Dick Allen

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) Dave Cameron has written a ton about this type of system, and is on record claiming that a tandem/multi-use system is where pitching will go in the long run. That said, he also clearly brings up the point that moving to this sort of system is a massive undertaking that has to take place from the bottom of the minors up to the Majors, and represents a severe issue when trading or acquiring players that are changing systems. Several years ago, Nolan Ryan wanted the Rangers to go to a 4 man rotation permanently. The problem with that is, you can train your guys in the minors to do this, but during the season, even in the offseason, you acquire pitchers that aren't physically trained for it, and it will blow up in your face. Same with this idea. Just about every team would have adopt this philosophy for it to really work.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive. The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money. This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself. However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way? Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection. He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs. Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game. Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”. Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days. Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”. So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day, you would repeat the same process, with two more starters. At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen. They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game. The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,” of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did. This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana, did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead? The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work. Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea. What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility? I don't think it is feasable. In a World Series, it is worth the risk of what the stress, and pitching in a game is very different from a side session, will do to your pitcher moving forward. And it probably could work for a week or 2, but 162 games is a long time, and pitchers aren't as good as Baumgarner. The results wouldn't be the same. IMO, you are just asking for trouble. The payroll flexibility created would soon dissappear as you would probably be paying guys to rehab.

There have been pitchers who lost it suddenly and refound it. Halladay, Black Jack McDowell are a couple. So Johnson, there is still a chance. With Davidson, most players fail that badly because they just can't do it. His contact rate is atrocious. Many on this board have already written off Baez of the Cubs because of his contact rate as a 21 year old. Davidson was 23, in his second year of AAA, and he was worse at the AAA level. If you can't hit the ball in the minors, you aren't going to be able to hit the ball against better pitchers.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) That's terribly flawed logic. Because the White Sox didn't give their biggest offer possible to Chris Sale before he signed an extension, they won't sign Scherzer? The logic is flawed. The conclusion is correct.

They are still trying to figure out how to include Abreu in the deal. It is probably what is causing the delay.

Contacting and having serious interest in a guy are two different things. It doesn't hurt to see what is up, but I doubt the White Sox are going to be serious contenders for Scherzer. I do think the payroll, if their targets can be acquired, will be much higher than many think.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) I saw Sale vs Scherzer last year $7. Tickets really aren't that expensive at all. If you are bringing kids and a wife or GF and buying a ton of s*** then yes it's expensive but not much more expensive than going to the movies is. When Sale pitches at home, it's $20, $15 on Sundays with a t shirt to sit in the K-Zone.(Or anywhere else you may find yourself) And that it is never sold out, shows the whiney Sox fans who use excuses about pricing and lower deck excess, are just full of hot air. Every time the White Sox come up with something that cancels out a common complaint, like the upper deck (fixed), the blue seats, (fixed), cheap lower deck access (fixed) they come up with something else. As someone who goes to a lot of games, I prefer it not crowded myself, it is pretty comfortable. Sacrificing comfort for a better team though is an easy call.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) And it's not like the Sox don't get paid a lot for their TV rights for this specific reason. And as long as people continue to prefer to watch that way, the compensation the Sox receive will continue to rise. White Sox TV ratings are also among the lowest in baseball. 4 times as many people watch the Tigers on local TV than the White Sox. Half of MLB is #1 or #2 or #3 in local ratings when they are on in prime time. The White Sox rank #11th.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:56 PM) No, Cubs fans go to games because it's a social event. It's a completely different situation. If you've spent any time in Bridgeport and Wrigleyville, it's very easy to see that. Also, Cubs attendance has declined substantially over the past few years. Their attendance has plummeted so much, there have been 4 seasons the White Sox drew more than the 2014 Cubs. 1991,1992,2006,2007. Think aboit it, no White Sox playoff team has ever outdrawn the 2014 Cubs. White Sox fans as a whole, suck. They always have some excuse. In 2012, the line was they didn't go to games when they were in first place for a few momths because they "knew" they would fall apart.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Related: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-percept...er-trade-value/ It is funny that Cameron likes to say he made a case of it being a good trade, but then if you click on the article where he said that, he may have said that, sort of. He also made a case of it blowing up in their faces. To me, these type of trades usually work out a little differently from what the original reaction was. There is some reason Oakland dealt Donaldson, and it isn't money. They have more info on him than anyone else. I don't even think it is because he called the GM Billy Boy. It doesn't appear he was shopped around.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 09:54 PM) Gasol with his best game as a Bull. I guess Shaq was a little off when he said Gasol was done.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) Now look up the home/away splits for other players. Turns out most guys are better at home. The difference between his split at Coors and everywhere else OPS wise for his career, not just cherry pickimg seasons,is equal to the 2014 difference between Gordon Beckham and Miguel Cabrera.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) There are plenty of players who have divergent home and away splits that do not play in Coors field. It isn't entirely a product of the thin air. It also has to do with comfort level, experience, etc. 3100 career plate appearances .329/.387/.601 vs, .258/.314/.437 which includes around 400 appearances as an A where his splits were close to the same home and road. .339/.400/.625 at Coors Field in his career. I think a lot of has to do with the thin air, and big field.

I don't know if it is improved today, but one thing I read lead to a lot of minor league errors was the infields aren't or at least weren't as highly manicured as they are in the major leagues.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) Clarification: 1) I did not, and am not, advocating a trade of Anderson for Samardjiza. I was addressing the "untouchable" label some attach to him. 2) There is much more substance to Anderson's defensive short comings than his 31 errors, in just 302 chances. 3) Most scouting reports that I have read indicate that he is a "fringy" defensive SS, with an average arm. Here are some quotes from said scouting reports: From Scouting Book.com: "A good but not standout shortstop, he shows plus range but only a so-so arm, which suggests a move to second base might be coming in the future". From Adam Wells, Bleacher Report: Defense: 45/55 "Fringy range with below-average footwork and instincts; ability to use speed makes up for deficiencies right now; needs to position himself better to get better reads off the bat; average arm strength makes it difficult to throw from the hole; quicker release and repetitions could make him average or better in the big leagues." Arm: 50/50 "Average arm strength; transfer from glove and release are solid, but overall velocity leaves plenty to be desired; chance lack of arm necessitates move to second base or center field, with the latter maximizing his overall skill set; with better positioning, could stay at short in pro ball." Baseball America: "Winston-Salem’s Tim Anderson (White Sox) lacks efficiency in the field, with an .897 fielding percentage and Carolina League-leading total of 31 errors in just 66 games, but he also used electric athleticism and range to record +12 assists in that time. Plus, he continued to rack up assists in 10 games Double-A Birmingham (3.20 A/G)" MLB.com: "Leading up to the 2013 Draft, some scouts projected Anderson more as a center fielder than a shortstop, but the White Sox have no plans to move him off his current position. Anderson has the actions, range and arm to play short, and he has the work ethic to make the necessary refinements". This scouting report is more favorable, regarding his defense, but even then, it suggests that he will need to "make refinements". The emphasis is on the tools, not the skills. The other thing is, offensively he makes Dayan Viciedo look as selective as Frank Thomas, but he is very raw. He could be a star. He could be a bust, but he definitely appears to be headed in the right direction, and his talent is off the charts.

QUOTE (AlSoxfan @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:46 AM) that was an interesting comparison, thanks. I remember hearing Hawk say one time that Ripken was the luckiest ss in the history of baseball, every ball was hit right at him. I didn't know whether to laugh or scream at him. He meant it as a compliment. Ripken didn't have much range but like the shifts of today, a nice thought process can make up for it.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:19 AM) Without context, fielding percentage means next to nothing. Let's compare Derek Jeter and Jose Valentin just for fun. As most probably remember, Jose Valentin made a lot of errors but had great range. Let's use 2004 as an example. This was the first year that Derek Jeter won the Gold Glove. Jeter made just 13 errors (good for a .981 fielding percentage), his range factor per 9 was 4.46. If he were to play all 1458 innings that year he would have had 723 chances and his .981 fielding percentage would mean he was successful on 709 of them. Valentin made 20 errors (good for a .965 fielding percentage), his range factor per 9 was 4.91. If he were to play all 1458 innings that year he would have had 795 chances and his .965 fielding percentage would mean he was successful on 768 of them. So despite the fact that Jeter had a higher fielding percentage, Valentin actually would make an additional 59 plays over the course of the year that Jeter's limited range would not allow him to even field. Yet because people still like to just look at archaic stats like fielding percentage, Jeter wins the Gold Glove. It does, but the fact remains, Semien was a bad defender in 2014. People are intriqued with his offense so they don't want to admit that, thinking whatever he screwed up is a simple fix. Players they don't like that make the same mistakes are awful fielders. I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he is young and improving defensively happens all the time. But to think he is anything but bad now is ridiculous.

He is going to cost something decent because you get him for a season under market price and if you don't re-sign him, you most likely will give him a QO get a comp pick in the draft. If the White Sox truly aren't totally going for it now, just hoping this goes right and that goes right, which could happen, it doesn't make very much sense giving up one of their top 3 or 4 prospects and then something for a guy they can sign next offseason if they need him so badly. If JR is willing to up the payroll to $125 million or so now, and adding pieces, then it may make sense.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 03:08 PM) I'm sure someone has some stat to show otherwise, but I didn't think he looked very good in the field for the Sox last year. His fielding pct at 3B was almost .900. He sucked, but he's young. Maybe he gets better. Frankly, he probably has to.

When Nelson Cruz was Tank's age, he was pretty turrble.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) i am on lunch at work, while i was reading about the sox wanting Shark. this reminds me of when the sox had a chance of getting this young unproven pitcher from Sea. it came down to a final yes from JR. JR said no. now my cuz and friends were all for the trade. the pitchers Sea wanted where 4 and were in the minors. One was Richard Dotson. that pitcher was Randy Johnson. now i am not saying that Shark is going to be the next Randy Johnson. but the cost is still too much for this trade. Anderson, no freaking way. I do know I once read the Sox were so close to a deal to get Randy Johnson, and this was before he broke out as a good pitcher, they actually had a uniform hanging for him in their clubhouse. Johnson is a weird pitcher. Didn't become decent until he was 26. Didn't become dominant until he was 29, and was awesome pretty much through his entire 30s.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 07:46 PM) Alexei remains the Sox best trade piece, and he can be used to improve the ball club next year. He's a nice shortstop but he isn't that great and the Sox can cover the position. they can't cover pitching and LF. If he isn't that great, why would any team give up much to get him? He's old, he's falling apart, but he should net a really good prospect. How does that make any sense?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 30, 2014 -> 08:08 PM) The 1.9 you speak of was when his father in law was killed so he had personal issues to deal with while being 31 years old at the time. The seasons he's had since then are the sole reason why he's our best bet to get higher level talent. Father time will win the battle as he does every time. If you have to bring up Davidson as a reason why he shouldn't be traded when do you trade for young talent? It's guaranteed Alexei will eventually get worse with every passing year. Like Shack said better a year too early than a year too late. I bring up Davidson because people look at the ranking and say no matter what, good trade. That is wrong. If Alexei is this top trade chip you mentioned, if he is traded, they need to get it right in reality.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2014 -> 09:00 PM) We have to offer Viciedo arbitration or non-tender him this week. It would be shocking if he is non tendered.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 30, 2014 -> 07:38 PM) The "we love Alexei but father time never backs down" group which includes me isn't really thinking about a replacement for him but getting more controllable talent either in the farm or ML ready. He's a trade chip that still has plenty of value which is why many don't want him to go but the Sox are filled with stars and stiffs and we just need more talent. The fact that Alexei is pretty much our only realistic movable trade chip among the position players bears that out. Are you confident that some of our better players from last year won't regress. ? Flowers ? Gillaspe ? Quintana , Sale, Eaton , Abreu may all have just had career years. It's hard to say that considering they all are just getting started but it might be true . We know Alexei isn't going to get better but others are also candidates for regression and more talent around the core needs to be addressed. I don't know how we all know Alexei won't be better. 2 years ago he dropped to a 1.9 WAR and it was said he is on the downslope and only going to get worse. The next year he puts up a 3.1 WAR, and last season a 3.3 , when again, he is supposedly just going to get worse. Steamer projects a 2.3 next season, which supposedly is good for $10 million. If they do trade him, if it is for a Davidson like prospect that doesn't pan out, it will be a godawful trade, even if people post the "you make that trade 10 times out of 10". BS.