Dick Allen

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) lol, you are trolling the hell out of this thread, and the game thread last night. The whole Danks circular stuff is completely obvious. The only reason you were in the game thread last night, and the board today, is to slap people over Danks performance. It takes about two seconds of reading to see that. Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Be a man. I haven't made one thing up. You did, and then after making it up, tried insulting me. I was just pointing out the obvious incorrect posts last night. Even today, Danks had no movement, was afraid to throw his change up, blah blah blah. You don't point out the lunacy of that. A guy supposedly throwing a straight 88 mph fastball with nothing else doesn't strike out 8, walk one, with a quality start even if it is just the Cubs. There isn't a guy in A ball that couldn't tee off on what Danks supposedly had.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:59 AM) The horrifying part of the Cubs offense is that they are in the lowest spots of league-wide offense BEFORE you adjust for their home park, all parks etc When the wind is howling in at Wrigley, and it has been most of this spring, it really is a pitcher's park. Flowers hit a ball that would have been way out of there on a normal day, probably onto Waveland if the wind was blowing out. It was caught about 100 feet short of the wall. Against the Sox, there offense didn't hit many balls into the OF though. It was pretty bad, but they have beaten a few good pitchers this year.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Post-injury Danks reminds me a lot of Buehrle. I'm not saying he's as good, but he's more of a finesse pitcher now. Personally, I agree that he is effective. I think that we'll see him improve as the season goes on. He's been effective for the most part. It just isn't sexy when it's not 95 MPH, which he never was anyway. The thing is, if he was throwing 92 last night and getting hammered, more posters would have been impressed with his "stuff". His change up was really good last night. As long as he keeps the ball down, he will be fine.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) That doesn't make any sense, but OK, sure. Troll on. You are the one trolling, and a personal attack, comparing me to Bernstein by making things up. Why don't you find where I posted what you claimed. I will give you a hint, it doesn't exist. Find it or admit you are the one just trolling.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) He was. Now what does the line predicting future performance look like from a data set of 1? Considering my comment was directed at the people complaining about his "stuff" specifically last night, does that really apply?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:40 AM) Weren't you just yesterday discounting Noesi's performance because it was against the Cubs? You are Bernsteining things up today. Wrong again. I never commented on Noesi's performance, but I am flattered you are so obsessed with my posts.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) Absolutely true if there is evidence that he has everything else you need in today's game to offset lack of velocity. Some guys do have those things. Danks since injury has not proven he has enough of those things to be Effective again. if you think of the post-injury Danks as 'effective' then we have different sets of standards, i guess. I think he was rather effective last night.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:21 AM) Being hit hard or not on one night is a lot worse indicator of stuff than velocity to be fair. But points also brought up were an unwillingness to throw the change in key situations and lack of movement on his pitches. Yet 8 strikeouts and 1 walk. For a guy with nothing, unwilling to throw his change up and a lack of movement, it is astonishing he was able to do that.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:22 AM) By your metric then, the only way a pitcher can be bad is if the most recent outcome was poor? I'd advise you to look at Danks overall since injury and then tell me you're pleased with what he is now. I am not. No. By my metric, you don't measure a guy's "stuff", especially a non -power pitcher, simply by the radar gun.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) what were you just told about sample size in that other thread By judging a guy's "stuff" by the gun, Mark Buerhle should probably be in Missouri playing with his dogs. Read last night's gamethread. Danks was so bad according to some posters, while he was striking out guys making millions, posters here could hit him. Obviously they need new agents. 5 quality starts so far this year.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) Soldier Field is easy to get to. The metra drops you off at 18th street on the south end and 12th street on the north end. The Bears special train leaves 1/2 after the game ends. Except if you live on the north side of the city. I live on the near north. Wrigley is closer, but the train to USCF and Wrigley is about a draw. Soldier Field is a pain.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) Right. And since the samples are necessarily limited, they don't accurately predict future performance, which means they don't accurately identify players who are "clutch enough" to be expected to perform better in clutch situations. And so small sample numbers of players in clutch situations are not useful identifiers of good clutch players. You can use clutch score, leverage index, raw WPA/LI, RISP, postseason, or whatever. The bottom line is that for any given player, his career batting line is a more accurate predictor of his situational performance than his past performance in the same situation. So there is no player, anywhere, who you can point to and accurately say, "this guy is probably going to do well in this situation because he has a history of doing well in this situation." But the situations are different. You are saying just because a guy is a good hitter in a 8-2 game, he will be equally as good given the sample size is adequate in a 4-3 game in the ninth inning with men on base. If players were computers or we were playing Strat-o-matic and rolling dice, I would agree, but there is a human element, and pressure affects people differently. In golf, some great golfers make 5 foot puts with a tournament on the line, others lip them out. In basketball some 80% free throw shooters make their free throws in the first half, but at the end with the game on the line, seem to miss more often. Same thing in baseball. Same thing in business. Same thing in relationships. Same thing in everything.

Soxtalk's opinion on John Danks "stuff"= whatever the radar gun says. If it says 88, he obviously has nothing even though he isn't being hit hard.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) JJ Stankevitz ‏@JJStankevitz 1m AM RT: John Danks and the #WhiteSox corrected some issues before an 8 K, 1 BB start vs. the #Cubs -- http://bit.ly/1l02JUk He obviously had nothing. Soxtalk posters can hit him. Just read the gamethread. He has no strikeout pitch.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) They do choke. They do step up and bear down sometimes. But neither group does it with enough consistency to make it predictive. Marcus Semien has been clutch so far, but there isn't reason to believe he'll continue to be clutch going forward. Swisher has been s*** in the playoffs, but there isn't reason to believe he'll be s*** going forward. It's like A Rod, right? World famous playoff choker with the Yankees in the mid-2000's, assuming you ignore his excellent 2004 postseason, of course. 2005? .133/.435/.200 Boo! 2006? .071/.133/.071 BOO! 2007? .267/.353/.467 Ok maybe not super bad but not worth $30m/yr! BOO! He's a bum! He can't cut it when the pressure's on! Three years of suck in the postseason. He'll never... wait... 2009: .365/.500/.808 HERO! What changed? Nothing. His postseason appearances from 2005-2007 combined sum 13 games. The 2009 postseason alone was 15 games, which means that over the course of that whole CHOKE PERIOD, he actually had more games as awesome than he did as bad. If you include the 11 games in 2004, he had exactly TWICE as many games as awesome than as bad. He earned those s*** games. He choked for sure. But it didn't mean he wasn't capable of stepping up, just that he hadn't -- until he did. I mean think about it: Flowers can be a monster for a whole MONTH. Why do we think we can judge a guy's true talent/disposition/whatever over 13 select games through 3 seasons? You don't make the MLB if you can't play in front of thousands of people when the game is on the line. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you win, but if an average hitter steps up to the plate, there's an average chance he's going to come through for you. Historical data confirms this. The whole point is this: If the game is on the line, I want Jose Abreu up, not Marcus Semien. Again, I disagree. Your argument when some data is pointed out not to show your position is correct is sample size. Your argument to me is given enough of a sample a good hitter will be a good clutch player. (I still disagree with that, but OK) The argument I have is that sample isn't going to be available. In order to be a good clutch player, you are going to have to do it with a small sample size. If you do not, you aren't a clutch player. Your clutch opportunities are limited.

Updated numbers, looks like Bernstein will have to edit his article (just like last time), and it looks like now the Abreu love is justified: Abreu 150 wRC+ 1.2 WAR Rizzo 143 wRC+ 1.0 WAR

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:34 AM) If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway? It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter. You said it: That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal. I think any reasonable person would conclude that it is crazy to think players who are normally good hitters don't ever choke and guys who are normally average hitters, seem to bear down and step up in certain situations. I don't have to prove Brett was clutch. I never brought him up. Someone just posted his stats with RISP and without. You were the one that said that proved your point. It doesn't.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:18 AM) It proves he hit worse, but got walked more. If that's your definition of an ultimate clutch hitter, then I guess that's what he was. The George Brett example doesn't prove anything league-wide, but the reams of large-scale studies I referenced and/or linked do, and that wasn't convincing anyone. The George Brett example does prove that just because 15 random people are quoted as saying George Brett was clutch doesn't mean it was actually the case. No. BA with RISP vs. BA vs. runners not is scoring position does not show clutch vs. non clutch. You are assuming every AB with RISP is clutch and zero AB with no runners in scoring position is not. For a guy who needs these advanced stats to show who is better than who, it does seem odd you will take an old school random stat, which really doesn't jive with the argument, and say that shows George Brett really wasn't as clutch as some think. How do you explain Nick Swisher's failure in the playoffs? The guy has almost 200 postseason plate appearances and has been brutal. He's been a pretty good offensive player during his career.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:06 AM) And there you have it. What does that prove? He gets on base .056 more with runners in scoring postion, yet has a lower batting average and slugging percentage. Seems when there are RISP, George wasn't pitched to very much. And not all AB with RISP are really clutch, and there are some clutch hits when runners are not in scoring position. Like a runner at 1b, when they really can't or won't pitch around him.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 8, 2014 -> 12:37 AM) Caulfield, you say there's nothing they can do. There is something they can do, and it's really easy - lower prices. We covered this last year, but the tickets prices are insane for a series that has basically no hype around it anymore and 2 rebuilding teams. $79 to sit in the bleachers? When Friday vs Arizona it's $23. LOL. Yes, the cash grab for the Cubs series doesn't work anymore. Especially when they schedule these games during the week when weather can be a factor, and considering the past 6 months, weather is going to keep more away this year IMO until it is warm. There are a lot more people sick of being cold now. There were tons of empties at Wrigley. With Hawk complaining about scheduling, you knew it was going to be a weak number for these games.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:34 PM) I agree. I have no argument against that. I see it business meetings, I felt it in baseball, I see it in interviews on TV, etc. But in MLB, it doesn't show up in the results. You just don't make the majors unless you can bear down in clutch situations to a certain degree. It turns out that the difference is negligible at that level. If it wasn't, we'd be able to look back at performances historically and identify guys that were better. But they just aren't there. It surprises me too, but it's true. There are good and bad hitters in the major leagues. To say every good hitter is a good clutch hitter IMO is coming to a conclusion clutch hitting really doesn't exist or is so small it is irrelevant because you don't have a tool to accurately measure it.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:33 PM) "It should also be fun to regain BP Crosstown Cup bragging rights" -Nobody Its not the BP Cup anymore. They can't find a sponsor. You would think that would be enough for them to melt it down for scrap.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:14 PM) Hoyt was never THAT fat, was he? He was fatter.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:13 PM) Ok, well read the studies, tell me why they're bulls***, and I'll take your opinion seriously. It's a fact that past clutch performance does not predict future clutch performance, therefore refuting the existence of the skill at the ML level. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656 Because it is something that is not unique to baseball. It isn't unique to sports. Whatever you do, you know someone you can count on when something is on the line! And people you can go to in a normal situation but you really don't trust. Good hitters can be bad clutch hitters. Normally not very good hitters can be good when the game is on the line. Some guys just really bear down during those times, and some guys fold.

QUOTE (sin city sox fan @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:08 PM) So after we win tonight, does ESPN stick around for the awarding of the Crosstown Cup? The Cubs trophy case will be back to empty.