Dick Allen

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.

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.