Soxtalk's opinion on John Danks "stuff"= whatever the radar gun says. If it says 88, he obviously has nothing even though he isn't being hit hard.

 

what were you just told about sample size in that other thread

what were you just told about sample size in that other thread

By judging a guy's "stuff" by the gun, Mark Buerhle should probably be in Missouri playing with his dogs.

 

Read last night's gamethread. Danks was so bad according to some posters, while he was striking out guys making millions, posters here could hit him. Obviously they need new agents.

 

5 quality starts so far this year.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

By your metric then, the only way a pitcher can be bad is if the most recent outcome was poor? I'd advise you to look at Danks overall since injury and then tell me you're pleased with what he is now. I am not.

No. By my metric, you don't measure a guy's "stuff", especially a non -power pitcher, simply by the radar gun.

No. By my metric, you don't measure a guy's "stuff", especially a non -power pitcher, simply by the radar gun.

 

Absolutely true if there is evidence that he has everything else you need in today's game to offset lack of velocity. Some guys do have those things. Danks since injury has not proven he has enough of those things to be Effective again. if you think of the post-injury Danks as 'effective' then we have different sets of standards, i guess.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Jose Paniagua

Being hit hard or not on one night is a lot worse indicator of stuff than velocity to be fair. But points also brought up were an unwillingness to throw the change in key situations and lack of movement on his pitches.

Yet 8 strikeouts and 1 walk. For a guy with nothing, unwilling to throw his change up and a lack of movement, it is astonishing he was able to do that.

 

 

Yet 8 strikeouts and 1 walk. For a guy with nothing, unwilling to throw his change up and a lack of movement, it is astonishing he was able to do that.

 

Weren't you just yesterday discounting Noesi's performance because it was against the Cubs? You are Bernsteining things up today.

Absolutely true if there is evidence that he has everything else you need in today's game to offset lack of velocity. Some guys do have those things. Danks since injury has not proven he has enough of those things to be Effective again. if you think of the post-injury Danks as 'effective' then we have different sets of standards, i guess.

I think he was rather effective last night.

Weren't you just yesterday discounting Noesi's performance because it was against the Cubs? You are Bernsteining things up today.

Wrong again. I never commented on Noesi's performance, but I am flattered you are so obsessed with my posts.

He was. Now what does the line predicting future performance look like from a data set of 1?

He was. Now what does the line predicting future performance look like from a data set of 1?

Considering my comment was directed at the people complaining about his "stuff" specifically last night, does that really apply?

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

Wrong again. I never commented on Noesi's performance, but I am flattered you are so obsessed with my posts.

 

That doesn't make any sense, but OK, sure. Troll on.

No. By my metric, you don't measure a guy's "stuff", especially a non -power pitcher, simply by the radar gun.

 

 

Yet 8 strikeouts and 1 walk. For a guy with nothing, unwilling to throw his change up and a lack of movement, it is astonishing he was able to do that.

Post-injury Danks reminds me a lot of Buehrle. I'm not saying he's as good, but he's more of a finesse pitcher now. Personally, I agree that he is effective. I think that we'll see him improve as the season goes on.

That doesn't make any sense, but OK, sure. Troll on.

You are the one trolling, and a personal attack, comparing me to Bernstein by making things up. Why don't you find where I posted what you claimed. I will give you a hint, it doesn't exist.

 

Find it or admit you are the one just trolling.

Post-injury Danks reminds me a lot of Buehrle. I'm not saying he's as good, but he's more of a finesse pitcher now. Personally, I agree that he is effective. I think that we'll see him improve as the season goes on.

He's been effective for the most part. It just isn't sexy when it's not 95 MPH, which he never was anyway.

 

The thing is, if he was throwing 92 last night and getting hammered, more posters would have been impressed with his "stuff". His change up was really good last night. As long as he keeps the ball down, he will be fine.

The horrifying part of the Cubs offense is that they are in the lowest spots of league-wide offense BEFORE you adjust for their home park, all parks etc

 

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Jose Paniagua

The horrifying part of the Cubs offense is that they are in the lowest spots of league-wide offense BEFORE you adjust for their home park, all parks etc

When the wind is howling in at Wrigley, and it has been most of this spring, it really is a pitcher's park. Flowers hit a ball that would have been way out of there on a normal day, probably onto Waveland if the wind was blowing out. It was caught about 100 feet short of the wall.

 

Against the Sox, there offense didn't hit many balls into the OF though. It was pretty bad, but they have beaten a few good pitchers this year.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

You are the one trolling, and a personal attack, comparing me to Bernstein by making things up. Why don't you find where I posted what you claimed. I will give you a hint, it doesn't exist.

 

Find it or admit you are the one just trolling.

 

lol, you are trolling the hell out of this thread, and the game thread last night. The whole Danks circular stuff is completely obvious. The only reason you were in the game thread last night, and the board today, is to slap people over Danks performance.

 

It takes about two seconds of reading to see that.

lol, you are trolling the hell out of this thread, and the game thread last night. The whole Danks circular stuff is completely obvious. The only reason you were in the game thread last night, and the board today, is to slap people over Danks performance.

 

It takes about two seconds of reading to see that.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Be a man. I haven't made one thing up. You did, and then after making it up, tried insulting me. I was just pointing out the obvious incorrect posts last night. Even today, Danks had no movement, was afraid to throw his change up, blah blah blah. You don't point out the lunacy of that. A guy supposedly throwing a straight 88 mph fastball with nothing else doesn't strike out 8, walk one, with a quality start even if it is just the Cubs. There isn't a guy in A ball that couldn't tee off on what Danks supposedly had.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Be a man. I haven't made one thing up. You did, and then after making it up, tried insulting me. I was just pointing out the obvious incorrect posts last night. Even today, Danks had no movement, was afraid to throw his change up, blah blah blah. You don't point out the lunacy of that. A guy supposedly throwing a straight 88 mph fastball with nothing else doesn't strike out 8, walk one, with a quality start even if it is just the Cubs. There isn't a guy in A ball that couldn't tee off on what Danks supposedly had.

 

I love the ADMIT IT post. One minute you were calling me a stalker for referring to your post, but then are all too happy to point out it was wrong. So which is it?

 

And on a related note, the only reason you are posting any of this stuff is to get a rise out of people. ADMIT IT! It is the same thing with the Gordon Beckham stuff, or any of the rest of it. ADMIT IT ADMIT IT!

 

 

Is it popping off or is this business as usual?

this site is really getting hard to enjoy when the same people argue over and over and over in multiple threads...

I love the ADMIT IT post. One minute you were calling me a stalker for referring to your post, but then are all too happy to point out it was wrong. So which is it?

 

And on a related note, the only reason you are posting any of this stuff is to get a rise out of people. ADMIT IT! It is the same thing with the Gordon Beckham stuff, or any of the rest of it. ADMIT IT ADMIT IT!

No, just pointing out that Gordon Beckham isn't going to hit .170. Just pointing out after 3 innings allowing 1 hit, that John Danks isn't throwing straight 88 mph fastballs to everyone. Those are facts. What you said I posted was not. This is a White Sox message board. Too bad pulling for White Sox players to do well and pointing out when they are when others are saying they are so bad is now considered trolling.

 

Either copy and paste what you said I posted here, or just say you were wrong. It really isn't hard.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

By your metric then, the only way a pitcher can be bad is if the most recent outcome was poor? I'd advise you to look at Danks overall since injury and then tell me you're pleased with what he is now. I am not.

I would be pleased with his progress since the injury. I would not expect him to be fully recovered until after a full season, as it takes usually ine season of pitching to get feeling right. I think he has done pretty well this year so far. Great, no but pretty good.

No, just pointing out that Gordon Beckham isn't going to hit .170. Just pointing out after 3 innings allowing 1 hit, that John Danks isn't throwing straight 88 mph fastballs to everyone. Those are facts. What you said I posted was not. This is a White Sox message board. Too bad pulling for White Sox players to do well and pointing out when they are when others are saying they are so bad is now considered trolling.

 

Either copy and paste what you said I posted here, or just say you were wrong. It really isn't hard.

I didn't think so. Keep on trollin'!

 

 

I didn't think so. Keep on trollin'!

Wow.