shysocks

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 10, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) Some very sensitive folks in this thread. I'm glad nobody watches football with me...... It isn't that hard to find a different way to express the same point. Not worth getting into it any further here.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Nov 10, 2015 -> 01:21 PM) But we also don't need to be raped. C'mon man. Anyway, my first reaction was that was an overpay. Lucroy was an MVP candidate just one year ago and did play hurt in 2015, it's not like he's over the hill. That's somebody who might require Fulmer. If Lucroy had one or two more years of control it'd be fair.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 9, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) Those 3 have total cost certainty involved with their contracts. You go get a bigger name for Q, like Frazier, and you have no idea what you'll have to pay him in a few years. A lot of players who aren't good enough to trade for Quintana have cost certainty. It still doesn't address their problems. I even like Starlin myself, but the fact is the Cubs can't wait to get rid of him. I'm not saying I expect multiple all-stars or anything. I just want something a little more assured in a Q trade, which again I'll emphasize is a move the Sox have no urgent need to make. Yasiel Puig, to take an example that's been used by others here before, has cost certainty and, comparatively, performance certainty. He is much closer to Q's value by himself than that package, IMO.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 9, 2015 -> 12:34 PM) Yeah, that package would be plenty for Q, but it would never happen. No it wouldn't be plenty. The Sox don't need to trade the cost-controlled Quintana, so if they decide to do it I hope they can do better than guys who bring the serious questions that Baez, Soler, and Castro bring. Soler just had an Avi-like year. Baez will never strike out in fewer than 30% of his plate appearances; he'll have to run a .340 BABIP to be special. We know all about Castro's issues. I know they're young but it's still all a bunch of question marks. I want an exclamation point somewhere in a package for Q.

QUOTE (bruni @ Nov 9, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) How about Q and Avi for Baez, Soler, Castro 1 promising AA arm and 1 pitching lotto ticket? I can think of a million reasons why this won't happen, but young and controllable on both sides who trade from relative strength. Why not? That's not enough for Q.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 7, 2015 -> 10:27 PM) I will return when one of Hahn, KW or Ventura is gone. Maybe both. At any rate, it has been fun...there are a lot of cool White Sox fans here. There's your ultimatum, White Sox. Only when somebody gets the axe will caulfield's boycott of Soxtalk end. Now you know the stakes.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) That brings up a serious question: could you tell an overpaid, underperforming player that you are going to make him catch if he doesn't retire and save you the money and roster spot. Would that work? That's awesome. I think he'd probably call his agent and you'd have a grievance on your hands.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 01:34 PM) The specific in-game win probability numbers are based on many, many thousands (if not more) points of data. I couldn't tell you exactly how the algorithms are formulated, but they are using all kinds of historical data to simulate how often a team would win in at this particular point of a game over a statistically-meaningful sample size. Often times, that number is 50,000 games. There are all kinds of fancy modeling words for these types of simulations, including monte carlo simulations and la grangian relaxation mixed integer programming, blah blah. We use these types of models to determine whether to make particular types of power or gas transactions that reach far out into the future. The concept here is very similar. You are basically trying to simulate different levels of volatility to determine all the potential impacts of making a decision or taking a particular course of action. Sometimes they use models to get win expectancy, but isn't there a simpler method that just uses box scores? i.e. x% of teams in baseball history who were down two runs in the top of the 7th with a runner on 2nd ended up winning the game. It's not perfect, largely because it crosses eras.. That team is probably a little less likely to win in 2015 than in 2000.

Put this in here because he's on some lists.

Paul Scheer breaks down the evil plans from each Bond movie. https://li.st/l/1762278d-1a78-43ec-936b-25521a1be2bb This reminds me: Tomorrow Never Dies is underrated. Note I said underrated, not good.

Sun came up today.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:32 AM) Can we please drop this whole "don't sign NL players because they fail in the AL" crap. It's really tired and not true. I've tried to fight this battle before and it was too exhausting.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) Young was originally a White Sox prospect. He was traded for Javier Vazquez. Sure, but that was a long time ago and it doesn't seem like it'd factor into a guy like Cameron's predictions. It's not like he's picking us to sign Clayton Richard or Michael Morse multiple times.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:28 AM) Somewhat agree. I don't know statistics well enough, but to me it seems that you can't always apply the general "win probability" to specific games too accurately. I find win probability fascinating but I agree with both of you, it doesn't enhance the watching experience to get the numbers. The one exception: I'd like to see a fullscreen WP graphic every time a manager calls for a dumb sac bunt.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) Man both BP and Fangraphs seem to think we have a lot of money to spend. Cameron predicted we would sign Rasmus and Morales last year instead of LaRoche and Melky. Damn, had we done that we might have won the 2nd wildcard. He had us getting OF Chris Young last year too, which would also have been a good move. Wonder if he has a source in the front office who likes Young.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) What's the most recent update with Chad Billingsley? I heard he literally has a fork just protruding from his back.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:01 AM) I agree on Kendrick. I think it's long-term foolish, but if they truly want to go at it again, upgrading at 2b is easy pickings offensively. I really would like to have us experiment with instead of trying to improve our offense, doing everything possible to help our SP succeed and hope for the best on offense. It didn't work for the mariners, but it increase the value of our SP in a trade and I think would have a greater "lighting strikes" quality to it if some guys have random career years. Right on with Kendrick. He's a good player but I'm not certain he makes sense for the Sox. That dovetails into the rest of your post too. I've been flip-flopping in my head about all the different directions the team can go this offseason, and at the moment I'm leaning towards keeping it as young as possible. There's no easy path to competitiveness for the Sox. They'll need surprise years out of a lot of people, which is absolutely possible and happens all the time. I think just that's almost as likely to happen if they play a bunch of guys currently in the org who can chase down a ball than if they jack up payroll on players in the mold of what Cameron suggests and trade Quintana.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 09:05 AM) I thought that he was referring to Chris Young the pitcher, but I could be wrong. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-top-50...nt-predictions/ ...and then I’m also giving them Alex Avila and the outfielding Chris Young on 2/$10M deals to provide some depth that the team lacked a year ago... It's possible they went back and edited to clarify but that's how it reads this morning. The pitching Chris Young would be a similarly confusing signing at that price.

All those moves taken together - the way Cameron outlined it - aren't enough and would probably be the wrong way to go. I'd rather the Sox do nothing than pile up a bunch of bargain signings like these. Why sign Chris Young instead of just seeing what you have in Trayce, for example? Chris Young isn't gonna put us over the top. To be fair he was only addressing free agency; possible trades were outside the scope. The one I like most is signing a starting pitcher from that tier, I can see that working out really well for the Sox as either deadline trade bait or a piece for a surprise playoff run.

. Tried to watch it cynically. Couldn't! "War never changes." Chills!

This comment though...

Comments all over the place.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Nov 5, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) Hypothetically speaking, if the Sox and Alexei discussed a deal to come back prior to declining the option but he wanted a 2 or 3 year deal worth around 18-30 mill (more guaranteed money than accepting a QO) would it be smart to offer him a QO knowing he's seeking a multi-year deal? I'm not advocating doing it but it's something that could be talked about or debated on here. Assuming $18-$30 would be his market, yes, I think making a QO would be the right call.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Nov 5, 2015 -> 08:50 AM) I just don't buy this notion that Alexei went from being a very good ballplayer to a horrible one in one year's time. He was a 3.2 fWAR player in 2013 and 3.1 in 2014. I think the odds are better that he will put up something closer to that than the below replacement level he was last year. In 2015 he had by far the lowest BABIP of his career. It was just .264 compared to the .292 in 2014 and .291 lifetime. He increased his BB% and LD% in 2015 vs 2014 and lowered his K%. I think this makes him a good candidate for a bounce back year and I would be perfectly content with signing him to a one year $6-$7 million contract as a stop gap to Anderson. Why not? It happens all the time. Even if you bank on regression, what he did in 2014 looks more like the outlier of the past four seasons. He'll be a year older. Couple it with the deterioration of his defense, which is very real, and there is no way he gets back to 3 WAR. No way. Depending on the plan for next year, $6 million would be fine for him, but perhaps instead they should for once cut bait on a guy. And nobody's gonna give a multi-year deal to a guy who just had the year he had.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 5, 2015 -> 07:55 AM) Were the last two Bond movies released in fall? Thought Skyfall was a summer movie but could be wrong. Casino: Nov 17, 2006 Quantum: Nov 14, 2008 Skyfall: Nov 9, 2012