Dick Allen

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 11:36 AM) Their menu looks pretty tasty. Chef Paco opened another location around Superior and Rush. He was there the first time we went. He is famous for his many moles. He gave us the rundown with about 100 OMGs. It's really good. Another good one is Salpicon in Old Town. Wells and Goethe. It's really good, the problem is the guy running the restaurant I think is the husband of the chef, and he can be a bit cranky. Frontera/Topolo is my favorite restaurant. I'm sitting on over $1000 in gift cards from there. Everyone knows I love it, and they always give me gift cards, but these 2 aren't a huge step down at all. I have been to both multiple times.

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 10:02 AM) WTF that is crazy. I really hope that he isn't forcing this. I doubt he will get in a game, but practice in a controlled environment, why not? It could help him get a jump on next season.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 09:00 AM) many thanks for the kind words, but what i was trying to say is, there is no stats from him on a post surgery except for the ones he makes. all pitchers handles this kind of surgery different. what i truly believe many posters are looking at, it his salary. he got extremely lucky and signed a going contract before his injury and if he can't get back to that level, he is set up for himself and family. this i will not begrudge him for. it is just shiittty luck that the sox have had. The one thing that has totally changed the last 20-25 years with fans evaluating pitchers, is velocity. Back then you would watch a game on TV or at the park and have no idea if a guy is throwing 92 or 95. Now you do, and it makes all the difference in the world. I just wonder with the way the game is played these days when batters rarely face the same guy more than twice, if the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. If all you see is 95-100, eventually you probably get at least a little used to it. The junkballer may become really unique.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 05:00 PM) I do think he sucks, but the problem with your argument is that WAR doesn't make a case that he's good in the first place, so I'm not sure where the "WAR be damned" comes from. His 2015 fWAR was close but not even league average, and it's a stark outlier, so you need to regress it against the larger sample. It paints the picture of a 1 WAR guy, and that's just not valuable at $14m at all. If he puts up,a 1.8 WAR he is worth something. That does not suck.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 04:20 PM) If you want to find a post I made about Zach Duke where I say that his career numbers are meaningless and he's a lock to repeat his career year and sabermetrics prove he's unstoppable, I will gladly eat s*** or whatever. But if you go on a search, you'll find instead that I have said things like "I like this risk because I've read that his transformation was due to an overhaul of his mechanics and pitch-mix, thus making me feel that his recent numbers are more likely to stick," or something similarly reasonable and realistic and notably NOT the type of hyperbolic, extreme claim that you frequently "remember" me making. And that's really the key: you seem to have a need to divide everyone's stance into one of two clear camps, where each side must accept EVERY premise of anyone who also falls on that side, and must simultaneously reject every premise held by anyone on the opposite side. It feels a lot like mainstream political coverage at times. The truth is that I liked the Zach Duke signing and that I thought he was likely to succeed on some level -- and yet I'm not shocked AT ALL that he didn't succeed, because I always knew it was a possibility. I'm disappointed, yes, but it didn't shatter my worldview, because I understand that life isn't a series of pre-meditated events that can be predicted absolute accuracy. Which leads to the following strange conclusion: I still like the Zach Duke signing. I don't like how it's worked out, but even re-evaluating the information that existed at the time, I think it made a ton of sense. Sometimes you have to live with the dice not falling like you wanted. I don't know if it's just the idea of shades of grey, probablities, etc. that is annoying to you or if it's just the intrigue of goading me to argument. I agree that there is appeal to being able to draw a distinct conclusion from everything, it's just that unfortunately that's not how life/baseball works. And I tend to value seeking the truth (even when the truth is frustratingly incomplete) rather than seeking a sense of conclusion. Accuracy over completeness. And I get that that feels "waffle-y" to you probably. But you won't find me posting what you say I'm posting because I don't and have never thought those things. Right. Danks was a very good pitcher before his shoulder surgery. Since then, he's been varying degrees of bad until last year, where he was merely "slightly below average." Since than last season is the most recent, it holds more weight than the other seasons individually, but it doesn't hold more weight than the combined effect of the larger, multi-year sample. So if you want to say something like "what kind of pitcher is John Danks post-surgery," one VERY simple (too simple, but effective for the purposes of the example) way to do it would be to simply average his results since. That way, his outlier 2015 is included but not over-represented. Danks' average fWAR since his surgery is 0.7 fWAR per season. So are you comfortable saying that guy is a 1.8 fWAR pitcher next year? In truth, you'd make it more complicated. First of all, you'd weight the most recent season by some factor. I didn't do that above because I have no idea what that factor is, but guys that make projection systems have figured it out enough to make a really solid guess. Regardless, it's a safe to assume that the 0.7 figure is low, perhaps a weighted average might make it closer to 1.0 fWAR.Secondly, you'd look at what actually changed to make him more productive, and then decide if those factors are likely or not likely to continue or to be indicative of a sustainable skill. Danks' 2014 (0.5 fWAR) and 2015 (1.8 fWAR) seasons were actually REMARKABLY similar -- the biggest difference is he struck out a few more guys (on a per inning basis) this year. The second biggest difference, though, appears to be that league offense got better, which means something for his contributions but doesn't necessarily suggest that he's a better pitcher. Thirdly, you might try to find a difference in his peripherals or style that could have sustainably contributed to his increased strikeout rate. For example, did his velocity increase? Did he add a pitch? If so, this would very ironically be the same argument for Danks improving that Dick Allen is arguing AGAINST in the case of Zach Duke. You really need to read my original post again. You know the one where I said he put up a 1.8 WAR and said you could probably get something for him if you threw in a little money and the team acquiring him thought he could do it again. Clearly you think it is black and white, something you supposedly despise, that he can't. No one is goading you. You think Danks sucks, WAR be damned.

He seems like he could be a good coach. If his work ethic from his playing days rolls over, that should be a huge plus.

Sisson must have been let go. He's now the hitting coach at Auburn replacing the Greg Norton.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 01:05 PM) As I've said seemingly thousands of times, the only people calling them "ironclad" are those who are setting up strawmen against them, typically in exapserated justification of using a number to try to explain a phenomenon that it was never intended to explain. Every stat has a purpose, and some are better than others. Each is good at telling you some things, and not at telling you others. Some are more reliable at others. If you insist on viewing the situation in a black & white, all or nothing, SABRS VS JOCKS, "I know everything or else I know nothing" manner, then none of this will make sense to you. If someone misuses a stat, and someone else tries to explain how it should be used properly, the result is not evidence that all numbers are a lie. Misuses a stat? He put up a 1.8 WAR. That's better than several guys owed more money. How come you don't get so upset when guys were posting that Danks sucked 3 out of every 4 starts when that was totally false? I did use saber guys because it was you and your buddy witesoxfan who told me Duke's career numbers were meaningless. He was well worth the contract he was given. One all that mattered was the previous season. Danks, all that matters is everything but the previous season. But if you read your post and your conclusions, the black and white you complain about, is exactly what you are doing.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) That's not true. Two things: 1. The $/WAR thing does NOT say "Player x's performance was worth $y because of z WAR." The $/WAR thing DOES say "Teams have paid an average of $x per WAR in the most recent offseason free agent market." It's very natural to want to draw an equivalency of dollars to raw value, but it doesn't work specifically because the number ONLY applies to free agent dollars. In other words, the price paid is for marginal wins from entities that already have MOST of their total wins in the bank at substantially lower costs (in the form of controllable players, both pre-free agency and post-free agency players that outproduce their contracts). The actual dollar value per win in the MLB is way, way lower because of guys like Mike Trout or Jacob DeGrom. Additionally, the $/WAR model shows that the rate teams pay is NOT linear at all. As the yearly salary figure increases, the rate of return decreases -- players essentially give a "discount" on a per WAR basis in exchange for more years or just a lot of money anyway. The whole thing tends to top out around $30m no matter who we're talking about. 2. That John Danks put up a 1.8 fWAR season does not mean he is "a 1.8 fWAR pitcher." Good on him for having a great year and approximating a league average player in 2015, but as I pointed out before, that number is just one of a larger data set, and that larger data set points to him NOT repeating his success going forward. He was a lot better than the "he sucks 3 out of every 4 starts" hyperbole we read on this board in 2015. It is funny how iron clad these advanced stats supposedly are at times, and how other times, well, xxx happened, and you can't expect xxx to happen...Go back to the Zach Duke signing. I ranted against it. You saber guys were saying he is a totally different pitcher. Nothing he did before 2014 was relevant. Danks is a different pitcher. Perhaps more healthy. He was throwing a little harder near the end of the season. Now, what he did in 2011-2014 IS relevant. Whether you are totally saber, totally old school, or a mix, we all can spin the numbers around to make the guys we like look good, and the guys we think suck, to suck. I do it, you do it, everyone who reads this does it.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 10:38 AM) Just to zero in the IP/start thing, that's pretty much the new normal. I isolated the AL because the NL's pinch hitting tendencies would throw things off, and out of 97 pitchers who made at least 10 starts, the average length of a Danks start ranked 44th. Six innings per start isn't a rarity, but it's not a given. 57th in IP. Less than 2 a team that were higher than him.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 10:20 AM) 4.71 ERA, 4.49 FIP, 4.65 xFIP, 6.28 K/9, 2.84 BB/9, averaging 5.9 innings a start. Not exactly good. It apparently was worth $14 million. If advanced stats are to be believed, he is a 1.8 WAR left handed pitcher. If you eat a little money, those guys should bring you back something useful if it is determined he can do it again.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 09:58 AM) Which is an outlier on his entire post-injury career: 0.3, 0.2, 0.5, 1.8 -- 2015 Steamer projection: 0.8 Neil Walker during the same period: 2.7, 2.6, 3.7, 2.4 -- 2016 Steamer projection: 2.6 Walker also makes half the money and they have the same one year of control. Those aren't even REMOTELY equivalent trade assets. Never mentioned anything about Walker. All I stated was Danks apparently isn't as bad as a lot of people think, if we look at advanced stats.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) What year is this? Danks for someone of value? Guys Danks put up a 1.8 WAR last season, valued at $14 million per fangraphs. Apparently he isn't as overpaid as he is made out to be overpaid.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 22, 2015 -> 06:58 AM) Did they get rid of the under 4 minute TV break? I was watching as Illinois was up. Play dead at 3:58 left so I took dog out, came back in and they were down 3 with like 1:30 left. I rewound it and saw they didn't do the usual 4 minutes left commercial. No, but if a team took a TO within 30 seconds of the under 4 Media TO, that becomes a media TO now. It gors for all media TOs.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 22, 2015 -> 06:29 AM) here is a question i am still asking..... at what point is the difference of the term "blow up and retool"??? so the statement of blowing up when the sox got rid of 3 or 4 players is a blowing up or retooling??? I think when you have 1 position player left from 3 seasons ago, it is a rebuild. I don't think the semantics matter much, the fact is, except for pitchers, which almost universally the opinion is the White Sox do a decent job of developing, there is one player left since Hahn became the GM. I don't think they will stop trying to win now. It would be nice if a guy they developed actually was able to hit and field. Maybe it will happen. Maybe LaRoche is what they thought they signed in 2016. They will need some things to go right, but I don't see how they are any farther away than they were last year.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Nov 21, 2015 -> 09:42 PM) The Sox did blow it up. In 2013/2014 when they got rid of Rios, Santiago, Reed, Peavy, De Aza, Beckham, Dunn and let go AJ, Konerko, Viciedo. The only position player left from the 2012 team is Tyler Flowers. Exactly. Avi Garcia is the second longest tenured position player on the team.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 20, 2015 -> 01:51 PM) Sure KW reported to JR when he had Ricks job, but now has to deal with KW and JR. Its not that Hahn can do no wrong, it would just be nice to see what he could do without be saddled with KW and his ego. KW had his run, his legacy is a line of wildly inconsistent rosters, robbing tomorrow to pay for today. When Hahn took over the moves he orchestrated were aimed at building consistency within the organization, but then we saw a flutter of moves that contradicted that strategy so that question becomes is someone else pulling the strings or is Hahn too undisciplined to stick with his own plan? There is no way to know on the outside, but when you see some of the trademarks of KW's administration rearing their head its a natural assumption that KW is still pulling the strings that stand in the way of Hahn's plan. And when you are mixed between two plans, there is no real path to success, the team ends up in purgatory, not good enough to make the playoffs and not bad enough to add franchising altering talent in the draft and Intl FA. And the robbing tomorrow to pay for today is tired as well. Yeah he traded a lot of prospects. The vast majority of which sucked. I wouldn't mind if KW hit the road, but to think he is saddling Hahn, or another site I read said his quotes were "throwing him under a bus" are just made up based on nothing observations. Whether people want to admit it or not, JR is a pretty smart guy, and he has better access to KW/RH than any of us here. If he thought KW was the problem many here like to think he is, he would be gone in a minute. Hahn isn't a puppet. I don't believe KW when he said he has never overruled Hahn, I have a good source that says he has at least once, but sometimes a differing opinion and discussion is positive in the decision making process.

I wonder why that strategy hasn't worked the last 20 or 30 years. Players follow the money.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Nov 20, 2015 -> 09:34 AM) This isn't saying anything about Illinois relative to Miami, but you really underestimate how bad the B1G west is. Terrible, still 3 top 25 teams

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 06:45 PM) It's basically saying he can be though. He doesn't look anything near that now. Obviously he isn't if he hasn't done it. Posters mention players ceilings all the time. That is best case scenario. The problem IMO with Avi and a lot of White Sox players recently, is they are not high baseball IQ guys, and that hurts you in so many ways. You make bad decisions on the bases, in the field, and at the plate. It takes those guys longer to adjust back after pitchers and defenses have adjusted to them. While high ceilings are great, and you need to have these guys in your organization , relying on that being reached or coming close is fools gold.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 06:28 PM) Garcia’s biggest fan seems to be Executive Vice President Ken Williams, who made a comment to reporters prior to Thursday’s game about the young outfielder sporting a 30/30 ceiling. That is 30 home runs and 30 stolen bases in a single season. Williams made a similar comment regarding Garcia’s speed in February as reported by MLB.com’s Scott Merkin: Saying he has a 30/30 ceiling isn't saying he is a 30/30 guy. And if he could swing at pitches he could hit, he might reach that ceiling. Where they were way off was defensively. They thought he was a CF.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 06:03 PM) Same Sox management who said he was a 30/30 guy are the same wanting to trade him. Sox are lacking badly in talent evaluation. Do you have a link where someone in Sox management said he was a 30/30 guy?

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) For those wondering if Walker can play 3B, he last played 3B in MLB in 2010. With the shortage of 3B, he could probably make himself some cash money if he figured out how to be decent there.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 12:12 PM) It wasn't just Baez, he would have been the centerpiece of a package. The Cubs still love Baez. There are some in their organization who think he would be a better SS than Russell.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) I wonder if the Cubs would trade Baez for Avi and Danish/Beck/etc? Maybe if Hahn threw in Davidson.