vilehoopster

I loved Walton in his UCLA and Portland days, but he is now a living testement to the dangers of what prolonged drug use does to your brain. He keeps bringing up this book or that book; he has no idea what happened in any of those books. Those brain cells were burnt out years ago. He's just pontificating and putting on airs. As I said before, I quickly muted.

Oh my god. I just turned it on. Could only last a minute before I muted it. Sorry, no way I see this as a good idea.

These are the words of a guy who never coached in high stress situations. I coached high school basketball in Indiana for over 15 years and I’m telling you team leadership and modeling a strong work ethic is really important. If anything it’s underrated. It doesn’t show in games. Everybody bust their asses in games when the crowd is watching. Where it matters is in practice. If have seniors who understand and value drill and practices, you’re gonna get better as the year goes on and pass teams that were better than you at the start of the season. Stuff like that is contagious. If you have seniors who dog it and do just enough to not get yelled at, who snipe and b**** in the locker room, that stuff is even more contagious, and you will underachieve, maybe really underachieve. Remember before the all star game when people on here keep asking how the Sox could be only 2 or 3 games under .500 with their starting pitching, injuries, and other problems. And I know things turned ugly after all-star game, but the ship seems to have righted itself. Anyway, when a team overachieves like that, there’s some positive intangibles happening in the clubhouse, some serious leadership, both verbally and modeling hard work. And everyone you talk to, players and staff, all point to that positive presence as Abreu. That stuff is important, and if you don’t think so, you don’t really know sports. Ask any coach in any sport. We can debate whether Abreu is a really good or just an average 1st baseman, and though I argue against the claims he’s only average, I can see the arguments for the other side. But to claim that locker room or clubhouse atmosphere and leadership have no value, or even little value, when it comes to wins and losses, I’m sorry you lose all credibility with me.

And who would this younger better LH hitter be? Well, A. J. Reed is younger and left handed. Great idea!! Let's have Reed with his .143 average in Charlotte replace Abreu and his 86 RBIs. No good? Let's go to AA and go with Sheets. He's a lefty and sporting a fine .269 BA and .759 OPS in AA How about Vaugh and his .267 BA. Well, he does have a OPS of .842 down there in A ball, but he's a righty, so no. You guys kill me. Why is Abreu no good just because he's older? Younger is not necessarily better, and certainly not in the three people I just listed. Maybe in a couple years, Vaughn might be better, but we don't know that. Think Collins or Fulmer. Plus I am tired of you guys saying he's bad defensively like it's a fact. He throws well above average for a 1st baseman, and how many errors has he saved for Moncada and Anderson by digging hops out of the dirt. Can any of these younger guys, right now, listed above, do that as well as Abreu? Of course not.

I went to the game today. Parking was a complete mess. Got there 50 minutes early, yet lot after lot was full. Took me 35 minutes just to get parked, once at stadium. But the Baines stuff was running late, so I still got to see a lot of that. That made up for the parking mess. But going to a game and seeing your team get shut out, by what you know is probably an average pitcher just sucks. It's ZERO fun. When that 2-run Oakland homer went over the fence, you already felt the game was over, done. And many people around me felt the same way. Inning after inning, you kept this flicker of hope, but you really didn't believe it. It was like watching a ship slowly sink. As of right now, I have no desire to go to a Sox game this year or next. God dammit. Score some runs. Today just sucked. And I agree, get rid of the batting coach or whatever approach is being used organization wide. Did I read from from Merkin on MLB.com that the Sox lead the majors in games where they only score one run or less? Again, other than Baines thing, today's game was ZERO fun.

They have an all-star and clubhouse leader at 1st base.

I agree 100% with Parkman and Cailsoxfan. Bring those guys up. The window does not stay open for long.

He was? Wasn't he? Right after the Minnesota game where he gave up 5 runs in 5 batters. Then Fulmer got hurt and he came right back up.

We don’t think you hate him. We know you hate him. People on here ask you all the time why you hate him. They ask like did he kick your dog? Did he insult your mother? It’s now officially reached the creepy level. And why do you other guys agree with him when you all know the source?

People are buying tickets and tuning in. That's the reason that matters over any other concern. A ridiculous post.

Jay is batting .316. Only one other player is batting above .300 and you want to replace Jay with a guy who was 2 for 26 in his time with the White Sox. This makes no sense. So you are just for blowing off any attempt to win the rest of the year? Should they be bring up some guys from the Arizona League too? Does winning not concern you at all, at all? I say this again: People are still tuning in on their TVs to watch; People are still buying tickets to the games. I've going again in a couple weeks, and when we go and when we watch on TV, we like it when the Sox win. Another example of a poster on here who would rather lose just so he can watch some prospect improve. But wait, maybe you're right: if Collins gets enough at bats, maybe he can get his average up over .100. This is the post I am always gonna cite from now on when I talk about how a large group of people on this forum don't care about winning. This thread is ridiculous.

Good point. Thanks for trying to keep me in line. I certainly do get a little obnoxious once I get going. With that said, I don't sound ridiculous. That you guys just completely accept WAR with no questions at all is rather ridiculous, just total blind acceptence.

Did you mean to say: You either agree with me, or you disagree with me and are lying about it?? Is that what you meant to say. Because that would be correct. Last night was a perfect example of what happens in critical/ key situations when Colome or Bummer don't pitch: Bummer pitched the 9th, shutout; Colome the 10th, shutout; two pitchers combined to give the Mets a 3-run 11th inning. I was watching some show with Ozzie G. last night before the game, Baseball Chicago, I think. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong. but the stat is that the Sox are 35 and 1 this year if leading after the 7th inning, 35 and 1. Two people are responsible for that stat. Bummer and Colome. To say Colome has only been responsible for 1.7 wins to the Sox this year is just being stubborn and silly. It's like the tobacco companies in the 70s arguing that cigarettes don't cause cancer or denying that climate change isn't man-made. You're just BSing to totally win your argument.

Answer my two questions: do you really believe that Colome has only added (rounded up) two wins to the Sox this year, below average in the world of WAR? Yes or no? Do you really think that pitching the 9th is equal to pitching the first couple innings? Yes or no? If you answer truthfully, it's a LOL for me.

Okay, let me start off be being offensive: Okay, I took a day off from destroying you guys, but I'm back. You guys talk about my lack of understanding of WAR and you keep stating that WAR is correct no matter what holes can be found its logic or assessments of a players value to a win. 1st off Ray Ray Run: "There is nothing about WAR that is subjective." Of course there is tons of stuff in WAR that is subjective. At home, a KC batter hits a ball hard to short and TA takes one step over and the ball goes off his glove. At KC that is a single, adding to that guy's WAR and doing nothing to Tim's WAR; at Chicago, that is an error on TA, hurting Tim's WAR and doing nothing for the batter; unless the crowd boos and Steve makes a comment on TV, then the scorer quietly changes that to a hit an inning later. Angel Hernandez call a total BS strike three on Eloy taking the bat out of Eloy's hand and saving that pitcher's ERA, totally subjective. The stats that feed into war are subjective, therefore, WAR by its nature must be subjective. What isn't subjective is what make a save and what makes a blown save, and Colome has saved 95.5% of his save opportunities. Next . . . 2nd Dam8610: "Firstly, closers will always be well above the league average save rate because blown saves are credited to middle relievers and setup relievers who give up a lead, despite the fact that they never would have gotten the save had they not given up the lead. Further, as has been stated several times, you're giving the closer credit for the whole win in those situations. Under your model, the closer's contributions to the win are the only ones that matter. Not the starting pitcher's quality start, not the offense's performance, not the defense's performance, but only the closer matters." Okay, how am I giving the closer "credit for the whole win." Just because the closer gets credit for the win, doesn't take away from anybody else's performance. Can't the pitcher who threw 8 innings of one-hit ball still help his WAR. Or if a batter who hits four home runs, doesn't his WAR also go up. That a closer increases his WAR has no effect, positive or negative, on how any other player performed and helped or hurt his WAR, so "the closer gets all the credit for win argument" goes out the window. Also, how the pitcher pitched or the offense did doesn't matter to the closer. If he comes into what major league baseball (not subjective) has determined as a save situation and gets the save, that should increase his WAR, regardless of how the starting pitcher did or how the offense did, who also can increase or decrease their WAR. -- This goes to Juschill and Eminor3rd who also made the "closer whole credit" comment. Now to Eminor3rd: "replacement level does NOT equal average. It equals replacement level. The average MLB contributor is roughly two wins above replacement level. Okay, I did do my research and I did see this statement and didn't deal with it. Thanks for letting me deal with it now. This is such a flawed idea. So computing Wins above Replacement, the baseline is 2. An average player has a 2 WAR. Does that make sense? Instead of just shaking your head, use it to think for a minute. Shouldn't the baseline when computing starts for an stat be zero: positive is above zero and negative is below zero. But for WAR, the baseline of average is 2, so the average player contributes to 2 wins a year. Shouldn't the average player contribute to zero wins a year, and a below average player hurt his team with losses (cough, cough Yonder A.??) There's a lack of logic there to me when the baseline for figuring out good or bad is already at plus 2 for average. Don't you see the bad logic there with average being plus 2 ?? Let me leave with asking two questions? First, Colome has a WAR of 1.7. Do you really think that Colome has only had a positive to the point of adding only 1.7 wins to the Sox this year, only 1.7 wins? Do you really believe that if the Sox didn't have Colome, that they would only have two less wins this year, only two? Seriously, be honest in your answer. Especially when the average WAR is seen as 2.0. Colome has had a below average contribution to the Sox win total this year? Do you really believe this? Second: Don't you think that the 9th inning matters more than the first couple innings? In basketball we talk about the last 2 minutes decides the best players or in football, how important that final drive is in determining greatness. But with WAR the 1st inning is the same as the last. Do you think that that is correct? According to WAR, a pitcher that throws 22 or so pitches in the 9th inning with the game absolutely on the line, with the other team bunting or pitch hitting all stops out, means less to the win than a left fielder who had four at bats and had four balls hit to him the entire game. Is that correct? Be honest with yourself, do you believe totally yes to both of these questions? If so, than WAR is 100% on the money with you. But if you say no to either question or both, you really have to start questioning the validity of WAR.

All the people who complain about how negative this forum can get, well, I'm sorry but all you can be is angry, upset and negative with a game like this happens today. It's Sunday with a great crowd, and we trot out this lineup. Don't you think that deserves some negative, angry and snarky comments about management. In front of this same great crowd, we start a pitcher, who in three seasons has a 6 and 27 record, 6 and 27. Don't you think that demands, not deserves, but demands some angry comments and negative snipes. Then, right as the game is finally having some excitment for the fans and the Sox have the bases loaded with a chance to entertain that big crowd, up to bat comes Castillo with his .181 batting average, who then strikes out, and he is followed by our dumpster dive pickup Reed (we DFAed Alonso so this guy could play?) who proceeds to strike out on three pitches. It's really hard for me to see any reason to be happy, rosy, or optimistic. What this calls for is a futile and stupid gesture on somebody's part.

You are correct. The motivation of the thread is to push my anti-advanced metric belief, not propaganda. I am trying to give some credance to my anti-advance stat with this post, but I did do some work and research. I looked up the majors save percentage, that took some finding. And I repeatedly looked up the definition of WAR and the idea of replacement on two separate sites. I did some work and gave some facts. Then I have tried to use logic to defend my point, which is hard to do when you're cursing Dylan Covey at the same time.

When someone is this astronomically bad, yes, it deserves its own thread. Five batters and five runs, sorry, but we could have put Matt Davidson in our starting rotation at the start of the year and he would never have had a line like that. Five batters, five runs, I think, in only 13 pitches. Covey after today will have a career record of 6 and 28 with the Sox. How much more do they have to see? Release him tonight.

Same thing as I've said to all others. Show me where my logic or math is wrong. I teach in my classroom a unit on how to spot propaganda, which is the art of getting people to believe stuff without any evidence, getting people to accept something is true without any evidence. The number one resort of all propagandist is to go right to the insult. It's a dead givaway that the person has no counterargument.

See this is what I'm talking about. Why would ERA and Xfip and k/9 rate even matter? What does it matter how he does it, what matters is he gets the save. To me save percentage should be the only stat that matters in such a specialized field. With field goal kickers, shouldn't percentage of field goals made matter the most. But with the stuff you stated for Colome, xfip and all that. That's like saying the guy leading the league in field goal percentage (like Colome is tied for MLB league in save percentage) is not a good kicker because the SOT speed off toe or AoA angle of set back ankle is not good. None of that matters as long as the ball goes thru the uprights. What makes up a save is the same for every pitcher. Who cares how he does it (ie xfip, K rate, whatever). All that should matter is save percentage. All other stats are clear example of you can't see the forest for the tree. For a closer, you give him the ball and if he gets the save, it's good. If he blows the save it's bad, all that other stuff means nothing in the bottom line. Today's game gives me an example of the opposite. Why do we keep giving Dylan Covey the ball? Oh, because on some sort of weird saberstat it's been determined that Covey has "great stuff". I was in the car for the start of the game and all the radio announcers kept saying to justify Covey was his "great stuff". Jason and Stone always refer to his "great stuff" too. Someone measuring his pitch speed and ball rotation and degree of ball change has decided that he has "great stuff". Once again, can't see the forest for the trees. After today he will have 6 wins and 28 losses as a Sox pitcher. There is nothing great about Covey, least of all this "stuff". What ever stats are being used to justify Covey's great stuff and that we keep giving him the ball need to be thrown in the garbage. Just like any stat that says Colome is an average reliever has to be pretty much ignored when the guy leads the league (well tied for the lead) in save percentage.

I looked WAR up also and also saw this quote. But, as I see it, wouldn't a random guy from AAA have even a lower save percentage than 64%. Does that further help my argument that Colome should have an even higher WAR?

Okay, now this is a statement I can work with and really reply to. I assume inning descrepancy means that a closer pitches less innings than a starter, so does that mean he has less value?? To a degree that makes sense. But on the other hand, a closer pitches more critical innings when a manager is pulling out all the stops to score, shouldn't that add to a closer's WAR? I have no idea what "leaverage isn't worked in" means. Please explain that. Then maybe I can debate that. But I know what "team value" means. And Colome has saved 21 of the Sox's 45 wins this year. That sounds like a lot of "team value" to me. Should his WAR be even higher because he has had fewer save opportunities. I would say yes.

Still short; still witty, still doesn't show where I'm wrong. If replacement in WAR means average, than my idea of WAR for closers makes more sense than what is ever being used now. Quit being short, funny, and insulting and explain where my logic is wrong. I can't debate an insult.

Because I questioned a stat that few understand (including me) but everyone quotes, people comment with quick, unsupported witty comments, but so what. Where is my logic wrong. Is my definition of replacement wrong? Are my stats wrong? Was my math wrong. Tell where I'm wrong in my logic instead of just dismissing my statement with an insult.

Also, when you use WAR to define replacement level when it comes to batting, is the WAR only figured out comparing only clean-up hitters or only lead-off hitters. No, WAR is figured out versus all hitters when trying to figure out value of wins added to a team. So replacement or average to figure out WAR for a closer should be against all pitchers who get a save opportunity.