Dick Allen

Am I the only one that finds it odd Vafan doesn't like Ventura because he walked Bryce Harper with runners on 2nd and 3rd last season with a RHP on the mound? On that date, Harper was hitting .417. Zimmerman .241.

It seems to me that unless the White Sox trade Alexei, which I hope not and doubt, there really isn't any of the usual suspects that really has to be dealt by the deadline. I think they all can pretty much make it through waivers, and if they don't I don't think the Sox would mind handing them over to the claiming team.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 11:26 AM) As for how many games has Robin cost the team in 2014? Well, how many blown saves does Bellisario have? Does anyone here think Bellisario should have been the closer when Lindstrom went down? Or why does he seem to have an infatuation with Javy Guerra in tight games, when he's blown saves in all 4 of his opportunities? Guerra's been in middle relief. The bullpen has been a mess. Guerra has prior closing experience. BTW, Middle relievers rarely have save opportunities they can convert. They pretty much can only blow a save. Using a middle reliever's save percentage as proof a manager is an idiot, shows you would think every manager is an idiot.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Still waiting for someone defending Robin to argue that he's helped the Sox win more games than they would have with an average manager. You can take whatever you want into account. Instead, all I've read is that, well, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre weren't great managers at first. Which seems to me a backhanded admission that Robin Ventura isn't a good manager now either. Sorry, but we aren't debating whether Robin Ventura might become a good manager at some hypothetical time in the future, AFTER he stops making the many poor decisions he's been making over the last 2+ years. We're debating whether Ventura is a good manager NOW, and I think those of us who argue he's below par are winning the argument rather handily. Also, to the reasons I gave above for why I think Robin costs the Sox games, I would add last season's horrible fundamentals. We had to be the worst team in baseball fundamentals. To me, that speaks volumes about a manager. Yes, the players execute, but it's the manager's job to get them prepared to play. I think he's a good manager. I mentioned the others because the just went into the HOF. You can add Maddon to them, and at the same point in their careers, their teams, with talent that was short, just like Robin, weren't winning. They must have been idiots too. A manager doesn't take a 99 loss team and make them champions. He also doesn't take a team that should win 90 games and wind up losing 100. Your criticism is crazy. All things considered, IMO, the White Sox have won more games than they should. The arguments about what has he done to increase the win total, also is tied into talent. If another manager does the exact same thing as Ventura but has a more capable player who executes it, while Robin has a mediocre player fail, that manager gets credit. Robin, no matter what he does, if it doesn't work, is an idiot to a lot of people. This isn't school. The right answer doesn't always work.

Has anyone seen Davidson's splits with 2 out and RISP? He is 8 for 81 (.099) with something like a .311 OPS. He is messed up.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) So not at all. They predicted him to pitch the same as 2012-13 and be a great pitcher. Instead he's become on of the top 3 pitchers in all of baseball. He also has missed several starts.

Eaton DL Abreu DL Gillaspie DL Garcia DL Sale DL Jones DL Lindstrom DL Beckham DL If someone told you this would have happened, would you really think hovering near .500 meant a terrible job of managing?

Soria doing his White Sox closer impression. Nailed it.

I think Dunn's OPS is back over .800

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 08:20 PM) It ain't good, but it's severely dented by a) a horrible slash against lefties, which he would be protected against by a platoon and b) a BABIP that is still almost 40 points below his career average. Similar to Beckham.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 08:09 PM) There's nothing too wrong with that summary, except a) people are acting like he's never been any good and b) even with that low BABIP he's hitting .269/.340/.406. Adjust that for his career BABIP, combined with his cromulent defence/baserunning that can be a pretty valuable guy as the platoon guy playing the majority of the time. Although you're correct, obviously not as valuable as an everyday CF. What about his 80 wRC+

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 08:00 PM) Dunn's ISO is down to .204. His OPS is now well below 800. Please, for the love of god get a hit in the next day or two with a scout watching. .795 is well below.800?

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 06:18 PM) I hate looking like the desperate fat chick at the Ball. Not enough fat chick references lately. Every team does it.

You still have to have the player execute so if you have bad players a manager can put you in a position to win but you still lose. When Maddon didn't have good players he also lost a ton of games. It is amazing how smart you get when the talent level of your team rises.

QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) If the sox took on the whole contract there's a snowballs chance in hell that they give up that. The Phils would be lucky to get Dunn and Axlerod's jock. His salary is probably appropriate, but the Sox can't give up what it would take to get him. Someone probably will if he truly is available. But they are going to want a ton back.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) What do you think about the difference in the quality starts stats when you tweak the definition of quality starts? Danks pitched 7 innings last time out and gave up 4 runs, but actually pitched well. Sometimes QS is a QS, sometimes it's not and vice versa. To tweek it and say it matches what "should" happen to me is just coincidence. We don't know what "should" happen. If we did, there would be no reason to play the game. I have always loved stats. I used to play Stratomatic and one of my favorite parts was doing the stats. (Now it's done on a computer for you). But I am starting to agree with the poster who said the advanced stats are taking the joy out of it. If a guy has a good game, some stat that has nothing to do with hits or outs or strikes or balls or errors or pitches or runs will say, no that's a bad performance, and then you can have the Jeff Samardjiza performance last year where he was yanked after giving up 9 runs in 4 innings, but had a lot of K's so his xFIP that game was 3.70 or something like that , and no, he didn't pitch bad. Look how hard he threw and how many strikeouts he had. Forget everything else. A soft tosser like Danks, it's the opposite. Forget all the outs he got and the lack of runs. He didn't strike nearly enough out. He was only throwing 89. That's not a good performance. The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:35 PM) 5 minutes, if that. It may not be exact but it paints the picture. It doesn't paint the picture. It's a different measurement.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) I have a question: Does anyone on this thread who is defending Robin Ventura think that he is a GOOD manager, i.e., one who helps the Sox win more games than they would with an AVERAGE manager? I'm firmly in the camp that he's a BAD manager, by which I mean he costs the team games. Aside from the game in question, I've seen multiple games where I think his strategic decisions have cost games, and I don't actually see that many Sox games living in Virginia. I think the only reason Robin seemed to do well his first season was that he was the anti-Ozzie. The team was done with Ozzie's antics, and the veteran team we had then responded well to a little peace and quiet. Going forward, I can't see the Sox winning under Robin. I believe he does a very bad job managing the bullpen, even given the fact that our bullpen is not good. And that, to me, it probably the most important tactical day-to-day job for a manager. He is also often caught not thinking ahead, as is evidenced by the game analysis in this thread. Plus, he comes off as having ZERO energy. This was okay in the year after Ozzie, but since then he comes off as indifferent, sleeping, lethargic, uninterested, etc. The problem is that he's a Sox ICON, which means he's going to be given far too long to manage. Lastly, this week the Hall of Fame recognized two iconic managers -- Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox. Anyone here see any of their managing qualities in Robin Ventura? I didn't think so. I always love the zero energy argument. Yeah, you're there you know. 3 HOF managers: LaRussa was 70-90 his second year, and was under .500 after 3 1/3 seasons, Torre was over 100 games under .500 his first 3+ years. Cox first 3 years he was over 50 under. What idiots they must have been. They let those guys manage far too long, just like with Robin.

QUOTE (PorkChopExpress @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) Maybe considering them as part of a three-way deal involving Lester/Lackey and Alexei/Dunn/other hot garbage. Yeah, I can't see the Red Sox being interested in Danks. At the very least, not now.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) I hope they prove me wrong and at least pick up a serviceable upper minors C for Danks. Doesn't have to have much ceiling, but I don't want to pay Tyler Flowers anymore. You pay Tyler Flowers?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 12:20 PM) I understand that, but it's still 19% of his total games pitched this year. You can't just cherry pick those out as if they didn't happen. If you take out 19% of Adam Dunn's worst plate appearances, you're removing 68 plate appearances. If, out of those 68 plate appearances, we take out 10 singles and 58 outs - a line of .150/.150/.150 - Dunn's line transforms into a thing of beauty - .254/.414/.522/.936. Do you believe Dunn is closer to a .254/.414/.522/.936 type of player, or the .229/.363/.435/.798 player we've grown accustomed to? That isn't the same. I'm not taking 19% of the worst AB in which Danks was pitching. I'm pretty sure if I did that, his ERA would be 0.00. If Adam Dunn has a good game 80% of the time, no one would ever want to get rid of him. Q is a good pitcher. Throw out his worst 4 starts ER-wise and his ERA is 2.28. Danks isn't Q. No one said he is. I haven't even said he's worth a top prospect. I even commented if the Sox wanted JR Murphy, they would have to sweeten the pot. All I am saying is Danks is not the bum advanced stats makes him out to be. The games he pitches 4 innings and gives up 8 runs are going to be losses if he pitches 4 and gives up 6. He is 6 earned runs away from an ERA below 4.00. For the most part, IMO, he has pitched better than his numbers, and if he threw 93 even, with the exact same results, people would have a totally different opinion of his performance. Sometimes the results are what counts.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:46 AM) Also, as regards the whole 80% quality start thing, it's not like Danks has this magic ability to constrict all his badness into a few isolated starts and be great the rest of the time. 2013 he had a 4.75 ERA with 12 quality starts in 22 starts (55%) 2012 he had a 5.70 ERA with 4 quality starts in 9 starts (44%) 2011 he had a 4.33 ERA with 15 quality starts in 27 starts (55%) 2010 he had a 3.72 ERA with 23 quality starts in 32 starts (72%) 2009 he had a 3.77 ERA with 21 quality starts in 32 starts (66%) 2008 he had a 3.32 ERA with 24 quality starts in 33 starts (73%) 2007 he had a 5.50 ERA with 8 quality starts in 26 starts (31%) So before this year, in 84 starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, he had 39 quality starts (46%) In 97 starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, he had 68 quality starts (70%) In 2014 he has a 4.40 ERA with 14 quality starts in 21 starts. That's 66% (not 80%) and it's also inflated, because it includes 3 starts where he gave up the bare minimum 3ER in 6.0 IP, i.e. a 4.50 ERA. In fact, we see this repeated looking at his history. Of his 53 quality starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, 10 of them (19%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs. Of his 68 quality starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, just 3 of them (4%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs. tl;dr: Danks's quality start numbers this year are atypical to his career tendency to have way more quality starts in years where he's just generally better, and are also inflated by counting starts where his ERA is 4.50. For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) Why is the 20% unlucky? Let's phrase this a different way - if you are unsure as to why the 80% is "lucky" (words that have never been typed by me), then why isn't he a sub 3 ERA pitcher 100% of the time? And if he sucks and is one of the worst starters in baseball (which is the case based on peripherals and Dave Cameron said so it must be true) then why is it only 20% of the time he truly sucks? He's actually lucky 80%? That seems unlikely. Frankly, I think if something happens 80% of the time vs. 20%, the truth is closer to the 80%.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:24 AM) As I posted in the Tommy Milone thread, people need to stop using Buehrle as an argument against peripherals. He is freakishly able to out-pitch his peripherals because he's one of the best defensive pitchers ever and he completely shuts down the running game. Danks does the same. Javy Vazquez and Gavin Floyd didn't pitch up to their peripherals year after year after year. There are many examples where the peripherals didn't match the performance. People see 88 or 89 on the television screen and say Danks sucks. If it said 92 or 93 and the exact same things happened in the game, they would say something totally different. I've heard all these advanced stats are far better predictors of future performance, however, the people here how seem to exclusively use them and come up with their own projections over the past few years are no more accurate than anyone else.

Throw out his 4 worst starts, Danks' ERA is 2.98 the other 17. I think that is putting your team in position to win. Some get way too caught up in all the advanced stats. Of the 3, Javy Vazquez, Gavin Floyd and Mark Buehrle, if you had to win a game, who would you want on the mound? Who would you want on your team? I am guessing the guy with the worst career peripherals. Mark Buerhle career SIERRA 4.40 John Danks, so horrible, one of the worst pitchers in baseball 2014 SIERRA 4.51. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Advanced metrics favor hard throwers, no matter how many runs they allow. If Danks threw 5 miles an hour harder and had the same results, the peripheral people who can't tell if a player is effective without consulting Fangraphs, wouldn't tell you how horrible he is. Danks isn't what he was. But so far this year, 80-85% of the time he has been really good. And remember when he shutout the Yankees through 8 innings? Some people who are calling him terrible were calling Robin an idiot for yanking this terrible pitcher. Beli blew the game with 2 outs in the 9th.