Reddy

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:16 PM) Brady Anderson was a superstar for a season, actually. Dude hit 50 homeruns out of nowhere and had an MVP season, then went back to being a normal guy with a lot of injury problems. I know. That's my point. Why didn't that happen with Piazza? Or rather, why didn't Anderson hit like Piazza if steroids really are so incredibly powerful?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) He's going to the Padres, they are officially out of control source? If so, they're going all Blue Jays over there. We know how that works out.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:09 PM) I'm on like strike 70 around here... Maybe it's just my paranoia, but I feel like the axe would fall pretty hard on me if I hit 3. Haha

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) The Sox NEED to sign Moncada...he's a perfect fit! he would fill a big hole... eventually... if he's as good as they say.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) Anyone think that due to the unknown with Avi and his tendency to hit the ball on the ground, he should bat 7th and not 5th? Having a ground ball hitter batting behind LaRoche does not sound like a good idea. I'm thinking Alexei batting 5th could be a better idea. Alexei would bring some speed to the middle of the order which could alleviate ground ball DP's and move Avi to 7th and maybe take some pressure off of him. At this point, Alexei is a better run producer than Avi so why not? 1- Eaton 2- Melky 3- Abreu 4- LaRoche 5- Ramirez 6- Gillaspie 7- Avi 8- Flowers 9- Bonifacio/Beckham/Sanchez/Johnson Yeah, you could, but I kind of feel like the whole bottom half of the lineup is pretty interchangeable, unless Avi really breaks out this year.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) We get it you're a proud liberal. Take it to the buster and don't pollute the infallible PHT. I'm sorry what now? You better be kidding. We get racist posts up in here and I'm the one getting told to take it to the buster? Please. It was clearly a one-off post in a thread that's destined for the s***ter anyway. Relax.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Stats prove you wrong. Nah. See Brady Anderson and the hundreds of other players who didn't become superstars. They don't make bad players hall of famers. But regarding CQ. Reeeeeally?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:45 AM) Well, they're not exempt from mine. If you post on Soxtalk and are an anti-vaxxer, you deserve ever ounce of ridicule you get, and please stop posting here. Two strikes makes a guy say things he doesn't mean.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 09:38 AM) Jenks, nuance and context only matter when they can use it to defend a position they like. lollerz

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:20 AM) Mahr with his typical medicine is evil (although it does good things, sometimes, I guess). I don't know what the f*** he's smoking on this one. So funny that this is the one issue that doesn't fall along party lines at ALL. You have wacko right wingers with their anti-vaxx conspiracies and you have ultra lefters doing the same thing. Dumbasses all. Disclaimer: That was not a personal attack at anyone who posts on this board. Soxtalk posters are exempt from my sweeping, blanket generalization.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) You can see when Belisario pitches that he has a great arm. He gets great velocity and his pitches sink like they have lead in them. But when you leave them up, major league hitters tend to hit the ball hard. As an aside, no one should suggesting that we stop using the eye test to determine the quality of a player in general. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to figure out the talent of college or high school players or minor leaguers or majors leaguers who have talent but haven't put it together. The eye-test is still incredibly important. All anybody should say is that the eye test is not always going to tell us who our good players are based on a number of things - sample size bias, personal bias, a lack of information (think fielding here - we see a guy make a great play and have no idea where he started or how much ground he covered), and any number of other biases. With statistic databases, such as BP, FanGraphs, B-R, and any number of others, we can start to look at numbers that we wouldn't see because it is nearly physically impossible for one person to watch every single play of every single game throughout the course of a season while noting all of this information, forming an opinion on all of these players, and then ranking the players. I can get behind that. And yes, Belly was situationally bad last year, but his overall peripherals were exactly in line with his career except for that bloated BABIP. In other words, he should be expected to be much, much "better" this year, even if he pitches exactly the same (peripherals-wise). And yes, he did have the third highest VORP amongst White Sox pitchers, implosions or not.

What the hell is this thread about?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 12:07 AM) Steroids improve hand eye coordination and adderall/vyvanse/provigil (greenies) improve eyesight and coordination. Everybody was drinking the coffee with greenies in it in the 80's, 90's and into the 00's. Then why didn't they work on everyone? Why did Brady Anderson have one huge year and suck the rest of his career? Steroids still require a baseline talent level to be effective enough to produce a superstar.

and yeah, lock this s*** up.

QUOTE (black jack @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 10:27 PM) There wasn't anything wrong with your post douglas. Whoever was offended by the taco comment needs to pull their liberal PC thongs out of their butts. Now, if you could help me figure out how to get all those darn zipperheads off my lawn... again, 2015. If liberal = not being an asshole to other people then I'm ok with that.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 09:12 PM) They can make an average player a superstar. Ortiz, Sosa, Piazza, etc. Simply untrue. They help you hit the ball farther and recover faster, but they can't make you a better hitter. Steroids don't make you hit at the high average level that Piazza did for as long as he did.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 08:15 PM) You forgot the word "steroids" uh... nope. steroids don't make a bad player a superstar

QUOTE (lvjeremylv @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 08:10 PM) The only thing that matters is winning and losing. When the Sox brought in that loser, they usually lost. And sure, BABIP goes up a lot when you suck s*** and allow line drives all over the field. Uh... not inherently.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 08:41 PM) He put up OPS of over .800 two of his last three years with the Twins and .799 the other. Pllus he was 27 his first year with the Red Sox and he was really good. For a guy who claims to do so much research, you are very wrong. Again. When was the first time?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 07:42 PM) Ortiz was a good hitter with the Twins. Bautista was pretty awful until his late 20s. If talent is there, approach changes can work. Maybe his release gets Viciedo thinking he needs to change. Odds are probably against it, but there are always surprises. Ortiz was terrible until he was 28 or 29

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 07:39 PM) When you posted the eye test has proven to mean nothing. We're arguing over a concept that doesn't have a clear definition. What means next to nothing is when anyone from a casual fan to a coach to an announcer makes a qualifying statement based on how a player "looks". Generally speaking, that has little to no bearing on anything, except in rare circumstances. But yes, as I usually do, I played the hyperbole card. So sue me. If the crux of your argument is based on whether or not I slightly exaggerated to prove a point, then you don't have much of an argument.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 07:19 PM) If you are going to use a phrase, at least use it correctly if you are going to use it twice. It is forest from the trees. Still, saying actually watching games give you nothing is beyond laughable. All these guys are where they are because someone had watched them, usually for quite a while. There is more to playing any team sport than what shows up on a stat sheet. If you just blew off watching and not noticing something might be there that isn't showing yet, guys like Joey Bats would be pumping gas right now. When did I ever say watching games gives you nothing? Stats don't include things like a players mental makeup. Stats projected Beckham to be great. Turns out he was a head case and wasn't able to adjust. They don't tell you about new stances or swings or superstitions. There are limitations to stats, but they're MUCH more effective than the eye test on the whole. And I didn't use the phrase incorrectly. You're missing the forest for the trees.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:58 PM) But if humans are determining ipwhere the ball was hit, and if it was hit sharply, then the eye test is still a big part of the determination. Even fangraphs has mentioned possible human error in UZR. Forest for the trees again. Of course there is human error. There will always be human error. Advanced stats specifically attempt to bring the amount of human error to as low a level as possible. Forest for the trees.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:49 PM) Nice. I think UZR is human generated. obviously there is human interaction at some point in most stat generation. the "eye test" generally doesn't refer to statistics at all. and you know that.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:49 PM) I guess GMs must not use these "unbiased statistics", because you think one of them would have given Ronald a major league job if he was simply unlucky last year. he'll hook on with the big league club. But that said, weird things happen. There's no reason Jermaine Dye shouldn't have been able to find a contract when he was "forced" out of baseball at 36. He was still capable of decent slash stats and good power.