witesoxfan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) "My mindset is to do what my team needs" Hit 100 home runs

QUOTE (beautox @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) I agree at his absolute peak Bourjos is a 4 win player Hector could easily surpass that starting next year. I've mentioned it a number of times here but his peripherals and career look strikingly similar to Liriano. Why give up all that upside? The biggest thing we have going for us is all the money we have available to spend, so continue to spend it; go sign one of McCann or Ellsbury. Move DeAza to LF and put tank at 3B and use Conor as a defensive replacement while he continues to develop. If the sox are going to be a dark horse next year its going to come from their young core of pitching continuing to step up and John Danks getting back to normal. In 160 or so games between the majors and minors, Viciedo's fielding percentage at 3B is about .905. I'm not a fielding percentage guy, but you simply can't ignore how poor he is there. Playing him at 3B is really one of the worst things you could do for this team.

I think I'd be willing to work with a Santiago-Bourjos trade, but I'd open with Rienzo or Snodgress+Petricka or something along those lines.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this. As I answered above in my edit. When guys get tired, they lose velocity, break, angle...their stuff gets worse. Stuff matters, but pitchers almost universally get worse as the game goes on. A typical progression as the game goes on 1st appearance: Stuff is crisp, command is slightly off 2nd appearance: Stuff is beginning to diminish, command is at its best 3rd appearance: Stuff is at point of deterioration, command is also fading 4th appearance: Stuff will be at its worst, command will be at its worst (which can still be very good on any given day) 5th appearance: Nothing but home runs every time up, obviously

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point? Because Chris Sale is a really good pitcher and when he is fresh, his stuff is as crisp and sharp as it's going to be all game. Really, this is a ridiculous question that you know the answer to. You've played baseball. When pitchers get tired late in the game, they lose velocity, break, and angle. You see the ball better and can square it up more.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) What were the first set of numbers you posted? It is funny you had to have them out there, then changed them. Those were his numbers from 2013. I had struggled to find his numbers versus times facing an opponent, found it for 2013, and posted it. This morning I realized that I should post it for his career since it's a better sample size. The numbers fit every model for pitching. I fudged and used the yearly numbers and corrected my mistake. You should use his career numbers too, unless, like I said, you believe that there was a clear and distinguished change in talent from 2012 to 2013 for Chris Sale as a starting pitcher.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) What were the numbers you posted earlier? And clearly, using his career numbers at this point wouldn't be accurate considering he spent a season as a reliever. Those are his career numbers as a starting pitcher

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:55 AM) Your own numbers Chris Sale 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series. See post above. Use the larger sample size unless there has been a clear and distinct change in talent. Jason Grilli's career numbers are not very good, but he has obviously improved his slider and is a dominant reliever; therefore, you should attempt to ascertain when that change in talent took place and determine how good a reliever he has been since that point. Chris Sale has not had a change in talent in the last 2 years. He was a 4.7 WAR starter last year and a 5.1 WAR starter this year. That is easily explained by the increase in innings pitched this year. There was no change in talent. He was the same dominant starter this year as he was last year. EDIT: Oh, and I'm done with this. I've stated my points and laid out my evidence. It's just rehashing the same old stuff anymore.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:55 AM) He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series. He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers? 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture. I've argued this point enough. -In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't. -Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game. -The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers. -There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:09 AM) Does a reliever implode on average at least once a season? They don't make 166 appearances a year, therefore, the odds are greater than 166 to 1. Simple math. You should know this. Ozzie won all 4 games his starters went 9. His team also swept the next series and won the title. It shows he was smart. What on earth are you talking about with the first point? That is about the worst "proof" I have ever seen. Using home runs or whatever is seriously flimsy as hell. Here's Nate Jones's numbers, 1st time through the order - .252/.320/.353/.672 Here's Chris Sale's numbers, 3rd time through the order - .243/.294/.411/.705 Sale is more likely to retire them in order. He's also far more likely to give up back to back doubles. It's basically a wash overall with Sale more likely to retire lefties and Jones more likely to retire righties. And that's just the Sox set up guy. If you want take Sale in that situation every time, that's fine. If they're up 6 and Sale's at 90 or 100 pitches, I'm going to take him out to preserve his arm. If they're up 1 and two lefties are coming up, I'll keep Sale. If they're up 1 and two righties are coming up, I'll take Jones. It's not black and white, and there's no wrong answer. I think, given the initial situation described - the Sox up 6, pitcher at 90 pitches after 7 - I'm taking him out. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) But the numbers indicate he and all pitchers should be best before anyone has a chance to see them that particular day. Your argument is flawed. Of course he had his best stuff the days he faced guys 4 times. Just like when Contreras, Buehrle, Garland and Garcia went the distance, they had their best stuff. League average numbers do not apply in those situations. I was also told that the "stuff" was irrelevant. What mattered was hitters seeing a pitcher for multiple times. Of course then, teams are apparently doing you a favor when they bring in a pinch hitter. As you can clearly see, the numbers indicate that Chris Sale is best before anyone has seen him. He's still good otherwise. And, as you can clearly see, there is not a large enough sample size for hitters seeing Sale a 4th time to come to any sort of signficant conclusion. Given the same amount of plate appearances, it's safe to assume that it would come out to right about the same and likely slightly worse than the splits he allows after 3 times through.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. And if you have a 3 or 6 run lead, who cares if you increased the odds of a guy hitting a solo homer by 166 to 1. The chances of a reliever imploding are far greater than that. You are making stuff up with this. Prove it then. I've gone the extra mile to show why these are not smart. You need to provide some proof on this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. It's sample size Career: 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs The 4th time he has not allowed the same extra base hits, but we are talking about 1/5th the amount of plate appearances compared to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time through the order individually. Given these number, it's safe to say assume both of the following: #1) Had his best stuff on those days. #2) Has not faced enough hitters a 4th time to normalize his numbers. Seems that the first time through the order, he doesn't quite have his control but he doesn't allow much more than singles and the occasional XBH. Second time through, he locates better and gets more outs, but he also allows for balls to be hit harder against him. Third time through he's allowing even more balls to be hit and put into play while allowing even more extra base hits.

There are also 4 degrees of separation between Mike Trout and Mickey Mantle

Just look at the Sox and compare what they're doing with their system and what they look like now compared to 2-3 years ago. Pay no mind to that number because it means nothing other than to mislead you. -They're signing amateur talent in Latin America again -They're keeping prospects rather than dealing them off -They've acquired, via trade, prospects to boost the system -They've signed MLB talent internationally It's improving. This isn't an overnight process.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:31 AM) Here are the numbers you posted: 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. To say he is worse the 3rd time through the line up is really a stretch, especially with the Sox defense, it's one misplayed ball or a bloop off the chalk in RF for a double, and of course you ignore the 4th time through because of sample size but I'm sure if the numbers indicated he was getting hammered, the sample size argument wouldn't be used. How do you explain the second time through being better than the first time through? You seem to ignore that as well. No, he's worse the 3rd time. There's a .003 difference between the OBP. In 333 plate appearances, that's one walk or hit difference. That is literally nothing. Comparing that to his 3rd set of numbers, it means the opposition traded 1 single for 2 home runs. You do that 100% of the time, every time. Aruging otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, and space is small.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:33 AM) I saw this when it came out and knew I had to try it 4 degrees of separation between Muggsy Bogues and Ray Durham Share this on Facebook and Twitter. Muggsy Bogues played on the 1993-94 Charlotte Hornets with ... Scott Burrell, who played on the 1998-99 New Jersey Nets with ... Mark Hendrickson, who played on the 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers with ... Olmedo Saenz, who played on the 2002 Oakland Athletics with ... Ray Durham 6 degrees of separation between Muggsy Bogues and Cam Newton (Football) (2011 - 2013) Share this on Facebook and Twitter. Muggsy Bogues played on the 2000-01 Toronto Raptors with ... Michael Stewart (Basketball), who played on the 1997-98 Sacramento Kings with ... Mark Hendrickson, who played on the 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers with ... Elmer Dessens, who played on the 2001 Cincinnati Reds with ... Deion Sanders, who played on the 2004 Baltimore Ravens with ... Dwan Edwards, who played on the 2013 Carolina Panthers with ... Cam Newton (Football) (2011 - 2013)

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 07:04 AM) Six degrees of Kevin Garnett http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/slate...ver_played.html I saw this when it came out and knew I had to try it 4 degrees of separation between Muggsy Bogues and Ray Durham Share this on Facebook and Twitter. Muggsy Bogues played on the 1993-94 Charlotte Hornets with ... Scott Burrell, who played on the 1998-99 New Jersey Nets with ... Mark Hendrickson, who played on the 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers with ... Olmedo Saenz, who played on the 2002 Oakland Athletics with ... Ray Durham

I understand the politics behind hitting a woman and that it is a terribly disgusting act, but Meriweather is intentionally trying to shorten the already short working career of NFL players while inflicting bodily harm against these men. I find that worse. This isn't a fist fight, but rather trying to actively worsen the overall livelihood of these people. He's a punk ass POS who needs to be removed from playing football all together. Greg Williams was suspended indefinitely for his role in head hunting or whatever, intentionally trying to hurt people. How do you not suspend Meriweather the same amount given the precedent?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 06:19 PM) So you have a better chance of reaching base the first time than any other. Interesting. And also more likely to hit the ball for extra bases later on, which increases run probability. That was a limited sample size from one season. EDIT: You can pick and choose what you want, but you know better than that and you can clearly see that he's worse the 3rd time through the lineup. Anything else is being ignorant of facts. It's not a lot worse, but it's worse.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 03:24 AM) Paulie is too proud to hit .195 or something. Don't worry. If he after 2 months is hitting like that, believe me, he'll retire. I am almost sure he's going to try it again. I have vibes he feels like he can still play. I'd give him a one-year deal for 4 million with a team option for the second year. So two years, 8 mill, but only one year guaranteed. If he doesn't like that, he moves onto the Orioles or somewhere. BTW I'd also offer AJP the same deal. One year 4 mill. The only facet in which Konerko is even remotely valuable any more is as a part time player against LHP, and there are about 30 different guys the Sox can use to do that job. He has been absolutely brutal against RHP for 10 straight months of baseball now. He can't play D and he has never been able to run and he was arguably the worst overall player in the majors last year, everything considered. This isn't like letting Thomas go after 2005. He was still a really good power hitter. This would be like the Mariners bringing Griffey back and then having him retire in May after he falls asleep in the dugout. The more honorable thing to do would be to allow him the opportunity to seek out a contract elsewhere and, when he inevitably fails to receive the starting role he desires, to let him retire as a member of the White Sox and to retire his number next season.

That means they're breaking their own rules then, which makes these even more meaningless and arbitrary.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 04:06 PM) 24th out of 30 teams still very stagnate minor league system wise. Sox have been in the bottom 3rd in MLB for years. System cannot get much worse. Difference between 24th and 30th team in reality is very small. When Sox get to the 15th ranked system then we can talk about being on the rise. This is not including Avisail Garcia and Jose Abreu, as mentioned above. If they were included, it'd be top 15 simply due to their ceilings. The ratings have also never included Chris Sale nor Jose Quintana, both of whom have turned into very, very good pitchers. These rankings provide a reference and nothing more. People get far, far too concerned about where the Sox are ranked in these.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) Nowhere else to go. They could have stagnated or gotten worse. The system has been on the rise for a while now.

This will be without the inclusion of Avisail Garcia too.

Just so we have it on record: Chris Sale 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season.