Eminor3rd

QUOTE (glangon @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) If you take away average, the stats in the minors are not that much different. Danks with regular playing time at the end of last season was hitting consistantly and does have a sweet throwing arm. Interesting how you post Bourjous peak in the minors but not Danks, for the argument sake - in 2012 for AAA Charlotte Jordan Danks hit .317/.428/.514/.942 Every stat there is better than Bourjous peak season in the minors. What this comes down to is that you are arguing about trading away our 3rd / 4th rotation pitcher for a player who is not much better than our projected OF back up in 2014. I don't see how that has value long term. I would want better than that if I'm trading away Santiago. I definitely wouldn't trade Q for Bourjous. As previous posters have said, we may have one shot at trading away a starting pitcher, I wouldn't want to waste it on Bourjous. I think you have a point, but the fact of the matter is that Bourjos has a 4+ win season in the majors under his belt. Jordan Danks has never even SNIFFED that level of production. The tools match up but the results just don't.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I seriously think they can get Bourjos with Snodgress/Beck plus Petricka It seems to me like the Angels want pitching that can contribute immediately. Those guys have a chance of contributing in 2014, but I don't think the Angels are in a position to use it as a "see what we have with some guys" type of year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) I'd be disappointed if the Sox were looking at it that way. If Quintana could bring back Soler and Almora or some of the packages mentioned for Smardzija they'd be silly to turn those down when they have the available cast to reasonably replace him in the rotation via free agency. I agree with you, but there's no way in hell Quintana could bring Soler OR Almora, let alone both. And I think the Cubs/media are way overestimating the value of Samardzija. I'm not making an argument that Quintana isn't close to as valuable as those guys in my opinion, just that the current state of the trade market doesn't value him nearly as high as those types of prospects. There are only a handful of guys that will pry those names loose, and it's guys like Stanton.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) The Sox are only going to get one chance to trade a SP and they have to find a better return than Bourjos. That's a fair statement, but what do you want instead? We're all so adamant about getting ML ready talent, but if you want it also to have cheap team control and upside, you're narrowing the field quite a bit. I'd prefer the speculated Lawrie swap, but this seems more realistic because the Angels are confirmed to be shopping him.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 09:53 AM) In the minors, Bourjos was a .291/.345/.455/.799 hitter. He never repeated a level, peaking at .303/.357/.493/.850 in AAA. In the minors, Danks was a .267/.354/.423/.777 hitter. He was in his 4th season in AAA when the Sox called him up last year. Bourjos is also a far, far better defender. Danks is generally rated as average to above average. Bourjos is rated incredible to best defensive outfielder in the game. Yes, I would give up valuable pieces for Bourjos, not a doubt in my mind. He'd be a terrible leadoff hitter, but anywhere between 7th and 9th in the order would be awesome. He has the ceiling of an All-Star player. This ^ We'd all like someone better, but you can only acquire what is actually available. Bourjos is a substantial upgrade for us in CF, gives us options for our OF going forward (could De Aza or Viciedo be traded? Certainly as complementary pieces in a deal), and, most important of all, he has the elusive combination of upside and team control, which is what the 99 loss Sox need more than anything right now. Bourjos has been relegated to a part-time role by Scioscia because of Trout, Trumbo, and Hamilton (and also Vernon Wells for a while rofl), it's not unreasonable to believe he can be better with consistent playing time -- indeed, his best seasons have come as a starter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) But if you read post 144, your clarification is something totally different. No it's not. When I was saying "it," in post 144, you thought I was referring "to the decision to change pitchers." As in, "the decision to change pitcher has nothing to do with pitcher's tiredness." In my clarification, I'm trying to explain that "it" in post 144 is referring to the disparity that leads to the starkly increasing slash lines of league hitters each time through the lineup.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) I can't see him opting out after three years anyway. I believe the highest 4th year player award is still Ryan Howards $10mil. His 4th year is scheduled to be at $10.5 million. It would '18 and '19 that the Sox could get hit, as they comps get going to higher paid players instead of lower arb status players. That's not how it'l work though, they'll talk about the highest 4th year RAISES instead of total salaries. It'll be that Ryan Howard got an extra $10m or whatever.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Then why would you post what you posted in post #144? Just read the first bolded sentence in my last post. That is the direct answer to your question the first time you asked it. That is the clarification of post 144.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm NOT saying that a pitcher's stuff on that given day has nothing to do with the hitters' performance against him the 2nd/3rd time around, I'm just saying that the hitters' ability to adjust to the stuff is an element that is being overlooked, and that its significance is shown by those slash lines. So, if managers were successfully able to judge whether a pitcher should stay in or not based on his stuff, you wouldn't see such a substantial effect each time through. It's speculated that the disparity can be explained by some combination of (1) the fact that managers are flat out horrible at judging if their starters have anything left, (2) the hitters adjust to stuff quickly, or (3) the managers are purposely leaving their starters in too long for the sake of saving their bullpens. Personally, I don't think that #1 is true, at least not to the extent that it would show such a massive effect. I think a combination of #2 and #3 are true, with #2 also being supported by the disparate effectiveness of RP performance over short spans and the fact that the "best" starters find it necessary to vary approaches against hitters over the course of the game, i.e. not showing a breaking ball until the 3rd or 4th inning. So, my overall point is that #2 is a much larger effect than managers and typical fans are aware, and that the risk of leaving starters in a long time can be justifiable during the season for the sake of #3, but that in high leverage games, it would behoove a manager to, at the very least, employ a very short hook on his starter and consider planning to remove him after the second time through the lineup regardless of game situation, unless of course it's a blowout.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) This morning you saw his career numbers fit your argument better so you switched. Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point? HOLY GOD it isn't a non-factor! Do you actually read responses or do you just say the same things regardless of what people write?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this. It was me that said that, then I later clarified it but you must not have read that part.

With the Abreu signing, Trumbo has no place here, in my opinion. Bourjos though, is an interesting case. According to his stats, he's an elite defender, an above average baserunner, and a league average-ish bat. His slash line wouldn't look sexy, but he's a quiet contributor who has been underutilized by the Angels. Oh, and he has three years of control remaining. I think I'd send Santiago for him straight up. I think our pitching strength is overrated, but I also don't think competing next year is super important, and we have a lot of young pitching depth that needs 2014 to develop in the Majors.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) I said he didn't revolutionize the game, but neither did fangraphs. Saying a manager is lucky or not smart leaving a pitcher who has nothing bad happening to him in the game because of fangraphs numbers, is trying to revolutionize the game. Everyone knows pitchers tend to give up more hits and runs as the game goes on, that isn't a sabermetrics breakthrough. But if guys aren't showing signs of fading, and their pitch counts are in line, bringing someone else in just to bring them in is pointless. Riding hot players isn't a bad managerial tactic. Except when the entire league has a 60 point higher OPS the third time through the lineup.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) I actually like managers with short hooks. I just don't understand why when you starter is in no trouble and the pitch count is fine you would make a change because the league average says he should start get hit harder. And why not pulling him with no trouble brewing is considered luck and not skill. It wasn't like Ozzie was saying, "I'm going 9 with my starter no matter what". He let the game dictate what he did. If you are up 3 or 6 runs, wait until he starts getting hit, or he looks like he is tiring or his pitch count is high. There is no reason to remove a guy who is mowing them down with ease and bring in a guy who may not have it that particular day because of "league averages". If there was trouble, I'm quite certain the pitchers would have been pulled. Again, if you're up big or your guy is throwing a one-hitter, you can consider the outing special. But if you've got a regular pitcher pitching a regular game at regular stakes, the data indicates that the effect is much bigger than it seems to you or me or managers. I mean how do you explain a 60 point jump in OPS between the first and third times through? I know it may not be intuitive, but it happens, and the sample is huge. It's surprising, but it's real.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 05:56 AM) The argument was it wasn't the smart thing to do ,he got lucky, and all pitchers, if they aren't aces get hit harder the second and third time through the line up each game. You don't even have to watch, it has nothing to do with the pitchers stuff, it has everything to do with the hitter seeing him multiple times. That sure does sound like he should have take them out. Then when the numbers showed Sale wasn't like that, they numbers that really ruined the argument were dismissed as sample size, and the others didn't show what he was saying either although he tried to make it fit. No, you are guessing and assuming every pitcher is the same. The same pitcher isn't even the same each time out. Ozzie had 4 guys go all they way. He won all 4 then swept the World Series. The proof is in the pudding. I am not an Ozzie fan, but this whole entire argument is ridiculous. If these pitchers were giving a league average performance like the league average numbers you use for the argument, the bullpen would have been used. And if you are going to exempt aces, shouldn't pitching like an ace be exempt as well? Ozzie didn't revolutionize managing. I know that. But he certainly was not "not smart" with how he handled his pitching staff during the 2005 playoffs and particularly the 2005 ALCS. The 11-1 record and WS trophy can confirm that. I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm NOT saying that a pitcher's stuff on that given day has nothing to do with the hitters' performance against him the 2nd/3rd time around, I'm just saying that the hitters' ability to adjust to the stuff is an element that is being overlooked, and that its significance is shown by those slash lines. So, if managers were successfully able to judge whether a pitcher should stay in or not based on his stuff, you wouldn't see such a substantial effect each time through. It's speculated that the disparity can be explained by some combination of (1) the fact that managers are flat out horrible at judging if their starters have anything left, (2) the hitters adjust to stuff quickly, or (3) the managers are purposely leaving their starters in too long for the sake of saving their bullpens. Personally, I don't think that #1 is true, at least not to the extent that it would show such a massive effect. I think a combination of #2 and #3 are true, with #2 also being supported by the disparate effectiveness of RP performance over short spans and the fact that the "best" starters find it necessary to vary approaches against hitters over the course of the game, i.e. not showing a breaking ball until the 3rd or 4th inning. So, my overall point is that #2 is a much larger effect than managers and typical fans are aware, and that the risk of leaving starters in a long time can be justifiable during the season for the sake of #3, but that in high leverage games, it would behoove a manager to, at the very least, employ a very short hook on his starter and consider planning to remove him after the second time through the lineup regardless of game situation, unless of course it's a blowout.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 06:17 PM) So why don't you break out the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run in 7 innings and thrown 90 pitches going forward? Instead of taking the average, get the numbers from guys who are dealing. That would be more accurate. Pitchers don't have the same stuff everytime out. Ozzie won all 4 games he did the "not smart" thing. And if those pitchers would have started to get hit around during the 2005 ALCS, he would have gone to the bullpen. I don't know where to find those numbers. Why don't you find them and prove me wrong? Until then, you're just guessing. I don't know how many times I have to say that no one in this thread is saying Ozzie should have taken his pitchers out. Are you reading something I'm not seeing?

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:33 PM) If you make every decision based on the average, you will get average results. I don't know why it's not clear that I'm not saying that. If you have an awesome pitcher on the mound, let him pitch. If you don't, you should know that pitchers tend to get hit MUCH harder the third time through. The numbers are stark and the difference is substantial. In general, relievers are more effective than starters on a per innings basis. There are several reasons why. It is useful to know when the best time to bring one in is. Sure, you can wait until the pitcher is already in a jam, but why would you ever do that if you could prevent it? Dick Allen -- if you have a 6 run lead, who cares what you do? If them scoring doesn't matter then whatever. But if it's a situation where you care about preventing runs, why not do the thing that prevents the most runs?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) How come you know the stuff hasn't depreciated over the course of the game? What are the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run through 7 innings? Sale's splits don't indicate any difference BTW. The problem with using that number is you are assuming all pitchers are the same. I would think someone would have a better shot at Dylan Axelrod his 3rd time, than Chris Sale but that's just me. This is the third time now I've said I wouldn't take Chris Sale out. Aces are outliers, this information is averages. That's why we started talking about Hector Santiago.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Again, if a couple of guys get on, you take him out. This is a 6 run lead. If his stuff has dropped off, you take him out. If his stuff that his shutting them down for 7 innings is still there in the 8th, chances are they aren't going to start raking just because they have seen him before. If the guy is dealing and his pitch count isn't out of hand, leave him in and get the win. Hitters have seen many pitchers for years and still make outs most of the time. This just isn't true. These are the batting lines for 2013: 1st time: .250/.310/.390 (.700) 2nd time: .259/.319/.411 (.730) 3rd time: .270/.331/.429 (.760) This is actual, factual information -- not a projection. And keep in mind that this is only including starts where pitchers pitched well enough to even get to/through the 3rd time though the lineup. So that worst outings don't even factor in. If it's true that Santaigo would most likely get out of that situation, it's because hitting fails mostly, not because he was the best option.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) If he's rolling along, for sure. But if Hector Santiago is at only 90 pitches through 7, you have breaking news on all networks. If a couple of guys get on, or his stuff has definitely fallen off, you take him out, but an extra 20 or 30 pitches isn't going to tire him out for his next start. You don't know if the reliever is going to implode. You're missing the point: it has NOTHING to do with how tired he is. It has everything to do with the effect of hitters having had a chance to see and time all of his stuff. That's one of the big reasons relievers are so effective -- it isn't just because they can throw as hard as they are able, it's that it's a totally different repertoire that, not only have they hitters seen all game, but will only see a couple times all year.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) Eminor, I am not the devil. I know.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. It would be the smart thing to do. No, see that is to my point about the outliers. Now, same situation, but it's John Danks. And the bullpen lines up well with handedness the rest of the way. Hell yeah, I don;t have a problem with that. Like I said, though, it's even reasonable to jsut say start the inning with Nate Jones in the 'pen, trot him out the first time someone reaches base at all.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart. I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case. Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen: (1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy. (2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's point is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially more likely to make an out than to reach base. EDIT: Also, it's a natural fallacy to assume that a sample is made up of a bunch of instances of its mean. In reality, it is nearly all instances of things happening above or below that mean, and all of those instances are not necessarily due to chance (though chance is a component). If lineups hit .300 off of a pitcher the third time through, that means they often hit much worse and often hit much better -- and it's safe to assume that the times when they hit much worse are the times when aces are in or the pitchers are "cruising." I guess what I'm saying is this: I don't think anyone advocates pulling a pitcher on a low pitch count who is pitching well. However, the strategy of leaving a starter in for a third time through the order, in general, is a poor choice if the game at hand is of high importance. This is convincingly demonstrated and the effect is, in my opinion, much larger than what most people assume it is. In reality, the behavior that you could see to take advantage of this info would be starting a RP warming regardless of situation when the third time through comes around, and having a short hook on the starter at the first sign of trouble, even if he isn't tired.

47

QUOTE (daggins @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) I might be da-man here but: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jose-abreus-swing/ Swing mechanics guy looks at Jose Abreu, likes what he sees. This is an awesome article, not just because of the conclusion.