you look at the past WS winners most of them had that type of player at the top. Red Sox: Ellsbury Cards: Eckstein White Sox: Pods Red Sox Damon Marlins: Pierre Angles: Eckstein D-backs: Womack

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) Is it just me, or have teams gotten more in return for worse pitchers? Who got more the A's for Haren or the Twins for Santana? Part of the deal was that Santana wouldn't waive his no trade clause unless he got the deal he wanted from the team. There is always more to a deal than the talent that each team recieves. Boston or NY may not have wanted to give him the years or money he wanted due to the elbow injury and lack of slider because of it last year. Santana supposedly turned down 100 mil for 5 years. I wouldn't give him that many years.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) Speed is only a significant threat if the base stealer has a success rate near or over 75%. Otherwise the player's speed has little effect. Personally, I feel speed has the greatest effect in being able to go from first to third or second to home on a single. Especially if the team or the hitters coming to bat struggle with RiSP. Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:20 PM) I agree its very overrated. The leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once, but he will bat at least as much as anyone in the lineup. Its more important to get a guy who can get on base, and let the 2,3, 4 hitter do their jobs. Even when Pods was supposedly spectacular, didn't Iguchi have to give himself up a lot? You're taking pitches ,getting behind in the count so the guy can get to second. I still disagree. While the "speedster" only leads off once, he creates a distraction for the pitcher whenever he is on base. That's why agree they need to get on base at a decent clip but the threat to steal drives pitchers crazy. Especially in today's game with so many people following the James rule where spped doesn't matter, the ones who can create a distraction are even more effective. Even having the player caught stealing wore the pitcher down more by having him throwing over to first (which wears a pitcher out more with the twisting motion). This will effect the overall game that doesn't sho up in the number of runs scored, OBP and whatever else you want to analyze. In the end getting the pitcher out of the game sooner may be more effective. OBP from the leadoff spot is obviously important because he will have on average more plate appearances than anyone else, but how much of a difference do you need to negate the effect of the speed is a real conundrum. It is also one that polarizes people, they either think it helps or don't. I for one believe it has a great impact on the game. The scenario you state above should only happen early in games to get a lead or toward the end of close games when one run truly matters.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 11:48 PM) I am not sure what a B/C level prospect is, but if we ever traded Crede it better be for major league ready prospects or someone already on tghe roster and ready to step in as a top notch player. Personally I think Crede should be signed to a long term deal. Crede alone will not get us much of a high prospect or MLB ready prospect. The reasons are: 1. coming off back surgery and 2. he is a one year rent a player due to the impending free agency and the tough negotiations that will follow with Boras. I think we will get a high prospect or MLB ready pitcher because we will be packaged with others such as Anderson. The return will be a pitcher. KW trades for a targeted player not what the other team wants to offer and right now I think KW wants to acquire pitching. His position players are pretty well set.

QUOTE(scenario @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) IMO, we shoulda seen if we coulda flipped him back to the Cubs for Neal Cotts... then had Cotts compete with Thornton and Logan for a bullpen spot.... but that's just me. With that awful year he had in the NL he can't possibly pitch in the AL

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 11:01 AM) Yep -- Owens is all of (~)4 months younger than Nick Swisher, to put things into perspective a bit. And no, it's completely unreasonable to think Owens is capable of a .370 or .380 OBP. His minor league OBP was .362, and that's despite the fact that he was old for his level every step of the way. That doesn't even mention his terrible slugging percentage. He's nothing more than a 4th outfielder, but for some reason Sox fans seem to equate 'speedy' and 'slap-hitty' with 'good'. He was old in age only. He had less experience for his age due to his football career. He was probably progressing at a proper rate for experience. I think he will do fine and be better than a 4th outfielder. He played acceptable CF defense last year after everyone touted his defense as not playable in CF. I think he will learn and be a good MLB player.