Dick Allen

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 01:03 PM) Flying Southwest for the first time on New Years Eve. We booked the "Wanna Get Away" ticket because it was the cheapest, anyone have experience with that? Its the same as any other ticket.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 12:42 PM) Anyone want to take a stab at the average salary for a backup catcher. Don't have any idea, but with Flowers/Avila, the Sox aren't spending too much on that position overall.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) are you kidding me, the FO made everything possible to redirect the accountability factor against the players. Putting the blame on who was responsible is also very shortsighted. I will tell you this, if I owned a 7-11 and some clerk failed to show up at work because they were hungover, I wouldn't fire them, I'd fire the manager. He or she should have trained them better. And anyone here who is a manager in whatever line of work you are in, just remember, when those below you screw up, it is totally your fault. If your boss doesn't fire you immediately, you should have the decency to tender your resignation.

Catchers almost as a rule can't hit. It's better the Sox spend no trade chips on a mediocre guy. This guy is a lot like Geo except left handed. No average, decent OBP, power, decent defensively. He has been the starting catcher on many playoff teams and he is still in his 20's, and signed for less than what Geo received.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 10:40 AM) Can't wait for Hawk every game to talk about how beat up Avila gets behind the plate. This was the most obvious signing of the offseason. With Hawk and Stone always talking about him, you knew he was a future White Sox at some point. If he had continued to play like he played 4 years ago, it would have been when he was 34 or 35, but there is still some upside here.

QUOTE (Whitey @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) Sitting through the past season, I anxiously awaited the accountability and change that undoubtedly would have to come as a response to the overall ineptitude and lack of effort we witnessed last year. Instead, we get the same coach and management back next year, with no real plan in place. Next year could range anywhere from them being a perennial contender, to them needing a complete rebuild… they just have to let it percolate a bit to figure it out I guess. This shows that they have no real vision at all for the future, and no faith in their own scouting abilities. If they did, they would know exactly where they stand, and they would be hitting the ground running. Instead, they are just flopping in the wind, going day to day (decision by decision) it seems. That is pretty alarming to me. The fact that they don't have their 2016 roster set before Thanksgiving has to be alarming to White Sox fans everywhere. All the other teams have made tons of trades, there are hardly any free agents available to sign...just a colossal fail again on the White Sox part. Thinking you could get something done at the Winter Meetings is silly. Everything should be finished weeks before. And not sharing their offseason plan with the world? What are they thinking?

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 08:42 AM) there is a degree of preferential treatment and it really can tear a team apart. with the sox and the ineptness of RV and how to deal with this distraction, i really think it is a bad idea of getting him. Robin can handle him. He's gone toe to toe with Sale. He could go toe to toe with Puig if necessary.

It would be nice if Engel made himself a future contributor. He has so many tools. If he can put it together, it would be amazing. I hope Trey makes it for a couple of reasons. The White Sox really need a 3B, and secondly, those buying his jersey would really get a good bang for their buck with all the letters in his last name.

I would love the Sox to get Puig. Huge core piece, at a most likely a discounted (at least a little) price. I don't care if every White Sox likes him. The Dodgers have won a lot of games with him supposedly being a huge distraction. So what? This guy has as big of a ceiling as anyone in the game.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 01:41 AM) What if the home plate umpire was just s***ty those games? That's probably it. But if the home plate umpire is going to be bad and call balls strikes more often when Flowers is catching, it's still a good thing for White Sox pitchers. It is amazing how far Flowers has fallen from the pedestal he was placed here in about 2011. AJ had to go. If Flowers hit nothing, he still was better than AJ. Now, anything positive attributed to Flowers is quickly shot down as unimportant. There are more than a few people on here that really can't mention pitch framing as a positive to any catcher they may like moving forward without looking foolish. I just don't understand how having more balls called strikes when you are catching can't be considered a really good thing.

I think Avila is a White Sox in 2016. I didn't mind Geo, although I do think that yips deal could explode. I watched him warm up pitchers in between innings when Flowers made the last out or was on base, and he didn't do that.

QUOTE (Baron @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 06:44 PM) We have the ultimate pitch framer though...we dont need him 2nd in baseball for getting balls called strikes.

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.