Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) 63% is a little low, but my gut tells me it's not far off from being worthwhile to steal in today's environment. The 75% threshold that we've all engraved into our brains was from an offensive environment that was incredibly different from today's where runs were a lot easier to come by and base runners getting out was one of the worst things you could do. Now playing for one run is much more valuable (though it still does not make the sacrifice bunt worthwhile unless you are playing for 1 run and the runner is on 2B with nobody out and the guy at the plate is not a very good hitter). Someone re-ran it a couple years ago, and it was right around 71%, I believe. Probably safe to assume 70% now.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 09:43 AM) 450 points of OPS. Four hundred and fifty. Tyler was a better option. Anyone can cherry pick here. I'll take my cherries over yours. You're taking the argument backward two steps. As I said before: non-DP contact was a more important outcome than a hit at the time. Tyler Flowers was much more likely to strike out and much more likely to hit into a DP. If you still think Flowers was the right option, I can totally respect that. I'm just saying that there is a legitimate argument to use De Aza, which makes Ventura's move NOT insane-o-pants like people are saying, even if you'd ultimately have acted differently.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:47 AM) Vs. a lefty with a sweeping breaking ball? no. The pitch ADA struck out on was two feet outside. Same pitch might have hit TF on the ankle, tying up the game. Only half-joking here. Flowers has struck out 36% of the time against lefties this year, 35% overall. De Aza 31% vs lefties, 22% overall. And if you're talking about hindsight versus the specific final pitch of De Aza's at bat, you must now admit that we are way, way beyond talking about managerial strategy.

106 wRC+ from the left side with scratch defense in CF? I'm thrilled, especially because I think he still has upside.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) Tyler was the clear choice to PH for De Aza. Despite having a lousy year, and small sample sizes, granted, he's OPSing 450 points better than ADA vs. lefties. And he's currently a "hot" bat, regardless of the reasons or their validity. Two batters ahead of DeAza I noted that Tyler should hit for him if it came to that. Yes, the players failed, inexcusably. Yes, many other changes are also needed. Frustration with players does not excuse Robin's incompetence. Tyler may have been more likely to get a hit there, but he was also way more likely to strikeout and way more likely to hit into a DP.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) Hey just because someone at the beginning of the thread said worst manager ever do not apply it to everyone else who thinks Robin isn't a good manager. Sorry. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) Also don't throw out a stat that some of us still don't comprehend fully like wRC+. I do know Sierra was at .233 against RH's and De Aza .083 this year. It's basically a summary stat that factors OBP and SLG components in so it isn't just AVG. It's scaled so that 100 is league average and each point represent a percentage point above or below. So 47 and 60 are super, super bad. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) The last thing the Sox needed out of De Aza was a K or DP . The RH vs LH match up at least cuts down on the K odds.The only thing you need to know is THIS YEAR not career De Aza sucked against LH's . Of course Sierra or Flowers was a better choice. There is no MAYBE about it. I'm not sure this is true. There's a lot of research that indicates that career stats are substantially more predictive than season stats, no matter where the AB in question falls in terms of a hot or cold streak. Given that De Aza's career wRC+ against lefties is identical to Sierra's, but over a much, much larger sample, it seems to me that it was probably pretty close to a wash. Certainly, it's within the realm of "maybe." QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) The significant difference you talk about between Sierra and Konerko doesn't even matter if Leury does not score 1st. Increase the odds of Leury scoring is the numero uno priority in that situation. Of course, but the point is that the difference between Sierra and De Aza is at least arguably negligible. Also, keep this in mind: the most important thing in the situation was NOT necessarily a hit, but rather contact. De Aza is a career 20% K guy (22% this year) where Sierra is a career 26% K guy (26% this year). I'm sure Robin didn't have those K percentages in his head at the time, but he very possibly trusted De Aza to get a bat on the ball more than he trusted Sierra to do so. THEN factor in the fact that the advantage on the bases is a component, and it doesn't sound like a horrible decision to me. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) I am not going to take up the cross for the anti Robin guys here. I think most of them are reasonable and objective with their opinions and not looking to blame Robin but just observing the game as it happens. Robin's job is to increase the odds of success and lessen the odds of failure. He made good moves last night but also bad or if you prefer questionable ones. And similarly, I'm not trying to make Robin out like a genius, I just think that the move we're talking about here (and many others in previous games) are at least defensible moves -- nothing like bone-headed fireable offenses that it seems like people are making them out to be. I'm not saying Robin is awesome, but I'm not seeing anything to suggest that he's taking wins away from the players. He may have made a few mistakes, but they're digging their own graves from what I can see.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 05:30 AM) Dude you're preaching to the choir. I know he's a bad hitter I was only saying that IF he hits well for the rest of the season it would certainly make me rethink his suckiness. Isn't that true of literally every player in the MLB, though?

AL CY, I believe, is Felix's to lose. If he gets roughed up for a few starts and Sale stays good, I think Sale has a real shot.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 01:10 AM) "John Danks is bad. He's not worth anything, even if the White Sox pick up almost all of the contract." -Dave Cameron on 7/23/14 I think that was his response to my comment asking about Danks' maximum trade value

So Robin is the worst manager ever because he didn't save Moises Sierra for a pinch hitting situation. Moises Sierra, who has a 47 wRC+ this season, 60 wRC+ against lefties. De Aza is having a really bad year, but in his career vs. lefties he has an 85 wRC+. Was Sierra a better choice? Maybe, but you could argue either way. Regardless, it sounds like the difference between fighting a bear using a spork or a toothpick. Given the relatively even odds of failure with each batter at the plate, is it not at least defensible to at least make sure the runner on second would score on a base hit? At least there's a significant difference between Sierra and Konerko on the basepaths -- I'm not sure there really was one between De Aza and Sierra at the plate. At the end of the day, the team had a runner on third with no outs and couldn't manage to tie the game. A complete failure of the players on the field.

Lol, best record in baseball without Robin. Jesus

Not much to worry about -- the guys we'd trade aren't worth hardly anything anyway.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/07/rays...assignment.html He's been hit around a touch, but looking at his pripherals, his problem is that he's been walking way more dudes than at any other point in his career. I believe that he'll either regress or that Coop can tweak his mechanics to give him his old control back. Why? Because you gotsta believe. He's a pending FA on little money, so I says we tries to fixes him then resigns him.

Contemplating the 4 hour drive each way. All the hotels are booked or I'd drive up tonight. Eh, that's a long time in the car.

I don't think there's much of an argument that Sale is better than Felix at the moment.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2014 -> 12:45 AM) Wasn't a joke. He gets an A-minus? Whoever does that metric thinks Beckham is valuable. Same if it's a B-plus. I believe Beckham is a lousy offensive ballplayer. So it's the metric which says he's good vs. greg who says he is not good. I think most fans would agree with me. Greg.

What we're learning tonight is that Kevin Correa is worse than John Danks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) hush your large hippo mouth

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 05:32 PM) Beckham rates as an A- on the Advanced Stats Grading Scale (ASGS) However, if he keeps on hitting like he is, he's heading straight for a B+ in the minds of the advanced stats gurus I prefer ASGS+, because it's shift-adjusted, factors in pitch framing, and strips away all of a hitter's credit for run production and replaces it with "intended run production" and then redistributes all events randomly, pretending that all players would have acted like average players. And then they review every play with replay and give out the MVP by WAR.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) Those of us advanced stat haters laugh again. If there are advanced stats that say Beckham is anything but a C-minus grade type player then I say, cmon. All you do is have to watch the games and track season after season to know Beckham is lousy. I mean are we all in agreement Beckham is a C or D player? He's no A or B. Your reading comprehension has not been strong today, friend.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/frankt...ll-fame-tribute

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) They don't have to collapse is what I'm saying. If the Sox had one of those 25-5 streaks in them they had in 2010, they probably are in. The 2010 team was like this team except for that streak. They were 6 under without that streak. The problem is, the Sox don't have a roster where you can anticipate a real hot run even for 12-15 games, and really don't have pieces that are worth trading for an upgrade that probably still doesn't get them there. I don't think leapfrogging 6 or 8 teams if there is a 5 game difference right now, that big of a deal. The problem is, at least so far on the field and on paper, the Sox roster is probably worse than the teams it would have to jump over, and upgrading the bullpen is going to be tough, unless they are willing to do something that is probably stupid. We're splitting hairs, and I agree with your point about this team not being built well for a streak of sustained winning -- but the amount of teams they have to "beat" increases the quality of "hot streak" required in order to ensure victory in the absence of 6 "collapses" of the other teams. Sure, a 25-5 streak would put them ahead of the expected performances of all 6 teams, but the 25-5 streak is so astronomically unlikely, that it's a wash. If they only had to get over, say, two teams, then the "hot streak" would maybe "only" have to be something like 20-10 to get in, because we'd already have a better record than so many of the other contenders.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) I see a lot of hating on Dunn, but little about the actual deal. People simply say it made sense at the time. Do you deny this? I'd say a majority of the posts on Danks mention getting "rid of him now" and disdain about the money he makes and wanting to free it up. I don't mind Danks at all. I think he's had a fine season. He's the least of the Sox problems. Sale, Danks and Q are a great 3/5s of a rotation I think. After the performance last night you wonder why Sox aren't winning more with 4/5s of it sometimes doing well. Yes, the Dunn deal DID make sense at the time. He was one of the most consistent players in the entire league who just so happened to possess a skillset that filled a gaping hole in what looked like a team that was about one gaping hole away from being a real contender. Careful analysis of his performance leading up to the deal show a remarkably stable and predictable career arc that saw him one to two years into a gradual decline that would see him as a market-rate value upfront and acceptably overpaid at the end of his contract. There was no way at all to predict the ~1% mental, fall-off-a-cliff, total collapse scenario that ensued, and frankly, if our front office made its decisions based on fear of flukey outcomes like Dunn's, you'd be posting livid every day calling for their heads for never "going for it."

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 02:32 PM) Why? In football they celebrate the mega deals, but the minute the player sucks they can cut him loose the following season. Also, the teams all pretty much have a shot at the playoffs if they are not complete buffoons in the front office. Baseball there's all this wasted money floating out there. Yeah, it's awesome how the NFL takes young people, pays them to run into each other headfirst at full speed for like three years, and then then kicks them to the curb after they start showing symptoms of permanent disability, leaving them to fend for themselves without any career skills as they deal with worsening symptoms of chronic brain damage.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) Just another guy teams sign and ultimately want to get rid of to save the money. Here's a helpful hint: DONT SIGN THEM TO THESE TYPE CONTRACTS IN THE FIRST PLACE! Damn, I wish baseball had the same system as football. Most baseball players would be out on their butts two years after signing their mega deals. Teams almost always regret the deals shortly after the player signs them. How the hell did the NFL pull that off with its players union? Wow. The MLB Player's Association is one of the strongest labor unions in the country. The NFL union has buckled to strikes twice in the past 30 years and lost a ton of leverage as a result.