witesoxfan

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 05:36 PM) Andrew Miller That was the thought I had while following the game this afternoon.

QUOTE (daggins @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 05:22 PM) Yeah I was thinking Brett Phillips or Isan Diaz, who has seen his stock tumble this season, but I doubt it will be anything that good. I'd take either one. I thought Diaz was going to be a target from the Brewers in a potential Quintana trade. He seems to fit the mold of the type of player they're looking for right now. Or else this is another smoke screen and he's, in fact, going to the Cubs.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 23, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) I was commenting to a friend last night how as soon as I get down on Anderson, he'll do one of those rangy grabs where he just turns his hips and fires off a hard strike to first while running sideways like it's the easiest thing. At the plate, the ball really flies when he squares it up and his swing just looks quick. Of course, as of late he rarely squares it up and as another poster said, really seems to be going up there without a plan. But I've grown more confident that the underlying talent is there—not just athleticism, but baseball talent. This is a good post. There's no harm with seeing what Anderson has to offer for the next 2 years, maybe even more. If it gets to the point where he is looking like nothing but a utility player, then there is an obvious need to look into finding a new SS.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 04:54 PM) Apparently the bolded is only true under some very limited circumstances/with batters who aren't particularly good at batting. Typically you are looking at a runner on 2nd with no outs or runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 04:56 PM) Actual rule says the opposite. Says runner must beat ball to the base to be safe. You will almost never have an actual tie either. There will be hundredths of a second difference almost every time. Not that it's necessarily visible to the naked eye, just that it's virtually impossible to have an actual tie to the base.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 25, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) There are few situations where bunting is appropriate. None of them exist for a team that is rebuilding. That's silly. If anything, bunting makes plenty of sense. It's a fundamental skill that, when developed, allows a team a better opportunity to score 1 run. When the Sox are good again, that is something that helps them win close games. Beyond that, excessive bunting is actually causing them to lose games more often now, which is what I think we all want the Sox to do now. Really, if this persists in 2019 and 2020, then I'll take issue with it. At this point, I couldn't care less.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 24, 2017 -> 02:09 PM) I love the thrill of victory, though, and watching the walk off celebrations and seeing guys like TA or Davidson win games via the walk off or stellar overall play. Also I don't like some of the opponents much such as the Royals, Twins, Cubs. In the Sox current position, looking towards today is the wrong mentality. Be happy if they win, but be happy if they lose too. Losing can actually be a really good thing. You really see the mental capacity and the character of players during losing seasons like this. If guys can't get past it and can't improve, then they aren't good enough to be on the team moving forward. If they can look beyond the losing and continue to improve and play as well as they can, they're worthwhile in the long run. They are going to be bad for at least the next 8 months, and it is not unreasonable to think that they'll be bad in 2019 too. It will be OK.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 23, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) Wite, you are just making stuff up with that statement. They should de-mod you, then ban you. And then we will knight you as grand moderator. This place would never be run better.

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 05:09 PM) I think in any trade scenario, Stanton should return better prospects than Quintana. In terms of my specific proposal. None of the guys I proposed, minus Adams, are proven above High-A. Plus with this deal, we still keep Moncada, Kopech, Lopez, Robert, Burger, and Giolito. I wouldn't be upset if it didn't happen, but if we did, I'd be excited. Stanton is nowhere near as valuable as Quintana. Stanton is still owed like $300 million over the next 11 years. Quintana is owed 1/12th of that over the next 4. I do not think trading for Giancarlo Stanton is a good idea.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:29 PM) I'm really surprised people don't understand my point about this. You have to consider this team's record in grading the rebuild. All seasons are equal. You have to take the bad with the good. Let's say half the prospects make it and the Sox never creep about .500 in this rebuild. In that case you have to balance that with the miserable seasons to see if it was worth it. Look ... all seasons count the same. This one is horrific to watch. Next season will be the same. The rebuild will remain a failure. If and when the team gets good with the prospects, the grade starts to improve. If the team makes the playoffs it improves more. If it makes the WS the rebuild becomes a 9. What is so controversial about what I am saying here? They said to rate the rebuild as it stands now. Well, as of now I'm sickened by this baseball team trotting Holland, Shields and Pelfrey out there. So the rebuild is a 2. Can it become an 8, 9 even a 10 at some point? Sure. If "half" the prospects make it, the Sox are going to be the best team in the majors in 2020 and 2021.

Kind of sounds like Frazier was a pretty good influence on him too. Losing a guy who's been there for you throughout your time in the majors is not a small thing either.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) You lost me with us being active in rule V draft. You might find one prospect who is young but needs to stay the whole year with the big club. Well, hate to break it to you, but they'll be active in the Rule 5 draft. They'll take at least one if not two guys.

He looks like Billy Butler.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) That bunt totally took us out of a scoring chance. Good I mean, I'm being a little facetious, but at this point, it is better if the Sox lose.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) The Cards are 3 games under .500, 4.5 games out of first and in fourth place of a division they will be lucky to finish third in. After looking at it that way, I no longer believe the cards would trade for Avi. Hope I'm wrong. Wouldn't put it past them. If they really believe in Avisail Garcia, then it's not a bad thing. He's not a rental by any stretch.

Tim Anderson will become better at SS by not playing SS. That is some of the most backwards logic I've ever read on here.

QUOTE (Two-Gun Pete @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 11:24 PM) I don't mean to bury TA, but lets put to rest this idea that his gift of a contract extension was anything at all like the previous extensions offered to others in the past: Prior to his extension, Sale pitched ~300 IP over 2 1/2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he was a 1st round pick, before which he pitched 3 years on a scholarship in D1. Prior to his extension, Quintana pitched ~300 IP over 2 seasons in The Show. Prior to that, he pitched for 8 seasons in MiLB. Prior to his extension, Eaton had had ~900 PA over 1 full season here, & 2 cups of coffee in AZ. Prior to that, he'd played 5 seasons in MiLB; prior to that, he played 3 seasons on scholarship in D1. By contrast, Tim Anderson was gifted financial independence after a measly 99 or so games, & 55 AAA games. He wasn't even on scholarship when he went to juco, & he'd only played 2 years in HS. On balance, he hadn't done enough to CONCLUSIVELY prove that he EARNED the contract; he was GIVEN it. So, when someone wants I conflate the gift to Anderson with the contracts that Sale, Q, & Eaton EARNED, I have to roll my eyes. Don't get me wrong, as a Sox fan, I want TA to become a star. But his contract extension was premature at best, & ill-advised, at worst. It's $24 million over 6 years. Relax hombre.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:47 AM) Wite, is it possible a player's WAR could be somewhat significantly disconnected though from his actual impact on wins and losses in a given season? Yes, and Delmon Young was a fairly clutch player that year, so perhaps the WAR on a whole undervalues exactly what he did on the field that year. Given his clutch stats, you could make an argument that he was a 2.5 to 3.0 WAR player with context added to his season.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:46 AM) I believe you, and I appreciate this back-and-forth, but I maintain that one of those things outweighed what he could do at the plate. He wasn't that great at the plate though. By OPS he was 46th best in the game among qualified hitters and by wRC+, he was the 50th best hitter in the game. He was a good hitter; he wasn't a great hitter. He was a terrible defender. Everything considered, he was a below average player. Also, I know why B-R has those things on their website, but to simply classify someone who is 0-2 WAR as a subtitute or bench player is wrong. Don't read into it as such. A 2 WAR is considered an average MLB starter. Below that is a below average starter OR bench player, and obviously anything more than that is an above average player. It's not a hard line stat - to say that a player with a 2 WAR is overtly better than a player who puts up a 1.8 WAR or even 1.5 WAR is not always correct. Melky Cabrera has contributed to wins this year despite the Sox being absolutely terrible - he has a WPA of 1.31, which is pretty amazing for a team that's 15 games under .500 and falling fast.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:32 AM) Bonds only had 90 RBIs because teams refused to pitch to him. He walked 148 times that year. That wasn't the case with Delmon- he just got clutch hits. That's why I think RBIs are a meaningful stat in this particular context. And about his defense, he had 255 chances that year. So about 1.5 per game. He made 239 POs, and had 4 errors. Even if his errors were catastrophic and game-costing, that's four games. But at the plate, he had 96 RBIs in either tie games or when his team was within one run. He had 23 in BBRef's "late and close" situations. Just like I assumed about the errors, let's assume those 23 RBIs are game-saving/winning. His bat more than makes up for his D. I know I'm discounting things in that looking at chances, POs and errors doesn't factor in range but still, I do not think his defense, putrid as it was, negates the value of his bat. Especially at a non-premium defense position. Delmon Young had no range, no instincts, and not much of an arm. He was awful defensively.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) Was his defense so bad that it totally destroyed the value of a fearsome hitter in the middle of the order? Sorry, I can't agree with that. Especially in a league with a DH. Also, how did Young get 112 RBIs with only 21 HRs? Because he hit .355 with a .911 OPS with runners in scoring position. He was a clutch hitter. So I disagree that my counting stat should simply be disregarded in this case. Point is, 2010 Delmon Young was a valuable player and WAR doesn't credit him for that. So I have a hard time taking it seriously. Had Delmon Young been an average defensive player, he would have been worth about 3.5 WAR. He was horrendous defensively.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) Check out Baseball Reference. 8+ is MVP, 5+ is AS, 2+ is starter, 0-2 is "sub". A 2 WAR is an average MLB player. Thus, Delmon Young was slightly below average. That's fine, it's not like they're saying he was a bad player.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) Thanks for saying this. I am with you. Know what Delmon Young's bWAR was in a season where he had 46 doubles and 112 RBIs? 1.9. Sub level, by their own explanation. Yeah, sure, call up that interesting 25 year old from AAA and he should manage this! Easy peasy! What a load of s***. For starters, RBI is the most useless statistic in the game of baseball. In 2003, Barry Bonds hit .341/.529/.749/1.278 with 45 homers. He had 90 RBI. If you tell me he wasn't the best hitter in the game of baseball that year, I will be OK if I never talk baseball with you again. Secondly, that year you're talking about, he hit .298/.333/.493 with 21 homers. That was included. Of course, he was one of the worst defensive players in the majors, so that was rightly taken out. Thus, he was a slightly below average player, though an above average hitter. Third, Melky Cabrera is a doubles hitter. He is not fast, he does not have a lot of power, he is not a great base runner, he is a below average defender, and he doesn't have much of an arm. He is a below average regular. He is a good hitter! But he is about a 1 WAR player. There is a reason he is a starter on the worst team in the AL and that he has not been moved yet. In the end, if you don't want to pay attention to WAR, that's fine, but it's widely accepted and used statistic in today's game.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:24 AM) Ahh, I was looking at pipeline. Looks like some of the shine has come off of him since the initial scouting reports and his signing...seems like some people still really like him while others are turned off by his performance. Well and he's 18 too, so scouting reports are going to be mixed. Pretty much what I'm saying is that someone using the Marlins return for David Phelps to say that the White Sox should have gotten more from the Yankees is total BS.

QUOTE (harkness @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 11:19 PM) just some data for people about bunting (some have read similar things, but I'm sure not everyone has) "Sacrifice bunting is giving the defense a free out. Free. No work, no need to make quality pitches. According to ESPN Stats and Info, the sacrifice bunt results in an out just over 96% of the time in major league baseball. According to a 2011 study of high school baseball in Texas, an attempted sacrifice bunt resulted in an out 83% of the time. This out is just about the most sure thing you can give. Attempted sac bunts in the bigs also result in the lead runner being throw out 17% of the time and a double play being turned 8% of the time. It is understood that the out is granted in the situation and an understood part of a sacrifice, but let’s look at other methods of getting to second if you insist on playing for one run. From 2000-2014, base stealers in MLB were successful 72.3% of the time. The success rate is loftier at the high school level (not including the increased likelihood of a wild pitch or passed ball at the amateur level). Would you rather have a 73% chance of having a runner at second with no outs or an 83% chance of having a runner at second with one out? The answer seems obvious. Just how important is it to get that man to second anyway? According to Dan Levitt of baseballanalysts.com, using a study that gathered information over 15 years of professional baseball, the expected run table for an inning sets at .877 in situations where there is a runner at first with no outs. However, if you decide to bunt the runner over, your expected run table for the inning drops to .693 with a runner on second and one out. In essence, you are voluntarily killing your own rally. In addition to the expected run table, basic percentages say that the sac bunt is the wrong play. According to Baseball Prospectus, you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. 24.4 percent! Swing away. In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out." You are looking at the run table. What are the odds of scoring 1 run? That's what matters. That's the point of a sacrifice bunt.