effectivelywild

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 5, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) Think what you want. Strikeouts are not productive. Runners don't advance. Runs don't score. The defense is not pressured to make a play. If a guy like Fields could cut his strikeouts to 150 in a full season, that would be 50 more times he makes contact. I'm guessing some of those times those will be hits. Some of those times runners would advance on outs he made, and sometimes he would reach on an error. I know, I'm crazy. Well, hell, of course. I would love it if he could do that. I mean, his average would jump, and his on base percentage and slugging and virtually all of his stats would, all things being equal, go up as well. In fact, if he could just replace every one of those strikeouts with a home run, he'd be one of the better hitting third basemen of all time. But see, that's the problem with the ol' "well, if he'd just strike out less some of those AB's would be hits" argument. You're essentially saying "gee, I wish he'd have a higher BA." And the argument hinges on another caveat---that if Fields changed his approach and mechanics to strike out less, it could, on the other hand, lead to him taking less walks or even (gasp!) hitting for less power as he starts taking more conservative swings. So it's sort of like me saying "Gee, I just wish Fields was a better hitter" A more fair comparison, then, is trying to figure out the value of all those potentially productive outs vs. the strikeout. And I'm pretty sure that I've read that the value of those potential productive outs is mostly done away with the additional DP's he'd hit into. I think that over the course of a full season, the value of "productive outs vs. KO's for a hitter" is about 1 run, though I'd have to find the numbers. If you have others that contradict me, I'd love to be better informed. Long story short, I'm pretty sure the end result is that all outs are more or less equal, from a run scoring standpoint.

During today's broadcast, someone had emailed in the question as to whether the White Sox's offense would be as bad as it was last year. Hawk immediately answered "No" but offered little if any evidence for his opinion. So I thought I'd ask the board: will the offense be better this year? Specifically, what went wrong last year that you don't think will be the case this year?

Just as a quick add in to the discussion about Uribe in response to the assertions that he does, at the least, provide great defense and power (from the website billjamesonline.net, so this may not be for the less statistical-minded out there): Juan Uribe Hitting for Power: 48th percentile 82nd percentile among shortstops Plate Discipline: 7th percentile 5th percentile among shortstops Running: 6th percentile 5th percentile among shortstops Hitting for Average: 3rd percentile 3rd percentile among shortstops What does this tell us? Well, what we already know---that he has significant power, in fact remarkable power for a short stop. What else does it tell us? That he's beyond crap at everything else. Those percentiles are horrible. And as far as defense goes, from his +/- profile (same website) GROUND DP PLAYS PLUS/MINUS GIDP Expected Outs Outs Made To His Straight To His Year Team Inn Opps GIDP Pct Rank GB Air GB Air Right On Left GB Air Total Rank 2005 CWS 1293.1 149 89 .597 15 361 125 364 131 +12 -2 -7 +3 +6 +9 9 2006 CWS 1130.0 130 77 .592 18 320 106 320 109 +10 +2 -12 0 +3 +3 15 2007 CWS 1305.1 152 91 .599 21 392 128 380 133 -2 -5 -5 -12 +5 -7 24 Total 3728.2 431 257 .596 21 1073 359 1064 373 +20 -5 -24 -9 +14 +5 14 Obviously this data should be interpreted with a grain of salt, but basically it's showing that while in 2005 he was an above average shortstop in terms of number of plays made against what could be expected, he's become below average and is, at the very least, trending in the wrong direction. Is there potentially a lot of noise in these sorts of evaluations? Yes. But for what it's worth, he's not looking as good as he used to, and I think casual observation would back that up. So in response to questions over whether a 2-tool player (power, defense) is worth 4.5 million, that's debatable. But is a one-tool player worth that, especially when, anecdotally, I feel like all his home runs come when a pitcher is just being lazy and that he can be effectively pitched to in clutch situations? Just my 2 cents

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 05:32 AM) Mota had over a 2.5 GB/FB ratio last year. If he can keep the ball in the park, that would bode well for his chances to make it in the Cell. Methinks using someone's GB/FB ratio at A level to project their potential success at the Cell is jumping the gun a bit. The kid's a long way from being at a level where those predictions and trends become relevant.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) I don't think anybody was asking for either of those two. It would've been dumb as hell to pay either of those guys $40 million plus. David Delluci or Trot Nixon, on the other hand... Nixon would've been a great fit for the two hole with Iguchi leading off. Erstad still would've been needed (as a backup starting CFer), and we still would've been short a righty mashing platoon mate, but Nixon still would've been a great pickup. Nixon needs a lefty-mashing platoon mate. The man cannot hit LHP. He never has. And, odds are, he never will.

Wow. Just....wow.

Why can't we score without hitting home runs?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Grinderstad down to .156 f*** ESPN just mentioned something about Buehrle What, that he's pitching a shutout?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 11:58 PM) just thought id bump this I'm not sure BA is trade bait. I'm not sure he's a bench player, really. As far as I can tell, he's Ozzie's own personal trophy b****, there to demonstrate what happens to skilled players who fall out of his graces.

Too bad we don't having any defensive replacements for the outfield. I mean, we don't, do we? Cause there's no reason for them not to have been in. I'm speechless. Just speechless. Also, I'm pretty sure Pods could have thrown out the tying run if his throw hadn't been, like, 3 feet over AJ's head. At the very least I'd like to think BA woulda had a chance. Anyone concur?

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) more importantly, what kind of pitcher will Garland be tonight... A winning one.

Throw. Strikes.

I appreciate it if Pods is trying to work the count and get on base more, but right now doesn't it look like he's just not comfortable swinging the bat? I just watched him take a 3-1 cookie, his bat not even moving, and finally flying out weakly to CF. Anyone else notice this?

QUOTE(max power @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) The thread start made some valid points for once about Hawk. Usually people just hate announcers for no reason. Some people cannot be satisfied, and say something general and for all practical purposes meaningless like "he sucks." Personally, I have never been one to criticize the announcers because it is a very difficult job to improvise for 3 hours a day virtually everyday of the week, something no one else in television has to do. I am not sure that hawk has a choice in the matter. When I watch a cubs game its the same way. I find myself disagreeing with the announcers all the time. They are employed by their ball club, so some bias should be expected. A replacement for hawk would probably be the same. I guess what I am saying is, at least he doesn't sound like kermit the frog. You make a good point: it's natural for an announcer to show some preference for his employer. If I could change two things though, without really affecting his natural homerism: 1. If the White Sox are losing badly, you don't have to stop commenting on the game. On tough days, Hawk goes through stretches of several minutes where he is silent despite the fact that there's still a game taking place. 2. On the flip side, I like anecdotes as much as anyone, but there's been times when Hawk has gotten so wrapped up in tales of his minor league days that he'll fail to note that real action is taking place in the game. Anecdotally, I think one time I saw a game in which a Sox player jacked one out of the park but Hawk didn't even comment that a ball had been hit until the player was crossing home. That being said, I'll admit I've only watched broadcasts from a couple of cities in my time (here and Boston, where the announcers could hardly be called unbiased) so I don't really have a sense of how things are nationwide. Maybe Hawk is better than average (though calling him the "best announcer in the history of baseball" is going over the top a bit, don't you think?), but, still, I think the above two points have more to do with being a better professional broadcaster than liking your home team.

While I appreciate the value of having a guy in the booth rooting for the home guys, Hawk's favoritism has gotten to the point where he doesn't even approach objective coverage of the game. Which, ok, I hate, some people like. But I'll tell you what: sometimes I feel like I'd like to keep him around purely for occasional sheer comedy value. To wit: Hawk's commentary after Masset's pitchout caused Blake to be CS in the 2nd. "You don't throw a pitchout accidentally." Yes, Hawk, thanks. That's why it's called a pitchout and the catcher is ready for it and not simply a wild, outside fastball.