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.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) Then have him DH in a B game. You put a player out in the field in a game, and they will react. Its human nature. I've been looking around, does anyone know if they B-squad was playing today/who they were playing? It's easy to say, in retrospect, that Hall shouldn't have been playing, but if there was an opportunity for him to get at-bats against near-MLB level pitchers, as southsideirish suggests then yeah, he shouldn't have been in the game. Unless the front office was trying to groom him for a backup 1b position as well...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) He's not a 1B though. He is not accustomed to playing that position. What's next, Podsednik at SS? Maybe, I dunno, if you're a backup catcher not used to playing the position in ST you just don't dive for that ball? I appreciate grinder ball and everything, but blaming Ozzie because he put him in for some ABs makes about as much sense as blaming Hall for diving for a ball during ST.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) Cotts lost considerable luster last year, but he saved our butts at critical moments in our WS run. So can I start a thread wondering if it was a good idea to let Geoff Blum walk? I mean, sure, he batted .254 as a PH and utility man for the Padres, but c'mon, that man won Game 3 of the WS for us! How could we let a guy like that go? Actually, at least Blum had some real value as a PH last season. What did Cotts have value in? Being less than average.

What I love about this debate is that at first glance it sounds like a classic "stats vs. scouts" debate---"Don't tell me about how good his stuff is or about the adjustments he made last year---what I want is cold hard stats...like....you know....wins and losses..." Ok, so, yeah, Javy's ERA has been high for a bit now and he's a sub .500 pitcher. You can watch him and know that he has the potential to be much better than that, and his last two months are proof of that. So, ok, he hasn't proved that he can consistently put it all together and harnass that stuff on a consistent basis at the major league level. Who else are we going to have pitching? Oh, you mean those young guys, the ones that haven't necessarily proven they can be effective at AAA? I don't want our rotation to entirely be centered on them. Yeah, they're cheaper---they're also unproven. If one of them pans out, great, we get a cheap, effective starter. But to expect all of them to get the job done is, IMO, foolhardy. So what happened today? We signed a guy who throws a lot of innings per year who has the potential to be very good for a shortish contract at less than the current market would dictate. And this is a bad thing? Maybe it's just unwarranted optimism on my part, but I'm hoping that what he showed us his last two months is indicative of what he can do---after all, if we can hope for our pitching coach to work magic with all our new young arms, can't we believe he could also help our other pitchers iron out some kinks?---and that he has a great year.

Hey, while I'm all for following spring training in the hopes of getting a feel for how a player will look in the upcoming season, aren't we jumping the gun just a tad here? Fields went 2 for 2---let's move him to a new position and make him the starter! Floyd walked a guy and gave up a double before twisting his ankle---dump the bum, he'll never be anything! Ok, so as ST goes on, I can understand trying to make some observations about how a player looks. But this is just an intra-squad game, for chrissakes. That being said, hey, if people that are actually there at ST want to chime in, I'd love to hear it. I'd prefer some personal observations (Player X's bat looks a little slow, Player Y has a nice breaking ball) over some overanalysis of some player's stat line for one game.

I'm not debating the worth of Pods in 2005---especially in the first half, he was a dangerous looking basestealer and I fully expected him, whenever he was on-base, to steal second and maybe even third if the situation required. Pre-ASB, his SB% was a fantastic 83%. It seemed like every time the Sox needed him to steal in a close game, he came through. Then the wheels came off, literally and figuratively: His SB% dropped to 52%, and his OBP suffered as well: 0.326. Neither stat is good. So, OK, he was injured and tried to gut it out and suffered as a result. No big deal, right, he'll come back strong? Not so: 2006, Pre-ASB, he went 29/41 in SB attempts, leading to a 71% success rate. His OBP, though, was 0.353 which, while far from ideal, isn't disastrous. But after the midpoint of the season, both numbers dipped again: 61% SB rate, OBP of 0.296. Both of those are abysmal for a lead-off guy. Especially one whose defense is suspect in a corner outfield position. And I have a hard time remembering him getting a crucial SB late in a close game. So that leads to the question: What does Scott bring, nowadays? He seems to have lost a lot of his speed. He doesn't get on-base consistently enough. And he's an adventure out in LF. While I hope he bounces back to some degree, I worry that the skillset that he used to have to make him a dnagerous leadoff guy has eroded away. Time will tell, I guess.

QUOTE(bad at best @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) What do people think of Haeger out of the pen? Knuckleballs make me nervous in late inning, runners on situations (walks, HRs, passed balls, etc). Maybe to start an inning or as long relief? The nice thing about knuckleballing relievers is that they can seriously screw up people's timing. The bad thing is that it's beyond easy for them to give up a few walks/wild pitches, and, just as it is tough for a hitter to adjust, it's also difficult for a catcher. I wouldn't mind seeing Haeger as the 5th starter, or doing some long relief, but I'd be nervous seeing him come into a high-leverage situation.

The thing is, pretty much every team has question marks going into each spring training. Yeah, we got a lot of them---Will our starting five show up this year? What's our new hard-throwing bullpen gonna give us? How about those positions of LF, SS, and CF?---but I think we're in decent shape. I like the new look-bullpen, and frankly, when you look at how bad we were, offensively, at LF, SS, and CF, it's hard to imagine that at least two of those three couldn't show significant improvement. And maybe the other one will just fall by the wayside, I don't know. That being said, we'll need some breaks to go our way for a successful run to the post-season, but who doesn't?

QUOTE(bad at best @ Feb 17, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) This is kinda off-topic a bit. but still about Uribe. I cant stand to watch Uribe swing a baseball bat, i will actually turn the channel during his at-bats. Despite that he knocks out 20 hrs a year. He clearly has pop in his bat. Why has no batting coach ever gotten through to him and made him adapt a real swing that doesnt break every rule that every 12 year old is taught and actually works. I think with some guidance and discipline he could be an offensive stud instead of my opportunity to see whats on "ESPN classic". I love watching Uribe when he's on the field but I can't, for the life of me, understand why any pitcher would throw him a strike, ever. Check this out: last year in 463 at-bats, Uribe drew a walk in a grand total of 13 of them. Of course, he struck out 82 times, for an impressive BB/K ratio of 0.158. Actually, the only reason Uribe ever gets anything to hit may be due to his swiss-cheese swing. The opposing pitcher figures "Hell, I can throw anything, he'll never hit it" and he jumps on a mistake pitch. That's all I can figure.

I wasn't orgasmic about any of the moves made this offseason, but none of them made me want to run straight to the bottle, which is a plus, I guess, given an offseason filled with monster contracts given to the likes of Meche, and that's not even getting into the Soriano and Zito contracts. I mean, those are good players, but still... Here's my take on this offseason: there market for players with any sort of skills, even if it's merely to throw a ball 60'6" periodically was ridiculous. Last year's team basically collapsed, despite the fact that it was talented enough to make an October run. So 2007 comes down to players rebounding. If our starters collapse again, there's not much hope for the team, and I'd rather have our current rotation than one in which we mortgaged the next few years for Zito. If Buehrle can return to form and Vazquez can figure out how to not come totally unhinged the third time through the order, I like our chances. Yes, Thome and Dye are good regression candidates, but it'd also be hard for Posednik and Uribe to have worse years than they had last year. And if they do, DFA the bums. Pods at least. I still say there's a decent chance that Anderson shows at least modest improvement, and while I would have liked more of an immediate return for Garcia and McCarthy, I'm happy to see the front office recognize that getting good young arms, while maybe not leading to an immediate impact, let's the team stay competitive for the coming years. Call me wishy-washy, but I'd rather root for a team like the White Sox than the Marlins---championships are great, but it's a long long summer when you know your boys aren't going to be contending any time soon.