Eminor3rd

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 01:39 PM) Giving Granderson 3 years and $45 million is crazy. Even though the White Sox don't know how to draft, I hate losing a second round pick for Salty AND paying him $36 million over 4 seasons. One of the ideas suggested was Chris Young in CF. It also gave the impression Morales was going to turn down a 1 year deal from the M's for $14 million. That means Morales is probably out of the Sox price range and it would be better to gamble on Abreu, even though I still believe he's going to be a bust. Ellsbury and Choo, forget it, based on the Pence deal. Same thing with McCann. I would rather swing for the fences (Abreu/Cespedes/Puig/Soler/Viciedo) than go with players like Granderson, Salty and Morales who are nice/decent additions but aren't going to make the White Sox playoff contenders. Same with Andre Ethier, for example. And, finally, is DeAza actually a good deal at $4.4 million? How would other teams perceive him on the trade market? As a starter for 4th outfielder. Because it's not wise to pay Jeff Keppingers and DeAza's of the world that kind of money to be bench depth/back-ups. If you're a playoff contender, it's a different story. If De Aza is a starter, he's worth that easy. Market generally pays ~$5m per WAR, and he's can be expected to produce 2 WAR safely. As a bench player, probably not, unless he's the strong part of a platoon. To me, Granderson/Morales or any other clear short term rental is out of the question, not because we don't have the payroll, but because of the cost of a draft pick. I'd give up the pick to get my starting C for the next five years, but not for a has-been to bridge a gap and make the fans think we're trying.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) Does anyone want to throw out a legit guess at Salty's contract? If he's talking 3/$30 or more, then that could certainly be worth turning down a qualifying offer. I can see the bidding go up to 4/$40m Under the right circumstances, I'd be comfortable with us going there.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,4924051.story Adolfo now....has dropped Zapata officially, it seems A glowing Tribune puff piece on a Sox prospect....for now at least. Buddy Bell quotes always scare me, btw. I do not support the dropping of Zapata!

I wonder, too, if this might be better if we get Abreu also. If Abreu costs us $8-10m/yr and clogs 1B, giving Salty $8m/yr to stick at C would leave us with more flexibility than giving McCann $15-18m/yr to start at C and eventually clog 1B and force Abreu to DH. Salty/Abreu leaves a spot open for Dunn next year and the chance to sign any bat-only player to fill DH after that -- or use the DH spot as a rotating rest thing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) Has anyone heard any update on Crain? Seems to me if his shoulder still wouldn't permit him to pitch by the end of the season, he may have a serious issue going on in there. Yeah, he never sounded to concerned in the interviews I saw during the year, but shoulder problems that keep you out that long often end up being career enders. I wonder if the silence isn't a bad sign, since he's up for a contract.

MLBTraderumors suggested that the White Sox might target Salty in their Offseason Outlook piece: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/10/offs...-white-sox.html I've been all about going for McCann, especially if we miss Abreu, because he can provide substantial value down the road, even if he needs to move off of C in a couple seasons. But the more time passes, the more I think he's going to be more expensive than the Sox would/should pay. And while Flowers/Phegley are young, I haven't seen anything at all to suggest that either is likely to end up as an above average ML regular. So now I'm wondering if Jarrod Saltalamacchia might not be a good get for us. My perception of him has never been that good, but taking a closer look, he's somewhat quietly had a really nice season. PROS: - He's 28 - He's left-handed - He grades out as an above average defensive catcher - MLBTR suggested he might cost something like 4yr/$36m - He's got a respectable walk rate (~8%), which finally led to decent on base numbers this year CONS: - He is ATROCIOUS against lefties - He's coming off a breakout season. Tough to tell if it's improvement or a fluke - He strikes out a TON (~30%) I'm thinking you could platoon him and thus still take a decent look at Flowers or Phegley. He wouldn't be a pick up that would swing us into contention by himself, but since he's relatively young, he might be a good building block. What do you think? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=C

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) I believe you have to look at the complete picture instead of looking at any stat in isolation. While I believe we've historically over used W-L record, I also believe there is a danger in underusing it. When you think about a pitcher that "gets the job done" are you thinking WHiP or WiNS? Do you want a guy that shouldn't be winning but somehow it keeps happening (winning ugly) or a pitcher that is pitching much better than his record and appears snake bit (losing pretty)? We know that both are due to regress to the mean. And eventually you want the guy with better overall stats, but at that moment . . . I think you're totally right about looking at tons of things, I'm just not sure that W-L really has anything to add to that equation. I think it's easy for people (myself included) to get caught up on the name -- after all, wins are all that matters -- but team wins and pitcher wins are different statistics. It's team wins that matter, and with the number of no decisions increasing every year, tWins and pWins are becoming less and less linked. I guess I'd put it this way: what do pWins tell us about a pitcher's performance that some other stat doesn't tell us better? Maybe the whole concept of "single best statistic" isn't even valid -- if we assume that we need to use several numbers, where does pWins fit in? I'm not sure it does at all.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) I don't think it's starting trouble, I think it's a thread that can breed healthy debate. It's amazing looking at these pitcher's responses and seeing the different thoughts. There are a few pitchers who are aware of FIP, but don't quite understand what it means or says, and frankly they don't have to. Scott Feldman's response is really candid too and shows he understands the concept, basically stating that ERA can be overrated, and it's true. You can have a guy go out there and put up 7 IP, 4 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 10 K and it's going to be considered a great outing by the SABR community but his ERA gets lit up. Typically in a situation like that, he's going to end up with a pretty good outing, but he likely just gave up one or two big hits when they were able to string a few together against him. Meanwhile, you can see a guy go out and put up 6 IP, 6 H, 2 ER, 4 BB, 4 K and while he should have given up more, he was able to work his way out of trouble. Eventually, these things even out. The pitcher who probably has the deepest knowledge of sabermetrics is also the one with the most unique response - Brian Bannister stating that Z-Cont% is the most important. For a pitcher, it's probably true - if you can throw pitches in the strike zone and have guys miss, you are going to be incredibly successful, assuming you can locate. On the contrary, if everything you throw in the zone is getting hit, eventually they'll start making good contact and you are going to end up getting knocked around. I think that's the foundation for a pitcher, and everything else is just indicative of performance. Z-Contact is interesting, but it still doesn't give us a whole picture. It's true to say that if a pitcher has a super low Z contact, he is doing something very right, but if that guy is walking 6 batter per 9, he still may not even be able to cut it as a starter. On the other hand, missing bats isn't the only way to be successful. He makes a good point on why it's a great thing to look at, but I can't see how it works as the single most important indicator of a pitcher's performance. I think whatever that stat is has to be bigger in scope.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) And this response isn't trying to rekindle trouble? No, I'm just defending myself against you having just accused me of trolling. What am I supposed to say?

As far as the actual topic goes, I think Jake really nailed it in his last paragraph. Basically, pitcher wins are loosely correlated with good pitching, so much so that there are dozens of "outliers" every year where the stat is essentially lying to us about the one thing it's supposed to do, which is tell us who was the most valuable pitcher. No one disputes that it correlated better with performance in the past, but the game changes, and it really just doesn't work at all anymore. So that's why people are trying to find better ways to measure it. I don't understand why people get upset about that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 06:30 AM) Yes, but if a closer gets lit up once or twice, his ERA isn't going to be pretty. As for WHIP, ironically the guy who led the AL in that category this season, also led the AL in wins.i really think this thread was started to start trouble, but I would think andy sabr guy and Hawk when listing their top 20 pitchers would have a very similar list. Come on man, I just saw something I thought was interesting related to White Sox players. It's the freakin offseason. I would have put it in a catch-all if there was one. I'm not an internet troll. Next time I'll just post again in the BASHING DE AZA thread.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 05:27 PM) Peavy's the last guy I'm expecting to say what he said. Yeah, me too! I figured it would be something like, "Man I gotta say all that matters is a win. A good ol' W. Whatever I gotta do to grind out a win, even if it lands me in a hospital, I will do. If my team doesn't hit for me, I gotta put the fire in them to grind up and hit more. Wins are everything and nothing else will ever matter."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) Daryl Van Schouwen ‏@CST_soxvan 29m OF prospect Brandon Jacobs, acquired in Matt Thornton trade, was an Arizona Fall League Player of Week nominee. Hit 2 HRs. I have a weird feeling he's going to be the one to push Viciedo out of LF in like 2015.

I swear I'm not trying to start a rehash of an unpopular debate on pitcher wins, though I'm aware it may happen, but it's the offseason and I thought this was interesting coming from the mouth of Jake Peavy, who has a reputation for being a gritty old schooler: Part of an article asking players about which stats that should be used to evaluate pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...itchers-part-2/ Also, from Tyler Flowers:

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) No, but the idea that players can improve their base stealing technique with age is not a novel concept. Yeah, after all, Paul Konerko reached his career high in SB, 2, at age 33

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/10/free...riel-abreu.html

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis. Yeah, runs are runs. But that Tigers have a bunch of hitters with skills that it's difficult to acquire without paying a premium. If we know we can't afford to do what they're doing, we gotta find a cheaper way. And high efficiency aggression on the basepaths might be the most cost-effective way to do it. The problem is that part of high-efficiency baserunning is the ability to get on base at a high clip. And OBP is definitely at a premium in today's run environment.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) You're awesome I remember reading an article in the BP book from about 8 years ago that cited that and talked about run expectancy from 1B and I recognized right away that the number was likely to fluctuate. It does actually make sense to invest in base stealers right now because the marginal value of a single run has increased. If you can steal 150 bases as a team at a 70% clip, you are talking about adding between 25-30 runs, which could add 2-4 win to your total. That is a hell of an article. Bradley Woodrum has done some good work lately. Looking at it by team is really cool.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) The rule of thumb with this is 75%, but I would guess that this percentage has gone down in recent years. It's harder for a runner on 1B to score than it was 10 years ago and I would guess that that percentage has gone down at a greater clip than scoring a run with a runner on 2B (because while it's harder to get just 1 hit, it's even harder to actually string together 2 hits). I'm guessing De Aza was basically a break even, if not slightly productive, base stealer this year. Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-changin...ing-calculus-2/ This cites the 2012 league-wide figure at 66%. This article also agrees with your explanation of the number dropping as run environment decreases.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) Was I talking to you? J4L doesn't watch the games. I took that as the cliche "SABR nerds would rather play the game on paper than watch games." I was probably being over-sensitive. I'm sorry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) 71.4% is high efficiency? Now you are just reaching for stuff. No, no I'm not. That's a widely known standard for the breaking point between providing net positive value with baserunning and net negative. That's one of those pop stats that was even featured in Moneyball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) By showing me that they are flawed, and perpetually being fixed, yet can't have missed this one particular standard. Well, everything's flawed. Physics is currently VERY flawed with all we're discovering about quantum behavior, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get out of the way when big, heavy things are moving toward you. As humans, it behooves us to act upon the best information we have at the time, while always searching for better information. Look, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong in your suspicions, I'm just saying that until you can find some evidence for your suspicions, it's a lot less likely you're right than what the current evidence is showing us. To say that his 5ish extra baserunning errors were enough to outweigh an entire season of high stolen base efficiency and taking extra bases on singles, changing it from a vaguely positive season to among the worst in history is a BOLD claim, and if you want people to take that claim seriously, you should provide some substantial evidence to support it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I just dont think that is really the argument. Of course you would pinch run him right there. I think the argument is pretty much "Is De Aza a good baserunner?" I say no. I watched him all season make one bonehead mistake after another, and not learn from it. There may be a statistic that says he is a positive on the basepaths, but it is really hard to agree with that after watching him this past season. But I think that's the point -- there's still value there. Those of us arguing in favor aren't saying that ADA is an elite baserunner, we're just pointing out that his positives mathematically outweigh his negatives. He can both be a mentally poor baserunner and still provide substantial baserunning value. This is important because the context of the argument is that ADA's poor baserunning is something that must be replaced with high priority, and the results just don't line up with that notion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) As opposed to you flat out telling me that these statistics are so accurate, that people have to meet annually to fix them, but that there can't be any bias or error in the statistics related to something that they aren't quantifying correct? Please. I don't understand what you're arguing here. You made an attack on the credibility of the numbers I was referring to, and I attempted to demonstrate credibility for them.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) We value base running mistakes differently. "Sigh" I was sighing at your bulls*** "SOME OF US STILL LIKE TO WATCH GAMES" line.