witesoxfan

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Maybe you should stop being so angry and actually try to comprehend. A review of the thread might help you. Cheers. I've reviewed enough. I believe Jeter is a top 50 player. You do not.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Not many bargain basement starters with the exception of Loaisa have worked out well with the Sox. KW spent big money on the rotation during his time. Loaiza got the Sox Contreras, El Duque was pretty cheap, and Freddy Garcia the second time around was effective too. They've had plenty of luck.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) I think the Sox have proven to be good at developing pitchers, but not necessarily starters. Sale is one, but he really wasn't developed in the White Sox organization. Quintana had most of his developmental time elsewhere. Johnson the jury is still out. Most other Sox effective starters, with the exception of Buehrle, were developed elsewhere. The team is always going to need starting pitching. If you can get it at a good rate now, it could be a good time to jump. The prices aren't going down. What you could have for $40 million now might cost you a lot more than that next year, if you can even get it. I think that is the point Marty and TUC are trying to make. Bailey will be off the board. There is a good chance Lester will be off the board, Scherzer, if he is available isn't going to be in the Sox range, and going after a pitcher isn't like the Sox pursuit of Abreu when teams that normally spend ridiculous money, had no real 1b DH opening. Everyone always has a spot for a good pitcher, at least at the beginning of free agency, and the Sox may be good enough this season where the price to sign one isn't a second round pick, but a first rounder. So then they are good at identifying talent from outside the organization? Then my belief in Paulino is foundation for that and we should expect big things out of Surkamp too.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) Rienzo is going to be in the pen. Paulino, Surkamp are not as good as Santana. We've already established a $48M contract for the Sox is not an issue. So because something isn't a problem means you should want for it? EVERYBODY, I WANT HERPES. I'VE HEARD IT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM. PLEASE GIVE IT TO ME.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) Lol. Why so angry? Who the f*** is John McDonald? I like the "towards the end of his career" lay down. So, you're saying Griffey regressed as he aged and was riddled with injuries? Brilliant. What else? My original Yankees post specifically was in regard to the "last decade," and I said as much. You know who I would take over Jeter? Ozzie Smith. A premium defender, at a the most premium position that could also hit a little. John McDonald was and frankly still is an incredibly gifted defensive infielder. You keep changing your argument and words. I'm done with this. I've made my point and don't want to further ruin what should be a good thread.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) Who are the teams that overspend in the draft and international markets who have had success. Rays, Yankees, Red Sox, Pirates, Dodgers, should I keep going?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:40 AM) $11.5 million for a 2 WAR is right in line with what teams pay free agents. Johnson is in the rotation. The others, meh. Do you really need to see Surkamp get clobbered? Your spin is interesting because you love Paulino and will go out of your way to project optimism for him. You mentioned 180 IP. HE HAS NEVER PITCHED 180 INNINGS IN A SEASON AS A PROFESSIONAL. How can you throw that out there as even a slight possibility for a guy coming off surgery? I'd rather see these guys get clobbered and/or hurt so that the organization knows what its needs are going into next year and they can spend more money towards filling those needs. If it's a starter, a catcher, and a second basemen, then they suddenly have $11.5 million more while they add a prospect in the second round to the minor leagues. If Rienzo, Paulino, Surkamp, Beck, or anybody else step up and become legitimately good #5 starters, then they have $11.5 million to spend on other aspects of the team. The Sox have proven capable of developing starting pitching. Why would you spend anything extra on it at this point in the franchise's development?

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) If you think Jeter is even in the neighborhood of AROD defensively, there's no point in continuing the conversation. It's like you've never actually watched a game. Really? From the same guy who said 2 paragraphs was too long to read, misinterpreted everything I wrote, continues to use the same argument that "defense and pitching win championships" when Jeter has 5 rings himself (meaning you'd take John f***ing McDonald over Derek Jeter, even though you won't say it), says that Ken Griffey Jr was a complete player and not a total joke of a defender towards the end of his career, and seemingly doesn't see how poor of a defender ARod has turned into in his later years? I watch plenty of baseball, thank you very much. I'd still love to hear your defense of why Babe Ruth and the otherwise mentioned Ted Williams are top 10 players of all time.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) We agree that a $48M contract is not an albatross for the Sox. Would you rather have Nolasco, Garza, or Jimenez? E) None of the above.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:55 AM) Isn't there a projected WAR for these young starters? Sure. Andre Rienzo is projected at 0.9 WAR in the Oliver projections, while Steamer has him projected at a 0.6 WAR over 115 innings. Felipe Paulino is projected at 0.5 WAR, but that's taking into account that it's only over 7 starts due to not pitching much the previous two seasons. Over 30 starts, that's roughly 2 WAR. His Oliver projections are a little less cheery at 0.3 WAR over 60 IP, but that's still 1 WAR over 180 innings for $1.5 mill, which would still be a bargain free agent. Steamer projects Surkamp for 1 IP, but Oliver has him at 1.9 WAR over 107 IP. Steamer projects Ervin Santana at 2.7 WAR, Oliver projects him at 1.4 WAR, and the Fans project him at 2.1 WAR. These obviously don't mean anything, but even if you look at the high end for Santana and the low end for the combination of those 3, you are talking about paying $11.5 million more for less than 2 WAR of value in 2014 while limiting the knowledge you have of the pitchers' performances and abilities at the major league level.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) Griffey wasn't a top defender? Arod wasn't a top defender? They were both among the most complete players of all time. Those are awful examples. Jeter's rings are mostly from when he was a decent defender, back when the Yankees weren't building teams on a calculator. Griffey was pretty much a one trick pony after he left Seattle, and as Eminor pointed out, there is some debate as to when the defense really started to tail off. I think Rodriguez was about as good as Jeter defensively at SS, so you're saying you'd take John McDonald over him. You'd also take John McDonald over Derek Jeter. I also like that you mention that Jeter was an awful defender, yet back it by saying that Jeter's rings are from when he was a decent defender, even though he won one in 2009 too when he was apparently a terrible defender and the Yankees were winning games with calculators. I also love how all my examples of proving you wrong are "awful" examples because they disagree with your point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:46 AM) 1.) Thats a whole lot of garbage and the one or two who may come out of that won't be blocked by a free-agent pitcher. Good thing you know that all those pitchers are garbage. Also good to know the Sox already brought in their free agent starting pitcher. Problem solved. Tell me soothsayer, what are the lottery numbers? I promise I'll split it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) No s***. He could have slapped her for being a mess, and that could be later and she's passed the f*** out - I'm just saying that could be the case. Suppose she's going to pass a concussion test?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all. Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch. Like seriously dude, there's a thread posted in the forum and stuff. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) The idea of sabermetrics is not to create an end all, be all. It's primarily there to help us better understand the game and what makes a player good. The concept of WAR is not new or all that crazy. It's merely trying to put a numeric value on the contributions of a player compared to his peers. We've been doing that for 150 years, but we now have more complete information about what makes a player good compared to what we had in 1930 or 1960 or 1990. The data is incomplete and it's still flawed, as there are conflicting opinions on how to value both pitching contributions - baseball-reference uses what a player does on the field, which includes both luck and fielding contributions, which may ultimately be out of the pitcher's control, while FanGraphs uses fielding independent statistics, which does not account for all of the runs a pitcher gives up but just the runs a pitcher should have given up in a neutral context - as well as fielding contributions, which are flawed to begin with because it takes 3 years to establish a significant sample size, and by that time the player's fielding talent has likely changed. Neither bWAR or fWAR is wrong to use, but "junkies" will typically relate to fWAR on a much more consistent basis because it better represents the talent of a player and is a better predictor of production moving forward. At the end of the day, games will not be decided by Pyth W-L. It will ALWAYS be about the number of games you win on the field. Games aren't played on paper, but the inferences we can make from the information provided by the play on the field will help us to better understand both the value and significance of plays on the field. I look back to a game back in 2010 between the Padres and the Cubs in which Chris Young was starting. He was credited with the winning percentage added (wPA) of two plays that, in the box score, look very unimportant but which in reality were incredible plays made by Will Venable to save at least one home run and maybe two. Here is the link to the article. Shouldn't Venable be credited with plays towards the win there? And if a player makes an error in a crucial spot, shouldn't that be deducted from their total winning percentage added? It's something that, like I said, I'm sure they either have and/or continue to work towards implementing, but it takes time to determine this information. Just as the rules of sports are constantly evolving to adapt to current societal standards, so are the numbers we use to interpret the game we love.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:21 AM) You can't be a top player when half your game is putrid. You have to have a complete game. It's incredible how much defense has become undervalued. I'll take a great fielding SS over a great hitting SS every day of the week and it's not close. Pitching and defense still wins baseball games and always will. If Jeter would have played 2nd or 3rd, the argument changes. But he didn't. They ran him out there at SS and he hurt his team. That's not my fault. -Then Frank Thomas is not a top player. Babe Ruth is probably not a top player. Ken Griffey Jr is not a top player (talk about reputation being bigger than the numbers - after like '91-'96, his defense is severely overrated). -You are also saying you'd take prime John McDonald over prime Alex Rodriguez any day of the week. -You say that pitching and defense still wins championships, yet Jeter missed the playoffs twice in his career and has a fistful of World Series rings. Not sure if that statement helps or hurts your argument here. -Running Jeter out at SS obviously did not hurt them. Again, they missed the playoffs twice in his career and won 5 World Series titles. You're making very narrow statements that the facts simply don't support.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) 1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats. 2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem. 1. Paulino (who is the wild card, 1 year guarantee that if he doesn't work out, there's no big loss), Rienzo, and Surkamp. Hahn specifically mentioned Beck as a guy too. That's 4 guys for this year and next that they could, should, and will be trying. 2. Do you think they could even give Danks away right now?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) She could be hammered. http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/19/ray-rice-unc...y-video-arrest/ You don't get arrested for assault because your wife is hammered.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) Wrong. Does anybody else find it ironic that imaginary wins fans are so damn "defensive?" It's not wrong. And that post had nothing to do with WAR or UZR or anything sabermetrics. It had to do with the Yankees bringing in old players and expecting them to perform well with Ichiro being perfectly symbolic of that ideology. I'm not defensive about anything other than my stance that Jeter was a below average defensive shortstop. Oh, and the idea that he wasn't a top 100 player (because he absolutely was and I feel as though I've thoroughly backed that).

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) Jeter represents what's been wrong with the Yankees approach over the last decade. They've accumulated the most imaginary wins in baseball with little regard to building an actual team. Continuing to run a bad defender out there at the most premium position is not a very good way to win big games. Call me old fashioned, but I'm building my team around a SS that can actually get to balls hit 3 feet to the left. No, what's been wrong with the Yankees is continuing to throw money at mediocre to old players and not looking for vast improvements when the opportunity arises. Ichiro is easily the best Japanese player in MLB history and one of the best of the past 15 years, but the fact that they ran him out for 555 PAs last year and apparently appear to do so again is far more problematic than using a good hitter and poor defender at an up the middle position.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) It's not -25.7 UZR, of -25.7 Defensive Runs above average. The UZR is like -150. So I think it's most accurate to say "awful shortstop" while acknowledging that anyone who can even fake SS isn't an "awful defender." Being a bad SS is much better than being an average 1B, for example, and that is reflected in fWAR (although I personally have some issues with the accuracy of 'set in stone' positional adjustments). This is true, but I just can't say anybody that spent their entire career at SS is an awful defender. Like, Michael Young was not a good defensive player ever, but he's not an awful defender. Frank Thomas was an awful defender. Basically, put Frank Thomas at SS and see what happens. In the same light, put Derek Jeter at 1B and see what happens too.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) TL;DR. I'll make this really short. Very good hitter. Awful defender. Yes, awful. Not among top 100 players of all time. It was f***ing 2 paragraphs, how is that ever a teal deer? And no, not awful. A -25.7 career UZR over 17 years is -1.5 per season. That's below average, not "awful." If you want to see an awful defender, you look towards guys like Adam Dunn. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) So what's your stance on it, wite? Is he a top 10 player or a top 50 player to you? Top 50. I don't think I'd take him over Thomas, but he was a far healthier player over the course of his career while playing a more rigorous position too. It's hard to take a stance on that. The Yankees allure will surely draw him more votes in 6 years though. What I honestly think gets underrated and even cast as a negative for a lot of people voting and discussing Hall of Famers is longevity. It took Bert Blyleven 15 years to get into the Hall of Fame after pitching in 4 decades and being one of the best pitchers of his era(s). That should be celebrated and applauded, not held against them. If a guy is an average player for 20 years, that's one thing, but a guy like Jeter was good to great player for 17 years. There's something to be said for showing up and doing your job that well for that long.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 07:52 PM) All I know is the Pacers better do something to upgrade their offense (22nd in offensive efficiency). They are so much like the '93 Knicks it's not even funny. Danny Granger is broker than '06 Brian Anderson. George, while really good (and stupid), is not yet truly elite. They picked up Bynum dude, they're fine, relax. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:59 PM) I don't think Lebron and Bosh, without Wade, can win a title with the team currently constructed. I think that team could win a championship with Ronnie f***ing Brewer at SG.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 07:10 PM) So if they have a good '15 or '16 we will be proven right I guess. Naturally you simplify everything down as much as you can because you're an extremist and everything is either black or white. This is yes or no, and meets several qualifications. 1) Does said pitcher make a difference between the Sox winning and losing the division in 2014 and/or 2015? If the answer is no, then it's a bad move. 2) Does said pitcher either make a difference between the Sox winning and losing the division in 2016 OR pitch well enough so that they can be traded for prospects at this point in time? If the answer is no, then it's a bad move. 3) If neither of the above qualifications are met, then you are spending $36-40 million for 3 years of non-productive pitching when that money could be spent internationally, in the draft, or on wild cards (such as Paulino and Boggs) that can be used to build towards the future or to trade at the deadline to help build the team, which makes the move a bad move regardless of what said pitcher does in 2017. Nobody signs a player for 4 years and says "Gee, I sure hope they pitch well in 2017 so I can at least get something for them in return." There's room for it to be a good move. The risk far outweighs the reward. That's why they haven't and won't sign them. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:20 PM) My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per. What rotation hole? They have question marks, including a huge one at the #5 spot (where they have *at least* 3 guys competing for 1 spot), but I surely do not see a hole. If you could describe this hole or the size of it, I would greatly appreciate it. (and don't say "the #5 spot" because it's clearly not a hole but is instead a question mark and this was addressed above) (you are still going to say "the #5 spot" even though I've made it a point to mention it 3 times) (the 5th spot is not a hole...there's a 4th for good measure) --- BTW, Josh Hamilton would sure look good in a White Sox uniform right now at $25 mill a year. I don't care if you've admitted you were wrong, you are making the exact same argument now. Is it your goal to sign every free agent on the market and then hope to be able to compete? That's now the way to build a team in today's MLB.

Regarding this entire debate, I tend to believe that if people think Jeter is overrated, then they underrate how good he actually was, especially offensively. If they think he was underrated, then they overrate and forget how poor of a defender he actually was. At the end of the day, he is what he is - a consistently good offensive player who was consistently below average defensively at a prime position for a very long period of time. ----- For reference's sake, when people canonize the careers of Favre, do they mention that he also threw the most interceptions of any quarterback in NFL history (by a lot)? Had Jeter been a 10 year player or moved to 1B at the midway point of his career like Ernie Banks, then the defensive aspect of this conversation wouldn't be happening. Whether that's on Jeter or the manager is entirely debatable, but what is not debatable is that Jeter spent his entire career at SS and was an incredibly talented offensive shortstop for entirety of his career.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:43 AM) I don't need defensive stats to tell me Jeter was a statue. One game of the eye test will tell you that. I don't care how good of a hitter you are, if you play awful defense at a premium position, you aren't among the top 100 players of all time. He wasn't a lumbering 1st baseman. He was a SS. Not all positions are created equal. That's pretty narrow minded though too, especially considering he has the 45th most fWAR of all time, even with shoddy defense. Frankly, he should have moved to 3B or 2B when the Yankees brought in Rodriguez, but it was "his" team and whatever, but this also shows the volatility of statistics like UZR. In '98, his UZR was 10.1. That's a full win earned due to defense. In '99, '00, and '01, he was hurting the team there (dropping as low as -16.4 in 2000), yet the Yankees made the World Series all 3 years and won it in '01, which goes to show that defensive deficiencies can be hidden. From '02-'04, he was back to being a positive player, '05-'07 was negative, '08-'10 was positive (and a 12.2 UZR as recently as 2009), and '11-'13 have been negative. Can players' defense fluctuate that greatly and that consistently over the course of a career? On top of that, Jeter is one of the greatest offensive shortstops of all time. He's 4th all time. The 3 "shortstops" with more? Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez (hence, the quotes), and Arky Vaughn. In case you're not keeping track at home, that's a player from the deadball era, a player who has been caught using PEDs twice and spent the second half of his career at 3B, and a player from the 30s and 40s who derived most of his offensive value from 6 seasons. On the defensive scale, he was probably a 40 at shortstop overall. Still, he never embarrassed himself out there, he was incredibly durable, and he played very good baseball 17 seasons. Frankly, because he was able to do all of that from shortstop leaves him much higher on this list than I think people are readily willing to admit. The guy was consistently good (and sometimes very good to great) for 17 years.