witesoxfan

Oh man, I missed some good ones in here QUOTE (sammy esposito @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 09:24 PM) Even if we are in contention at the trade deadline, Shark could be traded for some quality prospects. No QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 08:41 AM) Geez, I hope it doesn't come down to that -- trading Shark for prospects next June. If that happens, I'm certain the prospects offered will not be as good as Bassitt, Ravelo, and Semien. LOL what? I really like the prospects the Sox gave up but they have ceilings of average players. Frankly, the Sox could easily get more for Samardzija at the deadline, but they won't be dealing him unless it's an absolutely terrible, terrible season.

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Mar 8, 2015 -> 07:27 PM) The White Sox have five starting pitchers under contract on the major league roster and two viable major league lefities in the bullpen. Tony Clark can look all he wants. Me personally, I'd rather spend April and May in Charlotte as opposed to Chicago. Charlotte is super duper this time of year. Say you're getting paid to do this, and you make 7x what you do in Chicago versus Charlotte. Then say spending time in Chicago increases your own ability to make 100-200x the amount you'd make in Charlotte. You really prefer the weather that much?

There is some skewing bias for exaggerated effect, as the y-scale only shows 28-37, thus implying a drastic difference of a projected WAR of 36 for the O's and Rays between a 30.5 WAR difference the Nats, when really we know that the expected error of the projection process itself is 7 WAR. It doesn't mean NOTHING, but it goes to show the MLB is playing enough games that the strength of schedules don't matter a whole ton. Beyond that, strength of schedule is so silly because injuries occur and breakouts happen and we have no way of projecting those ever and that's why baseball (and all sports) are so awesome, so it establishes false beliefs - "we had a tough schedule" "the teams on our schedule played better than they should have" "we were never expected to win" "of course they should have won, look at how weak their schedule was." Push come to shove, win the games. The Sox sucked in high leverage spots last year. They can't do that again and expect to compete. I'm drunk, so while I love Sullivan, his article was TL;DR to me at this moment, but I havent posted anything on here in days and god that felt so good.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 10:00 PM) Fielding % and range factor combined are a pretty good indicator. Sanchez at second had better range as well. To put the fielding % in real numbers, they both played about 60 games at 2nd base. Sanchez got to more balls and made 4 errors and Johnson made 9 errors. Except that fielding percentage and range factor are not good indicators because they are dependent on scorekeepers and pitching staffs or the lineups you face. There can be a guy with a fielding percentage of .995 but it doesn't mean he's a good defender, merely a defender with good enough hands and a good enough throwing arm to avoid making errors. With regards to range factor, it simply measures how many putouts and assists you make per inning. If you field behind a flyball pitching staff or strikeout pitching staff, your number is already going to be artificially low. What if it's a righty heavy lineup with a bunch of pull hitters? These things have to be taken into consideration when looking at statistics like these. Beyond any of this, players in the minor leagues will be more raw defensively, but it's something that they can improve over time and much of the time, there is a drastic improvement that occurs within the first year or two of playing in the major leagues. That's why I don't feel comfortable dictating that someone is or is not a good fielder based on those two metrics...quite often, they are wrong and there is no indication that they will show success.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 02:01 PM) The Sox could trade for more cap space before July 2nd. Let's say Rodon, who I think should start the year at AAA, pitches his way into the rotation, then a guy like John Danks becomes expendable and for him you could get multiple INTL bonus pool slots for him. I don't think anybody is even giving you that for John Danks. The Cubs got Tommy La Stella. Tommy La Stella is a cheap, average-ish player. You still have to give something of value to get that value, and I'm just not sure we see that with Danks.

HEY, THIS THREAD IS CLOSED BOZO

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 12:40 PM) If I underestimate their win total by 10 this year, then overestimate their win total by 10 next year, would you consider me spot on? If you did this for a few years for multiple teams, yes I would, and that maybe there was a flaw in your ability to project it per season but that, given a 324 game stretch, you were spot on, I'd say your analysis was very good and would be interested in reading how you came to those conclusions.

10 years of team performance versus projections This is an awesome article and those who question projections should find this to be a fairly informative read. They are imperfect and are not always right, but they aren't incredibly wrong, especially considering it's something that has yet to happen. Also of note...dis graph Over the last 5 years, the White Sox have actually underperformed their projections by 1 game, which means they've been pretty much spot on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 09:58 AM) Barring injury, I'd say that Perticka and Jennings are also locks. I think they are likely to make it, but there are situations I can see where they wouldn't keep them. Jennings is basically a flyer despite having put up good numbers previously because the club obviously wasn't high on Rienzo, so I don't think there's attachment there. Petricka has option and if he has no command, I don't think they are married to the idea of him being in the pen. Literally, the short list for guaranteed bullpen pitchers are Robertson and Duke.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 09:17 AM) Going for the amphetamines? and/or cocaine.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) I have no idea what has changed. Have pitchers/catchers gotten better at holding players on? I doubt that. Vince Coleman stole at like an 85% clip during his first 3 years when he was stealing 100+, so even the craziest sabermetric person would say "run like crazy" to a player who's succeeding at that rate. The only thing I can guess that might have changed is that the 100+ steal guys were all on steroids or some other drugs. Maybe something became available in the late 70s/early 80s that really worked to keep those guys bodies from falling apart? There could have been a little *something* that was putting a little pep in their step too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 09:04 AM) I'm much less confident in this set of statements than I am in saying we'd have won the 06 Central had Mackowiak never played CF, but I thought Anderson could have had a much better shot had the team developed him better. Between not getting him at bats to struggle through in 2006 and being inconsistent with his playing time afterwards, they never gave him a real solid chance to turn into a big league hitter. There was at least one spring training, I think it was 08? where he looked very different at the plate. More compact approach, more compact swing, then he sat for >2 weeks at the start of the year and by the time he was back in the box he looked like he did the previous years, standing back up with a much longer, slower swing. Never good get into a groove when they would occasionally get into an approach taht worked. yeah, even if that was done better he might well still have busted. Some guys do party their way out of the league, some guys are too stubborn to learn and think they can get by on athleticism alone because that's what they've always done. Still would have had fewer complaints if I thought they did a better job working him. I don't know that I'm completely on board with your belief that Mackowiak in CF in 2006 cost the Sox the division, but I'm completely on board with Anderson being ruined to some extent by Ozzie. I certainly don't think Anderson did himself any favors during that time, but he's a young player and you need to give them a chance and let them fail a few times so that they can learn from those mistakes. Ozzie never did that, lost his faith in Anderson, and then the Erstad experiment began in 2007. I'm one of the few, but I think there's a legitimate chance we see Anderson at some point during the season.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 08:55 AM) Billy Beane knows that the Sox are going to develop a pressing need for Viciedo, and that he will in turn be able to have his way with their farm system. Really though, I think he's probably just banking on the chance that he'll be able to flip him to someone, probably looking for power, for something- provided Viciedo doesn't s*** his pants in the batters box. I would put the odds of Billy Beane getting value out of Dayan Viciedo at 100:1. There's no need to overthink this. It took Viciedo like 2-3 weeks to find a suitor at virtually no cost. Viciedo is still young, and he's still talented. Whether that talent will ultimately translate is an entirely different story.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 08:55 AM) but they are being smart on their spending. coming out of nl west, who do you think it will be?? Who is being smart with their spending? Of the teams mentioned recently within this thread, I'd say the Yankees have been the most diligent, which is awfully strange to say, and they are only being diligent because they have a ton of other bad contracts still on the books.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 08:51 AM) i love the pict.... is that from the hobbit pict?? but for me, i don't get it, with ref to greg's post. my bad. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hot%20take Perhaps that's incorrect though. This may be a strong take instead. And if it's not apparent, I think greg's post is so obviously over the top absurd, ridiculous, and wrong that I decided to not even bother with an actual response as it appears to me to be more trolling for responses than it does an actual opinion. Here is my actual response: if you feel that it's so damn easy greg, quit your current job and go do it, because teams would gladly pay you millions of dollars a year if you can isolate and identify the top players in the country who will then develop into the top players in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 08:46 AM) and in this situation, continuing to spend, while not a lot of money on salary, compared to what the dodgers or red sox or the yanks (90's). the money spent is worth it. they are still banking a huge profit. I don't understand what you're implying here.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 08:37 AM) thanks still brings up a interesting question, i wonder as of right now, who are on the short list to go north when the team breaks for the start of the season. David Robertson Zach Duke That's your short list of guys who are guaranteed spots in the bullpen.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 07:52 PM) Baseball must truly be the most difficult sport to make it in. And must have the worst talent evaluators of any sport. Here's yet another example. Brian Anderson. You watch this guy hit during his prime and you could tell pretty quick he had no chance. Yet scouts raved about this guy as a 5 tool player. What did scouts see in him? He looked like a pitcher at the plate. He stood straight up and had no clue basically. Pretty good defender though. CJ Henry was a first round pick of the Yankees. One of the worst athletes you'll ever see. All the busts the Sox have had and other teams. These scouts are miserable. The NBA scouts will be rivaling baseball if they keep drafting these college freshmen, though. Just some of these Kansas guys ... Thomas Robinson a top five pick?? Can't play. Julian Wright in lottery? Ha. Xavier Henry lottery? Showed nothing. But the Brian Anderson story is a sad one. He blames his partying choices, etc. I just don't know if the talent was there to hit a moving baseball.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) Well, I've no longer penciled him in, let's say that. Right, but unless it's the most extreme of cases (Rodon), I think penciling guys in at any point is the wrong idea anyways. I'm extremely excited about the prospects of Tim Anderson, but penciling him in as a starter at the MLB level 2 or 3 years from now is still a stretch. He'll likely get a chance, but we have no idea what anything holds. That's why building the farm system up to have tons of depth is so important, because these guys will bust and having back up plans in place in the event they do is very important.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 07:30 AM) Heh... Viciedo seems like the last player Beane would want with the A's philosophy/style. Eh, talented player, low cost, it's a fit. It's not like he signed him to a 3 year, $30 million deal.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 05:27 PM) FWIW---- Johnson has a career .959 fielding average in the minors. Sanchez is .973 Johnson needs more time in AAA. The White Sox were one of the worst fielding teams in baseball last season. Johnson would make them a little worse ( compared to Beckham )since only LF will have a new face and Alexei is a year older. Fielding percentage is a pretty weak indicator of true defensive ability, and it's not as if making 96% of the plays that you get to is unacceptable. Sanchez makes 97.5%, so in theory, Sanchez makes one or two more outs per 100 plays than Johnson. That doesn't include the idea that Johnson may exhibit better range than Sanchez given his superior athleticism, but it's also not counting plays that Sanchez may make because of a stronger arm either. I haven't seen a ton of Johnson in the field but there's no reason to assume that he's bad. Also, depending on what metric you use, the Sox were OK and nowhere near one of the worst fielding teams in the league last year. 3B, 1B, and RF were their primary weak spots. Probably average or so overall. And really, they haven't done much to change that in the starters - Cabrera is probably going to be similar to De Aza, Garcia has better instincts but is still awkward like Viciedo, and 2B should be about a wash overall. Really, I don't care who starts, I just want whoever is the best player to start at 2B.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 04:02 PM) Same. I might be his biggest supporter, and we might be of few that have not given up on him. He has a good year, he is the future 3B. Well if people have given up on him, they're crazy. I am not optimistic about him making it, but you don't give up on a guy like that.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 02:05 PM) Thanks for this. If you ever read Larry on SSS I'm the exact same way on Micah. I don't see the hype and I guess I don't see why the hell the Sox do. I mean, WTF has he done other than put together 200 nice PA in high A ball? He hasn't even STAYED HEALTHY in for a full season yet. FFS, back the hype train up on this guy. The Sox can totally carry Sanchez' 240/280/330 if he's 10 runs above average at 2B, and I think he is. Micah won't hit much more than that and he might be -20 runs at 2B. Put him AAA, wtf is the rush. #1, I don't know how you can figure that Micah is a -20 at 2B while Sanchez is a +10. That's a 3 WAR difference. That's the difference between the Pedroia (20.3) and Jose Altuve (-10). Those are first and last on the list. That's absurdly large. #2, I don't understand why you feel that Johnson is THAT poor of a defender. His hands aren't soft and the arm isn't great, but he's got a good deal of range. #3, I don't think there's a rush. I think if he impresses the coaches enough and they feel he's the guy for the job, they'll go with him. I don't think anything's guaranteed.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 11:42 AM) That's what I think as well. Just because he wasn't much at AAA shouldn't play a role. Many guys have gone from AA to the major leagues. I think the Sox will be very dissappointed if Micah has a poor spring and winds up in AAA. Now is a good time to break him in. He can hit 9th. I am worried about the glove. The other thing I think about when considering this is the respective floors versus their ceilings. I think Beckham and Sanchez will both be below average players, but Johnson has the talent to at least be an average starter or better, while his floor is that of a guy who is a replacement level player. There's not a huge difference in overall value between a replacement player and Beckham/Sanchez at this point.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 26, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) I really think it's Micah's job to lose. At this point Sanchez may be a little better, but the difference shouldn't be much and because the Sox view Micah Johnson as the future they are going to give him every opportunity to prove himself. This is how I feel too. I feel like if Johnson shows he can handle it this Spring, it'll be his. If he can't, they'll go with Sanchez.