witesoxfan

Just so we see it wasn't edited "Nearly" has two words related to it within the thesaurus - "almost" and "close." I would say that 174.3% more of the 30 innings is nearly almost close to twice as many innings as those same exact precise 30 innings indicated by the Verducci Effect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) That's not "Nearly twice as much", that's an increase of 52.1 innings on top of 170. That's 33% more. You love to nitpick, and you are always wrong when you nitpick me. 52.1 IP is NEARLY twice as many as the 30 IP, as described by the Verducci Effect. Would you like me to clarify this with a percentage next time? (sorry, angry, don't pick on drunk wite)

But what if Ozzie slid spikes up at the umpire after he blew a call?

I mean, where is Geoff Blum when you need him? He hit a homer that meant so much to the White Sox. And, yet nobody gives, him the respect. Geoff Blum might be the most important Sox of all time. Behind Ozzie Guillen. Please, more Geoff Blum.

Yeah, well, yeah. I talk s***, he only homers twice off a former Cy Young winner. ONLY 8 FEWER HITS TO GO GORDON!

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ May 31, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) I'm having a hard time following some of this post, but I'm fascinated by the concepts discussed here. Is the concept that you should not increase ANY pitcher's workload under 25 by more than 30 IP from one year to the next? What is the most innings you would have Chris Sale pitch this season? That is the idea behind the "Year After Effect," which is the system Rick Peterson liked to use. You stretch out arms over the long haul as opposed to jumping that many innings in 1 season. It's been practiced for about 130,000 years. The problem herein lies in the fact that Rick Peterson laid out two numbers - 30 and 25. Because, naturally, any pitcher over the age of 25 who throws 30 more innings than the previous season will see no regression, and any pitcher under the age of 25 who throws fewer than 30 additional innings will not see regression. That's taking it to the extreme, but those are arbitrary numbers. The Nationals made Stephen Strasburg into a modern day Bubble Boy in 2010 and he STILL tore his UCL. It's not like they were doing anything inherently wrong in the way they handled him, s*** just happened. Another example of "the Year After Effect." Mark Buehrle threw 170 innings between the majors and minors in 2000. In 2001, he threw 221.1 innings, which is almost twice as much. In 2002, he threw 239 innings, but because his ERA increased, he actually failed Verducci's "Year After Effect" formula because his ERA increased. Mark Buehrle was a good pitcher in 2002. Yet, according to his theory, there is no correlation between the 260 innings Mark Buehrle threw in 2005 and his horrendous pitching in the second half of 2006. Why can't the Year After Effect work for pitchers who are over 25? ... I'm ranting. The general thought process behind the Year After Effect is good, it's just extremely flawed, and anybody who takes it for more than the paper it's printed on (I read it only, so the paper is non-existent) is going up creek without a paddle. Oh, and for my guess as to how many innings Sale should throw...I'm going to hope for 160-108. Sounds good to me. That most I'd HAVE him throw is

RBI is a dependant statistic and one that should be ignored when comparing hitters unless you have the ability to hold something constant, which is never the case in baseball. It's cool and all, but Jeff Francouer drove in 208 runs between 2006 and 2007, and, yes, drove in 100+ both seasons. His combined OPS in those 2 seasons was .762, which, during that period of baseball, was good for an OPS+ of 95. QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ May 31, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) I would gladly take 1600 future PAs of .262 Gordon Beckham after 1600 PAs of .246 Gordon Beckham. Given 533 PAs a season, that's 8-9 more hits a season. It's 1-2 hits more per month. It's a minuscule number of hits more per game. I'd rather see a .246 Beckham who hits 15 homers a season than a .262 Beckham who hits 10, because then we know he has added atleast 5 runs among those 8-9 hits that he's lost. QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ May 31, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) Yes. As stated in the original post, Crede has more homers than Beckham. This accounts for the difference in SLG. Not once in this thread did I mention that their SLG was similar. For whatever reason, you also didn't mention strikeouts. Not even looking at their first 1600 PAs, just based on careers, Gordon Beckham already has 1 season where he struck out more than 100 times. Joe Crede never did that. In fact, in 3,377 PAs, Crede struck out 459 times. In 1,676 PAs, Beckham has already struck out 301 times, and I don't really recall anybody talking about Beckham's strikeouts ever really being a big problem, because frankly, they're not. It's not a strong part of his game, but it's much worse than Crede unless he can somehow channel his inner-Dimaggio and strike out only 158 times between now and 1700 PAs from now. That part is important, because Beckham is a better hitter than Crede was. Crede was solid, but because of his ability to make good contact, he simply found more holes on balls that Beckham strikes out on. Beckham has good bat speed, better than Crede, but it's generally too long and is not a problem that is easily correctable. I really like Beckham too. Perhaps he'll start and/or continue hitting at some point down the line.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 30, 2012 -> 06:14 PM) I don't actually think they should do this, but the thought came to me that maybe they should shut Sale down now until after the break. Keep Quintana going through interleague and the rest of the first half. If he's good, then maybe you feel comfortable trading Floyd. Then Sale gets 15 starts/100 innings in the second half. That would put him at 155-160 innings going into the postseason. Yes, let's move him from the rotation to the bullpen to the rotation to shutting him down BACK to the rotation. THAT'S how you develop a young arm. Good lord. --- The biggest stigma of limiting young pitcher's innings on the Internet generally stems from the Verducci Effect. The Verducci Effect stems from Verducci's conversation's and trust within Rick Peterson's school of teaching. And, just so we are all aware, Rick Peterson has not been a pitching coach in the Major Leagues since 2010. To clarify the rule here, it tracks the proceeding season of a pitcher 25 years or younger who increased their workload by 30 or more innings who pitched in the major leagues during that season. The 2 rules for the season after that...the season Verducci tracks...are that: 1) The pitcher can't get hurt 2) The pitcher can't put up a worse ERA which means that, yes, in fact, John Danks is a case of the Year After Effect because he put up a 3.77 ERA in 2009. Nevermind the fact that he was a legitimate #2 starting pitcher, noooooo, he is a perfect example a pitcher who faced the ramifications of a super increased workload the following season. If anything, he's looking like the perfect example of the reason why you don't resign pitchers to long-term contracts. Oh, BTW, David Price, also a perfect example of the Year After Effect. I mean, come on, 2.72 ERA in 208 innings compared to 3.49 ERA in 224 innings? OBVIOUS REGRESSION AND HE IS TERRIBLE. It's overly cited and generally overblown. There is some credence to it, naturally, but to inhibit a pitcher from continuing their development because they've reached the 30 inning threshold? It's stupid. If those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their careers, then they weren't going to succeed anyways, and if those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their health (as a pitcher), then they weren't going to remain healthy anyways. As an example, Kyle Lohse was a pitcher who was developed "properly." (psssst, don't mind the fact that in 2000, he put up an ERA of 6+ at AA...ERA DOESN'T MATTER IN THE MINORS HEHEHEHE) 98 - 170.2 IP 99 - 165 IP 00 - 167 IP 01 - 177.1 IP (between MiLB and MLB, so the year it would take effect). ERA was 2.79 MiLB, 5.68 MLB 02 - 180.2 IP, 4.23 ERA 03 - 201 IP, 4.61 ERA - 24 years old So, uhhhhhhh...Year After Effect? Nope, because he was "properly developed." --- The idea of shutting Chris Sale down is silly and absurd. If his arm can't handle 170 innings, then he's destined for a career in the bullpen or following the shadow of someone like, I dunno, KERRY WOOD. The main concept behind the Verducci Effect is to protect young arms when and where you can. Develop them slowly and build the innings up over time. It all makes sense. But if you are 4 games up in the division come mid-August and you decide to shut your best pitcher down because of some arbitrary number that some pitching coach came up with at some point along the way, then you are bound and determined to sabotage your own season. It sounds like something the f***ing Montreal Expos would do.

I read the topic. Didn't care about anything else anybody else has said, so if what I say is aforementioned, then many kudos. - It depends upon which time you were talking about. Had the Sox not traded for Jim Thome, they'd have been left with an 02-04ish offense, hoping and praying that Frank Thomas could stay healthy. They'd still be destroyed by great right handed pitching, and as a result probably would have only won 87 games instead of 90. That's IF they had kept Thomas. Had they still let Thomas walk, the best case scenario I can see is that they would have ended up with Nomar Garciaparra. They still lose 3 wins. That's at the very best. Now, if you're an old school type who believes that protection in the lineup helps generate production from other players, than perhaps Jermaine Dye doesn't hit 44 home runs, perhaps Paul Konerko doesn't put up the exact same numbers as MVP Justin Morneau, and perhaps other pieces from the lineup fall as well. Perhaps the Sox lose 10 wins, are ridiculously far out of it at the break, and deal Freddy Garcia for 2 other prospects. And then never get Gio back, and after another very bad year in 2008, the Sox fire both Williams and Guillen and hire Dan Evans and Gene Lamont to run the team. I think we all know how that one goes. Now, had they not traded him the second time, which is the one I think you are getting at, having never read a single word of your post, then the Sox don't end up with Nick Swisher. Now, depending upon how strictly and strongly you believe in the statistic WAR, and whose definition you believe most in (baseballreference or fangraphs), the Sox are either better off without Swisher (-0.5 bWAR) or Nick Swisher was worth more than 1 win for the 2008 Chicago White Sox (1.3 fWAR). I give much more credence towards fWAR but I'm a homer, so do as you please. But since, in this revisionist's history, we are using that, and we are using it to mean Nick Swisher was literally worth 1+ more wins than the average Joe they could have put in place, then what we would have seen would have been DeWayne Wise putting up 2 WAR in August alone and -3 WAR in the months outside of that, given general estimation. On top of that, even had the Sox found a perfect replacement level player to play instead of Swisher, who would have put up exactly a 0 fWAR, the Sox would have given up the division lead in the second game in the Metrodome, the final win against Cleveland wouldn't have mattered, they'd have never played the makeup game against Detroit, and the blackout game would have never taken place, thus, no Griffey/Thome/Danks show, and we would have never seen the batting champion-to-be bunt in his last plate appearance of the year attempting to get on base. At that point in time, 2009 would have been far more disappointing, and the Sox almost certainly would have never had the resources to sign Dayan Viciedo during the 2008-09 offseason. They'd be in a full blown rebuilding mode, still with Dan Evans and Gene Lamont in charge. Going into the 4th year of Reinsdorf's always too generous length of stay, the Sox would be coming off their 2nd straight 90+ loss season with an absolute garbage product on the field but hope beyond hope in the minors with a top 10 system in the league. But atleast they'd still have Gio f***in Gonzalez.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 29, 2012 -> 10:39 PM) Fixed for a world of accuracy. Davey Johnson is right there too.

QUOTE (Tmar @ May 28, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) You spelled your name wrong, you are missing the h Yeah, well, you're like a pirate cuz you're missing an i

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 29, 2012 -> 11:41 PM) How do you know? This is the first sign of life of this team in a long time. When the team actually does something of note it's easier to stay loyal during the rough patches. Only somebody like El Rockin cannot be fazed of the lousy play of the last two plus seasons. Your post is quite offensive. You don't know anything about my fandom. I've rooted for this team forever, since my days as a kid on the south side. Rios is my least favorite player ever. Yes he is. Always will be. So what? When the team is clicking and playing well and winning, there's no reason to talk about his contract. It doesn't matter. Haven't you heard the saying, "Just Win Baby?" Best athletic saying of all time. Winning shuts everybody up. You offend me. Low blow. And my Ozzie posts are always in response to people who blast Ozzie. I don't bring up the topic. i stand up for the man. If the season ended today he and Robin would be likely candidates for NL and AL manager of the year. Did you miss the 49 games before this? The team has been playing pretty damn well all year.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 29, 2012 -> 11:34 PM) While DV's walk rate hasn't really risen, he's gotten more selective. He's swinging at less bulls*** that results in soft contact and his two strike approach is notably different...I haven't looked to verify but it seems like he just doesn't strike out anymore. If DV has two more weeks like his previous two, he'd make the damn All-Star team. That's crazy. I hope he has a lot more runs like this throughout his career. In his first 31 games, he was striking out at a 29.2% clip. In the last 15 games, he's struck out at a 6.7% rate. Yeah, it's better.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 29, 2012 -> 10:12 PM) Great team effort today. Solid outing by Humber. Tank now at .280. Somebody give me his numbers since he was under .200 3 weeks ago. They gotta be incredible. NOT including tonight's game .400/.411/.800/1.211, (22 for 55), 1 2B, 7 HR, 1 BB, 4 K, oh, and 13 games started, 14 games total

Soon enough, pitchers will just stop throwing him hittable pitches. That's when you figure out how far he's come. He is an absolute pleasure to watch hit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) B/A looks at Castro http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospe...-for-white-sox/ Well at the very least, he sounds like a promising relief prospect.

QUOTE (JoshPR @ May 26, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Uzr and bill James are worthless Trollers gonna troll

QUOTE (knightni @ May 28, 2012 -> 11:55 AM) wtf is "eventruths"? QUOTE (sunofgold @ May 27, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) DAng, MANto can fix 'em! Really same hitters as last year. Overall so much better. He can eventruth a .300 hitter into .400 hitter. Bravo, bravo! It's a very good question, but it sounded impressive, so I put a meme on it.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 28, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) Weird thought process of the day looking at the pinned threads "Soxtalk WANTS YOU and "FutureSox needs you" . But there ain't no way Palehose talk is ever gonna love you , now don't be sad , cuz 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Only a few will understand . You have me crying icicles instead of tears. On a quick note, I started singing that song walking down the streets of Beijing.

QUOTE (sunofgold @ May 27, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) DAng, MANto can fix 'em! Really same hitters as last year. Overall so much better. He can eventruth a .300 hitter into .400 hitter. Bravo, bravo!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 27, 2012 -> 10:40 PM) I bought a tight watch today. Was it a Fossil? Because if it was...WATCH out.

Did you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that the White Sox play in Chicago? f***ING WHITE SOX WOOO f*** YEAH BRO

QUOTE (farmteam @ May 26, 2012 -> 10:48 PM) Legalize it. If by it, you mean allowing them to have miniature horse races in my back yard, then I agree.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 27, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) I was thinking the same thing, but the umpire clearly signaled for an out. Maybe as long as you take off in the field of play it's an out. No, he probably called it an out because it was such an awesome play.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD FREDDIE MERCURY