Eminor3rd

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 04:58 PM) For whatever reason. Those surprises occur often enough that it would be unwise to praise the projections as gospel. But again, no one does. It's a strawman argument (that I know you're not making) that dodges the actual utility of these systems.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 04:58 PM) No you didn't say it is a fact, but those of us that don't really fall in line with what they are projecting are out of touch of reality, according to you. It's a credible point of data that he's using to support a claim. There's no problem with this. Just because humans can't predict the future yet, doesn't make this information useless. It's not PROOF of anything, because proof of the future doesn't exist. But it is evidence to suggest the likeliness of a particular outcome, or more accurately, range of outcomes.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 04:22 PM) Of course. Why don't we compare these "standings" with what Harold Reynolds picks the day before the season, with what the posters here pick when that thread pops up, and I would bet you anything, there isn't a significant difference in accuracy. If you need PECOTA to come out to tell you what the talent level on each team is, that is very telling. It has been proven that teams significantly outperform and significantly underperform their projection. Again, this is only an issue if you use the tool simply to predict exact win totals, which is pointless. This is another situation where the only people discussing how well projections do at picking exact outcomes are those who are already against them. Literally no one -- not even the creators of the systems -- think they're useful in that manner. These are mean projections, which means that they are simply the most likley INDIVIDUAL outcome, but the field is ALWAYS more likely. No one should be shocked by this and no one has ever claimed otherwise. I've always felt that these numbers would be more accessible if they were presented as a confidence intervals, but that doesn't really make them any more useful for what they help, it would just make it harder for people to misuse/misapply. What they do is provide an objective frame of reference for us to consider. They are very good at this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 04:08 PM) PECOTA has spoken. No reason to play the season. The FACTS are, even if you think these projections are beyond accurate, the Sox are 4 games out of the playoffs. You said they average about 7 wins above their projection. So, there should be no reason to think they aren't contenders at this point. Again, missing the point completely.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 03:51 PM) Baltimore outperformed their projection by 21 games. Boston underperformed theirs by 18. 39 games difference. They are fine conversion and argument starters, but the reality is, things happen. Players get hurt. Some suck, some are great who have no business being great. Projecting wins in January is silly. They only look silly if you get caught up in it being "right or wrong" depending on exact numbers. It's an extremely useful raw look at the total amount of talent on each team with respect to playing time (like how Boston has a 56 good OFers, but they aren't going to get full value form all of them because they can't all play at once) and statistical regression (like how Chris Sale isn't likely to pitch as well as last year, simply because guys aren't likely to throw Cy Young caliber seasons, even if they have the talent to do so), which are two things that are very hard for fans to account for mentally. The exact number is much less important than the order in which the teams fall, and the gap in the differences.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time. Yes, well put.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) Nitpicking a little bit here. But I don't think you can really count on this yet. The trio of Sale, Q and Shark has exactly 0 playoff starts at the moment, it isn't the biggest concern in the world, but it matters to a certain extent. On top of that, Sale has looked gassed in the last month of the season each of the past 3 years. We'll need some creative planning to keep him fresh in the postseason, but that will come at the cost of valuable regular season wins, and that matters a lot to this team as it stands. Lastly, I am not convinced Q is a quality playoff starter, at least not one where I would say he a clearly a better number 3 than the other team's number 3 in a series. Without opening a can of worm, Q doesn't go deep in games, and always seems to blow up in the 5th or 6th inning because hitters hit him better the second time around. It's hard to trust a guy like that, especially if he has to pitch 2 games in a series. Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now. Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:16 PM) I don't understand. Their shortstop had a 2.4 WAR last year. It's not a weakness for them. Their SS is as good as Alexei for waaaaay less money. There is a TON of skepticism of how well Flores can actually handle SS over a representative sample. He's done well so far, but everyone agrees that he's done so against the odds.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) ref 1 that is what i have been saying all along now. be smart, make the necessary investment to go to the playoff. 2. stl has a stack team with good, very good prospects. this sox team is trying to do both and at some point need to sacrifice a little of one to help the other. RE: #2 -- I think they HAVE done that. However, even though the system is the strongest it's been in years, it is still in the midst of a LONG climb up. We've got some top end talent, but it still isn't deep. t's not strong enough now that we could remove any more key pieces without making it get worse quickly.

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:12 PM) Envision a rotation of Sale, Szamardija, Quintana, Shields, Rodon! All of a sudden, October baseball becomes a reality! Get 'er done, Rick. The hang up is the immense distance between his market value and his value to our team. Also, that's the furthest I've ever seen the 'z' away from its correct location in 'Samardzija'

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:30 PM) The 2000 White Sox won 95 games and had the #1 ranked farm system in baseball. They missed the playoffs the next 4 seasons. Prospects still have to develop, major leaguers still have to perform. You can do everything that seems correct, but sustained success is never guaranteed. This team had all the advantages for a while in their division. They should have been like Detroit is now, like Cleveland in the late 90's, then Minnesota, where the playoffs were a given, but for some reason, not necessarily on paper, they had a second place mindset. After they won in 2005, and were dominating the first half of 2006, I thought they were going to have a run which would have snowballed by keeping the park full and making broadcasts more lucrative. It didn't happen. Hopefully, this time it does. So the answer is "15 years ago." Doesn't seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but considering how quickly the landscape of baseball changes, I think it's safe to say that this all looks about as clean as it has in a very long time. Long enough to have seen offense at near an alltime high and now offense at near an alltime low. Success is never guaranteed, but the goal is to get to a point where, if things do fall apart for a season, you aren't more than a quick reload away from being back in the picture.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:24 PM) the sox can not plan for the future, when the window of making a really great splash is now. The issue is that everything that Hahn's regime has communicated, both directly and implied, does NOT agree with the sentence above. The window is not simply now, it is (theoretically) every year going forward. If you resign yourself to the idea that Sale/Abreu cannot be "wasted," you're already accepting the cycle of going for broke and rebuilding, a model that is showing to be disastrous for the few teams still attempting it. Instead, you need to realize that we need to take advantage of Sale/Abreu now while also developing their replacements down the road. If you want to see it in action, look at the Cardinals. When was the last time they didn't enter a season with legitimate playoff chances? When was the last time they didn't also have at least a decent farm? And the result? A couple WS championships, and, since 1996, they've only dropped below 4th in MLB attendance ONCE, when they were 6th in 2004. They have signed a handful of big time free agents and also let ahndful of them go. They've been restrained at times so they could be aggressive at times. It's smart resource management and it's paid off in spades. It's balanced, patient, sustained winning where every part of the machine is running efficiently. It means assets have to be juggled. It takes time to set up, but you have to stay the course.

It's also diminishing returns for us. Under the current climate where there are TONS of teams in the running for some very shaky playoff spots, the difference between a "solid" team and a "great" team, in terms of WS chances, is smaller than ever. Pushing in more than we have takes a big chunk out of the core of the future just to add a couple percentage points in the present.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 11:34 AM) The big difference is that Kenny Williams always did spend the extra to get that one more guy, and took it away from spending on the minor leagues. As a GM you have to make that choice. That's why they get the big bucks. Sure they could bring in the one more guy, but what if it costs you Steven Adams because you have to spend lower amounts on your draft picks. It could mean you don't have the $1.6 million to spend on an Adolfo, and instead stay in the $250 to $500k range of guys with lower ceilings. Those major league roster decisions do have a ripple affect through the rest of the organization. Do you want the depth signing now, or the lottery ticket for the future? Exactly -- and with the second WC and a little restraint, we can have both. The cost is that we'll never have a "superteam," probably.

I love how his "big risk" caveat is a $5m/yr contract.

This gets better every year guys, thanks for the excellent work.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 10:48 AM) I am OK with that. While Montas has an extremely high ceiling, he still has some big work to do to get there. And he still looks like a reliever to most, which is indicative of his high risk factor.

There's been a lot of "why didn't we go get the final couple pieces?" and "prospects are just prospects are bust rate Mitchell ahead of Trout blah blah" lately, and I think that both types of complaints are short-sighted; they don't take the RH master plan or the current competitive state of the MLB into perspective. I think they represent obsolete lines of thought that describe the environment ten or so years ago but are not relevant or useful in the climate today. But I haven't been able to communicate my argument very well, partially because I'm not sure I even UNDERSTOOD my argument very well. But with yesterday's release of Keith Law's system rankings, I think it all finally makes sense in a concrete way. Let me ask you this: When was the last time the Sox went into the season billed as a legitimate playoff contender AND had a top-half ranked farm system? THIS is what it's supposed to look like. This is the "sustainable competitiveness" model in its infancy. It doesn't matter if you think Law is too high or too low on the system or Sullivan is too low on the Sox 2015 chances, the point is that they are in the running and somehow still on the upswing, both in terms of the ML roster AND the farm system. This team has flaws, and we should admit it. If the team doesn't meet our expectations, I think it will be due to some combination of our lack of depth being exposed and the fact that we always assume that our superstars will never regress from exceptional performances for some reason. But there's no question that the team is a "contender." And unlike the previous KW-branded regime, it came without the cost of ruining the future. So next time you feel like JR is stingy or that RH values prospects too much, look how far RH has taken this ship in just two years, and look how much brighter things look from ALL angles than they have since October of 2005. It's about balance and patience. It'll probably mean we will always be able to find holes in our team and always wish they would have spent $20m more, but if they can avoid tipping the scales too much in either direction (present or future), we can look forward to going into every season with justified hopes for the playoffs.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) Kinda like blowing the $4mm on Viciedo? They're not going to have to pay him that. Arbitration salaries aren't guaranteed unless the player stays on the roster through, I believe, Spring Training. I think he's going to cost them like $800k or something.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 01:22 PM) Crazy how deep the SS talent is in the minors I think it's always that way, it's just not many of those guys will be SS for long in the MLB.

I feel like Shuck probably has a little upside, at least. Besides, if Constanza is better, he's not better enough to make it worth the effort/cost of the transaction

$2m could have gotten us some BS starting pitcher to throw in the fray. I just don't see how we needed him. We have defense-only utility men aplenty, and there's no way this was the best platoon bat option we had for the bench.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 04:17 PM) Another starter would be great, but right now, unless you are going to spend a ton, you aren't going to get anything better than John Danks. I think that a reasonable alternative, though, would be signing a couple more guys AS GOOD AS John Danks. At least then we have a few extra shots.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 03:06 PM) Kirk Hinrich hit that three last night so maybe Gordon can contribute vs. lefties QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) The disabled list needs some bodies Two fantastic post-of-the-year candidates, lol. Didn't think about that, did you, wite? We have MI depth but we don't have any DL depth. TCQ provides that IN SPADES, as they say.

Jesus christ -- I thought we were finally done with this guy. To me, this seems like one of those situations where we're in danger of having the coach overplay him. EDIT: Also, this isn't how I envisioned getting rid of Viciedo, lol.