Dick Allen

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.

I think its officially time to start wondering about Davidson.his fielding lately may be worse than his hitting.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 07:00 PM) Teams might decide they'd rather pay more in prospects (less in dollars) for above average, young pitching. It appears they want major league hitters. Something the Yankees can't spare.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 06:56 PM) Wow. There goes the Danks market, if there ever was one. How does that change the Danks market? The price tags couldn't be more different.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 05:31 PM) Eaton seems to have very poor baserunning instincts for a guy that has good speed. His SB percentage is not good and he's constantly sliding headfirst needlessly (and recklessly). That said, he's getting on base nearly 36% of the time, over 500 PA that's 50 more times that Jose is batting with a man on versus the typical 310 OBP of Sox leadoff guys the last few years. It would be 25 per 500.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 06:09 PM) What's the fascination with JR Murphy? Supposedly the White Sox targeted him in the winter.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 04:02 PM) •The White Sox have had scouts watching the Yankees‘ surplus of minor league catchers in recent weeks, fueling speculation that the Yanks would like to acquire John Danks. Per MLBRumors The Sox would have to sweeten the package for Murphy.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) If they don't see Nieto as the future I think the more realistic trade would be Lexi for Sanchez+ in the offseason. I've been a huge Danks supporter but I'd be a little surprised if they can get Sanchez for him. JRM just doesn't excite me. If they think Neito has a chance in a year then Martin/Suzuki make sense for a year. Nieto has surprised me. I thought he would be like watching a pitcher hit this year. And the coaching staff has done a great job protecting him.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) One of our writers actually witnessed this back in May. Beck was using his fastball almost exclusively in that start. We don't know the exact reason WHY he was doing that, but he was. And whether or not that has been the issue all along, we don't know either. Though it is hard to believe he's been doing that all year. I have significant concerns about the lack of K's, but I am also pretty sure you have to take some of the stats with a grain of salt. Especially since in a Spring Training Tribune article the Sox minor league pitching coordinator said Beck needs to work on his breaking ball.

Alexei was the opening day CF for the 2008 White Sox, and wound up playing primarily 2B that season with Orlando Cabrera the SS. Alexei became the full time SS in 2009, so that article is a bit off.

I think the John Danks sucks argument, look at his peripherals is a bit shortsided. He is obviously not what he was, however, you take away the 3 or 4 games he just gets tagged, he is still really effective. I would trade him, but I don't think he's the trash he is being portrayed to be. There should be some value in putting up a less than 3.00 ERA in over 80% of your starts.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Conor could have played 1B. Fathom had the right idea about PRing with a pitcher. PRing for Konerko, which I agreed with, necessitates an out-of-the-box maneuver regardless. Completely agree with the bolded, FWIW. Yes but you can't blame him for not using a pitcher there. Not much experience running bases. I heard Rienzo mentioned, but you may have to use Rienzo later. It would have had to have been a starter, and if Sale or Q or Danks or Noesi either get hurt or make a baserunning blunder, guess who the idiot is? The Sox would have needed Garcia and Flowers to cover one infield and one OF position. As it was, I think Leury was going to play 3B with Conor going to 1b. But if the Sox used Flowers for De Aza, Leury or Flowers would have had to have been in the OF, unless you were OK with playing the rest of the game with no pinch hitters and no DH.

Willie Chill is Willie Harris. Juice Franco a non mention. That guy was awesome as a White Sox.

Steverson is getting a lot of credit, but what does the White Sox offense look like without Eaton and Abreu? Pretty bleak if you were to ask me. He would be considered just another stooge.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:16 AM) We're talking about a difference of ~3K, so a bit hyperbolic on the first bolded. Second bolded is simply wrong - ADA's DP rate is ~4 times as high as TF over the past year (the advantage of being a K machine, I suppose). 450 points of OPS easily trumps all this anyway, sorry. Sample size and an overemphasis on recent results are the only legit arguments on your side. Feel free to make them, but we're never going to agree that hitting ADA there was the right move. Of course this is true, we aren't, and again, just a guy on a board, NOT being paid millions to get out in front of game situations. And if only the qualified were allowed to comment on managerial competence (or anything else), the internet would be a corpse. The other thing to consider is maybe he was thinking 2 steps ahead. Sierra pinch ran for Konerko. Someone said unnecessary, but with runners on 1st and 3rd down 1 with Abreu now out of the line up, you probably have to go for the win there. Other than the obvious about Sierra being more likely to score, he also has to be held on which opens up the infield and has a better chance of breaking up a DP if necessary. With Sierra now essentially the DH, he cannot play in the field in the bottom of the 9th or the Sox lose their DH. Viciedo fans, now if Flowers bats, if he comes through, Tyler is your first basemen the rest of the game. Robin probably like his odds De Aza puts one into play or Beckham who had hit Perkins well, did something better than he did. Obviously, I would rather the game be tied with Flowers playing 1B, Leury in LF, which is probably how it had to go down, but the players didn't come through. It's on them. Not the manager.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) Well, I wasn't the one making the no experience=bad hire argument. My take is that he was hired for his personality, rather than his intelligence, which I believe is wrongheaded. I'm just a guy on a message board, not a bigshot like you, Brooks. Verducci (who I'm generally not a fan of) made a good point yesterday that I think is at play here. He essentially said that in the current era, a team's culture is set by the FO and that most managers are mere extensions of the FO now, with a few exceptions. (Maddon, Showalter, maybe Girardi) In the case of the Sox, all logic has been discombobulated by the Ozzie experience - they merely want a dutiful soldier. That's aiming too low, imo. I am just pointing out we all have less "experience" than Robin. Saying he's not qualified because of that should mean we aren't qualified to point out what he does right or wrong.