Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 20, 2014 -> 08:23 PM) We tried to and still are trying to move Viciedo to fit Melky under our payroll. One way or the other, Viciedo's contract won't be on our books come opening day. Now if we want to sign more free agents, we'd need to move John Danks, and good luck finding any takers for him. I definitely think we'll move Viciedo, but it has nothing to do with Melky's salary. Hahn made it pretty clear that Reinsdorf agreed to increase payroll in order to sign Melky. Any savings by moving Viciedo will likely go towards adding bench pieces that are better fits than Tank. I really don't think we have to clear salary at this point.

This Freddy was a rental talk is absurd, the Sox knew they'd be able to extend him when they made the deal. GreenSox, it seems you care more about winning trades than winning World Series.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 20, 2014 -> 07:27 PM) There are no rumors of him to the Sox. I can't wait to see the board go sour on him when it's revealed to be the Cubs. EDIT: After Melky signing, Rock hinted that we done with signings and need to move contracts to just fit Melky in the cap. This guy could cost anywhere from $15-50 mil, so don't get your hopes to high He's looking for $5M to $6M a year per his agent. If that's the case, we could free a big chunk of that by moving Viciedo. And we definitely don't have to move contracts for Melky. Reinsdorf gave the ok to increase payroll before signing him.

Not that it matters, but I think his name is spelled Jung not Jeong if a mod wants to change.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 20, 2014 -> 06:53 PM) Texas is out: Max Wildstein @MaxWildstein · 23m 23 minutes ago #Rangers did NOT place the winning bid of $5MM on Jung-ho Kang, sources tell @StevensonFWST. #MLB At this point it has to be the White Sox, what other teams are left that make sense?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 20, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) Yea I get that, but I just don't understand the rush on here. It's kinda creepy because he hasn't even pitched an inning here. Just leaves this uneasy feeling in my stomach listening to this extension talk before any of us know what we have. Makes me kind of want to puke out of embarrassment for our organization if they are actually trying to extend him now. Hopefully that talk is just to appease the Chicago media idiots who think this situation is somehow related to the cubs trying to extend him. No similarities whatsoever. Let's not be the creepy and desperate organization. Let's be pro and make him prove himself first. Mercy of the heavens! I've got to be honest, I 100% disagree with you here. Every day Shark goes unextended is a day closer to free agency for him and ultimately some ridiculous offer from another team that we'll be unable or unwilling to match. You waiting for him to "prove it" for whatever reason just makes it more unlikely we'll keep him long-term.

Has there even been any speculation of us being interested? He could make some sense for us dependng on the price.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 06:05 PM) What I thought about while reading was - okay, so we know actual WAR is very predictive of actual wins and that projected WAR is fairly predictive of actual wins. What would be nice is a comparison to other things. Maybe compare against analysts' predictions and against some other statistics, like bWAR or WARP or non-sabermetric statistics. I think you're reaching a bit here. I won't deny that actual WAR is fairly predictive of actual wins, but projected WAR doesn't seem to be very predictive of actual wins. I mean, we're only talking about a .43 r2 between projected and actual WAR. And again, actual WAR is fairly predictive of actual wins, but it's far from perfect (BTW, not suggesting it should be). So saying projected WAR is "fairly predictive" of actual wins doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. I would say that projected WAR is directionally right more often than not, but it will still have its fair share of misses, some of which are quite sizable. I'm not arguing that these projection systems don't provide value, because they do, but I would never use them more than a frame of reference when setting my own expectations. Without more human input, the accuracy of these protection systems will always be limited.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) Wouldn't be surprised if Micker is knocking on the ML Team's door in 2017. Is he he even going to play full season ball this year?

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 08:36 PM) I'll take the pick, and better chance for sustained success. A 3rd round pick offers a better chance of success than Melky Cabrera?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 04:39 PM) General rule of thumb is to stay away from work relationships, right? Don't think my son agrees with that rule. I would just take things slow.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 06:59 PM) 4 games. He started as a leadoff hitter 4 times. Joe the genius Maddon had Desmond Jennings leading off most of the year. .301 OBP as a leadoff man. Are you suggesting it was a smart decision then? And Desmond Jennings had a wRC+ of 105 last year, Leury Garcia had a wRC+ of 2 (worst in baseball). Not exactly a great comparison.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) Yes, you CAN quantify it. The average cost of an out is -0.299 runs across all base/out states. Given Leury's .268 OBP and Alexei's All-Star™ .305 OBP, Alexei could have been expected to avoid that cost four percent more often. FanGraphs game logs (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=5913&position=2B) show us that Leury had exactly 30 PA as a leadoff hitter last year. If Robin had magically known what Leury's OBP was, he could be expected to reach base 8.04 times out of the 30. Alexei, on the other hand, could have been expected to reach 9.15(!) times over those same 30 plate appearances. If luck was on his side, Alexei could have prevented that 0.299 run loss once! Holy crap, batting Alexei instead of Leury at leadoff could have given us an almost 30% chance to score ONE more run last year! What if that one run could have been the difference between winning 73 and 74 games? It's reeling. Except it's WAY less than that because Leury would have had to have batted somewhere else in the lineup. Oh, and many of those PA came as a pinch hitter, making the math even more ridiculous. Also, that run value for an out is from the steroid era, so it's actually too high. So no, it didn't and doesn't matter. At all. I am a batting order nazi, and even I can admit that the difference in batting Leury first instead of some other slightly less bad leadoff option for like 4 games over the course of an entire season is not even REMOTELY close to being beneficial enough to shake up a lineup, even if you BARELY believe in there being a negative effect to shaking up a lineup. You're grasping at straws here. I love you measure context by citing linear weights. Not all outs are created equal, which is you're completely ignoring. An out right in front of Jose Abreu is much more costly than an out by #7 hitter all else being equal. But hey, all outs = -.299 runs. Regardless, Leury Garcia posted a .067 OBP in the leadoff spot last year. Alexei's career average in the leadoff spot is .339. So in just those 30 at-bats, Alexei could have reached base 8 more times. I'm not going to argue the significance of that, but that's a better estimate of the opportunity cost than the one you provided. You can't put the worst hitter in baseball in a high pressure spot and expect the same exact outcome. My main point all along was that Robin makes numerous decisions that go against all available information. I cited a specific example that I find particularly mind-boggling and you basically said it's ok because "it doesn't matter". I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time arguing this. Whether you think that particular decision was material or not, there's no denying it was a stupid decision. Managers should be evaluated by their decision-making process and somehow Robin Ventura thought the worst hitter in baseball was the best alternative for the leadoff spot on multiple occasions.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:14 PM) Leury batted leadoff three times all season. Robin made a lot more questionable decisions than those three widely spread out chances to lead off aside from three times that he batted second, he never batted above 8th Unless I'm looking at something wrong, I see seven games he started in the leadoff spot and three in the two hole. 10 starts batting first or second. And I totally misread the #9 spot numbers, he did get the bulk of his starts at the bottom of the lineup like he should have. Regardless, 10 starts at the top of the lineup is poor decision-making. Any option would have been better than Leury Garcia, that's the point I'm making.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) You are making the assumption that this is his logic here. He never said anything close to that. Even if he did say it, he would never come out and say that such and such player would be a guaranteed 0-4 in the leadoff spot (or any other spot), because he mentally couldn't handle the challenge. It is the same sort of thing between working the 7/8th inning and closing. By the numbers, it shouldn't make a difference. Between the ears, it does for many. If you move around an entire line up to cover the sitting of one guy, you exponentially increase the odds of someone being in a spot they aren't comfortable with. When you bat the worst hitter in baseball leadoff who also happens to be very fast, I don't think I'm assuming anything. This wasn't a one time thing and I'm sure I could find other speedy guys he's handled similarly if I wanted to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) That can also come from knowing your players. Some guys can't handle change. Some guys take change too seriously. Changing around your entire line up to replace the leadoff hitter could do more damage than just putting a bad hitter into the leadoff spot for a day. It was a lot more than 1 game, he had more starts in the leadoff spot than any other spot in the lineup. And the two hole was his next most frequent spot. More often than not, he batted right in front of Abreu when he started. And we're talking about the WORST hitter in Major League Baseball last year. He posted a wRC+ of 2, the absolute lowest amongst players with 100+ plate appearances. Just watching him you could tell he was not a major league hitter. Under no circumstance should he ever bat leadoff. I don't care if someone is uncomfortable for a couple days, you're better off putting a halfway decent hitter in front of Abreu than Leury Garcia. But you got to love Robin's logic, fast guys must bat at the top of the lineup regardless if they can hit or get on-base.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) There wasn't any. It didn't matter. God I knew you were going to say something like this. A f***ing stupid decision is acceptable because the old "it didn't matter" excuse. The problem is that these stupid little decisions can have a real impact on the outcome of individual games. Just because you're unable to quantify what that impact is doesn't mean it's not real. Context does matter and Leury Garcia batting leadoff in front of Abreu very well could of cost us a game last year.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) Mostly the latter. Everyone needs a scapegoat and people, for some reason, refuse to judge decisions based on the information that was available at the time. Please tell me what information was available that suggested Leury Garcia should ever bat leadoff? He posted a -81 wRC+ over 10 games in that spot last year, there's really no excuse for the decision.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) Of course the talent effects what he can do. For example, what if you are in a game situation that calls for a pinch hitter. Everyone knows it, Robin, Hawk, the announcer, the metrics guy and every fan in the stadium. Robin looks down his bench and sees....................... Leury Garcia. Now even though every knows he should pinch hit do you go with Garcia? What is the likelyhood that the decision will succeed? The talent definitely dictates what the manager can do. When did I say talent doesn't effect what a manager can do? I'm judging him based on what he can control, so if he doesn't have the right players to execute a specific action then of course I don't hold that against him. However, if he tries to force an action that is unlikely to succeed because he doesn't have the right guys, then he should definitely receive criticism for that. A good manager adjusts his strategy based on the strengths and weaknesses of his players.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 07:47 AM) I just read an entire article about it. But that's also my point. You're all basing his worth as manager on the fact that we've had some s***ty teams. Players seem to like playing for him. We just signed all the free agents. There must be a reason players want to be here, right? First, I would question the validity of any stat that attempts to measure effectiveness. If you have a list of some of these metrics then please share. Second, some people may be unable to separate the talent level from the manager' performance, but that doesn't mean we all do. I only worry about the things Robin can control, which talent hasn't nothing to do with. I personally think he's a poor in-game decision-maker. I feel like he doesn't think two or three moves ahead ever. I'm also skeptical that he uses much data in his decision-making. Overall, I just don't find him to be a very strategic person.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 07:31 AM) I'd be curious as to why everyone thinks he's average, or below. Are there statistics? Is it the eye test? Or is it that he bears the brunt of frustrations when the team is full of crappy players? How many statistics are out there for quantifying manager effectiveness?

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 08:26 PM) I think we should sign AJPerz to a one year deal I'm pretty sure Robin isn't a fan of A.J.'s, so I seriously doubt Hahn would think he's worth the trouble.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 10:18 PM) The point is that he got the most out of his terrible bullpen, and that's something to be commended. If you believed this board, the opposite was true. Fortunately the statistics are on Robin's side. I wish I could read the entire article to better comment, but it sounds like you're saying he rode the hot hand successfully, which is a lot easier to accomplish when you have a bunch of unproven relievers. Like Caulfield mentioned, if Robertson struggles next year, Robin will likely give him closing opportunities until he snaps out of his funk. I'm guessing the metrics in the article you posted would fault him for that.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) I'm not sure comparing him to Fredi Gonzalez is exactly the highest bar or standard available. Their teams were in totally different situations in 2014. I'm sure the same article could be written comparing Brad Ausmus and Ventura. The fact of the matter is that Mike Illitch was paying guys like Nathan, Soria and Chamberlain a lot of money to get the job done in a season where they were expected to make the playoffs. What was Belisario's salary last year? $3.5 million? It's not like RV removed A.Miller from high leverage duties in the first year of his four year deal. Now if RV does the same thing with Robertson halfway through 2015, I'd be amazed (and also depressed, simultaneously). This is a great point. We had a bunch of nobody relievers last year. Not sure I'm going to give Robin a lot credit for ditching any of them fairly quickly.

So let me get this straight, our 1-2-3 combined for 14.8 WAR last year but this projection system is projecting 10 total WAR for them next year? And our superstar 1B who put up a 5.3 WAR season last year despite health/conditioning issues is only projected for a 3.7 WAR season? I get how these projection systems work, but I personally find those numbers to be atrocious.