Dick Allen

Bulls need to pack it in and play for the draft pick. DRose should sit out until next season.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:14 PM) Where do you get that from ? In only 92 games with the Angels he had a 2.3 defensive WAR and Steamer predicts with 97 games he'd have an 8.5 defensive WAR. He turns 26 in January and is a switch hitter. So yes I'm saying he is OK defensively . If you have something else to support your weak defensive label I'd like to see it. Catcher has to be our weakest position as of now and I'd like another LH bat who also can hit a little bit and is young. Conger fits all of those . Feel free to do some research and submit other names if Conger doesn't do it for you. Flowers wasa -0.1 and Phegley was a -0.5 WAR . Conger was a 1.0 WAR so no ,he does not suck nearly as much as the players we have. All his defensive value was in framing pitches, a stat that can come and go and is very prone to small sample sizes. He has a tough time from time to time throwing accurately. His value is in his bat. He once was their #2 prospect but his bat has been a disappointment.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 07:49 PM) What is with your Hank Conger infatuation? Is he really good defensively? He is weak defensively. He is an offensive prospect but hasn't lived up to his earlier promise. Don't really know why he would be considered a huge upgrade over Flowers or Phegley but fans generally like players on other teams who suck as much as the players on the team they follow a lot more.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) Just read the first bolded sentence in my last post. That is the direct answer to your question the first time you asked it. That is the clarification of post 144. But if you read post 144, your clarification is something totally different.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) I can't see him opting out after three years anyway. I believe the highest 4th year player award is still Ryan Howards $10mil. His 4th year is scheduled to be at $10.5 million. It would '18 and '19 that the Sox could get hit, as they comps get going to higher paid players instead of lower arb status players. I agree. He is going to have to be awesome for this to cost the Sox much more than they are locked into now. That's not bad. People need to look at what Ryan Howard had to do to get $10 million.

I think it's pretty obvious Paulie's days of playing for the White Sox are ova. The White Sox aren't going to tell the media the door is shut, but it sure does look like the door is shut.

Hahn already said he will be emphasizing offense this winter. I don't think defense is going to play a huge roll in his acquisitions. I think he thinks it will get better just by getting back to the mean, which could be true. Many couldn't have been worse in 2013.

Then why would you post what you posted in post #144?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) Viciedo had a .333 OBP last year? In the only year Bourjos got nearly full-time PT, he had a .335 wOBA and played great defense. I think he's worth a try. Both at .306 for their careers. He doesn't walk, and he strikes out a lot. He may be worth a try, but he's a 4th or 5th OF right now. His price tag should match that. If that is what Santiago is worth, fine. But I think most here thing that would be a little low.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) HOLY GOD it isn't a non-factor! Do you actually read responses or do you just say the same things regardless of what people write? your post #144. I really don't think it needs clarity. You emphasized the nothing: Joined: December 10, 2009 From: Andersonville Member No.: 7,886 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) If he's rolling along, for sure. But if Hector Santiago is at only 90 pitches through 7, you have breaking news on all networks. If a couple of guys get on, or his stuff has definitely fallen off, you take him out, but an extra 20 or 30 pitches isn't going to tire him out for his next start. You don't know if the reliever is going to implode. You're missing the point: it has NOTHING to do with how tired he is. It has everything to do with the effect of hitters having had a chance to see and time all of his stuff.

Bourjos gets on base at the same clip as Viciedo, although he is good with the glove. If you don't like Adam Dunn's game, I can't see how you would like Trumbo. I do think the Sox would trade Santiago. There is something going on there that makes me think they aren't very high on his future. I don't know what other teams think.

In the end, farm system rankings are like attendance trophies. The only thing that really matters is that the Sox actually develop players who can help them win.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) Because Chris Sale is a really good pitcher and when he is fresh, his stuff is as crisp and sharp as it's going to be all game. But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) Those were his numbers from 2013. I had struggled to find his numbers versus times facing an opponent, found it for 2013, and posted it. This morning I realized that I should post it for his career since it's a better sample size. The numbers fit every model for pitching. I fudged and used the yearly numbers and corrected my mistake. You should use his career numbers too, unless, like I said, you believe that there was a clear and distinguished change in talent from 2012 to 2013 for Chris Sale as a starting pitcher. This morning you saw his career numbers fit your argument better so you switched. Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:19 AM) Those are his career numbers as a starting pitcher What were the first set of numbers you posted? It is funny you had to have them out there, then changed them. The other thing is, the way pitchers are used, they are going to have a higher average the 3rd time through because they are going to get yanked after giving up a couple of hits, or walks. Perhaps the next 6 guys would continue the trend, perhaps not. But this is all about Ozzie and the 2005 ALCS. He was not "not smart" to ride his starters. And the results proved it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers? 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture. I've argued this point enough. -In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't. -Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game. -The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers. -There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't. I said he didn't revolutionize the game, but neither did fangraphs. Saying a manager is lucky or not smart leaving a pitcher who has nothing bad happening to him in the game because of fangraphs numbers, is trying to revolutionize the game. Everyone knows pitchers tend to give up more hits and runs as the game goes on, that isn't a sabermetrics breakthrough. But if guys aren't showing signs of fading, and their pitch counts are in line, bringing someone else in just to bring them in is pointless. Riding hot players isn't a bad managerial tactic.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers? 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture. I've argued this point enough. -In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't. -Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game. -The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers. -There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't. What were the numbers you posted earlier? And clearly, using his career numbers at this point wouldn't be accurate considering he spent a season as a reliever.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) What on earth are you talking about with the first point? That is about the worst "proof" I have ever seen. Using home runs or whatever is seriously flimsy as hell. Here's Nate Jones's numbers, 1st time through the order - .252/.320/.353/.672 Here's Chris Sale's numbers, 3rd time through the order - .243/.294/.411/.705 Sale is more likely to retire them in order. He's also far more likely to give up back to back doubles. It's basically a wash overall with Sale more likely to retire lefties and Jones more likely to retire righties. And that's just the Sox set up guy. If you want take Sale in that situation every time, that's fine. If they're up 6 and Sale's at 90 or 100 pitches, I'm going to take him out to preserve his arm. If they're up 1 and two lefties are coming up, I'll keep Sale. If they're up 1 and two righties are coming up, I'll take Jones. It's not black and white, and there's no wrong answer. I think, given the initial situation described - the Sox up 6, pitcher at 90 pitches after 7 - I'm taking him out. As you can clearly see, the numbers indicate that Chris Sale is best before anyone has seen him. He's still good otherwise. And, as you can clearly see, there is not a large enough sample size for hitters seeing Sale a 4th time to come to any sort of signficant conclusion. Given the same amount of plate appearances, it's safe to assume that it would come out to right about the same and likely slightly worse than the splits he allows after 3 times through. Your own numbers Chris Sale 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm NOT saying that a pitcher's stuff on that given day has nothing to do with the hitters' performance against him the 2nd/3rd time around, I'm just saying that the hitters' ability to adjust to the stuff is an element that is being overlooked, and that its significance is shown by those slash lines. So, if managers were successfully able to judge whether a pitcher should stay in or not based on his stuff, you wouldn't see such a substantial effect each time through. It's speculated that the disparity can be explained by some combination of (1) the fact that managers are flat out horrible at judging if their starters have anything left, (2) the hitters adjust to stuff quickly, or (3) the managers are purposely leaving their starters in too long for the sake of saving their bullpens. Personally, I don't think that #1 is true, at least not to the extent that it would show such a massive effect. I think a combination of #2 and #3 are true, with #2 also being supported by the disparate effectiveness of RP performance over short spans and the fact that the "best" starters find it necessary to vary approaches against hitters over the course of the game, i.e. not showing a breaking ball until the 3rd or 4th inning. So, my overall point is that #2 is a much larger effect than managers and typical fans are aware, and that the risk of leaving starters in a long time can be justifiable during the season for the sake of #3, but that in high leverage games, it would behoove a manager to, at the very least, employ a very short hook on his starter and consider planning to remove him after the second time through the lineup regardless of game situation, unless of course it's a blowout. I actually like managers with short hooks. I just don't understand why when you starter is in no trouble and the pitch count is fine you would make a change because the league average says he should start get hit harder. And why not pulling him with no trouble brewing is considered luck and not skill. It wasn't like Ozzie was saying, "I'm going 9 with my starter no matter what". He let the game dictate what he did. If you are up 3 or 6 runs, wait until he starts getting hit, or he looks like he is tiring or his pitch count is high. There is no reason to remove a guy who is mowing them down with ease and bring in a guy who may not have it that particular day because of "league averages". If there was trouble, I'm quite certain the pitchers would have been pulled.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) [/b] I hope you aren't holding your breath or anything... Already proven, but the commentary is nice. Even Mariano Rivera implodes more than once per 166 appearances.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) It's sample size Career: 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs The 4th time he has not allowed the same extra base hits, but we are talking about 1/5th the amount of plate appearances compared to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time through the order individually. Given these number, it's safe to say assume both of the following: #1) Had his best stuff on those days. #2) Has not faced enough hitters a 4th time to normalize his numbers. Seems that the first time through the order, he doesn't quite have his control but he doesn't allow much more than singles and the occasional XBH. Second time through, he locates better and gets more outs, but he also allows for balls to be hit harder against him. Third time through he's allowing even more balls to be hit and put into play while allowing even more extra base hits. But the numbers indicate he and all pitchers should be best before anyone has a chance to see them that particular day. Your argument is flawed. Of course he had his best stuff the days he faced guys 4 times. Just like when Contreras, Buehrle, Garland and Garcia went the distance, they had their best stuff. League average numbers do not apply in those situations. I was also told that the "stuff" was irrelevant. What mattered was hitters seeing a pitcher for multiple times. Of course then, teams are apparently doing you a favor when they bring in a pinch hitter.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) You are making stuff up with this. Prove it then. I've gone the extra mile to show why these are not smart. You need to provide some proof on this. Does a reliever implode on average at least once a season? They don't make 166 appearances a year, therefore, the odds are greater than 166 to 1. Simple math. You should know this. Ozzie won all 4 games his starters went 9. His team also swept the next series and won the title. It shows he was smart.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:37 AM) No, he's worse the 3rd time. There's a .003 difference between the OBP. In 333 plate appearances, that's one walk or hit difference. That is literally nothing. Comparing that to his 3rd set of numbers, it means the opposition traded 1 single for 2 home runs. You do that 100% of the time, every time. Aruging otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, and space is small. Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. And if you have a 3 or 6 run lead, who cares if you increased the odds of a guy hitting a solo homer by 166 to 1. The chances of a reliever imploding are far greater than that.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:14 AM) And also more likely to hit the ball for extra bases later on, which increases run probability. That was a limited sample size from one season. EDIT: You can pick and choose what you want, but you know better than that and you can clearly see that he's worse the 3rd time through the lineup. Anything else is being ignorant of facts. It's not a lot worse, but it's worse. Here are the numbers you posted: 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. To say he is worse the 3rd time through the line up is really a stretch, especially with the Sox defense, it's one misplayed ball or a bloop off the chalk in RF for a double, and of course you ignore the 4th time through because of sample size but I'm sure if the numbers indicated he was getting hammered, the sample size argument wouldn't be used. How do you explain the second time through being better than the first time through? You seem to ignore that as well.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:33 PM) I don't know where to find those numbers. Why don't you find them and prove me wrong? Until then, you're just guessing. I don't know how many times I have to say that no one in this thread is saying Ozzie should have taken his pitchers out. Are you reading something I'm not seeing? The argument was it wasn't the smart thing to do ,he got lucky, and all pitchers, if they aren't aces get hit harder the second and third time through the line up each game. You don't even have to watch, it has nothing to do with the pitchers stuff, it has everything to do with the hitter seeing him multiple times. That sure does sound like he should have take them out. Then when the numbers showed Sale wasn't like that, they numbers that really ruined the argument were dismissed as sample size, and the others didn't show what he was saying either although he tried to make it fit. No, you are guessing and assuming every pitcher is the same. The same pitcher isn't even the same each time out. Ozzie had 4 guys go all they way. He won all 4 then swept the World Series. The proof is in the pudding. I am not an Ozzie fan, but this whole entire argument is ridiculous. If these pitchers were giving a league average performance like the league average numbers you use for the argument, the bullpen would have been used. And if you are going to exempt aces, shouldn't pitching like an ace be exempt as well? Ozzie didn't revolutionize managing. I know that. But he certainly was not "not smart" with how he handled his pitching staff during the 2005 playoffs and particularly the 2005 ALCS. The 11-1 record and WS trophy can confirm that.