Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) Eh, there's pluses and minuses. When i saw them both pitch, Castro had a clearly better fastball, but Rienzo was only reaching AA for the first time, while Castro had already had a year of struggles at AAA and was repeating AA. So Castro pitched better, but that wasn't unexpected. Plus, they're almost the same age, so Castro has more experience at higher levels. With their experience i'd probably have given Rienzo the edge based on his performance in the 2nd half, but the worry there is the 50 game suspension he also drew. That makes sense. I guess I've just always heard "reliever" thrown around with Rienzo but not ever really with Castro. I didn't realize they were the same age, though. EDIT: Is Petricka better than Castro/Molina? I never see anyone that thinks he is a starter (though they always mention his size), and he's gotta be about 30 years old at this point.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) I'd have him exactly at 10. The overall depth in our system definitely still lacks but I actually really like our top 10. You'd think he'd be in there ahead of Rienzo at this point. Or I would think, anyway.

Yeah, I think this is a definite step forward. Seems like a lot of guys see real potential in Snodgress now, and it was good to see Trayce play well at AAA

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/c...spects-2012-13/ 1. Courtney Hawkins (OF) 2. Carlos Sanchez (IF) 3. Erik Johnson (P) 4. Trayce Thompson (OF) 5. Keenyn Walker (OF) 6. Scott Snodgress (P) 7. Andre Rienzo (P) 8. Christopher Beck (P) 9. Keon Barnum (1B) 10. Joey Demichele (IF) 11. Jared Mitchell (OF) 12. Jacob Petricka (P) 13. Sammy Ayala © 14. Andy Wilkins (1B) 15. Brandon Brennan (P) What a difference a year makes -- no mention of Molina or Castro (he didn't lose rookie eligibility, did he?) at all. Someone asked about Molina in the comments and Hulet responded:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/q...x-top-prospect/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/q...x-top-prospect/

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 04:37 PM) Keep in mind Adam Dunn, despite leading the league in walks, from Memorial Day on, got on base around the same clip Gordon Beckham reached from that point. I read an article that he had the 2nd least productive season of anyone who has hit 40+ homers. QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 05:20 PM) Like Eminor3rd said, Dunn needs to have something like a .350 OBP to be truly productive. So really, if he hits .220 to .230, he'll be fine. Too bad he hit .200 last year. Right -- I'm not in love with how his season ended up. I wish he would have been better. But I think he still has it in him and we're just not getting enough production anywhere else to supplant him.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 11:36 PM) Didn't Cabrera lead the league in double plays last year? Indeed, I believe he did. QUOTE (floridafan @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) Those stats are interesting. Whenever I have seen line ups I was always under the assumption that the 3 and 4 hole hitters were considered the best hitters on the team. Is this new analytical work that is not yet widely accepted? I have never seen it put to use that I am aware of. Yeah it doesn't appear to be something that is widely accepted. If GMs know about it, they probably don't consider it valuable enough to force their managers' hands. The thing I didn't mention before is that while the evidence is really strong that this is the best way to optimize the lineup, it also showed that the difference between how much a traditionally optimized lineup would score compared to a "sabermetrically optimized lineup" really isn't all that much. On average, I think the difference between a horrible lineup construction and the best was something like 2 wins, meaning that a traditional lineup is somewhere in the middle. So, there's a good chance that other factors like player morale and fan backlash actually outweigh the benefits of following this formula to the T. So, really there's no big reason to stress about the lineup in general, but I think it is interesting to point out that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the 3 hole is the best place for Dunn in our lineup. If you've been frustrated thinking that a high average guy should be there (like maybe Rios), take comfort knowing that we're probably better off the way we've been doing it.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) All of those statistics merely give me a headache. I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my mind around the virtue of having a guy who hits .200 and strikes out at least 200 times a season, batting 3RD. That is sure a far cry from Miguel Cabrera. Perhaps I'm completely off base, but intuitively, it just doesn't sound right to me. I think most people agree with you intuitively -- I definitely used to. But I thought the Tango research was pretty eye opening. It comes down to the types of base/out states that occur most often for each lineup spot, and the subsequent linear weights of each batter outcome on those base/out states. You can read a quick and dirty summary here (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by), but I think you need The Book to get the math to justify it. Don't misunderstand -- it's not like strikeouts are GOOD or anything. You're right to say there is no virtue to striking out and hitting for a low average. I mean, you'd like to have awesome all around hitters in every spot ideally. It's just that if you only have a couple awesome all around hitters, they're more productive in the #2 and #4 spots. The #3 and #5 are roughly equal importance and should be spots for your fourth and fifth best guys, and if all else is equal, high contact is more valuable in the #5 spot and low contact/big power is more useful in the #3 spot. So saying Dunn is ideal as our #3 hitter is saying that he is about our fourth or fifth best hitter and happens to be a high power/low contact guy -- which sounds exactly right to me. Peak Dunn is probably something like an ideal #3 hitter (assuming he isn't your overall best hitter), but our current version of Dunn is just the ideal #3 hitter out of our current roster. Of course we'd rather have Miguel Cabrera batting anywhere than Dunn, the stats are just saying that Miguel Cabrera should really be in the #4 hole instead of #3 because he'll get more chances to drive in runs with extra base hits and fewer chances to ground into double plays -- at the expense of about 18 at bats over the course of a full season.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Basically, you approach this from a first inning perspective and then, with reasonable expectations, assume the same for the remainder of the game. In the first inning, there are about 3 primary scenarios one can expect: #1) There will be no one on base (50%) #2) There will be one person on base (40%) #3) There will be two people on base (10%) In #1, a walk continues the inning, a strikeout is the same as anything else, and a home run is a run. In #2, a walk continues the inning, a strikeout prevents the inning from ending, and a home run is worth 2 runs. In #3, a walk loads the bases, a strikeout prevent the inning from endining, and a home run is worth 3 runs. With his TTO%, one of those scenarios is likely to happen around more than half the time (he was at 56.7% last year), so it is essentially that his strikeouts do little harm in the 3 spot while his walks and homers are just as worthwhile. Didn't read this before I replied. Yes, what he said

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) I believe there was someone on here who posted some advanced stats or abstract knowledge that said Dunn was an ideal #3 hitter. I'd be ok with Dunn in the 3 spot. If you bat him behind guys like PK and Rios he'll never get anything to hit. That was me. Career average Dunn is the ideal prototype based on Tom Tango's research, but he does need to get on base at more than a .330 clip. Basically the three hole gets a ton of benefit from homers and gets hit really hard by double play situations, so striking out is more preferable there than any other spot, comparatively. He can strike out 200 times and hit .200 or whatever, just so long as he hits 35-40 homers and keeps the OBP at least above .350.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) Zobrist is the kind of underrated, versatile player the sox could use. And under contract with options for '14 [7 mill.] and '15 [7.5 mill.]. He's playing mostly 2b for the Rays, with Joyce seeing most time in RF. You'd think Hahn would be going to teams and asking what it would take to pry away certain players. Honestly, I'd imagine Zobrist is one of the more untouchable players around. From everything I've heard, the Rays absolutely love him and he pretty much personifies their play style.

You know, I can actually see some benefit to both sides for a trade for CarGo. It would be centered on Viciedo and probably include whichever two pitching prospects the Rockies would like best. However, the financials would have to line up -- the Sox would have to take on that contract and the Rockies would have to need to move it and save money, otherwise they'd just trade him for a stud SP package.

Berkman would make no sense at all.

Markakis has rated below average in RF each of the past three years after being good the three years previous. I'm not sure he hasn't lost a step and become a scratch or worse defender. I do like the OBP though -- his defense has dragged his WAR down since 2009. He's been basically an average major leaguer since then. Weird. Edit: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=OF

Kubel is lefty DH that can fake LF but shouldn't. He's basically a worse version of Dunn. We already have Dunn.

Karkovice, Mouton, Hernandez, Bere

If Kenny was still running the show (maybe he still is), we'd end up with Ethier's contract somehow.

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) white sox are about the future and not about now. That explains how we end up with the worst farm system in the league every year...

Bah, this is just sinking in even though I knew it was coming. Too bad. Thanks, AJ!

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) I think the way they used Thornton last year (going through everyone other than him to close) suggests to me that they are not enamored with him. I just think it showed they are interested in actually using the bullpen effectively, instead of handing roles out via seniority. I don't think his usage has anything at all to do with how enamored they may be with him.

The other thing to consider is that, whether or not you believe in it, a lot of people on the Sox coaching staff have commented on their worries that the bullpen is too young. I don't think they'll trade him for a live arm and $5m in salary relief -- I think they feel like they need the "veteran presence."

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) The White Sox must have really not wanted him back. I thought they would do a 1 year deal. Must be for like $8-$10 million. They're hurting Flowers at this point by not giving him regular at bats. I think they like Flowers and feel like they're going to ruin him if they keep pushing his time off, and AJ will crater one of these years.

QUOTE (PorkChopExpress @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) Or Morales DH's. Well, they can't be thinking of Montero as a long-term C with Zunino in the wings. They aren't going to want him catching more than 60 or so games anyway.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 05:22 PM) I am aware of Morales' numbers last year, and the fact that Vargas was good on the road in 2011, but this is one of the worst 1-for-1 deals I have seen in a long time I can't imagine Seattle wants to play him in the OF. I wonder if this means a slow start for Smoak is a DFA