Dick Allen

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 28, 2014 -> 06:57 AM) Detroit should never have been the measuring stick even from the start of the season. This team, at best, is competing for the second Wild Card. As enjoyable as it is to see the Tigers lose, we should be hoping they win every time they play the Angels, Yankees, Orioles, Mariners, Twins, Royals and Indians. The only thing is if Verlander and Scherzer continue to struggle, you never know. Just remember the 2006 White Sox. How could a Tiger fan think they have a chance coming into that season, and the Sox started on fire, but the pitching faded. Perhaps making the postseason year after year after year is starting to catch up to their pitching staff. It was blamed for the Sox staff falling about back then. It doesn't seem very likey, I will give you that, but there could be some real problems with that team. Now watch them go win 11 in a row.

He gets DL'd with an inflamed shoulder after getting lit up and saying he felt great and would be better the next time out during the post game. There was no report of him having said shoulder examined, not that it means he didn't, but usually you hear something. He goes on a rehab assignment, gets lit up several outings, and the shoulder is suddenly a problem again when the rehab assignment is about up. Hmmmmmmmmm.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 27, 2014 -> 08:14 PM) This thread has it all. Creepy Avatar Guy creating argument after argument to troll. Caufield going off on a tangent completely unrelated the thread. And Marty. Awesome work guys. You make the site a joy to read. Another solid post.

I looked at the radar. I think even if this game gets delayed, they will finish it sometime tonight.

The average length of games has increased 29 minutes the last 10 years. They are now 3:08 on average. If they don't do something about it, it will hurt the game.

QUOTE (beautox @ May 27, 2014 -> 08:20 PM) I'm sure Frank Thomas would love to tell him about Jeff Nelson; .161/.275/.194 line with 11 strikeouts in 40 ABs Frank against Mussina was a different story. He had little league stats against him for a while, then couldn't touch him for a few years, then hit him hard again. And the only reason the Sox signed Jeff Nelson was to get Frank when he returned to town with the A's. It didn't work out for KW.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ May 27, 2014 -> 08:14 PM) It isn't my job to make the line up but it is pretty obvious you don't put the 2 guys that can't hit the damn pitcher back to back in the middle of the line up.. Your job is to complain. Don't tell us what the line up should be so you won't be exposed. But tell us what an idiot a guy who knows a lot more than any of us do about baseball is.

I was reading an article about Dave Duncan who is doing something for th DBacks these days. Supposedly he is totally into advanced metrics, but one thing he totally ignores is head to head match ups. He thinks the sample sizes are too small. I actually am kind of shocked by this considering he was a weak hitting catcher. I don't think it took him many ABs to realize he had no chance against certain guys.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ May 27, 2014 -> 08:10 PM) He is a pathetic excuse for a manager.. What should the line up be tonight?

Eaton admitted his leg is bothering him, but he is going to play through it.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 27, 2014 -> 01:01 PM) Track record + aging curve + any recent changes to mechanics + any recent changes to physiology + any potential future changes to mechanics + any potential future changes to physiology + current and future health risks. And everything other than track record you mentioned is based on some form of track record.

Non closing relievers will always have a horrid BS percentage because they can't accumulate saves, but can accumulate blown saves, and if you come in with a 1 run lead and a guy on 3rd with 2 out in the 7th inning, and the first guy you face hits a grounder the 3B kicks, you have just picked up a blown save. Or if you leave with a 1 run lead and a runner on first after pitching a couple of solid inningsand Scott Downs gives up a 2 run homer the next pitch, blown save.

Dynamic pricing basically kills day of game or day before game impulse buying, except for Family Sunday where cheap options are all over, and that was SRO this past Sunday. You can go to Stubhub. I wish the Sox would just kill that model. It cannot be working.

[ He would be on this team. Quit being ridiculous. No he would not. Not even close. Lindstrom was the closer to start, guess what, Lindstrom was on the team last year when Reed was closing.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 11:33 AM) I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Davidson is going to be a starter at 3B, but right now, the Sox have a pretty good 3B. It's not as if Davidson has to play for the White Sox to provide value to them. Still, they felt strongly that about his bat and his upside so they traded a middle reliever for him. I will never have any problem with them doing that, which is why, as disappointing as Nestor Molina was and has been, I had no problem with that trade either. Addison Reed wasn't and isn't a middle reliever.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:58 AM) No, and I elaborated what I did and didn't mean, very clearly, at least three times in that thread. If you read that, you're being dense on purpose (business as usual), and if you didn't read it, you shouldn't put words in others mouths. For the final time (although no one seems to be confused about this except you at this point), I said track record should be a component of what is used to predict future performance, but that the important factor in a GMs decision to value or acquire a player is, and should be, exclusively what that player will do going forward. Projections are mostly based on track record, and similar players' track record.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) He could certainly be traded in 2018, he could certainly be up in 2018, or he might not be contributing until then but if he's good enough, he'll likely be on the 40 man and we'll have a pretty good idea as fans if he is going to be a significant contributor. Many of us lauded the Nevin Griffith pick and signing in the 2nd, and he completely flopped. We had a pretty good idea that was going to happen too based on numbers and scouting reports within 4 years of drafting him. However, it's hard to know exactly what will happen 5 years from now. If you can tell me exactly, I would appreciate it. I'll write you up a TPS Report and you can let me know what more we can do at that point. EDIT: Either way, I see nothing that this has to do with my original point. Please try and get back on topic. But the point was I didn't think the 2nd round pick was as valuable as a lot of people and pointed out the draft was said to be HS heavy, so they player wouldn't contribute for 5 or 6 years making the pick less valuable, which you argued with. Now you say they will have a good idea within that timeframe. Great. We should have a good idea of Matt Davidson. What is he going to be? And when? You try to have it both ways. If you are going to say something, and it is wrong, don't just start calling me names and try to change the subject. Own up to it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) I merely said you will likely have an idea after 4 years about whether or not someone will be contributing. Matt Davidson did within 4 years (and he was actualy up from August 11th on, so there goes your September call-up theory). If Hawkins is in AA/AAA in the next year or two, we'll have a pretty good idea with him too. That's entirely beside my point, which is the trolling aspect of it, bringing in previous arguments to fit round pegs into square holes. Either way, I'm not wrong on that - if you don't have a pretty good idea about whether a guy is going to be on the MLB roster or have a shot at contributing value to the MLB team either directly or indirectly by the time he has to be added to the 40-man, then odds are pretty good he's not going to contribute. That argument isn't flawed whatsoever, is perfectly reasonable, and is not on topic anyways. You have done a perfect job of fitting the exact definition of the White Sox fan I'm describing though. Thank you for that. Then why did you use your argument against me when I said if a HS player was picked in the second round in 2014, he probably wouldn't contribute to winning until 2019 or 2020?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:37 AM) Addison Reed would be the 4th or 5th best right handed reliever in the Sox pen this year. Do you think that there was perhaps a reason they were shopping him? According to reports last winter, the Sox had a couple of untouchables, Abreu and Sale, and the reports were Reed was next to untouchable. They obviously thought a lot of Davidson, and I seriously doubt the were shopping Reed.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) Except that Matt Davidson DID contribute at the MLB level, so even with my misguided and out of context quote, you're still wrong, and either way, it has nothign to do with this argument, yet somehow in your trolling ways, you've attempted to direct the argument to this point. I'm done with it on this point: White Sox fans wanted Rick Hahn and upper management to go out and get high upside talent. They did that by trading Addison Reed for Matt Davidson. White Sox fans are upset. Rick Hahn is in a no-win proposition because he can't make White Sox fans happy. September call ups on a team out of contention isn't contributing to winning. Sorry to call you out on your foolishness. I hope Davidson is a stud, but he strikes out way to much against inferior pitching. I have been told by the saber guys Viciedo swung at too many bad pitches and couldn't improve. Either Davidson is swinging at too many bad pitches or he is swinging at good pitches and cannot make contact. Personally, I hope he is swinging at bad pitches, because I believe that is correctable. Not being able to hit AAA strikes doesn't bode well for his future. It is funny when you get called out for your foolishness, and no , it wasn't taken out of context. Your defense is someone is trolling. How was it taken out of context? Did you not say what I claimed you said? It was in reference to the Sox 2nd round pick. I said I read the draft wasn't very strong, better than last year, but HS heavy. Chances were the Sox second round pick would be a HS player and wouldn't contribute to winning for at least 5 or 6 years. You argued with me about that. Even said Hawkins will be contributing to winning in Chicago in 2016.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) No Yes. You specifically told me a few months ago, guys not contributing at the major league level 4 years after being drafted are afterthoughts. Matt Davidson was drafted 5 years ago. And I know, he was drafted from HS, but I specifically mentioned the Sox second round pick would probably be a HS player, and probably would be at least 5 or 6 years away from contributing to winning. In fact, when I replied you really expect Courtney Hawkins to be contributing in 2 and a half years to the White Sox, you said yes.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 27, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) Giancarlo Stanton had major contact issues all the way up, too. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't. Given their recent track record, I think it's reasonable to question the White Sox' ability to either develop these guys or correctly identify the ones that have a real shot. But, on the other hand, it's also probable that Davidson was the biggest package of talent that could be had for a reliever like Reed. I think it's a legitimate debate: should the White Sox shy away from poor contact prospects even when they represent the best available talent? Is the answer to just avoid them, or to continue to get better at developing them? You mentioned track record. Didn't you tell Marty something along the lines of track record meaning nothing? And Stanton's contact problems were at 18 and 19 and his other numbers were spectacular. There is no comparison to Stanton and any White Sox strike out machine in the minors.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) Talented players are better than untalented players. By your own definition, Matt Davidson is an afterthought.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) Strikeouts have gone up over the past 5 to 10 years. Mike Trout has struck out at 21% rate in the majors and he's at 26% this year. I don't care about those numbers. I don't particularly like Davidson, FWIW, but anybody denying his talent is acting foolish. Talent doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't take advantage of it. It really doesn't matter how far you can hit a ball if you make contact, if you can't make contact.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 27, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) Matt Davidson has been a BA top 100 prospect 4 years in a row and was in every major publication's top 100. Are denying that Matt Davidson is talented? Because then you're wrong. I don't care about anything else, I'm not making a big stand or anything else, but you are kind of proving my point here. Sox fans wanted Hahn to go out and get high upside talent. He did. It's not as if it's without risk. Yet here you are complaining about it because he's high upside, low contact kind of guy. Guess how many big-time power hitters in the majors feature those exact tools? Josh Fields was a top 100 prospect. So was Brent Morel. So was Joe Borchard. If you cannot make contact at the lower levels, you most likely will suck in the major leagues. Adam Dunn never struck out at those rates in the minors. Neither did Jim Thome or Reggie Jackson. 3 of the most prolific strike out machines at the major league level. Bo Jackson did, but I think we would all agree he is a little different from anyone in the Sox system. Defend Davidson all you want, he's still young, he will probably get to Chicago, but chances are he isn't going to be this talent you think. He cannot hit the ball often enough.