Kalapse

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 27, 2010 -> 06:55 PM) Rios making 'em look easy. He just makes baseball look easy sometimes (twice that half inning), it's been an absolute pleasure watching him in all phases of the game this year, he's incredible.

If he's stealing 3rd because he can't score from second on a 2 out single then he should never play the outfield for this team again because he's WAAAY too f***ing slow to cover enough ground out there.

It's funny the way people talked about Kotsay all offseason, a heady, grindy, incredibly baseball intelligent, veteran ballplayer. Still waiting for that guy to show up.

Quentin has 166 PA this year, his last home run came 80 PA ago.

Believe it or not but the 3rd place White Sox's closer situation isn't exactly front page news right now in the Chicago sports landscape. There's a few more important things going on right now, not that the amount of media coverage on the subject means anything.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 27, 2010 -> 02:26 PM) That's sad. His save percentage is still OK. If the fans want Thornton, give them Thornton. How about his success in high leverage situations percentage? It's currently at 70% and he walked the tight rope in 80% of his 10 high leverage outings, that's unreal.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 27, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Not of late. Have caught parts of some games. I've never heard of a closer losing his job until he blows 2-3 saves in a row and the manager mercifully has to get him out of there to stop the booing, etc. Shingo lost his job in '05 with a near identical performance to that of Bobby thus far this year, only Bobby's gotten 13 extra days of leash so far. Oh and Bobby has "blown" 3 games for us this year.

I'd probably be in favor of robo-umps. Personally, I don't have much use for the non-talents who are only there as a necessary evil blowing calls and deciding games because they don't know how to get into position for a play at the plate, the whimsy created by the incompetence of umpires is lost on me.

Amazon.com has RDR on sale for $48.54 right now. Pretty good deal.

QUOTE (T R U @ May 26, 2010 -> 09:09 PM) How about just not throwing him in non save situations? I think he needs to stay at closer for now, hes 7 of 8 in saves and unless he starts LOSING us games I dont have a problem with bend but don't break.. even if its bent to hell.. How about a home game where it's tied going to the top of the 9th? That's typically where you go to your closer.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 26, 2010 -> 06:19 PM) Putz: performance bonuses based on games, games finished: $0.125M each for 60, 70 games $0.45M for 40 GF, $0.525M for 45 GF, $0.6M for 50 GF, $0.675M for 55 GF, $0.75M for 60 GF I'm curious what kind of incentives Garcia ($2M) and Jones ($1M) have, I'm sure it's starts and PA but how many? Glad to see Cots updated Putz's incentives, though. Also: Putz is currently on pace for 54 games and with 116 games left and a closer typically finishing maybe 30% of a team's games if JJ took over the closer's role tomorrow he'd get close to 40 so not much to worry about there.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 26, 2010 -> 06:01 PM) Doesn't Putz get a substantial incentive if he leads the team in saves? You can't incentivize saves. He gets another $3M for something to do with games finished, not sure if it's leading the club or a certain total he must hit.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 26, 2010 -> 05:30 PM) I don't understand why we can't use the argument of percentage of saves closed successfully when discussing a closer. I mean he had so many runs to work with and used 'em all but one and we win. What's so bad about that? The meltdown had we lost today would have been amazing cause this is a bad enough meltdown and we won. I'm not saying Jenks is a god, but today I'd think the focus would more be on Teahen finally contributing, isn't it two days in a row now and Kotsay again doing well. If those 2 guys do anything remotely positive it helps this team greatly even though I think this team's maximum success rate this season would be to be a .500 team. We ain't anymore than that. Why do you think Ozzie has been toying with the notion of moving him out of 9th inning duties? When that volcano starts rumbling and spewing smoke do you maybe think about making your move or do you wait until it incinerates your home?

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 26, 2010 -> 05:37 PM) Good point, but when you are making that kind of money and failing it's tough to not take shots at them. For instance, some of us thought last year that the acquisition of Rios might put us over the hump to win the division and then we allegedly with Peavy returning in September had a rotation made for the postseason. The fact Rios was absolutely miserable at the plate and the fact we did not come close to winning the division made him an easy target. Now this year, Peavy is supposed to be our big time ace and he's been pretty bad. I think this year's team is so much worse on paper than last year's that Peavy shouldn't be roasted as much as Rios last year. Rios was supposed to be our big big acquisition that was going to help us squeak out a division title and set us up for October. Those of you who stuck with Rios deserve credit because a fresh start in April is apparently what he needed. What is it that Peavy needs? The all star break to regroup? Not really. That Rios acquisition was almost 100% for the future. You don't really acquire a scuffling 28 year old CF with 5 years left on his deal for a title run. You pick him up because you're pretty damn sure with a change of scenery and a little time things will turn around he'll solidify your club's CF position for the foreseeable future. But most importantly: we didn't seek him out (though KW had inquired about him before), the only reason he was made available to us at the time was because the Blue Jays were hoping to dump his contract, if they hadn't put him on waivers he almost definitely wouldn't be on our team right now. It was a shrewd move meant to put an end to our annual CF turnstile.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 26, 2010 -> 04:56 PM) Except in both cases you pay for results. The dish was burnt and the job wasn't done. Bobby is paid to preserve wins. He did that. Thornton stats look better than Bobby's but he has cost the Sox more games by giving up leads. It wasn't pretty but he still did what he was supposed to do. Thornton's entered in 12 high leverage situations this year and gave the opponent the lead 3 times. Jenks has entered 9 high leverage situations this year and gave the opponent the lead 3 times. When Jenks enters a game he typically has a much higher margin for error than Thornton whether it be a 3 run lead or the fact that he's starting the inning and doesn't have to deal with inherited runners. You can't just go based off how many games a reliever has "blown" because the 2 roles are not created equal. Matt Thornton actually leads our relievers in WPA meaning over the course of the season he has added to our win probability more than any other reliever, almost always your leader will be your closer just because there's so much more WPA+ to be gained by finishing the game than getting a few outs in the 7th and the high volume of high leverage situations a top of the line set-up man is required to pitch. Oddly enough though Thornton is at 0.77 (12th in the AL) and Jenks is at -0.47. Thornton actually finished 5th amongst all AL relievers (closers included) last year which just speaks to his incredible success rate in high leverage situations.

It's such bulls*** that you can't use your closer in non-save situations (ie: tied in the top of the 9th inning), he's typically going to be either the most or the second most important member of your bullpen and sometimes you need a big out in a tied game or you need him to keep you within a run going into your final AB. If he can't get up for a close late situation that doesn't technically qualify as a save opportunity then there's something wrong with him. Just looking over the splits of closers around baseball for the past few years other teams don't really have to deal with their closer absolutely imploding in high pressue, late game, non-save situations somehow they're able to keep their team in the game even if they're not going to get that 'S' next to their name in the boxscore. A 3-3 game in the top of the 9th inning against Toronto is a f***ing huge situation and typically where you see a team's closer enter the game, allowing a HR to John Buck in this scenario is unacceptable, you can't just be expected to get outs when your team is up 1-3 runs in the final half inning of play, you need to get those big outs when your manager calls upon you regardless of whether or not a save is on the line. Our offense is struggling to score runs as is, if you're called upon to retire three men without a run crossing the board down 1 in the top of the 9th to the Indians you man the f*** up and keep your team within a solo shot of a tie, unfortunately a single, walk, walk and groundout later you're down two going into your final AB and it feels as though all hope is lost. 3 times this year the game moved to the top of the 9th at home and the closer was called upon to either protect a 1 run lead or keep the score even (2 tied) for the final AB and all 3 times he failed to do so. Luckily we came back to win 1 of them after Jenks allowed 2 runs to the Mariners in the top of the 9th inning of a tied ballgame thanks to the heroics of Paul Konerko and Alex Rios. A closer can not be judged solely on his success rate in save situations, no, that's not the only time he's called upon to get big outs. If you want to be the most important arm in that pen then you need to keep your team in games regardless of whether or not a save is on the line.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 26, 2010 -> 03:21 PM) It could be just me. But I don't think for a second Jenks is throwing that hard, despite what the guns are saying. I've seen 97-98. If Bobby's throwing that hard, guys like Jonathan Broxton and Brian Wilson are throwing 103. pitchFX has him right there at 96 again today (98 on Saturday) as it has most of the year, I don't see why the cameras would be off for Jenks but right on for Pena (94/95) and Thornton (96/97). It just goes to show you that velocity really means very little when your control and movement are s*** and your offspeed pitches are mediocre to non-existent.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 26, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) We may miss Carl Crawford for a couple of games after his ejection last night There's a report out today that he won't be suspended.

The fuse is lit. Again.

I know today wasn't a save opportunity but anyway: Just looking at the 7 games Jenks has saved: 4 of them were 1-run save-opps, 1 game the tying run reached base, 3 games the go ahead run reached based. The other 3 saves were 3-run save-opps, he allowed 1 baserunner in 2 of them and the other was his only perfect save of the year. His 1 blown save was a 1 run save opportunity in which he allowed 4 baserunners and 3 ER without retiring a batter. In other words: he's been walking an ultra fine line in 1-run save opportunities this year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 26, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) He needed to get to the top of the order to prove that he can get good hitters out while letting hitters at the bottom of the order and off the bench get a little confidence to make them feel better about their baseball abilities and maybe make it someday in this sport. Not only is he a great reliever, but he's a great philanthropist too. Just look at who he retired: their number #1, #3 and #4 hitters, what's more impressive than that? And to speak to your philanthropy point; the last 2 guys he retired have a combined 22 years of major league experience under their belts no real need to lift their spirits.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 26, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) Jenks proved he can work his way out of a jam as well as anyone. I mean, bases loaded, 1 out, up by 1, and he got the next two guys out. What a clutch performer. He actually put those 6 runners on base on purpose just to show dominant he can be in the clutch. I know I was impressed.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 26, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) Besides two outings, Pena has been pretty good this year. And both of those were blowouts that we pretty much had no shot of winning when he entered, he's really having a very good year.

Tony Pena basically single-handedly won this game. He was amazing. A well deserved win for the big man.

Good call, doc. Tony Pena got the win.