Eminor3rd

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) Funny I thought this was a rebuilding year. He wasn't going to be traded so he's pretty useless for a rebuild, He's not young nor does he need AB's to develop so pretty useless for a rebuild. He's well paid, set up for life while getting to retire 25 yrs. before a working stiff. He'll get a statue most likely and he gets to go out on his terms ? Most of us would've just liked it if he didn't take up valuable space on this years roster. It has nothing to do with the enjoyment of his fine career. This was a year for youth and speed and athleticism to be served , to building for the future. Paulie contributed nothing to those things so some us question how dedicated Hahn might be to a rebuild if he can appear to not care about every spot on the 25 being used to achieve his goal. He's been extremely well compensated for his efforts. Go for a rebuild with every resource you have or I can't take you seriously. There's only so much time Sox fans will have patience for a last place low payroll team but might have a little more if they feel the effort from the front office is pure. PK already has all of what most of us have to break our backs for. He didn't have to stand in the way of progress also. I'd be upset about it if it turned out that it mattered. But it hasn't, so it's a waste to stress out over it, IMO. PK got his "one more year," and it didn't cost us much anything. Maybe his leadership helped a bit. He certainly protected Dunn against lefties, which, we hoped would help us trade him, but it didn't. Oh well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) There is an actual problem with Connor 2nd as the lineup is currently constructed. L - Eaton. L - Gillaspie. Righty, righty, righty, righty, righty, righty, righty. Perfect setup for a bullpen to devastate the team with specialists. I always thought this was overlooked. In that other thread where we talked about lineup: the distribution of talent has shown not to make a huge difference, but I think the handedness is a much bigger factor. I love the idea of alternating when possible, and I'd probably set the lineup like this: L Eaton R Ramirez L Dunn R Abreu L Gillaspie R Viciedo L De Aza R Flowers R Beckham You can swap Dunn and Gillaspie if you want to be more traditional; I tend to favor the Tom Tango model that argues low contact HR threats should be third and higher contact hitters should be fifth, but it's splitting hair either way. With Eaton on the DL, I'd probably go: R Ramirez L Gillaspie R Abreu L Dunn R Viciedo L De Aza R Flowers R Beckham S Garcia

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) It amazes me that intelligent posters are so gullible, constantly arguing with the people who take the most ridiculous stances and make the most over the top statements. I could understand if they made points where you could make a counterpoint. But the hook is just thrown in the water without bait and so many people bite on it. Well, I think you just made a pretty good description of what a message board is on a very basic level. So maybe none of us are that smart to begin with

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 02:24 AM) Why in the heck would Sox re-sign Dunn? He's not been productive. If the Sox want to keep rebuilding and losing they could see if Dunn would DH for 4-5 million a year. What's the purpose though. You get 50 RBIs maybe all year? Stupid. If you are gonna do that, sign another plodder, Billy Butler for 7 million and see if he can reinvent himself. If not, he's as slow as Paulie and Dunn so we have our next plodder. 2014 Adam Dunn: 114 wRC+ 2014 Billy Butler: 96 wRC+ Career Adam Dunn: 123 wRC+ Career Billy Butler: 118 wRC+

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 08:13 AM) I love people are now being sarcastic with their "Robin is so bad" jokes that they're almost implying that he isn't bad. I'm not sure what games you guys are watching, but the dude is clearly a bad in-game manager. I'm not holding the lack of talent against him and I'm sure as hell not going with the ridiculous Balta argument that a lack of fundamentals in spring training carried over the entire season. He simply makes bad decisions on a regular basis. I'm not going to provide a bunch of examples either, although I'm sure Dick Allen will request. Robin might be worse than average, but let's be honest, this isn't a thread about him being anywhere in the realm of acceptable: this is the thread called "Is Robin the Worst Manager in the HISTORY of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL?" and it includes several examples of posters claiming that, with a better manager, our team would be in FIRST PLACE. It includes several other references claiming that, with a different manager, our team would be a shoe-in for one of the Wild Card berths. It has posters honestly watching games, looking at the roster, and claiming that a different manager would be able to coax OUR BULLPEN into success. It has posters blaming defensive errors on Robin Ventura, poorly executed bunts on Robin Ventura, the role of freaking Paul Konerko on Robin Ventura. It has poster blaming the entirety of the person named ALEJANDRO DE AZA on Robin Ventura. That's what this thread is. And this thread is a joke.

Another bonehead move by Robin Ventura last night: the team didn't even play! You want to talk about ruining everything? By neither winning nor losing, RV somehow blew a chance to (1) get a game closer in the 2nd wild card and (2) improve the Sox' draft pick next year. At this point, Juan Pierre would be a better choice as manager. #FIREROBIN #WORSTMANAGERINHISTORYOFBASEBALL #FIRSTPLACEUNDERADIFFERENTMANAGER #LASTPLACEUNDERADIFFERENTMANAGER

QUOTE (The Wiz @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 09:52 PM) Am I the only one a bit disturbed by the fact it took much statistical analysis of lineups for this to be proven? Yes, you are. Why wouldn't managers want to know if optimizing their lineup could help them get significantly more out of their players?

No one would take that contract? Seriously? http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/08/curt...le-waivers.html

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 06:26 AM) What exactly is not much of a difference? QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 07:15 AM) I don't remember the exact numbers, but the difference between the least optimized lineup and the most optimized lineup is like 20-30 runs, which is 2-3 wins in a context neutral setting, and much of that difference can be cancelled out by dumb luck, which you cannot control for in any setting. And I believe that is almost always the difference. If you have good hitters, you'll score runs no matter how the lineup is set, and if you have bad hitters, you won't score runs, no matter how the lineup is set. Right. Basically, there are two reasons why it doesn't matter much: 1. Even a "traditional" lineup is only a few spots different than a proper, ideal lineup. The 2-3 wins difference comes when you compare the ideal lineup with like the worst possible one, with a pitcher batting fourth, etc. 2. Players are so random with when they perform, that batter and run sequencing is completely unpredictable. The best leadoff hitters in the game get on base about 10% more than the worst, Will that 1 time in ten fall when your clean up hitter is going to hit a double? Sometimes. But your bad leadoff hitter might happen to get on base in more opportune times just by chance. Don't get me wrong -- I believe in giving yourself the best chance possible, even when the improvements are incremental. But like wite said: at the end of the day, your hitters are gonna hit or not. And the difference is small enough that you could make an argument that the psychological effects of hitters "feeling comfortable" in their roles or not could outweigh the benefits or trying to line up your performance sequencing. So because it's probably a wash, I generally just give the manager the benefit of the doubt, assuming he's using the lineup as a component of his clubhouse psyche. Like, maybe Leury feels frustrated that he hasn't had a chance to play regularly, and now that Eaton is on the DL, RV is putting him in the leadoff spot where he feels like he has his best chance to succeed with his tools, and where he feels like he's being giving a shot to play an important role in keeping the team in the conversation for the wild card spot. If that's true and that's what motivates Leury, the mental edge will outweigh the disadvantage of not having the lineup right.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) So if we picked him up, the only way to keep him next year would be to offer him arbitration which would probably involve a 20% raise because arb usually does, meaning that he'd cost us $5 million next year to keep? That seems ugh. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 05:05 PM) He will be non tendered. It is amazing how other teams' crap looks so good. If you absolutely must have him, sign him when he's non tendered. He sucks so bad now, 2 contending teams want no oart of him. If he isn't worth the $5m, you just non-tender him. The reason other teams' crap looks so good right now is because we have the worst bullpen there is. I say take a flyer on the guy because he has a good arm and has been good before, so you might catch lightning in a bottle. And then you have someone for 2015

lol

Why are we getting so worked up over this? It doesn't matter. His presence on the team has neither helped nor hurt our chances of winning this year. What should we have done with the roster spot? Parked Marcus Semien on the bench?

Bullpen is so bad that we're better off without even having a left-hander -- in an era where optimizing bullpen platoon matchups can produce per-inning results similar to elite starters. Yeah, this is Robin Ventura's fault.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 11, 2014 -> 05:27 AM) I'm not a fan of Robin as a manager. I doubt he'd be able to take this squad to the next level. That said, not his fault the bullpen blows and Eaton gets hurt. Wish he'd realize that Leury should never bat lead off, despite not having many other options. Pretty much EVERY manager is bad at lineups. Fortunately, studies show that they don't make much of a difference. I used to stress out about lineups, but it just doesn't matter enough to worry about.

QUOTE (chisoxfan310 @ Aug 10, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Don't the Angels have a tv deal like the Dodgers coming up soon? If so, money won't be a problem for them. They were already looking for pitching before this news. Just because you have money doesn't mean you should waste money.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) This is the point that I think is TOTAL BS!! The team was "SUPPOSED" to lose in 2014?? If Rick Hahn told Jerry Reinsdorf and Kenny Williams that "I HAVE NO PLAN ON WINNING IN 2014, AND IN FACT, MY PLAN IS TO CONTINUE LOSING IN 2014" what do you think they would have said? Like any good boss, they would have said -- come back to me when you have a better plan. You may sit here as a casual fan and spin out 5 years plans and hypothetical trades, and fantasize in August 2014 about next year's lineup, but I GUARANTEE you that's not what Rick Hahn's job is. That's not the reality of running the Chicago White Sox. In the real world, the Chicago White Sox have to try to compete every year, even if they are also rebuilding to strengthen their club for the future. They aren't the Cubs, who get a perennial pass and adoration from clueless fans regardless of the crappy teams they put on the field. So, Rick Hahn did a lot of things this offseason to both rebuild the team, and get it to compete for a playoff spot in 2014. If he didn't care about the latter, there are a lot of things he wouldn't have done, because they have no future with the club. Why keep Adam Dunn? Why not just dump him for as much salary relief as you can get? Why keep De Aza? He's also got no long term future, and is the highest paid outfielder on the team, as a BACKUP! Why re-sign Paul Konerko for another year? He's going to retire at year's end. Why dump money into signing Downs and Bellisario and Paulino? None of these guys could be expected to last even if they pitched as well as they had in the past. Why not unload John Danks at the trade deadline for salary relief, even if you get nothing back? More money to spend in the future. Why is Gordon Beckham still here? You might be "HAPPY" about a Sox team that is going to miss the playoffs again, and is sinking like a rock now that the complete collapse of the bullpen has sapped any remaining chances the team had of making a late season run. I see a team that had tremendous POTENTIAL, that could have made the playoffs in 2014 with a better bullpen plan and a better manager. When that potential is undermined and lost, I'm disappointed. And I think the guy who put the plan together deserves to be criticized, because with a better plan, the team could have made a run. As I said earlier, I think Rick Hahn would AGREE. I'm guessing he's learned a lot from the mistakes he's made, and isn't planning on repeating them. There's a massive difference between "trying to lose" and "not being willing to try as hard as we can at the moment, because the implications of doing so and failing will affect our longer-term goal." When we say "supposed" to lose, we are referring to the latter. Maybe "expected" to lose is better. I'm really shocked that you don't seem to understand this -- it's a very, very common reality in professional sports. It is a necessary evil in a world where players have the leverage to demand more resources than are in the team's best interest to commit. You keep acting like we are happy about the fact the team is losing, which is insane. We're just looking at it with the glass half-full: the team sucked more than they've ever sucked in my entire lifetime in 2013. After a bunch of theoretically sustainable improvements, they are showing signs of life in 2014. They've been much better to watch, they promise to continue improving, and the front office has managed to make these upgrades while maintaining the flexibility to make more soon. That's good, efficient business.

$3.8m and arb eligible. Biggest change is he started walking way more dudes. Striking out a few less but still above 8 k's per inning. We need to take a flyer on this guy if he falls to us. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/08/pira...assignment.html

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) Obviously things are a little bit better, but let's see the last six weeks play out. I kind of disagree. 1B-Yes you are right. We have a star. 3B-Maybe. Unfortunately because of Gillaspie's defense, the verdict is still out. He has improved hitting wise. Still not a lot of RBIs. CF - Yes he's good, but LF and RF are still question marks. Farm system - I thought all our outfield candidates were busts. People have been blasting Semien as being a bust as far as being a future starter. What down there is so great besides Rodon? Is Micah very good or not? Most importantly - Pitching. Sale and Q are the only ultra reliable starters. Rodon is the next ace type hopefully. And the defense is projected as remaining lousy with A. Garcia coming back and Tank still out leftfielder with a sieve at third base. Who replaces Lexi? My point is, if the Sox continue to tank and finish about 15 below .500 is the optimism still there? I think Fathom's recent post is more accurate about having 5-6 very good players and the rest below average. Fangraphs projects the Sox to finish with 76 wins, and that feels about right to me. It also feels like a really awesome improvement over 63 the year previous, and it comes with a ton of blown bullpen games that we can expect to disappear if we can even have an average one next year.

QUOTE (LDF @ Aug 8, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) I am going to try to play devils. advocate, maybe what may have thrown a monkey wrench in the hole plan was several factors. Jose A being as good as he is, very good performance by a hand full of starters including Adam E, and pride in themselves. this team is doing well above what many thought they would do, including me. that is way I am excited for 2015 team and what other pieces Hahn would bring in. Exactly. The team was SUPPOSED to have no shot at winning. The fact that a bunch of stuff went better than expected should make us HAPPY, not make us b**** about not having an elite bullpen. Let's not be spoiled children. This could be a fun offseason and a fun 2015.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 08:55 PM) The fact of the matter is this, and I'm sure I've pretty much said this multiple times, but it can't be stressed enough. Maybe putting it another way might finally get through to some people. Rick Hahn had a bullpen with a guy he thought was gonna be the closer(Jones), a guy who had closer experience(Lindstrom), a guy who Don Cooper mentioned as a closer(Webb), a guy who previously had success in 3 of 4 seasons(Belly), a guy who has been one of the most consistent LH relievers in baseball(Downs), and a guy who showed some promise and is now our best reliever(Petricka). Now, it didn't work, that's baseball, but when you look at that, I just don't see how you can blame Hahn. The thought was there. On a team that just lost 99 games you're probably not gonna have the kinda depth needed to cover for 2 injured pieces and 2 players that blew up in your face. That's just the way it goes. Yes, in hindsight the pen would probably be better of with Reed back there. It also would be better with Jones, Lindstrom, and past versions of Belly and Downs. As far as the rotation goes, again, depth is not a main concern unless you think the team is going to compete. There wasn't a soul here who thought this team would compete, and I'm sure most everyone in that FO thought the same. Sale-Q-Danks-Johnson were all locks to make this team going into the season. Rienzo wasn't dreadful last season and Paulino has a really good arm that Coop was unable to harness. Again, the thought was there to have a non-trash rotation. The intentions were good about as good as you're gonna get for a team that just lost 99 games, the results were not. I tried to be as clear as I can get, because this thread has gone on way too long. If you're not buyin what I'm sellin then I'm done here.... ...drops mic Right, this!

QUOTE (VAfan @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 05:23 PM) Glad to know you aren't calling me a simpleton or anything similar. But it's no excuse to not doing a better job of building a bullpen that could reasonably compete in 2014. As I've said, I think Rick Hahn had a plan to do that, it just was a VERY BAD plan. I also think he underestimated the value of a competent bullpen, or he would have put at least a little more attention to this area. That DOESN'T mean that I thought he should have spent tens of millions to buy expensive bullpen pieces on a team not ready to compete for the World Series -- even if they were ready to compete for a playoff spot this year. As I said above, rebuilding and contending are not mutually exclusive. And you can't convince me that Rick Hahn is allowed by Jerry Reinsdorf and Kenny Williams to make a plan going into a season that says -- "you know, we are going to ask our fans to back us, but we aren't really going to have a plan to compete this season, it's going to have to wait for another year or two." I just don't think the White Sox think that way. The plan is just fine. That the execution fell apart was ALWAYS a possibility and would have been even if the plan were different. Part of the plan is that you accept higher short-term risk in your bullpen in exchange for less long-term risk, because the ultimate goal is to remain flexible with your resources so that you can most adequately and immediately complement your team as you get closer to contention. What happened to the bullpen this year was about the worst realistic outcome in the spectrum. It was more likely that they were adequate as a group, and it was probably just AS likely that they exceeded expectations as it was that they failed so miserably. If a front office fails at this strategy consistently, then you can question their ability to evaluate talent, but this is EXACTLY what the Cubs have been doing to the past few years and the result for them has been a net positive. So if you want to criticize it, then make an argument against the FO's ability to identify good bounceback candidates -- but the plan itself makes plenty of sense.

The worst thing about Robin, IMO, is that he doesn't signal for the homerun nearly often enough. We all complain about the bullpen a lot, but how many games has the bullpen blown that couldn't have been salvaged if Robin just had his guys hit a few homeruns the next inning? It makes. No. SENSE! It's like he's not paying attention to the score.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) I also don't think De Aza will be back next year. Neither do I. He's an even easier non-tender than Beckham given that Hawk hasn't brainwashed the fanbase into loving him for five years.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Aug 6, 2014 -> 08:04 PM) Do people still think Leury Garcia is worthy of a roster spot for next year? .182/.216/.236. You just can't carry that from someone who's not a pitcher. I'd like to see him get consistent at-bats for year before I write him off, because he's the best defensive option we currently have when we say goodbye to Alexei. He's never going to be a GOOD hitter, but he could be a nice player by just not being terrible. And it sure is hard to get a groove going when you play infrequently, especially when your skills are fringey to begin with.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) I fully agree; I've long thought BAPIP, while interesting, is a pretty overrated / overrelied upon stat. I'm sure 20 years ago people would have been talking about Tony Gwynn's BAPIP as being unsustainable. I think you'd be better focusing on line drive rates and actual indicators of how a guy is hitting. If I were in the majors, I'd have a BAPIP of 0 (this is assuming I actually was able to put a ball in play)...does that mean I'm the most unlucky hitter in the world and should revert to some better number; no, absolutely not; It would be because I am a BAD hitter. I understand BAPIP a bit when it comes to looking at larger sample sizes of players who have proven themselves to see if potentially they've hit a string of bad luck, but again, I could just as easily focus on average and line drive rates vs. historic line drive rates of an individual player and probably get a more meaningful result. It's an extremely valuable frame of reference. Sure Tony Gwynn breaks the mold, but he's a Hall of Famer and a generational talent, and even he couldn't keep it over .400. That should tell you a LOT about when guys like Beckham or Flowers are over .500 for stretches. It's a critical factor if you're trying to decide if a guy has figured something out or not. The thing about line drive rates is that they are not particularly stable either, which is what makes xBABIP an interesting stat too.