shysocks

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 25, 2015 -> 01:44 AM) It's gotta be f***ing karma from the 90s Bulls dynasty that were fortunate to not have to many big injuries through their six title runs. That was one of my first reactions waking up to this. We were so lucky to have those titles - now the luck's evening out.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) Right, but no matter where you set the bar, Danks is among the absolute worst of the people who will be pitching a bunch of innings for baseball teams. Therefore, we have a competitive disadvantage. So he represents a massive weakness in the rotation. Weakness is one thing, but based on Joe Aiello's research from a year ago, which included only innings qualifiers, I'm not sure I'd call him a competitive disadvantage. Depends where you think he belongs in the rotation (I think 4), how you project him (I don't know here, but I happen to think the -0.4 WAR from ZiPS is horse****), and whether salary is part of this debate. Really I'm just replying to share this link, because it's good stuff. You can stop reading after the second chart because it gets all Cubby. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...in-terms-of-war

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) Ok, I agree that there are pitchers that are literally worse that are in the minor leagues mostly. But if we agree that "baseball" means Major League baseball, and that "pitchers" means "pitchers who pitched enough to be considered active Major League baseball players in 2014," I think the claim stands. And I think it's a claim that ignores the value of being a pitcher who pitched enough to be considered an active Major League baseball player in 2014 so the team doesn't have to go to the pitchers who are literally worse who are in the minor leagues mostly. It's like saying, "That guy is one of the least wealthy billionaires." It might be true, but the fact that you're taking from a certain exclusive subset weakens the claim. Which is why I originally said... "You mentioned that they both qualified but then discarded the inherent value of that. If you're on the qualifying list and your WAR is higher than 0, then there are probably at least ten guys I'd take after you." And I think that claim still stands. Note: I am aware it's probably more impressive to be a billionaire than qualify for the ERA title one year. It's an example.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) Also, yes, he made his starts. He gets credit for his 0.8 fWAR over a full season -- which is a bad number. Substantially below average. He gets credit for giving us 200 innings of bad pitcher. Right, but not "one of the five worst pitchers in baseball."

QUOTE (flavum @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 08:33 AM) When Danks had a quality start: 20 games, 130.2 innings, 2.48 ERA (team record 10-10, 1-6 in no decisions) Without quality starts: 12 games, 63 innings, 9.43 ERA I hate this argument for about 100 reasons, but the main one is that most guys will look awesome if you only take the best 63% of their season.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 08:29 AM) But all that really mean is that they threw a lot of innings. That's both where the "qualified" comes into play, AND it's an input of fWAR. The ONLY reason John Danks "qualified," for example, was because of his massive contract. I don't think he deserves credit for that. If that were true, then why did Noesi qualify? He's got no big contract, we could have tossed him away at any time. The reason is because they'd have to be replaced. Danks qualified because if he weren't throwing those innings, somebody like the guys on that list would have been doing it instead. He may not deserve credit for having a big contract, but he deserves credit for putting up .8 WAR in those innings instead of 0 or less.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 24, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) TL;DR No matter how you slice it, both sabermetrically and traditionally, John Danks and Hector Noesi were among the bottom ten pitchers in the entire major leagues last year. You mentioned that they both qualified but then discarded the inherent value of that. If you're on the qualifying list and your WAR is higher than 0, then there are probably at least ten guys I'd take after you. Here's a handful of them, for example: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 01:35 PM) The Sox play 1 game then day off. 5 games then day off. 2 games then day off. That would be an excellent time to have Rodon on the farm working on his change so the Sox can control him another season. This 100%.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 01:23 PM) Not necessarily; there's no point in having a backup outfielder when we already have a superutility player who can handle that role. Moving this over to the dedicated thread. I would agree if that super utility guy wasn't also potentially needed for an uncertain infield situation. I'm gonna stick to my guns and say that if our next best outfielder was better than JB Schuck this would never be considered. Even still I don't think it's a great idea.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) Bench flexibility. Backup catcher, Beckham, and Bonifacio have every position covered. Yeah but if there were one more decent outfielder in the mix this wouldn't have even been brought up.

"Dan Hayes ‏@CSNHayes 3m3 minutes ago Robin Ventura sounds very open to starting season with eight relievers. Bench flexibility makes it possible. #WhiteSox" Bench flexibility, or lack of outfielders?

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 09:04 AM) For some reason, I cried of laughter from reading this lolol. The reason is... QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) This post is so much better because of your avatar pic QUOTE (chw42 @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 10:46 AM) exactly. Who wouldn't want a Bake Sale with the Dancing Left Shark? The answer is nobody.

*blocks this thread on browser*

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 09:57 AM) Which means the Red Sox need to come up with at least $40 million, in cash, within a month. BAKE SALE!!!

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) i am not going to look up anthing except the fact, he was hurt 2 out of 3 yrs. that is all that is needed, his health record. if you can not see this, then you are really delusional and i will stop this right here. Lovely. Saying, "well, he was hurt two of three years" is dishonest to this discussion. There are degrees of hurt. One of the two years he was hurt, he missed one start. The other was his DL stint. The third year was completely healthy. So I'm looking at two years where he worked just about full seasons and a third where he missed a month, and as I already cited, he's managed to throw more innings than all but 25 guys since he became a starting pitcher. The guys I mentioned consistently miss quarter seasons, two months, half seasons routinely. So you can sit there and tell me I'm delusional, but if you think that Chris Sale has earned the injury-prone label as much as them, you are wrong.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 02:08 PM) and he was hurt for 2 season and yeah 1 trip to the dl. Again I ask you, go find the playing time totals for the guys I named - Gonzalez, Tulowitzki, Harden, McCarthy. If you can honestly tell me afterwards that Sale belongs in their category, I will be very confused.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 01:03 PM) i like chris sale and by this 2 nd para, you pretty much define chris sale, whether you want to admit it or not. What?!? Go look up how many games those guys routinely miss every year and tell me I've defined Chris Sale. Let me repeat - one career DL trip.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 08:26 AM) do you think chris sale is injury prone??? No. QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 08:26 AM) how would you [define] injury prone??? A guy who would surprise you if he made it through a full season. Some guys get the label unfairly because they have just have bad luck with unrelated ailments every year after year (a sprained ankle here, a line drive off the face there). Others you worry more about because their hamstring acts up every season. Troy Tulowitzki, Carlos Gonzalez, Brandon McCarthy, Rich Harden years ago. Sale has one DL trip in his career and doesn't belong in a category with these guys.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 22, 2015 -> 03:53 AM) compared to what??? the sox needs to trade for a sp even if its a 1 yr contract, pretty much like jeff s. this season is ripe for a major run for a world series. this team needs backups, known commodities. Compared to a lot of guys. Compared to the notion that he's injury prone. 25 guys have thrown more innings than Chris Sale since he became a starter. He's qualified for the ERA title each of the three years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 06:33 PM) He went down for what, 4 weeks last year with a sore elbow, and that was the 2nd time in 3 years he's missed games with a sore elbow? He's so good that I'd put money on him winning the cy young this year, and I see only 1 thing stopping that from happening - the disabled list. If he pitches 200+ innings this year, he's the best starter in the AL based on how much he improved last year. Trading for a guy with one year left on his deal makes sense if Chris Sale is mostly healthy this year. You put Chris in the playoffs and he can do what Bumgarner did last year...and we all know that. But outside of Robin trying to kill Abreu (like he did in May of last year playing him 3 games in a row after this fool named Robin Ventura said he needed a day or two off), Chris also my biggest worry for the year as well. He can flat out carry a playoff team or his elbow could be the reason we don't make it. He missed one start in 2012, had a healthy 2013 and missed a month last year. That's not such a bad track record. I'm always worried about health, especially when the team is thin, but to me Sale is no more likely to get hurt than any other pitcher.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 05:16 PM) Chris Sale staying healthy is, to me, more important than any of the things you listed other than the Abreu part. All those could happen, Chris gives us 125 innings and we're still not a playoff team. I'm talking about performance - it's a given that we need health. And that's the second time in a very short time in this thread that you've referenced, somewhat out of nowhere, possible injury to Sale. Is there something leading you to think he'll get hurt, other than the #analysis we've been hearing from people for years about how he'll always get hurt?

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) The biggest storyline so far: Dan Hayes ‏@CSNHayes 4m4 minutes ago #WhiteSox camp has been overrun by scorpions. Three were found last night. The Tigers had somebody plant them there. This is how the hijinks start in kids' sports movies.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) Nope - yeah I see how it came off that way. The bullpen was just my example, but yes the rotation regressed hard, too. But that's my point. Our team - on paper - shouldn't have been so good in '05, but we miraculously got career years out of almost every pitcher! We would need something similar (maybe not as drastic, but similar) this year to not end up in the low to mid 80s, and to reach the levels a lot of folks seem to be expecting. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. To me it'll be more important to get that type of jump from the offense than the bullpen. If the six-man unit of Robertson-Duke-Petricka-Putnam-Jennings-Guerra all do essentially what they did last season then we have a decent bullpen. That sounds like it's asking somewhat a lot, but it's not asking for thaaat much. What we cannot make the playoffs without is a sprinkle of the following: Avisail breaks out Gillaspie, and our second baseman, are legitimate starters Abreu is still top-5 Then throw in Danks and/or Noesi beating the projections. I'm not even sure where I'm disagreeing with you at this point. I guess it's that career years out of the bullpen = not essential to our playoff chances.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 12:50 PM) To put it in perspective, the difference from 2005 (and our overachieving bullpen) and 2006 (bullpen regression to the mean) was 9 wins. That's the kind of output we'd need this year to hit 90 wins based on our players' track records IMO. I don't understand. Are you attributing the 9-win decrease completely to the bullpen? That's way off.

This is where I got drunk tonight. It was hard to be outside America on P&C report day but I've managed.