ptatc

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 24, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) I tend to agree with you and as stupid and simplistic it may seem I think a lot of it comes down to genetics. For the most part you are going to get hurt or you aren't. Of course some of the crazy poor whiplike mechanics have something to do with it, but I look at a player like Zambrano. The guy has started at least 30 games the last 7 years. Javy is another example of a guy who just goes out there year after year and throws 30 games and gives you either 200+ or close to it, year after year (Since 2000 he's made 30 starts and thrown over 200 in 8 of those.) On the flipside there's a guy like Harden who just can't stay healthy. I believe I saw a stat that this season was the first time he made more than 10 starts in a row and then he ended up having to skip starts again. Again, I'm oversimplifying it to make a point, but I just think there are guys who are horses who you can run out there and count on and others that no matter how much you baby are going to run into injury problems. this has alot to do with it and I don't think there are enough to fill on the spots on all of the teams.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Dec 24, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) Ryan is right, pitchers are babied in today's game. It's funny how people assume because you throw more innings or pitches in an outing your arm is going to fall off. That's a load of bull. Pitchers get injured because of poor mechanics and stuff like that, not because of fatigue. Everyone always says Kerry Wood's injury problems lead back to his high school days where he pitched an "abnormal" amount. But that's completely BS. Anyone who throws across their body with the type of velocity he has is going to have injury problems. Perhaps the injury happened a year or two sooner then it could have because of all the work he got in HS, but it was inevitable none-the-less. Also, if the Ranges do shift to a 4 man rotation, they'd be wise to sign Jon Garland. He could do wonders in a 4 man rotation. It's not a load of bull. Some pitchers can handle it and some can't. There aren't enough of the ones who can to go around. Even the ones who can handle it haven't been conditioned to do it. You will need to sacrifice the next MLB season working the pitchers into condition to do it, unless you start it in the minors which he is not proposing. You can't just change it, the body doesn't work that way. Believe me I've worked with enough pitchers to see the conditioning and work they do. Kerry Wood's problems did begin with poor mechanics, however some pitchers canpitch with them, in my opinion Nolan Ryan was one of them. However, Wood's problems were defnitately accelerated by his high school coach with pitching him in both games of double headers.

QUOTE (tommy @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) I'm sorry but I think representing your country should be a little more 'selective' than simply choosing what team you play for. I can see if a player is a citizen of two countries, he picks one and plays for that team forever. Just my two cents. They use the Olympic qualification rules. I believe it is if someone in your family as recent as your grandparents was a citizen of a ciuntry you can play for them.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 01:02 PM) I've studied his philosophy and I disagree that it decreases stress on the arm. I understand what he is trying to do but i don't agree. He is a qualified person to make the remarks with his research. His philosophy is drastically different than House's. While agree that certain things that Houses espouses are detrimental to a pitcher, I don'y fully agree with Marshall's philosophy either. I think there is a middle ground between the two. I'm not a fan of saying that everything needs to be done in a rigid way. As long as it's biomechanically sound without adding too much stress to a certainarea of the body, you should let the pitcher do what's comfortable. These to philosophies are too rigid for me.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 12:02 PM) Ex-Dodger Mike Marshall has a web-site where he discusses the biomechanical problems of the pitching delivery. He has a theory that pitchers should change their delivery to reduce stress on the arm. It's pretty interesting. http://www.drmikemarshall.com/BaseballPitc...ionalVideo.html I don't think the 4-man rotation would work for an entire season because of the way pitchers are handled, but I do think there are points in the season where the fifth starter (or anyone who's struggling) could be skipped becasue of rainouts or some kind of scheduling quirk that would allow the 4 top guys to pitch on normal rest. You could probably get 3 or 4 more starts out of your top 4 guys and reduce the work load of the fifth starter just by periodically going to the 4-man rotation. I've studied his philosophy and I disagree that it decreases stress on the arm. I understand what he is trying to do but i don't agree.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 11:21 AM) I heard an interesting theory on this on the Boers & Bernstein show. I can't remember if it was Bernstein or a guest who mentioned that these days pitchers use a lot less of their lower bodies and legs in their deliveries than they used to back in the 60s and 70s. This makes their deliveries more arm-based, and might be why pitchers tire sooner and have to leave games. It was stated that they believed this could also be a factor in the increase in arm injuries over the years. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it was an interesting discussion anyway. There are a few philosophies that espouse this but most don't and shouldn't. What this person was probably was referring to was the Drop and Drive technique that was the most common back in that time. Most biomechanical models show the extra stress this puts on the shoulder and elbow and it has fallen out of favor. However the newer models do not de-emphasize the lower body. They just incorporate it differently. i would bet this person said this due to a the straying away from the Drop and Drive and not so much of looking at the newer ideas because you need to use the lower extremities to protect the arm.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) Sorry, I'm just point out Kotsay isn't the OBP machine you suggested. I would rather have Anderson and Owens. I like BA, and don't like Owens, but Erstad was a mistake, and Kotsay would be making the same mistake twice IMO. He isn't the GG quality CF he used to be. Doesn't run. Doesn't hit with power and will most likely wind up on the DL. Unless KW is going to get a legit CF, he might as well see what BA can do. If he had 500 AB last year he probably would have had 20 + homers and we all know what he can do defensively. Why banish him to the bench for a guy who isn't as good? Not saying BA is a star in the making, but there's no doubt in my mind if he played everyday he would have better numbers than Kotsay. that's fundamental part of baseball philosophy. Do you want the guy with the lower average and OBP with more HR's or the guy with lower HR but with less strike outs higher OBP. Neither is necessarily right or wrong just your philosophy on how to construct a team. Me I would go with BA due to the defense but both option habe thier advantages and disadvantages.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 10:33 AM) I like this part from him: Take note, ozzie, most baseball fans feel this way! I for one disagree. There aren't enough quality starters to go real deep into games during the long season. You need to use the bottom of the bullpen guys to get to the post season with a relatively fresh and healthy staff. Once the short series begins, these guys should be sent away.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) so I take it there were just a ton of freaks in the 60s and 70s too, eh? The problem is that with expansion since that time, pitching has been diluted. There are many pitchers now who, if tried to pitch more often would have blown their arm out in the minors and never made it to the majors. That is why pitchers in the majors cannot do this. There are pitchers capable of throwing on a 4 man rotation. They are capable of throwing 150 pitches a game. The problems are that there aren't enough pitchers who can throw often enough for a four man rotation and if the pitchers haven't conditioned their arms to throw the 150 pitches regularly it will catch up to them. And because pitchers are paid so much no team has their better pitchers condition properly to throw that many pitches for fear of losing the investment. I personally have never been afan of the House/Ryan philosophy of mechanics and the art of pitching. I think if Ryan gets too involved it will be a detriment to the pitchers on the team.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) That's a signal...JR is a smart business man. If you lower payroll and cry "recession" and then increase ticket prices, well, then you lose your fanbase as they cry "recession." So for a product that has been gaining momentum from 2005 on, you don't cut off the fans at this time. That would be suicide for the club and would set them back for years. I really think we are trimming payroll in order to reinvest it into more players. I'm not saying we will top last year's payroll or equal it but it won't be substantially less. I think the hold up in the Dye-Bailey deal is that we are looking to have a contract worked out with Abreu first so that we don't have a gaping hole after trading Dye. The "financial" matters in that deal is that we are looking for Bobby to come down to about $9-10 million per for a max 2 yr deal, maybe an option on a third year. i think another factor is that KW is waiting to see where Texiera goes. If he doesn't go to LA, KW may be able to unload Paulie instead. Paulie's deal is longer than Dye's and the changing of the guard for the slow , slugger team accelerates.

I for one have never heard of this. So I went through a number of research articles. The consensus is that these channel disturbances cannot be fully reveresed. The highly treatable part means that it's not fatal, although some of the articles suggests it can be. I'm not sure the fatigue and injuries are a part of this syndrome that can be treated. It's really a syndrome not a disease in that it's a group of symptoms that are related but the cause of the channel ddisturbance is unknown. KW should not even consider giving him a guaranteed deal unless it has alot of incentives and is a minor league deal.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 07:57 AM) I lost all faith in "mechanics" arguments with Mark Prior. Well there are teo aspects to sports performance: physical and mental. While I disagree with the mechanics philosophy of the people he worked with, I think his problem is more the latter.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 16, 2008 -> 07:21 PM) I guess it's a pretty good sign of progress with our farm system that neither Marquez nor Ely are Top 10 prospects, and yet are realistically viewed as options for 4/5 starter down the line. Gone are the days of Juan Silverio, Andy Gonzalez, Adam Russell, McCulloch, Broadway, Tracey, Francisco Hernandez, Arnie Munoz, etc. We also have a good group of pitching talent just coming into the system (like Carter and Hudson) that aren't in top 10 either. Link didn't make the cut as well. Same with Nunez, Gilmore and Rodriguez. I still think Broadway will be an adequate starting pitcher in MLB. No better than a 4 or 5 but I think he has a future in the league.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 16, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) I'm not counting on anything from Contreras this season. Older players usually don't recover quickly, and his injury was pretty brutal. If anything, I see him as a Carrasco type from about the trade deadline on, and that might even be stretching it. My guess is Contreras will be back around the All-Star break. That is a very conservative estimate based on age and getting his arm in shape.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 11:02 PM) Thoughts? I will be taking it sometime soon. It seems as if I will not have to set the world on fire, just do OK for the program I am applying. We require it for admission for our program. The advice I give students is to get hte CD-ROM review and practice. It gives you practice exams, analyzes your weakness and tailors the pratice to your results. I am doing interviews for our program over the next two days. About 80 interviews for 30 spots. I love to make applicants cry! (just kidding)

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) damn, i just assumed nobody read my posts. Big Brother is always watching.....

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) Yeah, also this site, one page back. i was referring to the site from which that information was taken.

QUOTE (BaseballNick @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) Hopefully it's something of significance. I'm going to bet it's not Furcal. One site said that the A's are offering a 4 year deal. I would go near him for that length of a deal and his injury history.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) Best case? Tough call. I'd be very happy if he wins 10 games, wins more games than he loses, pitches >150 innings, has better than league average ERA (4.50ish), and consistently goes 6 innings or more. That would be good production for a #5 starter. (Think Glen Perkins). I think that's fairly realistic. But who knows? I will be reasonably happy if he just doesn't suck, pull a Boone Logan, and forget how to throw the ball across the plate without getting killed. That would be bad unless other guys really step up. My dream scenario is that he comes to camp with a cutter and better command of the changeup. If he does, he could be the #4 starter in the rotation rather than 5. In that case, I'd want to see 12+ wins, 175+ innings, ERA in the low 4.00's (4.30 or lower). I think that is possible, but optimistic. (Think Nick Blackburn.) Of course, anything better than those numbers would be outstanding. But I think would be too much to hope for from a first year starter. With that lower arm angle a cutter should work real nice for him. I hope he can get the feel for the grip because I'm sure they'll work on it with him. Especially with those RH hitters stats against him. LETS BUST SOME BATS!

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) I know the Dye/Bailey deal looks dead but found this about Bailey's mechanics http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2008/12/...chanics-homer-b . In short his mechanics don't look so good. that article is based on at least two conflicting theories of pitching mechanics. I for one don't agree that scap loading is a bad thing. It can be bad when combined with the fact that his pelvis drifts too far forward before his trunk begins to come forward. I haven't seen him pitch much but it's obvious someone tried to alter his mechanics. He's using some of the old "drop and drive" mechanics in the lower extremity and the House/Ryan theory with his arm and the curveball grip. He looks to be trying too many different things at once and succeeding at none. If he listens to advice and gets one input, i think he can be straightened out in a short period of time.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 14, 2008 -> 10:07 PM) Really inexcusable to have this lineup combined with our likely 4/5 of Richard and Marquez. That's all that needs to be said. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced this is the perfect year to do something like this. Regardless of the lineup, you win with pitching. The Wihte Sox will not sign an MLB FA starter because they won't sign a 4+ year deal (which I happen to agree with). So you need to build the pitching staff with trade and the farm system. There looks to be some options we need to sort out here. I think we all agree that last year's team wasn't that good and had a number of holes. We won the division because Det. and Cle. far underperformed. We have a number of younger players ready for their shot at the MLB: Getz, Lillibridge, Fields. the rotation is young with another couple of pitchers ready for their shot at the MLB Marquez, Richard. The bullpen seems fine with Jenks, Linebrink, Dotel, Thornton as experience with Nunez seemingly ready for his shot. Dye and Thome will be off the team in the next couple of years. With these players I think you have one year to find out what you have and then your ready for the WS run in 2010.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 14, 2008 -> 08:28 PM) "if you play for one run, that's all your gonna get"-Earl Weaver. There is never any excuse for bunting in the 1st inning, never. Sure there is in a cerain match up of pitchers. Scoring early puts pressure on the pitcher. Can lead to an early exit of the pitcher etc. I don't expect you to agree. There are two camps. We will never see Eye to eye. But the discussions are fun.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 14, 2008 -> 07:01 PM) I imagine we would have scored more if we had full seasons of at-bats from Konerko and Q, and league-average production from CF. Probably. However, it was the inconsistency that drove me crazy. Win 13-1 one day, lose the next two 2-1. I want an offense less dependant on power. I know we still need power due to the park but we still play 81 games on the road and we struggle against the Rays and Min.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Dec 14, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti....php?cid=204022 the only stats available there are individual stats. It doesn't really tell you the situational stats. The only way to do it without having a high covariance coefficient is to analyze individual in tandem and in trio probably using a linaer stepwise regression. hitter 1 followed by resluts of #2 and #3.

QUOTE (Felix @ Dec 14, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out. you're using a false assumption in your data. Both situations start with a runner on first and no outs. The bunting the guy over is included in those results. To have a logical progression you need to start with the runneron first and no outs then start the analysis. Does the batter bunt next: this is one possible scenario, does he hit inot a doulble play, this is the another scenario. Saying a guy on first with no outs scores more often isn't valid because that includes all of the subsequent scenarios