Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) I can't believe people wrote this post without actually considering how Noesi's season went. Yes his ERA and FIP were poor, but somehow everyone has forgotten that: 1. His ERA was 0.35 runs lower if all you do is focus on the time he was with the White Sox Which still leaves him with a bad ERA, which looks even worse when you consider it was 0.4 runs lower than his FIP over the same period. The time he spent NOT on the Sox last was year was 6.1 innings. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) 2. Focusing on the time he was with the white sox alone isn't smart either, in his first 4 starts with the White Sox they still needed to stretch his arm out so they left him out to die in the 6th inning several times while exhausted (ERA in those starts; 5.35) This is a possible effect, but extremely speculative. Do we have evidence he was exhausted? Also, 5.35 isn't drastically worse than 4.75 over the course of 4 starts. I guess what I'm saying is I'd be more hopeful for his "continued progress" if someone could make an argument that something actually changed. Did he gain velocity or add a new pitch? Coop often fixes guys by making mechanical tweaks that improve command, yet he still walks too many dudes and gives up too many homers, which doesn't suggest improved command. He doesn't have any flukey homer or LOB or xFIP numbers to show that he maybe pitched better than his results would indicate.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 12:51 PM) 10. PAGES. TEN Do we still have Zach Stewart? Maybe they'll take Zach Stewart.

If you like KC going forward, you have to buy into Hosmer and Moustakas' second halves being "breakouts" rather than "hot streaks." Losing Butler shouldn't impact them much, because they didn't REALLY have his production last year, since he was terrible. You also have to really believe in Danny Duffy. Honestly I don't think we're THAT much worse. They're more balanced, for sure. Our defense is horribad (but not as bad as Cleveland's )

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:41 PM) Why is it pointless when it was directed at a post that specifically said Ackley was the perfect fit at 2B for the White Sox? If the White Sox trade for Ackley to be anything more than a utility man/ platoon guy, they really are going after trying to win in 2015 at most, half assed. Because we're not really talking about "targeting him," we're talking about trying to get ANYTHING for Viciedo.

Ackley and Beckham is a pointless comparison. What's relevant is Ackley vs. Viciedo for 2015. They put up almost identical wRC+, but Ackley si a better defender, better baserunner, and left-handed. If Seattle wants to trade that for whatever semblance of upside Viciedo has left, I'd do it. At the worst, we'll have improved our OF defense without sacrificing anything offensively. That said, I wouldn't stop looking hard for a better option in LF.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) Ryan Vogelsong really isn't a bad option I don't think. We could probably get him on a relatively cheap 1 year deal with an option or something like that. Take out the bad/injury riddled 2013 and between '11, '12 and '14 he's averaged 185 IP and an ERA of around 3.75 (advanced metrics back it up too). 2 weeks ago I would have been against a move like this, but if we really are going all out for this year Vogelsong would bring a lot of stability to the back of the rotation. Of course Danks really clutters things up financially though and getting rid of at least a decent chunk of his salary could open up a lot of options. Take away Danks and our rotation is really cheap relative to other teams that will be competitive in 2014. I'm a little worried that his "advanced" age will lessen his likeliness to bounce back to 2012 form. That said, even his 2014 was a tick better than both of our incumbents. I think he'd be a great depth piece for the competition, but I'm not sure about a multi-year deal. Would he sign a Paulino deal, maybe, with a couple million extra bucks guaranteed?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Look at Mark Reynolds, 2012. 2013 the Indians gave him $6 million. He can't field either. Mark Reynolds hit 30+ three times in his career though, and 40+ once. The best thing we have to say about DV is that he managed to scratch 20.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) @MaineSkin Viciedo was 2nd to only Stanton in oppo fld HRs '14. BABIP .030 blw avg, if he gets FBs up, it's 30+ anywhere Lol, yeah, let's go with that. Line up, teams!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 12:48 PM) No...one more acceptable than the other given his price and the fact pattern that you are talking about a potential 5th starter. Or at least more acceptable. I think far more pressing concerns are our team defense. The problem in these circumstances is these are guys we have penciled in at 4 and 5. Noesi also did show some signs of progress vs. Danks. The bolded is the point. Clearly, Noesi is a more valuable member of the team because of his salary, but in terms of who is going to take the hill next, neither produces acceptable results. We can't afford for both of these guys to contribute 175+ innings. One of them can be the fifth starter that we skip whenever possible, yes.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:53 AM) His ERA was 4.39. But his FIP was around 4.7. In other words, he wasn't that good. As a 5th starter, he's acceptable, but if you want to be a contender, you need to have arms better than him and Danks as your 4 and 5. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) No doubt. But that's just it, it should be one of Noesi OR Danks as the #5, with Beck/Recchia/Carroll/whomever as 6-8 in Charlotte. Need that 4th guy for a year at least. Yes, this is what I mean

My point, overall, is that you can't have both of these guys in your rotation and expect it to turn out well. If you're fishing for upside, that's one thing, but with the "window" jerked up a year now, it's a different story.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) Don't you think it's unfair to include his pre-Sox, pre starting pitcher days? It was only 6 games, but he was the worst pitcher in the league then. He at least improved a little with us. But yeah, starting pitching depth is going to be the biggest weakness of this team. It would be unfair, but it was actually only six INNINGS. So it skews it a touch, but not much, and also he DID throw those innings.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:36 AM) Maybe I'm off base here, but Crawford seems to me to be a guy who can transfer quite nicely from a speedster, to more of a power guy with adequate speed. Sort of a Jim Thome with a little less power, but better legs. Is it wrong to think that he could hit 25 - 30 home runs at the cell and provide better than average defense? If he doesn't have to rely quite so much on his legs he might remain healthier. Then you have the Herm Schnieder effect too. Jim Thome?

Without looking it up, tell me which 2014 line was John Danks, and which was Hector Noesi: 4.75 ERA (4.83 FIP), 6.42 K/9, 2.92 BB/9, 1.46 HR/9, 38% GB (0.6 fWAR) 4.74 ERA (4.76 FIP), 5.99 K/9, 3.44 BB/9, 1.16 HR/9, 42% GB (0.8 fWAR) Actually, don't bother. I already forget which one is which because they're basically the same. If John Danks is unacceptable, Hector Noesi is also unacceptable. Rodon's ETA is not guaranteed, nor is his instant dominance when he does arrive. The best remaining options behind these two are Andre Rienzo and Eric Surkamp. Chris Beck? This team needs another arm.

Yost is the worst strategic manager in the entire league. If his team, under-talented compared to the field, can make it to WS despite him, then are just fine with Robin Ventura no matter what you think of him.

I think we need another arm. I do NOT think Volquez should be that arm. Absolutely textbook regression candidate. Checks ALL the boxes for a guy about to fall off a cliff.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) I thought he was talking about the tuxedo shirt not being proper formal wear at a dinner party. That's all I wear to formal dinner parties. Oh, whoops.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days. I think the disconnect here is that #2 should be your best hitter if you assume a simulated environment where everyone is constantly just trying to hit as well as they can in all situations. I also think that the intense run environment that existed when this research first came out made it so that a "steroid era slugfest" approach made more sense, since every player in the league got on base at .350 or more. I continue to believe that the 2 hitter needs to be a very good hitter and that teams that put a slappy/situational guy there are doing themselves a disservice, but it isn't safe to say that Barry Bonds belongs there anymore, because it isn't safe to assume we'll have all the base runners we used to have.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) Wait, its not? It was invented in the early 80's. The idea of it is sound, but it's inaccurate because it assumes that on-base and total bases are equally valuable, which they aren't, and the relative value of each changes as the run environment changes. It was obsolete when they invented linear weights-based statistic like wOBA, which attempt to do the same thing as OPS except they are actually accurate because they utilize separate run values for each type of offensive event and those values are upated to the run environment every year. But OPS was still useful as shorthand because people weren't calibrated to what made a good or bad wOBA, but then they invented wRC+, which is wOBA but park-adjusted, league-adjusted, and constantly scaled to league average so it's even easier to understand than OPS on shorthand. Then they invented OPS+, which is just as easy to reference as wRC+, but is less accurate and therefore useless.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:11 AM) Bryant and Russell from the cubs would be a good starting point. I think the Cubs would just keep Bryant instead. It's not like Longoria doesn't come with some risk at this point.

That Melky has scared the Blue Jays and Mariners away with his price makes me much less into him. Also, we need to improve this defense. I want us to sign Parra today for like 1/$5m but then keep looking for a better option. Parra would then be worst-case fallback (that's at least an elite defender) and would be a high-end 4th OF if we find a better starter. With a guy like that on the bench, we could rely on late inning defensive replacements much more often, taking pressure off the bullpen, at least. Then give Viciedo to Seattle for literally anything except like Anthrax or a mailbomb.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) Bruce- Hi K, HI salary, low OBP, not good defensively, terrible year last year. Pass. I would say mid-salary, at least average defensively by the numbers, reputedly above average. Looks like a great buy-low candidate to me. The kicker is that his price actually needs to be "buy low," and it looks like that may not be the case. If we buy him, I want the risk to be reflected in the price.

OPS is an advanced stat in the same way that a tuxedo t-shirt is formal dinner wear.

This would be bonkers. There's no way we'd win the bidding.

QUOTE (TomPickle @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 06:07 PM) O/U on percentage of home runs hit by Abreu in a Abreu-Gordon-Alexei-Gillaspie infield: 80 Under all day