Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 9, 2014 -> 08:50 PM) Let me know it's the 9th in that one Yeah I just switched over. 8th, two outs, full count to JBJ

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ May 9, 2014 -> 07:54 PM) Shoulda put money on the over. Yep

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 9, 2014 -> 03:49 PM) It's against forum rules to post pictures relating to Brandon McCarthy that aren't this one, and only this one, now and forever.... Indeed. Edited OP appropriately

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ May 9, 2014 -> 04:34 PM) I think you mean Pierce Johnson. Also, Vizcaino won't be a starter anytime soon, if ever. Oh yeah, Steven Pearce is the AAAA first baseman, right? lol whoops

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2014 -> 04:05 PM) Except they really have no pitching at all after Smarj gets dealt. They've got two solid mid guys in Edwin Jackson and Travis Wood, they've got CJ Edwards, Steven Pierce, and Arodys Vizcaino on the farm, a glut of OF prospects to trade, and you'd expect they'd be active in free agency if they felt they were on the verge. Again, it may not all work out, but they presumably plan for it to work out, and if it does, 2.5 from now is realistic. Also, generally speaking, I think there are very few teams with no realistic chance of being competitive 3 seasons from any given point. So if you disagree with that, we may just have different thresholds for "realistic chance."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) That is an assload of "if's". Especially since their ace is probably getting dealt here in a month or two. Of course, all plans are made entirely of if's. I'm just saying as it stands today, if things go the way they hope, contention is definitely plausible in year six.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2014 -> 02:29 PM) I can't see anyway that the Cubs can do this in six years, considering this is year 4. They could totally be competitive in 2.5 more years. If Rizzo remains legit, Lake/Olt take steps forward this year, and they have a good few callups in September, they're right on track for 6 years, actually. May not be likely, but it's certainly realistically possible.

Kolek looks a lot like Gavin Floyd to me, both in physical appearance/shape and in his mechanics.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 9, 2014 -> 01:41 PM) The question asked was how long does Rienzo last? 5.5 or less? How does a pitcher go 5 1/2 innings? That is six in baseball terms You do an unachievable midpoint in over/under so there can't be an in-between option. If I picked 5 innings even, for example, and he pitched exactly 5 innings, it would be neither over OR under.

QUOTE (hi8is @ May 9, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Crazy ass s*** that we're already nearly 1/4th of the way through the season. I was thinking the same

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) keithlaw ‏@keithlaw 3h UNLV RHP Erick Fedde won't pitch this weekend either due to a tender elbow. Good, we definitely won't reach for him then.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ May 9, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) My picks to click are Goldschmidt and Gillaspie I think I'm feeling a Gillaspie night, too.

5/9/14 (2-0, 4.50) vs. (1-5, 4.67) O/U Innings Rienzo throws: 5.5 Lineups:

I'm still salty over not getting Salty at that price. I don't think anyone ever doubted that Ruiz would be good, just that we didn't want a stopgap solution.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) He is also very obviously cheerleading his own guy. People read way too much into stuff like this. Yeah but you hurt your own integrity when you say stupid stuff like that. I have to believe a guy is being honest with me if I'm going to respect his opinion. He could totally say "If it weren't for the nasty, otherwordly things that Tulo has been doing, Alexei would be playing better than any SS in the league right now" and still get the point across. All this of course is made worse than it needs by Hawk's habit to say the exact same sentence on air for about 9 consecutive days to work it out of his system.

QUOTE (beautox @ May 8, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) I disagree, Semien's K problem is about as good of a K problem as you can have; Its systemic from the fact that he doesn't swing enough, which to me is a hell of a lot easier to correct than someone who consistently expands their zone. Semien's swinging strike % is 9.5 and his zone contact % is 82.9 lastly his zone swing percentage 59.4%. TL:DR Marcus swings at strikes in the zone 60% while making contact on said strikes nearly 83%, Simply put he has a very good eye and needs to become more aggressive on strikes in the zone while maintaing his discipline at balls out of the zone to correct his problem. The good news is Semien is getting deep into counts the bad news (see: inexperienced) he is making the wrong decision late in counts that are leading to his prolific K rate. The Sox have the potential for a very good cheap infield and its possible if Davidson gets back on track at the minor league level they move him and leave Semien at 3B he has 20/25-20/25 (across three levels last year he hit 21HR and stole 26 bases) potential which would be well above average for that position. In Carlos Sanchez is see Everth Cabrera as a realistic comp or Erik Aybar if his power continues to develop, his glove has always been highly regarded at 2B and I think he could be average to slightly above at SS where his bat would play even better considering his low .ISO. Lastly Micah Johnson still has a bit of work to do against left handed pitching in terms of driving the ball, but its nice to dream on the idea that maybe he can develop into a Kenny Lofton type of player at the keystone. Great post

QUOTE (flavum @ May 8, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) And he's wrong. Yep, especially when you consider Tulo already has a +4.8 UZR somehow. Also, I mean .414./.511/.775. That's 235 wRC+. Miguel Cabrera's triple crown year was 166. Ain't NOBODY been better than Tulo so far this year, position-specific or not.

Law has ol' Casey Gillaspie all the way down at #72 I have a feeling we're going to end up with Jakson Reetz at #44

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) You are saying just because a guy is a good hitter in a 8-2 game, he will be equally as good given the sample size is adequate in a 4-3 game in the ninth inning with men on base. Yes. It's not something I believe or think should be the case, but it is. It's a fact that has been studied and proven. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) If players were computers or we were playing Strat-o-matic and rolling dice, I would agree, but there is a human element, and pressure affects people differently. In golf, some great golfers make 5 foot puts with a tournament on the line, others lip them out. In basketball some 80% free throw shooters make their free throws in the first half, but at the end with the game on the line, seem to miss more often. Same thing in baseball. Same thing in business. Same thing in relationships. Same thing in everything. I know what you're saying and I agree that it's real. It just turns out that at the highest level of baseball specifically, these guys are good enough mentally and physically to keep it "turned on" all or most of the time. I don't know if this is the case in basketball or golf or anything else -- I wouldn't be surprised either way. Guys have rough days, guys have lazy days, guys get hot, guys are distracted, guys have bad attitudes, guys dog it, guys pick up their teammates, etc., I grant this. All these things affect individual outcomes. But in the end, the differences at that level aren't enough to predict future behavior.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 09:21 AM) Again, I disagree. Your argument when some data is pointed out not to show your position is correct is sample size. Your argument to me is given enough of a sample a good hitter will be a good clutch player. (I still disagree with that, but OK) The argument I have is that sample isn't going to be available. In order to be a good clutch player, you are going to have to do it with a small sample size. If you do not, you aren't a clutch player. Your clutch opportunities are limited. Right. And since the samples are necessarily limited, they don't accurately predict future performance, which means they don't accurately identify players who are "clutch enough" to be expected to perform better in clutch situations. And so small sample numbers of players in clutch situations are not useful identifiers of good clutch players. You can use clutch score, leverage index, raw WPA/LI, RISP, postseason, or whatever. The bottom line is that for any given player, his career batting line is a more accurate predictor of his situational performance than his past performance in the same situation. So there is no player, anywhere, who you can point to and accurately say, "this guy is probably going to do well in this situation because he has a history of doing well in this situation."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 8, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) For what it's worth, Brett has played 43 post-season games and has a career OPS in those games of well over 1.000, compared to lower numbers for regular season play. Is that "clutch"? Of course, when you compare it to Tulowitzki or some of the numbers from the past 15 years, it's not so amazing...we all have selective memories to reinforce what we already believe to be true. Yes, true. But this is 160 at bats. He deserves credit for his performance in those 160 ABs, but they don't tell us that he'll continue to perform that way in the future.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) I don't have to prove Brett was clutch. I never brought him up. Someone just posted his stats with RISP and without. You were the one that said that proved your point. It doesn't. It proved the point that simply claiming that something is true doesn't make it true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) I think any reasonable person would conclude that it is crazy to think players who are normally good hitters don't ever choke They do choke. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) and guys who are normally average hitters, seem to bear down and step up in certain situations. They do step up and bear down sometimes. But neither group does it with enough consistency to make it predictive. Marcus Semien has been clutch so far, but there isn't reason to believe he'll continue to be clutch going forward. Swisher has been s*** in the playoffs, but there isn't reason to believe he'll be s*** going forward. It's like A Rod, right? World famous playoff choker with the Yankees in the mid-2000's, assuming you ignore his excellent 2004 postseason, of course. 2005? .133/.435/.200 Boo! 2006? .071/.133/.071 BOO! 2007? .267/.353/.467 Ok maybe not super bad but not worth $30m/yr! BOO! He's a bum! He can't cut it when the pressure's on! Three years of suck in the postseason. He'll never... wait... 2009: .365/.500/.808 HERO! What changed? Nothing. His postseason appearances from 2005-2007 combined sum 13 games. The 2009 postseason alone was 15 games, which means that over the course of that whole CHOKE PERIOD, he actually had more games as awesome than he did as bad. If you include the 11 games in 2004, he had exactly TWICE as many games as awesome than as bad. He earned those s*** games. He choked for sure. But it didn't mean he wasn't capable of stepping up, just that he hadn't -- until he did. I mean think about it: Flowers can be a monster for a whole MONTH. Why do we think we can judge a guy's true talent/disposition/whatever over 13 select games through 3 seasons? You don't make the MLB if you can't play in front of thousands of people when the game is on the line. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you win, but if an average hitter steps up to the plate, there's an average chance he's going to come through for you. Historical data confirms this. The whole point is this: If the game is on the line, I want Jose Abreu up, not Marcus Semien.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) No. BA with RISP vs. BA vs. runners not is scoring position does not show clutch vs. non clutch. For a guy who needs these advanced stats to show who is better than who, it does seem odd you will take an old school random stat, which really doesn't jive with the argument, and say that shows George Brett really wasn't as clutch as some think. If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway? It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) How do you explain Nick Swisher's failure in the playoffs? The guy has almost 200 postseason plate appearances and has been brutal. He's been a pretty good offensive player during his career. You said it: That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:09 AM) What does that prove? He gets on base .056 more with runners in scoring postion, yet has a lower batting average and slugging percentage. Seems when there are RISP, George wasn't pitched to very much. And not all AB with RISP are really clutch, and there are some clutch hits when runners are not in scoring position. Like a runner at 1b, when they really can't or won't pitch around him. It proves he hit worse, but got walked more. If that's your definition of an ultimate clutch hitter, then I guess that's what he was. The George Brett example doesn't prove anything league-wide, but the reams of large-scale studies I referenced and/or linked do, and that wasn't convincing anyone. The George Brett example does prove that just because 15 random people are quoted as saying George Brett was clutch doesn't mean it was actually the case.