Vance Law

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 10:17 PM) If we were to believe Rogers, the D'backs called up the White Sox after they traded their starting CFer from their WS team and asked for their projected '06 CFer. Why would they do that? I'll tell you... So that they could "work down" from and ask for the guy they really wanted. You, um, don't actually know that unless you were in on the trade discussions, and my guess is that you weren't. And that isn't at all what the article says or implies. My point stands that if you believe Rogers, Arizona is just as "dumb" for wanting Anderson over Young, who has a lot of upside, power and speed, but was also a .295 OBP lead-off hitter this year.

Eat it Rogers. If Kenny "misevaluated" Young, then so did every other team in baseball since he didn't get drafted till the 16th round. Arizona certainly had it "wrong" if they wanted Anderson over Young. So if you buy Rogers' story, Arizona is just as "dumb" or "bad at evaluating talent" as the Sox, they just got lucky. Every team gets unlucky sometimes. Every team gets lucky sometimes, except the Cubs. Swept.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) Somebody out there has a video of the Borchard shot, and needs to put it on youtube. I have, to this day, never seen the video of it because I was at school since it was a day make up game and like nobody was at the game. You can look at highlights of 2004 on the MLB site, but for some reason there is nothing there for the game of that Borchard homer.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) 4. Finally, what to do about speed and taking an extra base on hits. This raw number is simply not available, but it certainly is part of the game. Great stuff, Northside. I mentioned this before, and I think it's what you're looking for. In the Bill James Handbook, he lists the raw numbers for taking extra bases on hits. League Average #s for 2006: A) 1st to 3rd on a single- 28% B) Scoring from 2nd on a single- 60% C) Scoring from 1st on a double- 42% ex. Pods: A) 6/21 29% B) 11/22 50% C) 4/7 57% Konerko 1/26 4% 9/29 31% 1/6 17%

Looking at it, it seems to me that they'll be very close or right on for a few teams, be totally wrong on a few teams, and be kinda sorta in the ballpark for the majority of teams. Just like when anyone else makes these guesstimates, or, like, if an orang-u-tan did it. Does anyone have any data that says that over time, or for this year in particular, BP is any closer with the guesstimates than anyone else (like any ESPN folk) who put out theirs?

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) This is why I think we are run by suspect individuals. We should have KNOWN Andy wasn't anything before being put into position to take this 3rd base spot. This doesn't make any sense. Please see my above post. QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) The fact we are left with Andy playing full time 3rd base tells the baseball world that we don't have a clue and worse yet, we don't have much talent in this system. No it doesn't. It tells the baseball world that we're playing out the string in the last few weeks of a season that hasn't mattered for months. That we actually potentially have one too many MLB quality 3rd basemen next year and it doesn't matter who plays there right now. If you are suggesting that "the really good organizations" are the ones that have a better 7th best option at 3rd base going into a season for when they're playing out the string on a season that doesn't matter, I wholeheartedly disagree. If we were in contention right now, Fields, Mackowiak, or Cintron would be playing third.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:44 PM) And the thing is, much respect to Andy for making it as far as he did, but there is absolutely no reason in the entire galaxy he should EVER be playing the hot corner at the major league level. EVER. Yes he should. When Crede's out for the season with back surgery, Ozuna breaks his leg, Mackowiak gets traded because the team is out of contention, Fields has been moved to left field in order to see if he can hack it for next year when Crede potentially will be back, and the only other guy who can play is Cintron, and there are a few weeks left in a season where we've been out of contention for months, YES Gonzalez should be in there at third.

QUOTE(southsida86 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:46 PM) Fixed it for ya oh Fieldsy

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) I'm working on making some of those adjustments, but here is an open question: does anyone know if someone keeps track of the extra bases that runners take on hits? For example scoring from 2nd on a base hit, 1st to 3rd on a single, etc. Bill James has started tracking this incorporated with a few other things to come up with a stat for 'good baserunning' (independent of stolen bases or caught stealings. I posted about this a couple weeks ago and included his top 25 and bottom 25 baserunners). It's in his book, but I don't know if it's online anywhere. If you don't have the book, I could give you 2006 numbers for a few players if you want.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) You're giving the same value for a BB and a SB, as you would for a 2B, when they're clearly not equal. As Northside mentions, With runners on base, the double is more valuable. With no one on base, the ability to steal a base (an indicator of good speed) is clearly more valuable, than the ability to slug a double. Not just for the base he stole, but for his ability to advance and score on various other hits, sacrifices, groundouts, passed balls, etc.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) How many runs are driven in each year by a SB? How many runs are not scored in each year by guys who couldn't outrun a telephone pole.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) There has been a lot of discussion here about Owens' nearly complete lack of power, and how important that is or isn't for a leadoff hitter. I do think that OBP is a better measure than AVG or SLG or even OPS when looking at a leadoff guy, because their purpose is to get on base for the heart of the order (and maybe get on base and steal). So that got me thinking... How about a measurement that really does account for the bases provided by power AND those provided by speed, in addition to reaching base? Maybe something like this: (TB + BB + HBP + SB) - (CS + GIDP) / Total PA Look familiar? Its somewhat akin to Total Average, which was sort of in vogue for a while some years ago. Good stuff, NorthSide. I've made some posts about this subject previously. Just curious, what is the difference between this and Total Average? How is TA calculated?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) OPS works just fine for me. Right here, and in general, I'll go with the opposite of what this guy says.

Woah, Daddy!

g

Richar round tripper.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 16, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) It really is awful. With Andy Gonzalez 2 for his last 40 or so, is that really struggling for him, or is that just how bad he really is? Fields swing is just comical right now with how long it is, I don't think he can hit a fastball from Mark Mulder. Thome of course stinks against lefties, but what else is new? Fields makes you look stupid.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) Here's an interesting one, from the Tribune's post-Series book: Last year I wasn't managing. I was just changing pitchers. That's it. I feel like a manager this year. I feel like I have a better chance to do a lot of different things. I have the ammunition to do it and the players to do it. I'm certainly not an Ozzie-basher to the degree of some people, but this particularly annoys me. Hey, Ozzie, the baseball team doesn't exist so that you can "feel like a manager," dips***. Just change the pitchers and be a good cheerleader in the clubhouse.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Sep 15, 2007 -> 01:28 AM) Will Fields still be a subpar player for another 4 seasons compared to this guy? I'm not interested in the next 4 seasons or what is a sensible baseball move by a GM. I'm interested in overreacting to any miscues in the field and bad at bats TODAY when the games don't count. But particularly, I'm interested in complaining, in hearing and seeing my complaints, and having others hear and see them as well.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:56 PM) Jennings was coming off of a better season, but Garland has a much better track record and is widely considered throughout baseball as the better pitcher. ....who costs a gabillion dollars more.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 12:15 AM) The White Sox did exactly that for Freddy Garcia. At the time, the market was down a bit, and Freddy Garcia only had about 3 months guaranteed on his deal. I'm confused by the 3 months remaining on his deal part (why not the entire 2007 season?). I suppose the differences between the 2 situations I would say are are: Garcia'd had a pretty stellar career, been dominant, and was coming off of ONE mediocre year in which he finished very strong. (obviously the "not having him do a physical" thing was stupid) Garland has been mediocre his entire career, had one very good year in '05, and now has 2 more mediocre years in a row. Depends how you define "stud prospects"- I wouldn't call Gio + Floyd "stud prospectS". Floyd the seemed happy to get rid of. Gio probably falls (or fell) short of "stud" status after his 4.66 ERA year in AA. 1 not-quite-stud and one throw in. Garland costs $2 million more, and particularly in the case of Colorado, can't imagine them taking on the $12 million. Yes, I think we can get some minor league pieces with potential for Garland, but I'd think it absurd to expect a teams top prospects for a one-year rental of a league average starter making $12 million.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) If you bring up some of there stud prospects. I just don't get how people come up with stuff like this. Just think for a second if the tables were reversed, that should take care of it. Would you want the Sox to trade some of their "stud prospects" (who cost no money)for a 1yr rental of a pitcher coming off 2 straight years of an ERA of 4.5 AND WHO COSTS $12 MILLION? No! I assume you'd go nuts as I would at how idiotic it was. Why on earth would it seem likely that major league GM, then, would do it?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) How many more losses before Bears fans want all losses so we get the No. 1 draft pick? What's the over under? A reasonable number would probably be about 10 if it happens- about 3/4 of the way through the season and with about the 2nd worst record in the league.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 11:25 PM) Why hasn't Terrero gotten any work in RF with Dye being out? Why must we be force-fed Erstad on a daily basis when we could be watching a younger, more talented player? Ozzie is working an Erstad-Terrero poo-toon in right.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) The pitching sucked last year. Are you okay now. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Prancer sucks as well. Hey, I'm cooperating here. I don't want Pods on the team next year and am rather certain he won't be. I do recall the player receiving the highest volume of complaints last year being Pods (though, yes, there were many other reasonable people who noted it was the team pitching), which I thought was comical at the time, and even moreso looking at this year where we're dying to have more players with a .330 OBP. Meanwhile, Pods slap bunts of the past week are the hottest thing in Chi-town. Hotter than Oprah and Skiles and sandwiches combined.