Bananarchy

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 30, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) "I can confirm that Carlos is alive. He still has two arms." "Can you clarify that neither arm is prosthetic?" "No comment"

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Q will be on the Sox until the 2018 trade deadline. Agreed. I think the Sox will likely adjust Q's price as the contract progresses. I do not believe the White Sox will move him until at least the off season if not next trade deadline.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:52 PM) Yes, that's what they are trying to accomplish. Chances are they'll have a season in there where too much goes wrong and they don't make the postseason, but yes this is about sustained success and relevance most years. Not a magical season where they luck into a dominant bullpen and a weak division. Bingo, we're talking top three division finishes every year with multiple playoff appearances.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:45 PM) Wait, what? Neither of the teams you named made the playoffs last year. The Astros made it in 2015. Before that the last time was 2005. The Cards at least had a recent streak of 5 seasons in the playoffs, though 1 WS win to show for it. But then again the Cardinals have a fan base that allows them to spend when needed. You are talking about a franchise that hasn't been under 35k per night for over 20 years now. The White Sox have been above that mark once ever. Yet the Cardinals and White Sox had similar operating income in 2014. I mention the Astros because they have the talent to be in it every year. I mention the Cardinals because they're in the race every year. Every time they let a guy go, they replace him with another guy you have never heard of who produces for them. That's what we need. And don't give me that "the White Sox don't pay their players" nonsense. If we were good, we would draw a lot more than we do now and we would have the income to keep whoever we need and move whoever we don't feel is the right value. And here's what you don't seem to understand. Your way ends up with a 10 year span with one year in the playoffs and about 3 of real contention. You're talking like this team is actually any good. it's not. For how good our division record is, our out of division record is trash. Playoffs or not, we're not even close to the post season most years and our attendance reflects it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) Which is a standard that literally no one except the highest revenue teams can be held to. We will never have the revenue to retain and sign top talent like that. Except the St. Louis Cardinals, Houston Astros. Two analogous teams to what the White Sox are doing. We get it, you're shortsighted and you want us to get that 5th playoff appearance in my lifetime. Get me a perennial contender.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) The best way to get odds of winning the world series is getting into the playoffs. The best odds of winning the world series is making the playoffs EVERY YEAR, not winning one bad division one year.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:29 AM) Somehow I don't think Indians fans were too bothered headed into game 7 last year. Just get into the dance, then anything can happen. Where's their trophy? It's inevitable, I suppose, that the old-school White Sox nonsense sneaks back in because this team isn't terrible enough. We know the lightning in a bottle method fails for more often then the rebuild through the farm method. You want a championship window, you don't want a "well, we can go for it this year, but that's all"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:54 AM) Wait. It gets you in the playoffs, and then anything can happen. This isn't the NBA where only the best team wins. But it doesn't set you up for years and years of success. That's the best way to maximize your odds of winning the series. I don't care about beating a weak division. I want to be good for years and years to come.

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ May 29, 2017 -> 06:22 PM) I'm a White Sox fan, I want them to win no matter what. If they lose, and move for more young specs that's OK too. All told, I am enjoying this season. I'm okay cheering for a win as the whole organization has found the right direction now.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 30, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) That's what I was saying, why I want to try to win it every year. Our division sucks. That gets you nothing. Winning a weak division gets you nothing. Greg, you have to be smarter.

Miraculously, Formula 1 has gotten exciting. Meanwhile, the best driver in the world, Fernando Alonso, is in a place to podium at the Indy 500 Best day of motor racing on the Calendar. Caught Monaco this morning, now the Indy 500. NASCAR tonight

QUOTE (Special K @ May 28, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Yeah but what about for Schwarber like you said above. I'd still do it. For as bad as Schwarber has been this year, it's still such a small sample size and he would be a monster DH.

QUOTE (oldsox @ May 28, 2017 -> 08:10 AM) Has there been an explanation of the tax ruling, other than the one sentence above? I'm not sure exactly how it works, but just looking at the raw numbers, it looks like Dominican Republic income tax is 25% and US income tax for him would be closer to 42%. Just speculating.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 28, 2017 -> 02:31 AM) So there should be one determining factor like the BCS Rankings or or an accepted universal formula like RPI for NCAA bb? WAR is the best we've done, and it's 100x better than RPI.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 27, 2017 -> 12:13 PM) Who cares about batting average? The sabes people don't give a flip about BA. It's useful in context, it's value has just been inflated for some time now. Batting .300 with an OBP of .300 is meh. Batting .300 with an OBP of .389 is a lot better.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 27, 2017 -> 11:45 AM) Going back to the DR for his first assignment. Apparently, that allows the bonus to be tax sheltered.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 25, 2017 -> 10:13 PM) Is that bad??? Illinois fans are delusional. They expect a sweet 16 every year. I'm saying this as an Illinois fan.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 25, 2017 -> 12:43 PM) Hahn is a great rebuild GM but it remains to be said if he can build a sustainable winner. So far he's done well, hopefully by this time next year we are seeing the fruits of his labor. At least some of it, you know? I don't expect a completely new team next year and we could be worse, but I would love to see Moncada or Fulmer pan out

JCL going to like that long year off

QUOTE (Superstar Lamar @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) Why would anyone get angry over the opinion of a person regarding an international player when that person is not an international scout nor has never seen the player? He is talking outside of his area of expertise. I'm not sure why he would have even offered an opinion on the matter. I'm also not sure why he was asked for his opinion on the matter. He's not unqualified. His information came from international scouts. People don't want to hear the antithesis to what they believe.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) If you only look at one metric to determine the performance of a player then the answer would be yes. Of course if only look at strikeouts he's pretty mediocre as well. Jose Quintana was 10th in WAR in 2016. One stat that shows about where he belongs.

QUOTE (FT35 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) Wins as they are defined now, maybe. Mediocre, no, but Hall-of Fame? ehhh...I don't know...still early, but I would say no now even if he continues down this same path for the rest of his career. It's more the way the game is played now. The fact is, wins don't really mean anything. The fact that you can blow a save and still get a win is stupid. And starters only pitch 6-7 innings now anyway. It just doesn't make sense as a stat anymore.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) You are incorrect on this. There is just a group that doesn't take it seriously. Thank you for the insult by the way. I don't think you can come with any single stat or number that encompasses all factors. You should look at all of the information available to make a sound decision (on anything really) and totally ignoring any information just because it doesn't encompass everything is a poor way to go about the decision making process. All information is valuable. Just because some people who look too narrowly at information have a judgement on that piece doesn't mean it's an absolute standard. Wins don't encompass anything. You can't draw a conclusion about one piece of the puzzle based solely on the performance of the whole, ESPECIALLY when the one piece is at best 35% of the picture. It's like grading intelligence based on head size. It's not meaningful

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:29 AM) The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value. Thought exercise: A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence. But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence. But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win. So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third. The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control. So basically you are saying 60% of the pitchers wins are invalid because they are due to outlying factors This is why no one with any level of baseball acumen takes pitching wins seriously QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still. You? Stuck in the past? You don't say.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:53 AM) I guess Lester could have a shot. Bumgarner if he gets back and pitches like this for 4-5 more years. Lester might get in because he played for the Red Sox and the Cubs. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.