ptatc

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:06 AM) Good read. One reclamation project I am surprised we haven't pursued all these years is Mark Mulder. With him being from the Chicago area (South Holland I believe) I am just surprised we haven't gone after him. I figure they must think he is done or they just think his reclamation project is too expensive, cuz it probably is. He went to Thornwood High School in South Holland. His problem is a degenerative hip condition that forces him into bad mechnaics like Britt Burns and Jack McDowell. If someone signs him there's no predicting how long he can be effective, if at all.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) Is there motive behind this? Just revving up the fan base? I'm curious, does anyone remember him doing this as a precursor to a big move.... b/c he likes being The Sleuth The Sequel Or is it seriously just to get us ready for 'standing pat.' I feel like right before Gooch got done he announced that it wasnt going to happen, no? I think he is actually telling the truth. Eventually you either need to use your prospects or trade them. Fields at 3B, Getz at 2B and a 5th starter are good bets for decent payoff for young players. Eventually you need to bring young pitchers along and suffer through their first learning season in the MLB. I see them doing that with Marquez in the 5th spot. The only possibility is CF but Ithink they will do that from within as well.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) I hope you're right but I still see it happening. It's almost gone according to script since it first broke in late November. Like I said though, Peavy is basically holding the Pads hostage with his NTC. Santana did the same thing last year. Even though the Twins got Gomez, that was a fleecing, I think this will be the similar. Part of the equation that is missing is that Peavy is relatively cheap this year at 9 mil. SD could hold onto him for this year. It's next year that his contract escalates. They will also have new ownership next year. I think that the GM is hoping to stall the process until the new ownership takes over and wants to keep Peavy. Remember Peavy doesn't want to leave SD the current ownership wants to cut salary. This is why Peavy is making it difficult.

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:44 AM) best part of article is viciendo looks like a monster in batting cage so was Joe Borchard. In batting practice he hit them to the concourse. In the game it was like the movie "it happens every spring" where they put wood repllent on the ball and they couldn't make contact.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) at the same time, if the Sox could add a catcher who can mow down runners like Pudge can, that would be a heck of a 1-2 punch out of the catchers spot. Ozzie already platooned AJ and Toby last year, it didnt bother AJ that much Hall played in only 41 games and had 127 ABs. That really isn't a platoon. If you can convince I-Rod to come here promising only those few ABs, then it would work. But sometinhg tells me he wants more than that.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:50 AM) I don't see it being much, maybe a backup catcher (didn't someone float an I-Rod rumor lately?) i don't see I-Rod as an option. If AJ has anything it's an ego and I don't think the Sox want to upset him by bringing in a guy who would split time with him. His been good and behaving so far, why mess it up.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:57 PM) I just blew out my acl and mcl and am stuck on the couch, I'll take anything right now. Even a Willie Harris rumor Good luck with the surgery and rehab. Make sure the physician has done a alot of ACL repairs and everything will be fine. Just stick to the rehab protocol and do the exercises everyday.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:20 PM) Any boxer stepping foot into an MMA bout wouldn't stand a chance. Period. Yes, because there have been so many boxing super fights in the past few years... there is an outstanding Amaerican boxer coming up the ranks. I worked with him when I worked with the Junior Olympic Boxing Team in 2006. His name is Isiah Thomas (not kidding). His real name is Alex but he goes by Isiah. He is the first American Heavyweight to win the Gold medal in the Junior Olympics. He is probably a few years away because he is probably only 20 now but watch for him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) The Twins have the biggest home field advantage in baseball, basically. However, in the playoffs, they usually are up against teams with better records and thus are playing more road games than home games. Their postseason failures probably have a lot to do with that fact. This somewhat bears out in the fact that the Twins have never won a world series where they didn't have the home field advantage even going back to when they were the Senators.

What I think alot of people fail to realize is that over a season the averages play out and looking at OPS works. This is because they look at averages against all teams and players. Once you get to the playoffs, the dynamic changes. You are going to face only the best pitching staffs and only the best from these staffs. This is where offenses will struggle. A good pitcher may only make a few mistakes. This is where the going from first to third or scoring with fewer hits make the big difference. With the slugging lineup unless the player hits the mistake for a HR the run isn't scored because the slow slugger didn't score from first or second on a hit or from third with less than two outs. This is what Beane found out in Oakland. The OPS with slow guys with great eyes worked against average opponent throughout the year but once they hit the playoffs they got smoked. These concepts are going to come back to the front of baseball with PEDs being phased out and especially the amphetamines. The younger athletes will take the place of aging sluggers and the slugging will go down. I think we're seeing this trend already

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) I've always thought speed was overrated and no way see it as being essential in any spot in the lineup, I'd take a player with a high OBP and no speed over a player with a low OBP and lots of speed any day. Lineup construction is interesting to think about though and just recently I finished reading Tom Tango (and others') The Book and there's a chapter devoted to lineup construction, from their research they came to the conclusion that the optimal lineup would be set out as follows: 1. Your best three hitters hit in the 1, 2 and 4 holes with your best hitter batting 4th, second best hitter batting 2nd and third best hitter (or a hitter with high OBP) batting 1st. 2. Your fourth and fifth best hitter bat 3rd and 5th, with the fourth best hitter batting 5th and the fifth best hitter batting 3rd. 3. The rest of your hitters bat, in order from best to worst, in the 6-9 holes. So based on that our optimal lineup last season would have been: 1. Konerko 2. Thome 3. Alexei 4. Quentin 5. Dye 6. Crede (when healthy) 7. Swisher 8. A.J. 9. Cabrera 9b. Uribe (when Crede wasn't healthy, moving everyone else up one spot). Obviously this lineup would go against all conventional thinking and I'm not saying this is how I would construct my lineup but it is interesting to think about. I would disagree. Speed is important to a lineup. It allows for scroing without extra base hits and getting into scoring position. Of course eveyone would rather the high OBP, that is the first factor in front of the best hitters. But then the speed comes into play. I don't anyone would argur that the OBP is the most important factor. However in front of the best hitters speed plays an important role because getting muultiple hits to score runners is tough to do.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) which is when OBP can be overrated and SLG% can be underrated. If Jerry Owens could slug even .350 while getting on at a .330 clip, he'd be atleast adequate in the lineup. The problem from there lies in the fact that he plays mediocre to bad defense in CF and his arm is atrocious. Slugging could also be over rated if Owens has a good OBP and a high % in SB. He could also score from first on a 2B from someone. you need to have a good OBP with either the higher SLG% (the stats guys prefer this because it is more of a sure thing to measure) or the high % of SB. Either way you have a better chance of scoring with the 3-4-5 hitters not hitting a HR. I personally would prefer the speed guy because he has a better chance of scoring from first or going from first to third on a single and can be in a better position to score more often. However, either scenario would improve the offense.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) I want to know though, how many teams have a 3-4-5 that's not slow? #3 hitters who can steal 15-30 bases aren't exactly in excess, but sometimes people get carried away and talk as if we should have 3 or 4 of those guys in our lineup. this is true. That is why these types are hard to find and why other teams have this problem as well. While we complain about it we are not alone in our complaints.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) While I agree a leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once a game, you want guys who have a tendancy to get on base more than average hitting in front of your better hitters who can drive them in, and they usually are in the middle of the line-up. I will still be in shock if KW doesn't acquire a real leadoff hitter. this is also where I think speed is essential. Even if a guy gets on base at a good rate, will it take 3 consecutive hits to score him? This is a problem that results in "lack of hitting in the clutch." If this same player can score from first on a double, this team will have a more diverse and effective offense. It doesn't need to be the leadoff hitter but one of the players in the 1 or 2 position needs to have speed, because once it's JD, Thome and Konerko come up, it will take a HR or three hits to score them.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) I would concede that wins, over the course of a career, do have some value. I can't think of any s***ty pitchers that have 300 wins for example. At the same time, you have guys like Schilling who pitch their ass off, but lose a lot of games 2-1 because their team blows. Which probably hurts their chances at the Hall (and I think Schilling is a HOF pitcher, he has been straight $$ in the postseason and has great career numbers, except wins). But for a single season, I think it's entirely fair to say wins are a completely worthless stat and don't tell you anything because there are variables that can swing it too far in either direction. A really good pitcher can get 11 wins, a really mediocre one can get 18 wins. In a single season I would agree. Any pitcher can have a lucky season, just ask Steve Stone a mediocre pitcher with one great Cy Young season. Any pitcher can also have a hard luck season where they lose a number of 1-0 or 2-1 games. This is why I think that wins and "intangible things play a role just as the numbers do. The smart GM or fan even should combine both of the "scout view" and number. I think Schilling may be a bad example because he was such an ass that players tried to lose for him. I'm just kidding but he's right up there with Bonds, Sheffield and Clemens in attitude and personality with Sheffield slightly edging the others.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) I'm not really a big time believer in trying to look at a player from two different periods of time and saying he was not on PED at this point, but because he was all of a sudden hitting for so much more pop here at this other point in time, then he must have been on PED. But I have a difficult time imagining that in a period of time when so many guys are juicing that Griffey could just sit back and enjoy his natural ability to play the game, while others maximize their potential for power by getting these PED. When Bureau was on here he told me that many scouts estimated that 35% of MLB players are using PEDs, but about 70% of the "good" players use PED. That considered, this is supposed to be the post PED era (although it really isn't that much), so if more people used say 10 years ago, its hard to believe that much of anyone didn't use. If everyone's doing it, why bother hold back? When the sin becomes the norm it's no longer a sin. i don't know for sure but I would disagree. The just because everyone else was doing it arguement isn't one I would go with. In my estimation there were more than 35% of the MLB players on some PED (other thanamphetamines). But whose to know. When determining if someone was on them, I looked at body type, body change and injuries. These are somewhat more quantifiable than performance where players can change. The changes in bonds, McGwire, Giambi, I-Rod etc. were obvious. They abused the heck out of the PEDs. Griffey came up as an 18 y/o and thus should have put on muscle. He never however got the really thick muscluature that you would expect. Now you can lift differently to create a different effect but for baseball that really wouldn't help as much. The injuries he sustained in his career especially at Cin. would have been less likely if he were on the PED. Many football players take them to recover from injuries quicker. This didn't happen with Griffey. The ijuries that do occur with HGH and the like are more of the tendonitis and such that the McGwire had. So, while it's possible he was on them I don't think that is the case.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I think its laughable that people actually think Griffey didn't use PED. Threre've never been rumors and he really doesn't fit the mold so I don't see any reason for it.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:08 PM) I've always loved Bonds. MHizzle can back me up. Best player I've ever seen and will probably be the best I'll ever see. When it comes to athletes, I can't dislike someone with freakish abilities. The steroid things doesn't really bother me with any player either. Except Clemens, I just think he is an ass. If you think Clemens is an ass (which he is) then you need to take another look at Bonds. He makes Clemens look like a saint.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) I'm kind of surprised that Colon got a major-league deal, while Freddy could only muster a minor-league deal. Are there still serious velocity questions with Freddy? He doesn't seem that much less of an injury risk than Colon. Freddy injured a shoulder, had surgery and had a re-occurence in Winter ball where he had to shut it down. That is what was scaring the GM from signing him and why he got a minor league deal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) Why is it Keith Law, if he ever says anything negative about the White Sox organization, knows nothing, but everytime he says something positive, there's a thread acting like he is an excellent source? I agree. Take from it what you want. It looks like he is looking for the "new" find and get a jump on others.. According to him this past draft must be one of the best of all time. Beckham is #36 but there are I think 5 players from this past draft. That's roughly 15% of the best prospects in the have less than 1 year experience.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 09:30 PM) No it's not. Look at the Hall Of Fame. There's plenty of mediocrity in there. Jeff Kent is a Hall Of Famer. He probably will get in along this line of thinking but that doesn't mean he should be. There is plenty of good but not great players in there but again that doesn't mean I need to agree or perpetuate the poor trend. The HOF should be for the absolute best not the very good.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 08:32 AM) I think you really have to consider position. Catchers are a prime example - the aspects of the game that make a catcher great are just not the same as for other positions. And those areas that are the same, are at a different balance to each other. i personally wouldn't. I would take it into consideration in the way, was he a great defensive player? I compare defense obviously by position. However, it's not was he one of the best defensive catchers, it's is he one of the best defensive players of the era. Again, JMHO but I think there are far too many mediocre players in the HOF and usually revolves only around offense. This happens partially because voters will look at that there are only X number of 2B in so he compares well to them.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 11:40 PM) Kent is not a hall of famer in my mind, but I can see a case for him being made and I think his candidacy will be very interesting. He put up some nice offensive numbers, but was a brutal defensive player. He was not the best player at his position for a 7-10 year period, he has one underserved MVP award, no championships, 5 all star appearances, not to mention a massive tool. Roberto Alomar was the second baseman of his generation, and in my mind Kent doesn't even come close to him. i agree that he is not a HOF. He did have the one MVP so he gets consideration. Alot of the argurment for him is that he has great HR production for a 2B or was one of the best 2B of his time. The HOF is for the absolute best players, not for the top 10 2B or best 3B. People should not look at his performance compared to other 2B but to the performance of the absolute best players. Performance includes defense as well as offense. Just like with the stats of today, I think there is far too much emphasis on offense and too much comparing by position. The HOF is for the absolute best players not the best of each position. the only question that needs to asked is "is he one of the best PLAYERS of all time not is he one of the best 2B of all time." I will get down from my soapbox now and let the next person take a shot.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) McDowell had a good ERA and decent WHIP. He also pitched a s***-ton of innings--he was in the top 3 in the league for innings pitched 5 times (probably why he flamed out young). You don't need the win stat to show how good he was. he flamed out young due to a degernerative hip condition. Which is why the Sox wouldn't give him a long term contract.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins. We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree. The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning. Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats.