witesoxfan

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:56 PM) Houston also developed quite a history of that, doing it at least twice and coming VERY close last year as well. The heat in Chicago takes a lot of out us in August and the first half of September. We've traditionally been a lousy second half team, holding on and treading water in 2000 and 2005 and fading in 2003, 2002 and 2006. And WTF? There's a problem apparently with a .553 winning percentage, which is what the Sox put up in 2005. It's not quite .663, but jesus that apparently sucks now a days. They didn't have a shot in 2004, and if they DIDN'T play .600 ball in the second half of 2003, they would have won 75 games. In 2002, their second half brought them to a .500 record. The only thing you can even contest at this point is that the Sox are a lousy second half team under Ozzie Guillen, because under Manuel they finished above .500 in the second half every year this decade (and I didn't bother to look in the 90s, but I assume it wasn't bad), and even that is a pretty small sample size.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:34 PM) They also had to catch only two teams, we will have to pass three, in Detroit, Cleveland and Minnesota. Dude, look at the f***ing numbers and data from year's past; the Twins had to pass three too. They were 12-18 at game 30, behind Cleveland, who was 16-14, and Chicago and Detroit, who I didn't even bother to look up because the Sox had 17 wins in April and the Tigers were good too. And if you try and tell me that Minnesota this year and Cleveland last year aren't comparable teams, I'll call you crazy as hell. Nathan hasn't looked like 04-06 Nathan really at all, the rest of the bullpen has been pretty hittable, and aside from Santana, they don't have one starter who's better than league average, and three of them should have ERAs around 5.00 at the end of the year (if they were to remain in the rotation the rest of the year, which just simply is not possible). The problem is the lack of talent on the White Sox roster, and how injury prone Thome, who is probably the most valuable player to his team than anyone else in the AL, really appears to be at this point. Add to the fact that there is no depth to the bench, this team still won't be able to hit LHP, and Ozzie Guillen is one of the worst game managers in the league (I've never seen as many lineups this year that don't make sense as I have ever, and he still can't manage a bullpen), and the Sox just have little to no chance.

Simply a horrible job of managing by Ozzie in this one. Taking Thornton out against Rabe didn't hurt much until the Sox had to deal with Sisco's s*** in the 10th. The worst move of the night, however, was taking Sisco out. Ozzie apparently hasn't noticed much this year, but Cuddyer's OPS against lefties this year is like .609 and he's hitting .340 against RHP (though that's obviously changing after tonight). Morneau's hitting .224 against them, hasn't walked, and really does nothing against them besides put the ball in the stands. Of course, facing a righty instead didn't change his gameplan. Just horrible managing; it may or may not have won the game, because in the 9th and 10th they looked terrible at the plate.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:35 PM) Man..I know Ozzie has had a man crush on a few players over the years, but he has a full blown hardon for grindErstad. I don't think there is anyway possible he DOESNT get his 600 ABs and 6 mill option, thanks to the mancrush. injuries not wishing, just saying

Rickey Henderson wants Rickey Henderson to leadoff

for the first time in history, thank you Darin Erstad for being in position That could have been super ugly

This team can't do anything right, can they?

White Sox have used 22 lineups in 29 games this year. I thought Ozzie wasn't a tinkering manager. Injuries or not, that's absolutely ridiculous.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:12 PM) If there's one assurance from Iguchi departing next season, it's were about guaranteed Type A compensation. The 2B market is him and Castillo deep. One problem is an obvious one -- who replaces him? No one within our system will. Either we're retaining Iguchi, signing a cheap alternative, or trading for someone I'd take Castillo, but he's about done too. I'm not sure who else there is, but I'm sure KW will find some pet project of his, and all we can do is hope said player works out.

I've never seen a team look so clueless against a slow breaking ball.

Iguchi looks clueless. Get him in the 2 hole Ozzie

jesus AJ thats right f***ing there

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 8, 2007 -> 04:46 PM) All divisional opponents have atleast one player. Detroit -- Verlander (49), Bonderman (30) Royals -- Gordon (23) Minnesota -- Liriano (46), Morneau (40), Santana (3), Mauer (2) Cleveland -- Martinez (37), Hafner (21), Sabathia (17), Sizemore (5) That's not good. Detroit has an additional two players (Granderson/Guillen) deemed honorable mentions. Unless our payroll remains equal to or above 95+ million these next several seasons, blue-chip production from within the minor league system is a necessity to compete. The Sox are old though too Flash. You take 10 or even 6 years off of Thome's body and he might be top 10. Same thing goes for Konerko as well, though he'd be more in the 30-40s range as opposed to the top of the list. I'm obviously not arguing that being old is a good thing, I'm just arguing that the Sox have elite talent as well, it's just on the wrong side of 30. We've both agreed that the Sox are going to have to go into a rebuilding mode within the next 3 years, especially offensively, so the fact that the Sox don't have anyone to build around on this list is completely expected. And I honestly don't care if the Sox keep their payroll at or above $95 million, the Sox need better production from their minor leagues period. KW's done an amazing job at finding players off the scrapheap and has really built a bullpen out of it; however, the Sox need to start producing talent that's not only very good from the minor leagues, but that produces from day 1. Sweeney is a nice looking prospect, but what else is there besides Sweeney offensively? The Sox have a ton of holes about to open up throughout the field, and they have 1 or maybe 2 replacements for those players, and that's if Fields gets his s*** together. The offense is just not looking pretty right now, and that needs to change within the next 2 years. Also, I don't care if Buehrle is in the top 50 or not, he's a guy you can build a rotation around. He's going to be a cog in the rotation for however many years he's signed to, and he's going to put up above average numbers over the duration of his contract without ridiculous peripherals; there's not much value in PECOTA in that, but there is in the rebuilding and baseball aspect.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 8, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) Give em Jell, Havy. haha, my turn jello Havy haha i said jello

QUOTE(joeynach @ May 8, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) I never said they should have or that I wanted to trade them, although I do believe their values were the highest they would have ever been. I wasn't on a trade Dye/Crede campaign but I was on a "I dont expect their #'s from 07 to be that close to their #'s of 06" campaign. My point is on expectations, did you expect Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte to have 2.00 ERA's in 2006 like 05, did you expect Hermanson to start 06 with no ER into June, did you expect Garland to post a 3.50 ERA in 06? I like Dye and Crede for what I believe they are, which is not a .300 hitter for either IMO. Crede is an outstanding defensive 3B with 25 HR pop along with 75-80 RBI. Dye is an aging RF with diminished range, but a decent arm, hes got good pop in the bat, a good low ball hitter who should be around .275-.285 with 30+ HR and 90ish rbi. I think too many people just blindly expected Crede and Dye (as well as some of our 05 guys) to just post #'s similar to the prior year with absolutely when no track record was present. To much of an assumption by saying "well they turned the corner". Thats my point about all those other guys, everyone knew Neal Cotts finally turned the corner in 2005 right, tell that to him in 2006. And the only reason i was talking about career numbers is because that is the mean in the term "regression towards the mean". Its the same thing when a lifetime C student gets and A on one test. In my comparison the lifetime C grades are the same thing as the players career average(s). Sweet, regression to the means exists, I had no idea. Expecting Dye to put up .280 30 90 isn't unrealistic at all because he's done it 2 times with the Sox. He's been injured in the past and recovering from injuries as well (unlike Erstad, who has had fully healthy years and still produced garbage), so to expect his numbers to be a bit lower than they are isn't entirely implausible. If he doesn't hit 30 homers and put up an OPS around .850-.900, I'll be surprised. Also, Crede's entering his prime years and his numbers have improved every year for the past 3. His contact rate has improved, and thus he's seen his average, on-base, and slugging improve over the past 3 years as well. He's playing for the only huge contract he's going to get in his life, so that is a bit of a factor as well. Him putting up .270 25 75 .775 was on the low end of what I would have expected coming into the season, and now it looks about like what I should expect; had he been traded, it's entirely possible he could have put up .310 35 110 .875 and the Sox look like idiots because they wouldn't have gotten near enough value. And dude, if regression to the means is true, progression to the means is true. The Sox had 4 starters in their rotation underachieve last year - 3 quite badly - and to expect them to continue that trend would have been unrealistic. Secondly, there are reasons for all of those pitchers you've mentioned; Politte's arm was shot, Cotts lost the hitch in his delivery, Hermanson's back was done, and Garland had no confidence going inside on hitters (whether you consider that an excuse or a reason is up to you) and he talked about how he had a deadarm period as well; if you look at Garland's numbers, they are grossly disfigured because of his April and May of last year. It would appear the Sox have more of the June-September pitcher than they do the April and May and pre-2005 pitcher, so I'm not worried at all. Basically, you're ripping KW for not preparing for regression to the means, but he already has and he didn't have to do a damn thing to do it. KW put together one of the best looking rosters you'll ever see last year, and had the talent come through and the pitching performed to their career norms, the Sox would have won about 100-105 games last year. As it is, the pitching staff was horrendous and the offense was good, and they ended up with 90 wins. The only thing he's done wrong this year is give this offense a lack of depth; there is no reason at all that Eduardo Perez is not on the roster right now instead of Luis f'ing Terrero.

QUOTE(joeynach @ May 8, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) I never said they should have or that I wanted to trade them, although I do believe their values were the highest they would have ever been. I wasn't on a trade Dye/Crede campaign but I was on a "I dont expect their #'s from 07 to be that close to their #'s of 06" campaign. My point is on expectations, did you expect Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte to have 2.00 ERA's in 2006 like 05, did you expect Hermanson to start 06 with no ER into June, did you expect Garland to post a 3.50 ERA in 06? I like Dye and Crede for what I believe they are, which is not a .300 hitter for either IMO. Crede is an outstanding defensive 3B with 25 HR pop along with 75-80 RBI. Dye is an aging RF with diminished range, but a decent arm, hes got good pop in the bat, a good low ball hitter who should be around .275-.285 with 30+ HR and 90ish rbi. I think too many people just blindly expected Crede and Dye (as well as some of our 05 guys) to just post #'s similar to the prior year with absolutely when no track record was present. To much of an assumption by saying "well they turned the corner". Thats my point about all those other guys, everyone knew Neal Cotts finally turned the corner in 2005 right, tell that to him in 2006. And the only reason i was talking about career numbers is because that is the mean in the term "regression towards the mean". Its the same thing when a lifetime C student gets and A on one test. In my comparison the lifetime C grades are the same thing as the players career average(s). Sweet. Regression to the means exists, who knew? The same philosophy works with the pitching staff too, as the entire pitching staff, save Contreras, pitched worse than their career numbers. So given that Dye regressed to .300 (or .280 if you prefer) 30 100 .900, not his career averages but substantially weaker numbers than last season, you also have to consider that Garland, Buehrle, Vazquez, and Garcia all would have put up ERAs closer to their career norms this year. All the Sox can hope is that those numbers cancel each other out and the result is good for the Sox. And I'm really not sure how you can argue that for Crede. His contact rate has increased over the past 3 years, and in line with that, his average, on-base, and slugging have all increased right along with it. He's entering his prime years and is going to be receiving the only big contract he's going to sign in his career following 2008, so to expect him to regress to the means is a bit extreme, because while he's not going to be an MVP candiate ever, to expect .260/.306/.447/.753 from him following his previous 2 seasons just doesn't seem realistic. I see .270 25 75 .775 as a lower but realistic projection, but not much less than that. There was a great possibility that trading him this offseason would have resulted in seeing him put up .310 35 110 .875 this year, and even trading him at his highest value, they wouldn't have traded him at his highest value. They won't this offseason either, but if they don't, they'll get a compensatory pick for him, and that won't be enough. Politte was a bit smoke and mirrors in 2005, but he also messed up his arm pretty good that year and had surgery following his release from the White Sox organization. That undoubtedly had an effect. Neal Cotts also seemed a bit injured because the hitch in his delivery, which was his deception and made his fastball appear 3-5 MPH faster, was essentially non-existent. Without that, he's a fastball pitcher who throws it in the low 90s, and thus, will get lit up. Hermanson I still believe would pitch well to this day if his back would cooperate. The problem is that his back won't cooperate, and he'll never pitch in the majors again. With his back acting up like it did, he topped out at about 90, and his secondary pitches were just not good enough to compensate for his lack of velocity, and he got rocked. I also never expected Garland to put up a 3.50 ERA again, and I don't think anybody did. But Garland putting up ERAs of like 7 and 6 in April and May of last year killed his ERA for the year, and he was very solid in the second half. That's the pitcher that the Sox have now, and I fully expect him to put up an ERA of around 4.00 this year. Point blank, you're ripping KW for not planning around regression to the means, but he has prepared for that; if regression to the means works for hitters who play above their career norms, then regression to the means works for pitchers who pitch below their career norms. He really didn't need to do a damn thing to fix that. What he hasn't done is put together a complete bench, because there's absolutely no reason Luis Terrero is on this roster over Eduardo Perez. And really, I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't care if Mackowiak played CF one game every week or one every other week. He was bad out there, but it was only exploited because he was a platoon partner with Anderson, not just playing there every now and then.

QUOTE(joeynach @ May 8, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) You dont think any of the sox outfield prospects have the ability to put up dye career #'s of .276 avg and .339 OBP, and 23 Hrs per year (based on 164 hrs between 1999-2006 minus 2003) over their career. You dont think any player KW could possibly acquire via trade or FA could put up those #'s every year or better? No, I don't think any outfielder the White Sox could have acquired could have put up the numbers I suggested Jermaine Dye put up. You're using career averages, which I'm not talking about at all right now and has NEVER been brought into the discussion. The White Sox were counting on Dye to put up about .300 30 100 .900 coming into this season because he's hit 31 and 44 homers in his 2 only years as a member of the White Sox, and has put up OPS's of .845 and 1.007. They were counting on him to be the 5th hitter, and a damn good 5th hitter, in the offense. You have not found me a reasonable player that can put up .300 30 100 .900, and instead have changed the question and put it back on me. Find me one player the White Sox could have acquired that is likely going to put up .300 30 100 .900 that could have been acquired reasonably, and I'll admit that you were right that the Sox should have traded Dye, even considering I don't recall you ever even mentioning the thought that the Sox should trade Dye or Crede in the offseason.

QUOTE(joeynach @ May 7, 2007 -> 11:11 PM) Isn't .300/30/90 regression since his #'s moved toward his career averages from where they were in 06. And once again im not saying its all over on May 7th im speaking of a trend here, not the absoulte certainty. Well apparently $200 Mil payroll hasn't been succesful either how many WS have the yanks had recently. .900. As in OPS. But 90 works too, so that's fine. And that's why KW didn't trade Dye, because it's very likely he's going to be really productive this year. It's also why he hasn't signed him to an extension. I mean, honestly, name me one logical replacement for Dye's production.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ May 7, 2007 -> 10:51 PM) How successful has moneyball been in winning a WS or even getting to one? the Red Sox won

QUOTE(joeynach @ May 7, 2007 -> 10:45 PM) Im not writing them off im siding with the #'s. Those guys u meantion are blips on the radar in terms of what im talking about. Sure u get a few who break out and become stars but most regress. Exactly. Regress from superstar numbers to very good overall numbers. and, again, you're contradicting yourself. You can't say you're not writing them off and then go ahead and side with the numbers come May 7th. There are no substantial numbers to side with. It's likely Dye won't hit 40+ homers again, but I wouldn't write off him putting up .300 30 .900 at all, and that would be perfectly acceptable.

It's the webpage title. I'd imagine someone can change it pretty easily.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 7, 2007 -> 07:41 PM) you ask and you shall receive... except for that fact he has 6 walks, he had a pretty good outing. One can say it was more impressive because he had to constantly pitch around his walks. Or one can say he got lucky he didn't give up 6 runs because he allowed 10 baserunners in 5 innings. It's not a good outing

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 7, 2007 -> 07:13 PM) When's the last time we had a series with the Twinkies where Santana didn't pitch? Not that long ago, September 29-October 1st, 2006. Unless of course you are talking about a meaningful series, in which case it was a 2 gamer, April 18-19, 2005 in Chicago.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 7, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) I don't remember the exact date because I've tried to block that terrible day from my memory. August 1, 2006: Released by the Chicago White Sox

Like 15 threads down