Dick Allen

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) Just so we have it on record: Chris Sale 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. So you have a better chance of reaching base the first time than any other. Interesting.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 05:35 PM) I don't know why it's not clear that I'm not saying that. If you have an awesome pitcher on the mound, let him pitch. If you don't, you should know that pitchers tend to get hit MUCH harder the third time through. The numbers are stark and the difference is substantial. In general, relievers are more effective than starters on a per innings basis. There are several reasons why. It is useful to know when the best time to bring one in is. Sure, you can wait until the pitcher is already in a jam, but why would you ever do that if you could prevent it? Dick Allen -- if you have a 6 run lead, who cares what you do? If them scoring doesn't matter then whatever. But if it's a situation where you care about preventing runs, why not do the thing that prevents the most runs? So why don't you break out the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run in 7 innings and thrown 90 pitches going forward? Instead of taking the average, get the numbers from guys who are dealing. That would be more accurate. Pitchers don't have the same stuff everytime out. Ozzie won all 4 games he did the "not smart" thing. And if those pitchers would have started to get hit around during the 2005 ALCS, he would have gone to the bullpen.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) This is the third time now I've said I wouldn't take Chris Sale out. Aces are outliers, this information is averages. That's why we started talking about Hector Santiago. And again, why dip into the bullpen when you don't have to? If you have a 6 run lead in the 8th inning, Santiago at 90 pitches, why lift him then? Why not let the situation play out? If trouble occurs, then you go to the bullpen. Wite asked about why Ozzie took Contreras out in the 8th inning of game 1 in the WS after only 92 pitches. The situation dictates what you do. When Contreras was lifted, the Sox were up 4-3 and he just gave up a leadoff double. Cotts came in and struck a couple of guys out, then he went to Jenks for a 4 out save. I'm sure in the ALCS if the starters were in danger of losing the lead, the bullpen would have been called upon, but using more pitchers just to use them is silly. If your guy is on a roll, roll with him until the pitch count or the game situation makes you use someone else.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) This just isn't true. These are the batting lines for 2013: 1st time: .250/.310/.390 (.700) 2nd time: .259/.319/.411 (.730) 3rd time: .270/.331/.429 (.760) This is actual, factual information -- not a projection. And keep in mind that this is only including starts where pitchers pitched well enough to even get to/through the 3rd time though the lineup. So that worst outings don't even factor in. If it's true that Santaigo would most likely get out of that situation, it's because hitting fails mostly, not because he was the best option. How come you know the stuff hasn't depreciated over the course of the game? What are the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run through 7 innings? Sale's splits don't indicate any difference BTW. The problem with using that number is you are assuming all pitchers are the same. I would think someone would have a better shot at Dylan Axelrod his 3rd time, than Chris Sale but that's just me.

Chris Sale's 2013 stats really don't back up the seeing him for the second or third time help you hit him. From innings 1-3 and 4-6, the batting average, on base, and slugging against him is virtually indentical. From innings 7-9 it's actually better because if starters are pitching in those innings, they tend to have their good stuff that day.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) 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. That's one of the big reasons relievers are so effective -- it isn't just because they can throw as hard as they are able, it's that it's a totally different repertoire that, not only have they hitters seen all game, but will only see a couple times all year. Again, if a couple of guys get on, you take him out. This is a 6 run lead. If his stuff has dropped off, you take him out. If his stuff that his shutting them down for 7 innings is still there in the 8th, chances are they aren't going to start raking just because they have seen him before. If the guy is dealing and his pitch count isn't out of hand, leave him in and get the win. Hitters have seen many pitchers for years and still make outs most of the time.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) *The White Sox won by 6 runs in game 4. You better believe I think the right call in that situation is pulling the starter before the start of the 8th. It's not a big deal that he didn't, especially in hindsight. *No, I do not believe Ozzie was smart in leaving those guys out there. I think there were better options. Still, they were not dumb nor bad moves. Really, there is no wrong move that can be made when your team is playing that well, and it's going to work out no matter what you do almost every time. I believe he should have taken the guys out using hindsight, but I'm not complaining about it, but merely bringing it up in discussion. I will argue that leaving them in was not revolutionary because it was not. *However, if Ozzie obviously knew what his pitchers could handle, why would they have put up an ERA a full run higher the following season? Perhaps he did overwork them a bit in 2005? Nope, nor would I care if he left him in. Now, how about a more reasonable example...the Sox are up by 6 runs heading to the bottom of the 8th inning, winning the ALCS by 2-1, and Hector Santiago is at 90 pitches after 7. Are you going to leave him in the game for the 8th? 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.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case. Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen: (1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy. (2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's point is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially more likely to make an out than to reach base. EDIT: Also, it's a natural fallacy to assume that a sample is made up of a bunch of instances of its mean. In reality, it is nearly all instances of things happening above or below that mean, and all of those instances are not necessarily due to chance (though chance is a component). If lineups hit .300 off of a pitcher the third time through, that means they often hit much worse and often hit much better -- and it's safe to assume that the times when they hit much worse are the times when aces are in or the pitchers are "cruising." I guess what I'm saying is this: I don't think anyone advocates pulling a pitcher on a low pitch count who is pitching well. However, the strategy of leaving a starter in for a third time through the order, in general, is a poor choice if the game at hand is of high importance. This is convincingly demonstrated and the effect is, in my opinion, much larger than what most people assume it is. In reality, the behavior that you could see to take advantage of this info would be starting a RP warming regardless of situation when the third time through comes around, and having a short hook on the starter at the first sign of trouble, even if he isn't tired. So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. It would be the smart thing to do.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case. Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen: (1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy. (2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's poinjt is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially mroe likely to make an out than to reach base. His point was Ozzie was not being smart leaving his starters in during the 2005 ALCS, and saying he was lucky. Knowing your personnel well enough to know what they are capable and not capable of isn't luck. It is a skill. At one time, Ozzie, much to my surprise, was an excellent manager.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) Show me where I say they needed to. I never said that. Ozzie has never been one to be called a smart man. He went with his gut. He allowed them to stay in, probably against his better judgment. It worked out. The end. According to you leaving a pitcher in who is not getting hit very hard or putting people on base, is not smart because the almighty fangraphs says so. You said you weren't willing to say if it was right or wrong, just that it wasn't smart. And I am the one being argumentitive. As was stated earlier by others, this is just a response to Greg's assertion Ozzie revolutionized the game, and your argument is silly. Ozzie, at one time, was an excellent manager. He was 11-1 in the playoffs. How come it took you 8 years to say what happened was dumb but lucky? The team went 11-1 and brought home some hardware. I say when you are that dominant, there is more than luck involved.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) He's talking about Ozzie being lucky, not the pitchers being lucky. But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) 1 complete game is not lucky. 4 complete games in a row is lucky Next time Mark Buehrle gets 45 guys out in a row again, there was absolutely no luck involved. --- Bobby Jenks as the closer was not smart either in 2005. A rookie who has had emotional problems in the past? Yeah, sounds like a great closer, even with electric stuff. It worked out. Wow. You are off the rails.

QUOTE (GoGoSox2k2 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Jose Abreu - 1B - White Sox Troy Renck of the Denver Post reports that the Rockies made a six-year, $63 million offer to Jose Abreu. That fell just short of the winning White Sox bid, which was six years, $68 million -- the highest contract ever for an international free agent. Abreu, 26, is likely to take over as Chicago's starting first baseman in 2014. Related: RockiesSource: Denver Post Oct 28 - 10:25 AM Wasn't this the same dope who said no one else offered more than $50 million earlier freaking out some posters thinking the Sox must have overpaid?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) The fact that 4 guys threw complete games in 4 consecutive games is lucky as hell, even if it was because they were cruising. You are likely to run into some kind of hiccup. Beyond that, it wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary, which was the original point. If you can't agree that 4 consecutive complete games is lucky on its own, then we won't ever find agreement on this and it's a neverending argument. Lucky isn't a bad thing, and I'm not saying Ozzie leaving them in was wrong or right. I'm saying it's not smart. Sometimes, not smart works out. It did in that instance. Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky". And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Agreed. And I don't get why people don't want Beckman gone. He's just making the program worse. Even if we suck again for another 2 years while someone else rebuilds, at least we're 2 years closer. Also, it needs to be said - Scheelhaase blows. He puts up great stats but also makes awful f***ing decisions with the ball. He's a 4 year starter and still makes freshman mistakes. He needs to be benched. Might as well see what Bailey has to offer before Lunt gets here. Illinois needs to hire a coach who doesn't wear a visor.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) Yes, if you manage each game like it's the last game of the year or the last 7 games of the year, then it will happen...which is why you don't manage each game like it's the last game of the year. But, come the playoffs, when they really are the last games of the year, you can afford that a bit more. You are the one who brought up "if the bullpen would have failed, Ozzie would have been roasted." Then you admit that the bullpen was dynamite all year, which it was. Thus it's safe to assume they wouldn't have failed. They certainly could have, but you are assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so I am going to do the opposite and assume likely hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the Sox still would have won. The fact that the Sox did that for 4 games and didn't get bit on the ass is lucky, and it's generally not wise to have guys throw 4 complete games. They were pitching really well though, and the need to relieve those pitchers never came up. That's also incredibly lucky. And he would have been roasted. His pitchers were cruising. Buehrle 9 innings 5 hits 0 walks Garland 9 innings 4 hits 1 walk Garcia 9 innings 6 hits 1 walk Contreras 9 innings 5 hits 2 walks. Lucky? I don't think so. Ozzie screwed up a lot of things. But that playoff run was done very well. He had his ace starting game 1 of the WS, with a completely rested bullpen.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) I never blasted him, unless you count me saying "it wasn't smart." That's not the first time something Ozzie's done has been called "not smart." It wasn't a bad thing that he left them in, as they were pitching well and everything worked out in the end. Oh, and this "If Ozzie would have removed the starter and the bullpen got rocked" is ridiculous. He wasn't criticized for removing Garland in game 3 of the World Series, even though it was, for all intents and purposes, the same exact situation. And had he left a starter in and the starter got rocked or hurt, how smart does he look then? Seriously, imagine if, in game 5, the Angels string together 4 hits in a row in the 8th inning against Contreras and he leaves with runners on 1st and 3rd with no one out and the Angels down 6-5. Is that a situation you want to put a reliever in? Because it sure didn't work out when Qualls was put in a similar situation. Fact of the matter is that he was lucky. That entire year was lucky. It's OK to be lucky...that is not a bad thing. The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Ozzie removed Garland in the 7th or 8th inning that game, and still ran out of pitchers. If he did it by the fangraphs book, the Sox probably lose that game. And considering they actually count actual wins and losses in the WS and not theoretical, Ozzie's way was the better way. Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year. Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs. Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 09:29 PM) I don't know that there are supporters out there as much as there are just realists looking at the situation and as the article points out, there's no easy answer here. Yeah, but pay who afterwards? He was put in a no-win situation with s***ty recruiting from the last few Zook years. I'm not sure what people's expectations were for this season. We knew it'd be a long climb. What we need to see, is actual climbing. Last year wasn't as much about the record as it was how the hell it happened. If we lost every BT game but were in every one and showed improve play, that's climbing. We saw improvement early in the year, and then we saw the play dead 2nd half Saturday. If that continues, I can see the change coming. The last 5 games will tell a lot. There was a ton of improvement, and then one awful half (preceded by one ridiculous play etc). The jury's still out on whether or not he gets year 3. They would be paying Beckman plus the new hire. I don't know if they are still paying Zook, but if they are, they would be paying as many coaches as games they win.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 06:40 PM) Pay who, exactly? You likely didn't read what was in the link I posted, but you should. It's not simply "they don't care about football so they'll keep him around." Nonsense. They would be paying Beckman not to coach, just like Weber, Zook and the old women's B-ball coach. This guy sucks and they know it. If they actually had a tradition of being any good in football like they do in basketball, a change would be made for sure by the end of the season, if not already. The AD said Zook was fired because he couldn't win conference games. Maybe they can beat Purdue.. 46k at a Homecoming game shows a lack of interest in the program.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) Beckman does not have 1 player recruit even ranked in top 300. The whole class is 2 star Ohio players with no other major college offers. He does not win a Big Ten game he is gone! You would think considering the AD said he was canning Zook because he couldn't win conference games. It it were basketball, he would probably be gone now, but the people who will actually shell out the money to pay for a new coach are used to bad football teams. They can probably tolerate another year of Beckman before they send him away. It seems obvious he is in over his head. To me, as an Iowa alum, this is like the Lickliter hire, even though football results take a little longer. You know this isn't going to work out. I think the big problem is ILL is still paying several former coaches. Adding more to that list while can't be too desirable, especially considering they aren't exactly maximizing revenue with the football program.

I always thought one of Ozzies strengths was how he ran the pitching staff. When his starters gave him those complete games no one said it was stupid then. In fact wasnt Jerry Manuel criticized for yanking Garland consistently in the 6th and 7th innings? Ozzie would have been blasted had he removed a starter who was cruising and the bullpen got rocked.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) If you show no signs of even trying to change habits which are NOT a matter of muscle memory after a year, that means you're not coachable or not capable. I can think of no industry where showing zero progress over the course of a year doesn't get you fired. So either those guys are unsalvagably bad, refuse to take direction, or it's the coach's fault for being unclear or having a bad philosophy. We will see what happens. This guy comes from Oakland, Beane has emphasised getting on base when stocking his lower levels. Hitting is hard. You can know exactly what you are doing wrong and what you need to do to fix it, and still not be able to do it. If this guy can make Garcia and Viciedo stars and on base machines, he will be worth his weight in gold. But guys still chase pitches. There are some built in things with hitters that are very difficult to change.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) If they know that, they don't ever seem to act like it. Alexei Ramirez, Dayan Viciedo, Avisail Garcia, and Josh Phegley swing at horrible pitches early in the count with startling regularity. He said sometimes you need to go out of the zone depending upon what a pitcher is trying to do to you, which still requires being selective about pitch location, it just means that the zone where you're looking to hit may shift. This is starkly different than the concept of expanding the zone for the sake of driving runners in, which we heard from Manto. This is completely ignorant to (1) the fact that you decrease your chances to be successful by expanding the zone for the sake of putting a ball in play and (2) the fact that you must establish the boundaries of your strike zone with a pitcher in order to force the pitcher to stop throwing bad pitches to you. If you really think a month or a year with a new hitting coach is going to make Ramirez, Viciedo, or Garcia more selective, I have some Sears stock to sell you. They have played under multiple hitting coaches their entire lives but still have the same approach. I don't think there is much hope for Alexei to improve on that. As you do get a little older, sometimes you do get a little wiser, so maybe Viciedo and Garcia can become more selective, but odds are against it being anything drastic. I have no problems with this guy. I would just say if you really think the hitting coach is going to increase everyone's OBP 30 or 40 points, you probably need rehab.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) They obviously did not feel Manto was doing it the right way though, would you agree? And they feel Steverson will. That's why the change has been made. I guess what I am getting it is Manto, who was praised last season, caught a lot of flake about his "philosophy" this year. This guy has pretty much an identical thought process about hitting. We will see what happens. As far as Manto goes, I think the Sox probably tried to determine if guys like Viciedo and Beckham would flourish under him, and probably came away with a probably not answer. They generally haven't used scapegoats when they have struggled. I would think, since they hired him after 4 years as the Sox minor league hitting coordinator and were very familiar with him, they agree with his philosophy, which is probably why they hired someone with a similar thought process hoping he can do something or say something that works better on the younger players.

I am reading his quotes and he appears to be saying the exact same things Manto was saying. Even mentioning going out of the zone once in a while. As far as swinging at strikes, I don't think there is a hitting coach who doesn't preach that. The fact is, the fewer strikes you have on you, the more selective you can be. I think everyone knows that from when they started playing Little League.