Eminor3rd

I hope that both catcher spots are up for grabs. You want Kottaras in there because he mashes righties, but if Soto comes in strong, I'd love to see Flowers in Charlotte.

QUOTE (dewssox79 @ Feb 12, 2015 -> 02:58 PM) Danks is the wild card. If he pitches well we can be insane to face. Noesi as the 5th is just fine. A lot of people complained about his velocity drop since his injury, he needs to now pitch instead of throw. The change up is going to make or break it for him. I hope his changeup is above avg I think he's gonna have some good games, but just as many absolute disasters. The problem with his velo loss isn't that he CAN'T be good, it's that he has to be on-point practically every pitch in order to be good. He'll have that stuff some days, but he'll have to re-invent himself to avoid being a problem more often than not, IMO.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 12, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) Eminor I hope you understand my rant was half truthful and more comedically intented in nature. Writing is more my thing than math so once in a while I write things just to get it off my chest with some humor and hopefully it's understood I meant no slights to anyone. But I still don't understand why it takes precedent over offseason acquisitions in the pinned area. I assume Soxtalk wants to grow as a community so even the casual fan can find things that appeal to them by dropping in here and lurking before eventually feeling comfortable enough to make posts. I realize threads "run their course " and the discussions of acquistions is old news at this point but the players and a chance at a successful season and the excitement it has generated are usually the primary interest of fans in general . I understand what is pinned is not my decision to make . It's just my feeling that having the best Sox topics pinned or on the front page is the best way to keep people who show up here interested in coming back rather then having them look at page after page of what's been discussed over the past few months rather than the first thing they see being FAQ about avanced stats. Yeah I just re-read my post and see that it reads like I was punching walls while writing it. I have a problem with coming off way angrier than I want to. I really am trying to work on that even though I'm failing. Sorry. To be clear: any rage that did exist in my last post is directed toward Charles Barkley, lol. The only thing directed toward you or greg is some mild exasperation I actually think what you said about thread pinning makes sense -- I can see a good argument hat all acquisitions should be up there until at least the start of the season.

Does seem like a ton of arms that could at least be bullpen pieces. Is this typical, though? Or is our system legitimately deep in this area?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 08:26 PM) Heard Barkley's rant last night . Wondered if there would be something on here but I fail to see how it stays in PHT . Are all sabremetric discussions now required reading ? I mean, I try ,I really do, to understand some of the more frequently used new terms to stay abreast of things. Can't say I enjoy reading sooooooooo much about it though. I enjoy my sports which mostly consists of watching and drawing my own conclusions on players. Around here or any forum where younger people gather I'm thankful for the broadening of my horizons. However, I can definitely say it hasn't enhanced my enjoyment level of sports , probably has even lowered it a little bit to be honest. My math education stopped at Algebra 2 so everytime someone starts in with coeffeicients and variables yada yada yada, I get bored to tears. Is this math class or the place to discuss White Sox baseball. I see people ask what is FIP or something else. I'm like are you kidding me ? You're on a computer ! You have the world at your fingertips ! Stick it in a search engine and you can find all the stuff on it your little heart ever desired. You get rants like Hawk and Barkley and now me I guess because you guys never give it a rest . We have a permanently pinned section on it for whatever reason .All the offseason acquisitions should be pinned till at least opening day because thats what interests Sox fans who might wander into this place infrequently. What do they see pinned? FAQ's about advanced physics. We rant because we sucked at math and we feel dumb again, but even sucking it was still simple to understand ERA and fielding percentage and batting average. Now I need a degree from MIT. The reason people "don't give it a rest" is because it's an important part of modern baseball. It drives the decisions the front offices make. Why is that not interesting? Also, I don't understand why people treat this s*** like it's theoretical calculus or something. 95% of this stuff is just a simple weighted averages. It's multiplication. If you got Algebra 2, you get averaging numbers and multiplication. QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 11:49 PM) What some of you Sabes people must realize is a lot of us, including Barkley, do not give a s*** about advanced stats. I mean some of it is interesting, but I think what Charles is saying is a ballplayer knows a good ballplayer when he sees one. Believe me, I don't need advanced stats to tell me Rios or Dunn are good players. I happen to SEE them play and can tell you they are not. I'm not a big WAR guy obviously. When I see Adam Dunn whiff as much as he did as a Sox, and the fact he as our big gun never sniffed a postseason, tells me a lot. I don't need advanced stats telling me he was good or some such. Again, if you watch your favorite team all year, you know who is good and who is bad. That's my take. The Sabes people should be more tolerant of us Sabes haters or Sabes dislikers. Oh, we understand that you don't give a s***. The whole thing about having to be a good ballplayer to know a good ballplayer is elitist bulls***. If that's the case, greg, than by your own logic, you have no idea what you're talking about. All of us stupid fans should just sit in a bar and consume the program without a thought in our heads. Because we'll never "get it" anyway. QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 11:49 PM) The Sabes people should be more tolerant of us Sabes haters or Sabes dislikers. This is an ironic thing to say. Do you know why it doesn't seem like "Sabes haters" are tolerated? Because of moron rants like Barkley's "EVERYONE WHO DOES ADVANCED STATS IS JUST MAD CUZ THEY DIDN'T GET GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOL," and the constant implication that being interested in advanced statistics is "ruining the integrity of the game" and that people who like sabermetrics "don't even watch the game." My suggestion to "sabes haters" is this: Stop slinging insults like a toddler and see if people stop treating you like a toddler.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 06:48 PM) Michael Lewis wrote a book that was a true story. Hollywood made the fictionalized version. The book is well known to have been highly "sensationalized." It's been a criticism since its release, long before the movie was even a thought.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 04:29 PM) It's only a wash if you ignore baserunning, in which Alexei is one of the best baserunning SS and Castro is one of the worst. That factor tips in the scale in Alexei's favor IMO. I'd probably choose Alexei too, but my point is that the choice is perfectly defensible, especially if you believe Castro has upside. The OP suggested it was like choosing Mark Grace over Frank Thomas.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) The pick was for who will be better this season, so age doesn't matter. Alexei has also shown no signs of falling off a cliff (he always has good hitting starts to a season and gradually declines). Of course it does. A guy entering his age 33 season is more likely to decline than a guy entering his age 25 season.

I think Lind is a bit of a defensively liability as well, where LaRoche was at least considered a good defender in his prime, even if he's lost a step since.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) What would "coming on board" entail. The White Sox used more shifts than most last year. They bunt fewer times than most. Hasn't Cooper been one to preach lowering pitch counts by getting guys early in the count even though he isn't a pitch count guy? I think you're illustrating the key point here, which is that this isn't a matter of a team choosing GOING SABR or STAYING OLD SCHOOL. The reality is that sabermetric research has already infiltrated the game, in that it affects every team in some way. There are certainly teams that rely more on it than others, but the best concepts have risen to the top. And this was never really about the stats themselves, but rather about the ideas that the math is uncovering. This stuff has been adopted; it has not replaced anything. Billy Beane didn't fire all his scouts. This was never about rigidly employing a mutually exclusive approach, it was just about looking to the fringes to find new ideas to integrate into the system. The "us vs. them" civil war that has ensued in the public sphere can be attributed ENTIRELY to the media, the center of which was Michael Lewis' "based on a true story" Moneyball effort.

Agreed. I mean, depending upon the extent of his health issues. Hard for us to have an informed opinion on that. Might be safe to assume that the reason he hasn't signed yet is because the teams see something really ugly.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) Taking Castro over Ramirez at short equals taking Mark Grace over Frank Thomas. Castro can't carry Ramirez jockstrap defensively. Lol no it's not. It's a completely defensible choice. Castro is a much better hitter and is way younger/less likely to fall off a cliff this year. The choice is basically a wash.

Welp. Time for another rebuild.

This is WELL done

QUOTE (Mike F. @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 07:58 PM) I just heard on MLB Network that the Sox could possibly be interested in Francisco "K Rod" Rodriguez. Would you guys be ok with him on a 2 year/$20 million deal? That gives Robertson an elite set-up guy ahead of him, and Petricka/Putnam/Duke would just have the cover the 7th inning. What do you guys think? I'll pass. Find me a reclamation/depth starter for a 25-50% of that.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:10 PM) In 879 opportunities to ground into a double play in his career, Alexei Ramirez has done so 113 times (12.9% of the time) In 106 opportunities to ground into a double play in his career, Avisail Garcia has done so 14 times (13.2% of the time) Obviously that is a fairly small sample size for Avisail Garcia, but there really isn't much difference between the two. With his power potential, I would rather see Avisail hit in the 5 spot and get the extra 30-40 plate appearances that are going to come with it versus the 7 spot. If Alexei is a better run producer this year that Avisail, I don't think we are going very far. I agree he should be 7th, but that's because I don't think he's going to be very good. I also agree, though, that if he ISN'T very good, we're going to have a hard time succeeding. I wouldn't worry about batted ball type though, if he's hitting at all, everything will be fine.

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 07:30 PM) This... what were his advanced statistics all the years he was in Pittsburgh? We're they saying he was incredibly unlucky for multiple years? I am actually curious and have no idea how to look up the advanced stats. The transformation for Bautista, from what I understand, is solely due to a change in approach and swing mechanics. Basically, he was taught to be a complete/opposite-field type hitter his whole career, but when he failed and got to Toronto, they just told him to let it rip every time, figuring he didn't have much to lose at that point. Turned out he was a natural slugger trying to be something he never was. I think David Ortiz has a similar story. Neither of them have anything to do with advanced/traditional stats at all. I don't think there exists any type of model that can predict shifts in performance based on radical changes to approach/arsenal.

All the data from UZR/DRS, to my knowledge, ARE collected by humans watching the games. The values are calculated by some sort of grid system that, combined with the human's judgement of how the type of ball it was (liner, fly, etc.) determines the difficulty of the play essentially by how often the play is made. The run values that are then assigned are based on linear weights derived from the difference in run probability from the base/out state that now exists versus what existed before. The new MLBAM stuff everyone keeps talking about IS collected by computers/cameras. That's why it's so exciting -- it's going to give us completely objective/factual data on reaction time, route efficiency, acceleration, etc. for the first time ever.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 03:23 PM) Why wouldn't that mean the quality of hitter is better? 7000 more whiffs in 2014 than 2005. That is 35 2014 Chris Sales. The quality of hitter IS better. There's no reason to believe that both hitters and pitchers would improve in a linear fashion at the same pace, though, and it's not surprising that it looks like we're approaching the point of velocity where humans just can't really manage it well. There are other factors, too. Pitch FX shows that there's a much wider strikezone than there was 15 years ago, for example, and it's certainly possible that part of the talent imbalance is simply coincidental and temporary. But there's no question that today's athletes, on the average, are better than they used to be.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 02:17 AM) Why are we to believe that pitchers have significantly improved and are actually better in this generation? They haven't. They aren't. It's simply perception. Back in the 90's, the hitters seemed better because of their glaring statistical numbers. Now that has shifted to the favor of the pitchers, but it will swing back again. It always does. Whether it's changes to the baseball, the calling of the strike zone, steroids, Tommy John recoveries...all these things will return to mean, just as the National League was the dominant style from the late 50's to the 70's and then shifted back to the American League (along with the DH change) until returning to balance again in the last 5-10 years. Are we to believe that parents all across America are suddenly training their children to be left-handed pitchers instead of catchers or 3B? It's simple -- there are more players playing baseball across the world than ever before. The fields of training and medicine are more advanced than ever before. The game has evolved in a such a way that specialization in pitching is encouraged, thus increasing the pool of players that can be useful even further.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 12:12 AM) um... yes? emphatically yes? Lol pretty much.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 12:05 AM) How many pitchers from this current generation are going to make the Hall of Fame or even make it to 200 wins? There might be more focus on pitching than ever before...but it's obviously going to shift back to hitters at some point, because casual fans clearly prefer offense to defense. If that wasn't the case. soccer/football would be much more popular in the US than it is. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226964-...-the-90s/page/8 Take the "Top 30 pitchers from the 90's" and adjust their statistics to the new norm of the last few seasons for offense. Yet another factor is the fascination with radar gun readings, many of which have been cranked up 2-3 MPH higher than reality in order to get fans more excited about numbers in the 100's. Are we to believe pitchers magically are throwing much harder in the last five years than at any time in history, after basically having the notion that guys in the 50's and 60's like Sudden Sam McDowell, Ryne Duren or Nolan Ryan threw that much harder than anyone in modern baseball? This is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:12 AM) DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball. You're once again missing the forest for the trees because you're focusing on one tangential point from my post. No matter what you want to think, you cannot tell me if a guy is good or not based on how many times he strikes out. Those strikeouts are a factor, but you can be a good player despite them. That's the whole point I'm making.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 11:03 PM) Using Mike Trout as the baseline for any argument is silly. He's the exception, not the rule. How many guys can strike out near his rate while still hitting near or over .300 with an OBP of around .400? I'm not going to spend time looking it up but my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find many. In defense of the previous poster, I DO believe the high strikeout rates of a few of the Cubs' prospects is a real concern. I think far too many posters on this forum too quickly discount this issue. Baez is going to have an awfully hard time being a productive offensive player if he's striking out 35%+ of the time even if he cranks out 30 HR. Same goes for Bryant. The question is if Bryant strikes out at an incredibly high rate is he more likely to put up numbers closer to Mike Trout or White Sox Adam Dunn? My guess is he would end up closer to the latter which would obviously be a huge disappointment for those expecting all star worthy numbers from him over the next few years. You're talking about something completely different with your example. Mike Trout is irrelevant. I'll try to boil it down further: 1. Strikeouts do contribute to bad offense. 2. Bad offense is bad offense regardless of strikeouts. Good offense is good offense, regardless of strikeouts. 3. You can say "Kris Bryant won't be good because he'll strikeout too much." You cannot say "Kris Bryant cannot be good if strikes out a bunch."

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 10:38 AM) baseball has been very very good to Diane V. how much has he made in the last 4 or 5 years? More than enough to go back to Havana and sit on his front porch and eat tacos and get big and fat and live like a king. thanks, douglas I don't think that's how defection works...