Dick Allen

Keppinger is one of those guys who can be awful like he was this year or pretty good. He has had a few decent years, and TB acquired him because he was non tendered. So he really can go either way. Hopefully the roster will be strong enough next year so they can pick his spots and he can put up decent numbers either to help the Sox win or entice another team to pick him up.

Texas looks like they would have been better off with Peavy instead of Garza.

The last reply they showed going to commercial showed his foot bounce.

That should be 6

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 05:05 PM) We rolled out a scarily similar roster to the one with great fundamentals and 85 wins the previous season. Fine, Konerko finally got old, so that means they should have been a few games worse, and there were a few injuries early, so 78 wins should have been reasonable. The rest is all people doing worse than they should have. The best case I can make for how important a manager is for a team is the 2012 white sox. That team should have won 75 games and they won 85 games because they were well-coached and prepared for everything. This team, with most of the same players, couldn't spell "cutoff man" if they tried, let alone actually throwing the ball to one correctly. This team was different. Konerko got old, Beckham and Viciedo got hurt early, There was a new catcher, 3rd baseman, Dunn at 1b. Ramirez has always been an airhead, perhaps being out of it so quickly added to that. I never realized De Aza was that dumb of a player, but he is the only one that you could be surprised with, although he was never elite.for most of the first couplw months, there were 4 out of 5 different position regulars on the infield. And win totals now are silly. This team dumped Thornton, Crain, Rios and Peavy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) But you know what? It didn't work. Whatever they did do, it was so ineffective that they dragged the entire team out before a game in May to start doing basics like "hitting the cutoff man" again. So feel free to tell me that they did other things than play drinking games...because the results on the field speak for themselves. This looks like a team where every fundamentals practice in spring training was replaced by a drinking game. Whatever they did, we got stuck with the results. They were a total failure. Ever think that maybe the reason why they're telling how "man, these guys did so much work on fundamentals" in the spring is that everyone recognizes how poor the actual fundamentals on the field are, so they're covering for people? Why would they have to cover for anyone? The team was bad. As much as you want to make it Ventura's fault, it's not. Roll out the exact same roster next year with a different manager and there won't be much different. It is weird that you apparently don't think the Sox, close to a billion dollar franchise, want to win. If they thought Robin was the problem, if spring training was what you claim it was, although you admit you weren't there, if he has lost the clubhouse, if he had no clue how to run a game, he would be gone. As I have stated when the Sox problems according to Soxtalk were all Greg Walkers fault, if you really think Robin is the problem and don't address the real problem, you will be putting the blame on another person not responsible shortly thereafter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) It's more the "How" for me. I wouldn't be nearly as angry about being here if guys had been hurt like they were early in the year and that kept going the whole year to create a 60 win team. It's the idiocy. It's the lack of focus. If I diagrammed a blueprint of "what a team looks like when its manager gave up before the season started", this would be it. Yesterday the Sox telecast mentioned again how much they went over fundamentals in spring training, and how many times they were out early working on them during the season. Unfortunately, you thinking the Sox did nothing but play drinking games in spring training was incorrect.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) Remind me what year that was again when Ozzie won 60? It must be nice when the non-performing employee get to decide whether he stays or not. Remind me of the list of guys who would have managed this team into contention this year.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) But, but, Adam Dunn only hits well when the Sox are losing right? Kinda on that same line of thinking another interesting note was brought up in the comments.... I don't know who said that, but generally the vast majority of players play better in wins. It's sort of why the team wins.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) If you were him, would you be trying to lock up a 6 year, 9 figure deal this offseason or would you try to push your luck to stay healthy the whole way? I would take the money. If he stays healthy, he will be young enough to cash in again.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 08:03 PM) You have to think that Rizzo and Castros regression this season really has to give Theo pause going forward. These two were supposed to be the first cornerstones Rebuilding hardly ever goes smoothly. Even the can't miss usually give you reason to worry. If they want to blame Sveum for that, that would be silly. They may snap back, and the Cubs may change managers, but if that happens and they give the new manager total credit, it would be way off IMO.

33rd 1 run loss. If they could somehow build a decent offense and shore up the defense next year, they can play meaningful games.

It has seemed the pace of the game has been slower this year even with the Sox not providing much offense. There have been 3 hour games were only a few runs have crossed the plate. It could be a factor.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) I voted for Gary Thorne, tomorrow I will vote for Hawk. Bob Newhart never won an Emmy until this past year. I find that more tragic than Rush not being in the Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame. Nothing was more tragic than Rush not being int he R & R HOF.

Hawk deserves it. I'll never understand the hate, especially from White Sox fans. He ticks me off sometimes with his umpire ripping and when he still takes some shots at Jerry Manuel, but I love him. It will be a sad day when he's gone if he's replaced by one of these so-called "professional" broadcasters Hawk's haters seem to love. Whether people want to admit it or not, the way they watch and evaluate a game these days is heavily influenced by Hawk's views the past 25 years. If the next guy coming in is a Len Kasper type, the baseball IQ of a typical Sox fan will drop tremendously.

I don't see why Milwaukee would trade Carlos Gomez unless you gave them a ton more than is being mentioned.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 06:59 PM) You aren't going to win with the 2016 version of McCann if the team doesn't find young position players over the next two years. By the time 2016 rolls around what kind of numbers is McCann going to put up anyway? Why don't you tell us.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 04:59 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colle...0,2127216.story Officials reprimanded I just saw the replay. That was about as bad as it gets. I guess there was a chance Wisconsin would have missed the FG, but that game was clearly stolen from them. If I were a Badger fan, player or coach, I probably would have had an anuerism Saturday night.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) If the White Sox signed McCann for 4 years at $15 million and he put up a .766 OPS over the course of the contract, I'd be upset. I mention Hunter's 2nd half because older players tend to run out of gas sooner because they begin breaking down. 23-25 year olds also do this because their bodies aren't used to the stress of a full season. If Hunter is anything more than a .750 OPS player next year, I will be incredibly surprised, and, personally, I am expecting him to be closer to a .270/.325/.375 player next season. BTW, you keep coming back to Hunter. Why not bring up Adam Dunn? Justin Morneau? Kevin Youkilis? Roberto Alomar? There is no black and white number, but typically, as guys approach their mid 30s, their numbers will typically begin to tail off. Sometimes it can be sudden, sometimes it's slow, sometimes it's not until their late 30s, sometimes it's not until their 40s, but to this day, Father Time is undefeated. If you want to debate the merits of that, then you will be wrong. Robbie Alomar put up a .950 OPS at the age of 32, and it was .700 at 33. Fisk was putting up OPS's in the .820s when he was 40 and 41. He was also one of the greatest baseball players of all time. You want to use him as a baseline comparison to every player who's played the game? You can go ahead, I will stick to logic and reason and generally assume that as players reach their mid 30s, their games will fall off. I mentioned Hunter because the Tigers were 3 games better than the Sox last year and they supposedly improved tremendously with him and Victor Martinez, who is 34. There is no magic number. I understand the calendar catches up, but at a differetn pace for everyone. Of the guys you mentioned, Dunn is the only one without major physical issues. Is Morneau still elite without the concussion? Does Robby Alomar go from one of the best players in the game to extremely mediocre if he doesn't have back issues? Youk looked to me like he could still play if his back was OK. Getting older with more miles may cause these injuries, but again, I am not advocating signing a 35 year old to an 8 year $120 million contract. Obviously it has to make sense, i don't think giving McCann what you gave Dunn doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) Then why are you arguing with me, friend? Not about giving Choo all that money. I think you can still make a nice signing of a guy in that age group. Everyone is going to have his warts. When and if Trout becomes a free agent, you can bet even though he will probably only be 26 or 27, he isn't going to sign for 5 years. Unless you draft them and develop them or only have them a couple of seasons, you are probably going to have most elite players umder comtract for his age 32 season and beyond.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) I have no proof, and do not pretend to know him personally, but as with all players how do we know that Mr. Fisk never used any "enhancements". It's a little before the Canseco stuff, but just because Canseco was one of the first obvious ones, doesn't mean they weren't in use prior to him. We don't. We also don't really know if any of the guys the Sox may sign are using either. It isn't like everyone is clean.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) I'll keep repeating it as long as people keep saying what you just said. His glove isn't elite. It just isn't. He's somewhere around average. Doesn't have a lot of range, turns a good double play, is a good fit next to Alexei because Alexei covers a lot of ground. His range has actually gone down quite a bit if you look at his year over year numbers as well. He has been playing with a bad quad for over a month. I think the Sox will bring him back and he has shown for stretches he can hit. He has been banged up this year. If he can stay healthy, IMO, he will put up good numbers. Can he stay healthy is a good question though.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) I'm not suggesting walking away from every 32 year old at all. I'm suggesting staying away from paying a guy $100m to be good for 2 years and bad for 3. This was about Choo specifically, because of his flaws and likely market demand. I mentioned a few pages back I'd love to add him at the right price, but not at anything that approaches what I think he'll get. I wouldn't give Choo $100 million either.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) Studies have been done on this and while I can't find the article now, this is actually backwards. Pitchers have a tendency to get injured more often (comparatively speaking), to see their arms break down and lose velocity and break on pitches, and to have more randomized developments (unexpected loss in velocity, failure to develop secondary pitches, failure to throw effective breaking balls with lowered seams, among others). I don't recall the exact numbers, but among 1st round draft picks, it was something like 60-66% of college hitters play in the majors, 50% of college pitchers do, 50% of high school hitters, and 33% of high school pitchers. I read some article that said pitchers who throw 98 in high school and get drafted seem to throw 88 four years later. I do think college pitchers are easier to evaluate than hitters though. One thing that makes hitters harder to evaluate is aluminum bats. Wood vs. aluminum is a different game. You don't have to square it up on an aluminum bat, plus you can get a barrel a lot bigger at a light weight.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) A recent paper that shows large regression beings at age 29. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a....52164340,d.aWM Yes, but that's on average. There are guys that regress when they are 22. It may be playing Russian Roulette, but signing 31-32 year olds who are in good physical condition, and have been putting up good numbers for several years IMO isn't a bad idea, as long as you aren't going crazy with the years. Obviously, you should look for red flags. If Prince Fielder were a free agent this year, even though he will be 30, I wouldn't sign him to a 5 or 6 year deal at what he would command even if I had unlimited funds. His dad fell off a cliff right around that age, and Prince's body screams breakdown. I wonder how many hits Tony Gwynn would have had if he would have eaten a few less donuts and been able to stay on the field more often. I think guys can play very overweight when they are younger, but after 30, playing 50 lbs or more overweight probably isn't going to work. Most guys don't even become free agents until they are 28 or 29.