Look at Ray Ray Run

Getz jumping the market again on that scorching hot commodity of former fringe guys coming off terrible years at the end of their careers.

got it.

2028-2029? How old are you? If you think the Sox aren't going to compete again (even with great ownership) until 2028-2029 why are you even still here? Sheesh. No league requires 6-7 years of awfulness to be competitive. There's zero reason a competent leadership couldn't have the White Sox competitive in the AL Central by 2026. Competitive doesn't mean the best team in the world. It doesn't even mean winning the division, but it means playing competitive baseball into the year.

So please in both your future proposals, ask for lesser talent back then you'd want because we have a bad GM. You can't tell me you're being reasonable with your expectations because of ownership and then propose trade offers that don't consider the failure of your GM. Or wait... let me guess. It's totally fine for you to live in fantasy land when it comes to trades?

To an extent, yes. We also have a lot of data on TJ injuries now and recurrence rates and frequencies. All things considered, I'd trust Crochet over the next 5 years about as much as I'd trust any average arm over that period. There's risked tied to all, but Crochet is immediate post-opp and actually had a lot of very positive signs last year.

So now we're hoping we trade our ace lefty arm, because of his injury risk, so we can acquire a 22 year old coming off TJ who has thrown 15 innings since 2022? Some of you guys really like pain.

Crochet's lack of innings is a good thing, not a bad thing. What % weight are you putting on Garrett Crochet's injury risk compared to any other pitcher - I would guess it's too much based on what you're saying. Crochet's thrown limited innings post opp AND he's changed the way he pitches. Right now, the injury risk for Crochet is a massive unknown and with any form of uncertainty, it's just as likely he reverts to the league average than otherwise. Understanding that from a statistical standpoint, there's no reason not to then approach Crochet as any other available 25 year old arm. Benefit Crochet has going for him is the limited innings. Similar to the comments I made on this board about Zach Wheeler 5 years ago when he was a FA. Difference was Wheeler had two years post-opp under his belt while Crochet has one AND Wheeler had been a starter in the minors. Crochet was 3rd in baseball in FIP, 1st in xFIP, 8th in WAR, 2nd in WAR/9 (behind Sale lol), 1st in K-rate, 15th in walk rate. He wore down a little bit, but still nearly touched 150 innings. Crochet would be on my list of 3 arms to take over the next 5 years in all of baseball. You want the White Sox to trade him so they can trade down again, just like they did with Sale. 25 million dollars is nothing in MLB. The White Sox have 66 million committed for next year and under 40 million the year after. Paying Garrett Crochet should have no impact on the team. This is entertainment and they're supposed to be keeping star talent, not always thinking about how they can move on from them. And sorry, wasn't calling you a dumb ass. Just hate the idea of trading unicorn skill sets. The last one we traded is about to win a Cy Young after already winning a World Series and we got no where near his value returned.

While it happens occasionally, it definitely gets more and more rare as you go up the totem pole of value. It sounds like Crochet will likely be locked up by whoever trades for him, so it's very unlikely he hits market. I'm so sick and tired of trading every elite talent we have. It is exhausting. It rarely ever works - we got Alexander Albertus for Chris Sale. With each trade we get worse and worse too. We get a lesser and lesser return.

because some of us don't recommend dumb ass moves just because our owner is a cheap ass. No where does it say that my strategy/process should change because our ownership doesn't know how to run a business. If you want to change how you approach process because of poor leadership, so be it, but I certainly am not going to change what I view as optimal just because Jerry sucks. This would be a lot like making horrible trade proposals in our trade proposal threads just because our GM sucks and can't evaluate talent... no one would do that because no one says, well "I'll just take less because our GM is dumb."

But chris hired a director of hitting! They now have many people in charge of all the specific areas of bad. The administrative class is here to rescue the White Sox.

Yeah, painter could turn into a injury prone elite arm with top stuff and a huge ceiling... he could be someone like Garrett Crochet one day! You guys crack me up sometimes.

This is what I get for reading down instead of bottom up. What he said.

At no point in Bannister's career has he been dictating the guys he had those higher success rates with. When guys who develop chose the guys they develop, you can very quickly become incredibly narrow minded and singular in focus and the diversity of perspective. Confirmation bias is something that consumes almost anyone that absorbs both roles in any industry. Evaluators and developers require different skill sets. Evaluators, generally speaking, can be much more analytically influenced and should lean into their evaluations and the mean of outcomes, while a developer often-times will see the ceiling of a player. What "I can get out of him." People seem to understand this concept with the GM not being the coach, but for some reason they don't understand the implications are the same down stream. If you're the director of pitching, the TA's job is to identify how you succeed and CONSIDER that in their evaluations as a component of value but it shouldn't drive value or be the key decision component of personnel decision.

I have no idea why any of you think Brian Bannister should make player decisions. His job should be to develop talent, not chose the talent he develops.

So Brian Bannister is Ethan Katz boss?

Trying to keep up with all these made up baseball positions. Is the director of hitting in this case equivalent to the minor league hitting coordinator? Why is that desperately needed?

LOL his new sliders was as shitty as his old one. You could actually argue his slider was shittier with the Dodgers (although I'd say it was a net wash), but that was going to make people's heads explode if I argued that while his results were so much better so I just let that one go.

Agree with you on plenty of things. I'm just more inclined to post when I disagree; don't take it personally. I'm a dick in real life too!

I'm going to bow out of this conversation because you have all just chosen to believe your own narratives. Mechanics - No release point changes for Kopech, his arm and ball angle were on the same plane. No one makes big mechanical changes in the middle of a season. Repertoire - I've already shown pretty clearly this was unchanged, and his Velo was basically the exact same as well.

2% is not a change in pitch mix. That is, well within the expected outcomes of his next 30 innings based on his mix with the White Sox. The problem with most people that look at statistics and data is they have no idea what it means or is telling them. A change in pitch mix is an intentional alteration of your pitch selection that would not be in line with the typical fluctuations of your current mix. So to answer your question, not it's not the argument you're reading. My evidence showed the exact opposite. Kopech's OUTCOMES were different with the Dodgers but his expected outcomes were very much in line with how he performed with the White Sox. Outcomes, over small samples, are heavily subjugated by noise and not anything of actual meaning. Kopech was just as likely to go to the Dodgers and see his BABIP go up as he was to see it go down. The fact it went down 50% and his LOB% went up 20% have nothing to do with Michael Kopech and are not things he controls.

These numbers were in line with his expected outcome possibilities - nothing the Dodgers did here.

You can't argue with any of the actual facts so you'll stick to this small sample size noise. Got it. Glad we could confirm that you're as irrational as those who you critique on this board endlessly.

But this is also not shown in any data. Kopech actually threw more first pitch strikes, threw more strikes generally speaking, got more called and swinging strikes and etc with the Sox than he did with the Dodgers. He lived in the same spots in the strike zone, his release point was unchanged. There were no mechanical corrections or pitch-mix changes. While it's easy to say maybe he tried harder or etc, that also implies that Kopech had something extra the Sox couldn't get out of him and that's just not shown in any of the data anywhere.

You saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. Hope that clears that up!

You disagree that 33 IP is a small sample? What? It doesn't matter what his position is, sample size is predicated on statistical boundaries not area-specific determinants. 33 IP's in the scheme of baseball is obviously a small sample as it's impact on future performance/expectations is less than 3%, even for a reliever. What I find fascinating about you is you love to cite data/stats, but then when the data clearly dispels your anti-Sox conclusions, you decide that you disagree with it in those cases. WSox2023 will be the first to tell you a Sox player sucks and is being lucky because he has a low BABIP, but when a guy leaves the Sox to go elsewhere and has a low BABIP driving success, WSox2023 tells us that it's sustainable in those cases.