ptatc

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) Who do the Sox have as a legit pitching prospect for the future that has pitched more than 2-3 years in the minors as a starter? Not Sale, not Stewart, not Molina. Pretty much no one that has any hope of winding up on the team in the near future other than maybe Axelrod, who I don't care if he's put in the pen. Which is why I react strongly negatively to the idea of putting Stewart or Molina in the pen, and why doing so with Sale last eyar was so risky. I would put Stewart and Molina in the category of not neededing to worry about innings. Both have had enough time and innings the past few years. Now whether they are ready for the MLB is another story. But if the Sox felt the physically they were ready and all they needed now was Learning. I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, from what I've read Molina isn't ready but Stweart could be. I agree with Sale he has not had the innings. He will not be ready to pitch 200 inngs this year. I would say the 150-180 would be plenty for him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) The real issue I have is that the Sox are putting guys in the bullpen at the expense of them getting their innings in. The other dominant guys around the league who started in the pen got their innings in at the minor league level before sneaking into the pen for some experience. When David Price pitched out of the pen for the Rays, he'd already thrown 108 innings in the minors that year. I hear your point...but "Conditioning a guy's arm", especially for the kind of raw kids we're getting, has to be the priority. The conditioning the arm part really only applies to guys straight out of college or ones who have had very few innings pitched in the minors. Sale would fall into this category for concern. Anyone who has pitched more than 2-3 years in the minors as a starter I wouldn't worry about it. They can increase their workload over the off season and spring training to get ready to start.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) For Sale, it made sense. He was being groomed pretty much exclusively at the major league level, and his arm wasn't tuned to 200 innings yet anyway, so it made sense. Molina is trying to build up innings (being a transitioned position player), has been a starter for a couple years, and isn't being jumped early. The cases are just not that similar, and I'd rather Molina was getting starter innings in the minors learning how to pitch. I'm not saying it's right for all pitchers. It's that it can be a very useful straegy and should not be dismissed out of hand. Molina has been a pitcher for 4 years, I think. His transition is over. It's now about learning to pitch effectively and for some it's at the MLB level. I'm not aying it's right for him because I don't know him. It's more about the mental approach than physical.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) It's not uncommon, but that also doesn't mean it's smart. I disagree. I think it's a good way to build confidence and learn how to pitch to MLB hitters without getting "thrown to the wolves." You can pick and choose the situations to help them learn.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) Yes, let's put another long-term-starter in the bullpen. See how many more pitchers we can set up where they hit a 120 inning limit when they move to being a starter. It's not uncommon to have a young pitcher start off in the bullpen to get a feel for how to get MLB hitters out and work with the MLB pitching coach for a year then move to the rotation the next year. There's no problem with it if you don't try to ove him into the starting role the same year. If he has an off season to prepare for being a starter he'll be fine.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 04:17 AM) Just to clarify, by "pressure" throwing, are you talking about high leverage situations? Like late in a game, up by 1, 2 runners on base? Or what exactly? I've heard that idea discussed before and have some understanding of what or why it would have an impact. Hawk and Blyleven (watch both quite a bit and respect both of their knowledge of the game) and neither one of them really like the pitch count. Instead, they prefer to look at the stress level at which the pitcher pitched. For starting pitchers, this makes sense. You can have 2 guys throw 110 pitches in 7 innings, but one could do it by throwing anywhere between 14-20 pitches per inning, and one could do it throwing fewer than 13 pitches in 6 innings and throwing 40 in one big inning. The sheer volume of pitches in that 1 inning is 300% greater than that of what he's done in any other inning, similar to a person who normally runs a 5K every day suddenly jumping to a 15K and then back to a 5K the next day. It's not going to be good for the body and there is an increased chance for injury. Am I barking up the right tree with that? If so, are you simply talking about the first situation I described or more similar to the second one, just as a reliever? Yes, that is what I mean. There is added physiologic work on the body when you are under mental stress. The parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems control phsiological responses ie. herat rate, adrenal glands. When these are activated, under stress, the body wroks harder for the same activity.The running is a good example but you are using it slightly wrong. There is more work when you run a 5k against perceived mental stress ie. competition versus running out in front alone. Some running are under stress in the first situation, some in the second. It's still the same distance but mentally you feel stressed and your body is wroking harder for the same activity. This is where people may peform their best, if the stay in control, but it is also where the body is working harder. This concept applies to relievers as well. It's about the pressure and how hard you preceiving yourself to work as well as the actual physical work. another physical only scenario for this concept is more the way you were looking at it. Using the running example again. If you are used to running a 5K at 9:00 min/mile pace and all of a sudden in the 2nd mile you decide to take off and run a 5:00 minute mile. If you during this period of time you could cause damage to the tissue in your body. In this scenarion it's not the amount of work but the intensity that will cause injury. Either way you can cause tissue damage in the same overall amount of work.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I have to go back in tomorrow but at this point they think its some sort of cartilage shearing and it may require microfracture surgery. Is it the knee or hip? How are they going to do the microfracture through the soundwaves or athroscopy?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 07:51 PM) http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles...football,26140/ That's a great articles. i hadn't seen it. Probably the only thing the body is designed more poorly for is to throw an object overhand such as a baseball.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) More like 4/54. 2012: 12 2013: 13 2014: 14 2015: 15 That's more White Soxie. That would make more sense. I would never give any pitcher anything more than a 3 year deal but for a pitcher that has been with the Sox this long (ala MB) I could see 4 years.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) While I 100% believe k0na that a deal is done, I give these figures about a 1% chance of being true. Mark just got $14.5M per year to pitch from age 33-36. John is getting no less than $15M per year to pitch from age 26-30, even with an extra year on the deal. My guess would be 5 years and something between $75-80M. The only way I could see this happening is if he really wanted to stay here and wanted a 5 year deal. So the Sox offered more money short term but less money per year over a longer period of time. I still can't imagine JR would have approved a 5 year deal but at this money he might.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) From the last decade's experience, banking on players to hit their averages on the white sox is an exercise in futility. We're not talking about averages. We're just talking about not being historically bad.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) Mark just got slightly less amount of money. There was no way they will bring him back, he's not 25 anymore. The only beef I have with org is actually not actually having ANY offer for him. They didn't offer anything because MB gave them a chance to match the Marlins offer. They decided not to match it. It was not worth offering anything below what the Marlions did. He told them that at the beginning of FA.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) Where did the Cardinals rank before the season last year? I know some people thought last year's Sox team was a top 5 MLB team coming into the season. As long as we dont totally gut the roster we've got a pretty good chance in our division. I think that's what people forget. The sox had a talented team. It's just that everybody (save PK) had about the worst season they could. The sox still need a little offensive upgrade but they aren't an awful team. You can either gut the team (which people you like suspects want) or add to it. We have yet to see which one KW is really doing. But I think he will still trade CQ, Thornton and a starter to add more pieces.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) With Danks the Sox are still the 8th best team in the AL.. I hope we still sign than trade him and get a package like the Padres got in the Latos trade. If you can you always keep proven pitcher over any suspect at a reasonable price. If the numbers are accurate, the Sox would be fools not to keep him.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Cliff Floyd has a radio show on the MLB Network on Sirius during the evening hours.. Thanks. I have XM/Sirius. i'll have to tune in.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) So it is a better idea starting him against Jared Allen? McCown shouldnt play, if they believe Enderle has a future in the league, its time to find out Yes. Jared Allen is one guy and he would be the only one to cause any problems. The Packers defense will give a rookie all kinds of problems.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) I heard last night on MLB Radio. I believe it was CLiff Floyd reporting that the White Sox will go all out and try to sign Cespedes. where did you hear Cliff Floyd. He's one of my old patient who I really liked. One of the best high school baseball players i've ever seen in illinois.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) Bears announce McCown starting Sunday night. So F***ing stupid. Whats the point? McCown wont be a bear next season, you might as well start Enderle and see what the kid can do. Instead, we get a guy who was selling insurance a month ago. Way to find out how your draft pick can do Jerry It's not up to Jerry, it's Lovie's call. Lovie probably doesn't want to get the kid killed behind that offensive line. Wouldn't surprise me if Enderle starts against the Vikings next week.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 09:05 PM) The stats support that QB play has increased. According to the stats, Dilfer was a bottom half QB, Smith is a top half QB. That is how they match up to their peers. Furthermore, you cant just say its "rule changes", the game has also considerably changed. 10 years ago I cant remember many teams running no huddle hurry up offense throughout the entire game, I dont recall as many receiving TE"s, I dont recall teams using as many 5 wr sets. More offenses were built on a traditional run game, with less teams airing out the ball.Im going to guess that there were significantly less passes thrown in 2000 than in 2011. (goes to check) In 2000 there were 16322 passes attempted (32.9 per game) compared to 13677 rushes (27.6). In 2011 (through 15 games) there have been 15195 passes attempted (33.9 per game) to 12212 rushes (27.3) So based on that, Id say it may not be statistically significant the attempts. Lets look at QB rating by year: 2000- league average was 76.2 2011- league average is 82.4 So all things being considered it appears that there has been roughly a 6 point bump in QB rating since 2000 (this compares favorably to the previous stats of how many Qbs had over 90 rating and over 100.) Which still supports Smith is better this season than Dilfer. That being said, there also has been an increase in Qb rating, while there has not been a drastic increase in passing attempts. Suggests that there are more completions/tds. That is all because of rule changes. In the 70' and 80's you could beat on the receivers until the quaterback threw the ball. Now you bascially cannot touch them after 5 yards. The rules have slowly eveloed to help the offense and the passing game. It's that old adage "chicks dig the long ball". The masses like fast paced high scroing games and the NFL is bowing to the public whim to make more money. As for your other comment about tight ends. They aren't tight ends anymore, they are just big receivers. Heath Miller from the Steelers my be ones of the few left who can block. If you want some of the best who could both look at Ozzie Newsome and Kellen Winslow.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) Well, part of this is because retired football players are starting to show massive brain damage from the blows to the head they have absorbed over their careers... But I agree, the rule changes have definitely advanced things for the offenses recently, and that has elevated the play of relatively pedestrian quarterbacks like Alex Smith, who otherwise, would probably look more like Brad Johnson and Trent Dildo. It doesn't hurt that the average fan enjoys high-scoring games more than defensive battles anyway. Some of that won't change. football is a sport where there are purposeful collisions. quarterbacks are not typically the ones you see with these symptoms. You do now becuase of the prevalence of the artificial surfaces. However, a factor that people don't talk about because it isn't as populr of a topic is that much of that brain damage can be link to steriod use as well. This is where the media misses the boat. Steriod use is as big a factor as the concussions for brain damage.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 08:11 PM) Indeed. There are some fat people who can run the s*** out of thin people...that is all you need to see in order to know the distinction. I find that getting fit has inspired me to improve my overall health. Working this hard encourages you to eat better. I also find that my body naturally craves more healthy foods when I work out this often. When I don't, I start craving crap again. I'm also someone that has smoked on and off since I was 17 or so. It's very difficult to do some of the more intense cardio workouts as a smoker, so it's forced me to choose: smoke or workout. I've chosen workout. weight bu itself is also a poor indicator of health. Better indicators are the blood pressure, heart rate, choleterol etc. Exercise and eating can change them to an extent. Unfortunately many of them are genetic that meds will require to change.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 12:04 AM) Something interesting I just noticed whilst talking to my Cubs friend..... Peavy and Rios are pretty much our south side equals to Zambrano and Soriano. Our duo will cost us $29M in 2012, and put up a 2.2 combined WAR in 2011. Their duo will cost them $36M in 2012, and also put up a 2.2 combined WAR in 2011. Just something depressingly interesting I thought I would share. Peavy's aituation was due to injury not being a mental midget. He has a good chance to rebound and be a good pitcher. The situations are nowhere near similar.

There is a good point hidden in the previous "discussion". There is a big difference between fitness and health. Physical fitness is what most of us focus on. The best measure of physical fitness is VO2 max. However, that can only be done in a clinic. The easiest way for a most of us to determine fitness is by your heart rate. To determine if you are wroking hard enough you should work out at 70-90% of your heart rate max. Determining your max heart rate you should use the Karvonen formula (many people use 220-your age but it isn't specific enough IMO). the formula is Target Heart Rate = ((max HR − resting HR) × %Intensity) + resting HR. This takes into account your indivdualized resting heart rate which will decrease as you become more fit. Another thing to remember is that your heart rate should decrease at least 40 bpm after a 2 minute cool down. If it doesn't you are working out too hard.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 06:04 PM) The league has all but assured we won't see a defense like that for some time. Everything is geared towards offense. And you're only going by SB winners. How about the runner ups? Obviously, you can throw out the '06 Bears. That offense blew outside of Thomas Jones. The '07 Pats scored the most points in NFL history. The '08 Cardinals featured Warner, Fitzgerald and Boldin. The '09 Colts - Manning. Big Ben probably goes for 4000+ yards last year, as he did the season before, if not for the suspension. We could have as many as 10 QBs this year throw for 4,000+ yards. Ten years ago you might've gotten five that reached or surpassed those numbers. I'm not saying it's required to have an elite passing attack to get to or win the SB. But the days of scrubs like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson aka "just don't throw an interception and you're fine" are over. It has nothing to do with the offenses or elite quarterbacks. It has everything to do with the constant rule changes to favor the offenses. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson wouldn't be the"scrubs" as you call them today. If they and their receivers didn't have to worry about being hit like the games today they would look a lot better. Football wants to add HGH testing so they can shrink the players and make it a flag football league. soon they will add rules to make it more like arena football with a bunch of guy running around everywhere on offense and no defense whatsoever.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) And if you know that, I don't understand why they don't know that...seems silly to create an excuse if it is obviously silly and impossible. Athletes try it all the time. There was a female swimmer from Ireland a few years ago you said she failed due to birth control pills. These would cause a positive test if she took 400 per day. Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO (he tested positive before it was banned for cycling so no action was taken). He claimed it was treatment for his testicular cancer. Again it was far and above what would be normally administrered. Athletes attempt to come up with legal drugs to explain positive tests to provide their excuses. It makes them look better. I have not worked in MLB since the drug testing started so I'm not familiar with what they consider a positive test. But from what I've read and what is on the graprevine, this could get ugly with the amount banned substance he had in his system.