Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:28 PM) My job of course now is to note is how flawed this approach is at building a contender even when you have an example of a player where it worked. It's great for a rebuilding team. You have 5-6 slots on your team that are open and staffed by players who aren't big league quality. You try to bring in 5-6 guys hoping that a few of them will work out - most of the time you will get unlucky. Most of the times you try to sign someone they will underperform - Avila, Jackson, Navarro, Latos. One of the 5-6 signings winds up working out and you're stuck in August complaining about how many slots on your team are taken up by guys who don't belong in the big leagues. When you need to fill 1-2 spots, you have some probability of getting lucky overall. You go out and sign Desmond and he puts up a 3 WAR season (note - this is solid, but still not like stealing an MVP for nothing). You hold onto Fowler and he puts up a dominant season. But in both of those cases these were basically the last guy on that team - the Cubs were, last offseason, in a position where if Fowler put up a 2 WAR season they were still solid on paper because Heyward in RF and Schwarber in LF were going to put up strong numbers, and if they didn't they had enough depth to make up for that. They got lucky on Fowler but they were able to do that because they didn't have to gamble on filling 5-6 positions this way. Finding these guys is a great rebuilding strategy. You sign 5-6 guys off the scrap heap and if 1-2 of them have great seasons then you have an asset you can get a draft pick for, or an asset you can trade at the deadline, or even hold onto if they have multiple years of control remaining. But when you are trying to build 40% of your competitive lineup/rotation with those guys, you better know how you're going to win if 33% of your starting lineup is gone by the end of may. Ahh, should have read this before my last post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:15 PM) It is funny that Rollins/Latos/Jackson gets brought out, but Miguel Gonzalez is never included in that, despite the fact he was the exact same sort of signing. The difference is that he worked out so it doesn't fit. Well, that's kind of the point: 1 in 4 worked out. And that's totally fine with reclamation projects -- you throw a bunch at the wall and when one works, it justifies the cost of the most that didn't. But that's a building strategy, not an immediate contention strategy. My issue isn't with either strategy, it's that Hahn seemed to have gone half one way and half the other, which is a recipe for doing neither particularly well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 07:21 PM) "One big name player is the difference between winning 76 and 89 games". The Rick Hahn era summed up right there. One big name player may not be worth 13 wins, but it certainly could have been worth 5 wins. Most of the rest, unfortunately, could have been made up if player's did what they were expected to do. We expected two more wins each out of Frazier and Abreu, for example, and probably 1.5 out of the catching tandem. Maybe another win out of Lawrie. The fact that guys disappointed shouldn't shock anyone -- it happens all the time. Our guys simply didn't get it done. There's always a winner and a loser, and you can end up losing even if your team had the talent to win. The center of the evaluation of the FO, IMO, should be on whether or not the team even had enough talent to win in the first place. I think Hahn DID come into spring training one or two good players short, and I think many of us agree that was obvious even without the benefit of hindsight. TO me, that's just Hahn admitting that he f***ed up settling for Rollins/Jackson instead of Desmond/Cespedes. And I think he's right. It may still not have been enough given down years from a few guys, but it probably would have been a team that legitimately had a shot.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 06:24 PM) Honestly, I hated the Shields mess, but other than that, these signings people are complaining about really had very little impact on the course of the season. Rollins/Latos...they were not players who made a significant impact either way. The catching solution was pretty rotten, but most people on here seemed to think it was a great idea. Flowers was not a loss that anyone mourned. So we should have signed Desmond...but honestly, how was anyone to know he would have the best first half of his career? Our issues are a lack of position player development and a failure to establish a winning culture at the mlb level. I don't fault the FO as much as I do the coaching staff and Mr. Bell. The issue was that they made some high profile investments in talent to the end of creating an immediate winner, but left some gaping holes on the roster despite the fact that there were affordable (in a relative sense) solutions readily available to fill those exact holes. Desmond was an obvious one, but the three elite OFers (and arguably Dexter Fowler) were another. Yes, the prices that the Sox would have had to pay would have been greater than what teams ultimately got them for, but aside from Upton, all of them were signed for substantially less than market norms would have suggested. So, if you're going to dump real talent for 2 years of Frazier and 2 years of Lawrie, if you're going to replace your internally popular catcher with a aging, short-term platoon (which, theoretically, should have been a substantial short-term improvement), why not also take low-hanging fruit and finish the job? Alone, Rollins/Latos/Jackson were not bad signings -- they were shots in the dark to try to find bouncebacks, and good teams find tremendous value out of those types of diamonds in the rough every season. The issue was that they were signed to be relied upon, when there were CLEARLY better and more reliable options available. And while those options were substantially more expensive, they were available for great deals in terms of recent market history.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 07:24 AM) There are a handful of posters who think Robin is the primary reason for our recent failures, but they are few and far between.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 05:23 PM) Just as irrational as believing he had no impact on our team's results. Which is something I've never claimed. But even if I had, it would be much closer to truth than the way he was treated on here.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 10:21 AM) Speaking of Desmond, he basically was Jimmy Rollins in the second half. He would have helped the first half, but his second half collapse would most assuredly not led the Sox to the playoffs, and Robin would be blamed for a choke. That may be true, but it wouldn't change the fact that it still would have been a good, defensible gamble, and one that would have fit into the strategy laid out in the first half of the offseason.

Goodbye Robin, thanks for being the irrational scapegoat that most of the posters here needed. We no longer have to pretend it's your fault that the team sucked.

I generally tend to defend FO decisions, if only because everyone around here vehemently pretends to have enough information to call everything black and white when the truth is that none of us have any idea what we're talking about. But even I have to join the criticism bandwagon for the last 7-8 months of decision-making. 1. To this day, I feel like they foolishly cut the acquisitions short during the latter half of the offseason. There were a million good short AND long-term reasons to lay out for a final OF bat (and/or Ian Desmond), and they fell short. I don't get the strategy there. 2. The Shields thing was always terrible. I spent way too much time around here digging up and typing out the reasons we shouldn't sign him when he was a free agent, and ALL of them still applied to trading for him. I thought passing on Shields as a free agent was evidence that Hahn took pitching peripherals seriously, but when he made the trade, I now have to wonder what info he's using.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 03:27 PM) So according to that logic, the Cubs move to hire Joe Maddon was irrelevant... they'd have the same 100 win season with Ronnie Woo Woo as the skipper, right? Yes, this: QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) Maddon definitely helps, but their talent level would've guaranteed 85+ wins last season and 95+ wins this season had they retained Renteria.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Because Robin Ventura CAN be changed, VERY EASILY, WITHOUT COSTING ANYTHING, and likely more than one thing about this formula isn't working. Because Robin Ventura has a LONG TRACK RECORD with several different team compositions, and he is not even CLOSE to .500 as a manager. But what do you want Robin to do differently? What would you have a new manager do differently? I mean, I think we can all think of some instances where we disagreed with some of Robin;'s bullpen moves, but like really, what is this team lacking from a manager that is preventing it from winning? I get that it's attractive to use the manager as a scapegoat. But if you really JUST want someone's head to roll, I think it's all a waste of bluster. Because if the front office fires the manager and then trots the same half-assed team out there, are you really going to be satisfied? Yes, Robin has a losing record as a manager. So does the janitor, I guess. Who cares? Neither of them win or lose games. Front offices use managers as "fall guys" to placate angry fan mobs. It's a nearly meaningless gesture and it SHOULDN'T be enough for you. Don't let them pass off a different manager as a proxy for change.

I just don't understand how you can all be so convinced that Robin Ventura is what needs to change to turn this team into a winner. I'm not saying Robin is good or deserves a contract extension, but just who cares? He fills out the lineup card. The players have to win. They are professionals, they know how to train. If they don't hit, it has jack to do with the manager. QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) The team plays hard???? How do you know they play as hard as they can??? They seem to like playing for him???? I DON'T GIVE A s***. Go play for Drake f***ing LaRoche. 85 wins is what you remember about 2012? My f***ing god. What I remember is the team going 7-10 at home in September and October. What I remember is the team going 13-18 down the stretch when they had a chance to win the division. What I remember is a massive f***ing chokejob. And THAT'S what we should be looking to, when considering bringing back Ventura? Are you f***ing kidding? Should we hang a gold star on the White Sox 2006 3rd place 90 win campaign, now? What if we make a gold statue of Jamie Burke getting run over by Torii Hunter in 2004? I mean, that team won 83 games. Who cares what place they finished in? Jamie Burke never hit the ground so hard as when Ozzie Guillen managed him. Right? That post ^ seems like it would be a reaction to "Hahn says White Sox roster is a finished product for 2017." All of that stuff is you being disappointed with a baseball team, and yet you're saying it regarding the job security of an American League manager.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) Honestly, I don't even care at this point anymore. They have bigger problems to address.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) I posted their career PA's to show that one is a finished product and the other is not despite their similar age. And I would have expected a lot more from you than simply comparing career wRC+ of a guy who has played 4+ full seasons vs. a guy with less one full season. One guy is improving and the other guy is arguably regressing. And take out Lawrie's ridiculous cup of coffee, which clearly has been an abberation, and he's closer to a 96 wRC+ hitter for his career (or basically where Saladino is right now). Factor in 2B defense, where Saladino has been the superior player this season (SSS) and I'm not sure what the argument is. Seems like you're expecting Saladino to regress for some reason and I can't understand why. I'm not expecting Saladino to do anything, I'm just telling you why Lawrie is the de facto starter.

There's just no way Porcello doesn't win it with that record.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 05:51 AM) Player A Age 27 550 Career PA's .737 OPS 95 wRC+ 14.3 UZR/150 1.2 fWAR Player B Age 26.5 2,417 Career PA's .723 OPS 91 wRC+ -7.7 UZR/150 0.8 fWAR Those are only 2016 stats and the UZR/150 values are for 2B only. Regardless, I'll easily take player A as my starting 2B over player B. Not only has Saladino been far more productive this year due to his defense, he's also a less developed player and has room for growth despite being slightly older than Lawrie. I'm certain that with a full year of regular playing time his BB rate would increase (look at his minor league numbers) and he could become a 3 WAR 2B. Factor in the team control and there really is no argument for starting Lawrie over Saladino. So you posted their ages and career PA, and then immediately put their 2016 numbers below them? For anyone who is justifiably confused, Lawrie's career wRC+ is 100, and Saladino's is 80. And that is why Lawrie will get the first chance to start over Saladino.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 12, 2016 -> 11:31 PM) Get rid of Lawrie. Case closed. I guess everybody devalues Saladino cause of where he was chosen in the draft. Sorry, stat nerds (I say that lovingly) and draftniks ... the eye test is all that matters on Saladino. Sox are too dumb to play him, however. Sox scouts and front office and coaching staff is a fricking joke. This is your worst post in a while.

All the best

QUOTE (kwill @ Aug 31, 2016 -> 01:30 PM) Hey guys, Thanks so much for the information. It is super interesting. I think it would be hard for me to go to games in the minors. It seems like individual success is way more important than any kind of team success. Our average fan could hardly care less whether or not the teams wins. Our season-ticket holders do, though, but they also really latch onto specific players and root them on/hope they succeed at higher levels. There's no question that, from the affiliate end, they only really care about individual success. But you wouldn't be able to tell by watching what's on the field. The coaches and players treat it like it's the only baseball happening; they see winning as part of the training process.

NSS is right on all of that. I work for a Yankees affiliate; we're basically a contractor for the NYY. Our job is, essentially, to put on a game around their players. That includes ticket sales, concessions, stadium operations, gameday operations, etc. All of the operations staff are on our payroll, but all the players, coaches, trainers, and clubbies are on their payroll. The NYY have small ownership stake in us, but the operation is run by a private group that owns nearly all of it. Our GM is responsible for "baseball operations," which is mostly stuff like transportation and lodging for the players, dealing with umpires, and managing facility compliance. For example, the outfield grass must maintain a certain level of "brightness" when the lights are on at night, measured in footcandles. The league and/or the Yankees send guys to check up on that type of stuff from time to time. Player movement is (as mentioned above) entirely out of our hands, but TBH, it's just an operational afterthought for our GM. We all want our team to win because we work here, but our on-field success has next to no impact on attendance, and playoff games are generally not well attended anywhere in the MiLB. We started of our season 14-4, and then our five best position players got called up and we immediately started losing games. That was a bummer, but it didn't really make our GM's job any harder.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 31, 2016 -> 09:43 AM) Disagree. Hamels fell down last night. Q will reign. C Y Y O QUINTANA N G - C - - Y - - Y - - O - QUINTANA - N - - G -

QUOTE (harkness @ Aug 29, 2016 -> 06:48 PM) sigh... jose.... Awful at bat

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 29, 2016 -> 05:29 PM) Yeah, I guess we should celebrate Mylan and the $600 Epipen not being the sponsors. Although, if the amount they ponied up was double what Guaranteed Rate was forking out, I'm sure we would be attempting to rationalize that as well... That has absolutely nothing to do with CEOs not doing work.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 27, 2016 -> 12:01 PM) Well now I am really confused because I trusted the WAR stats Chitown used but now looked it up myself and Fangraphs has Frazier at a 1.2 WAR and Baseball Ref has him at 2.2 WAR. 2015 Frazier 4.5, 2014 4.8, 2013 3.1, 2012 2.6 all per Fangraphs. Baseball Reference is more generous with WAR and just by a casual glance it appears to be wide differences in defensive WAR where Abreu is hurt very badly by the Fangraphs d WAR but not so much by the Baseball Ref. . I think I prefer Baseball Ref. just because defensive evaluations seem to matter way too much on Fangraphs. Of course they calculate WAR differently in other areas too so it's possible I am making a generalization about things I'm ignorant on. I don't think anyone here expected the worst WAR in Fraziers last 5 years. I often have pointed out how the Sox keep acquiring NL players whose stats drop once they get to the AL and I have said they need to start acquiring more AL players and have often been called out on it. But the facts speak for themselves at least for the Sox. And no one bring up Eaton because he didn't have a history of stats of the NL. Until there is some standardized way for calculate WAR I will remain skeptical of it's use. It isn't so much that the defense matters MORE on FanGraphs, it's that each site uses an entirely different defensive statistic to measure defensive contribution. Generally speaking, FanGraphs tends to favor statistics that "strip outside factors" to productivity, which theoretically gets more to the core of a player's "skill," at least to the extent that it is demonstrated in a particular season. The downside to this is that it leaves some rare, outlier-type skills out of the equation, simply because we can't be totally sure they're present. BR tends to prefer a more complete model, but wraps in a bunch of stuff that isn't predictive and it much more affected by luck. This gives you a more total look at what a player did, but the numbers are far less stable, and so it would be much easier to over or undervalue a player's true talent from season to season. The differences in the models are MUCH more pronounced on the pitching side, though.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Aug 27, 2016 -> 04:40 PM) Not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but Anderson has the second highest BABIP among all shortstops. Now I realize he strikes out a lot and doesn't walk much, but that's an encouraging sign if he can even get a little more plate discipline. Eh, I think it's actually a bad sign. Yes, speedy contact guys tend to run higher BABIPs than average, but literally no one in the live ball era has ever sustained .375. His elevated BABIP is more likely a sign pointing to near-term regression than it is a sign pointing to long-term success.