Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 21, 2010 -> 12:06 PM) WHIP is actually a pretty good indicator of future success, and it's been a lot of his appearances that have inflated his WHIP (and ERA for that matter). 1.51 is not good. To suggest that they don't matter is a bit short-sighted and ignorant. Sure, all that matters is if he gets the save, but those with a bit of foresight who could look at his peripherals rather than just the raw numbers all saw a game like the final game of that Minnesota series coming from miles away. EDIT: and Jenks is still technically 20 of 21 in save chances. Because he didn't give up the lead in the Minnesota game, he wasn't charged with a blown save. Santos was. BS's are a BS statistic. Wite, the problem with WHIP (and ERA) is that a closer can have one outing where he pitches 0.0, gives up 6 ER with 6 walks/hits, and then be totally effective for his next 13 outings, and still have a s***ty WHIP and a s***ty ERA. He has done his job 13/14 times, but his line looks totally s***ty.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 20, 2010 -> 10:09 PM) Good thing those don't matter for a closer. He pitches so few innings that one bad outing inflates all those stats. All I care about is 20/22 This is an oversimplification, but I agree with the sentiment. The last thing I would look at for a closer is ERA. It's such a misleading statistic for a reliever on so many levels, and its dysfunctional nature when applied to those situations is exacerbated when looking at closers. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how giving up a certain number of walks/hits in an appearance should categorically be applied identically in every situation a closer is placed in. When someone can do that, I'll accept WHIP as a reasonable statistic for closers. I'd like for someone to invent a statistic called "quality appearance": 1) with a 1 run lead, 0 walks, hits and runs. 2) with a 2 run lead, not more than 1 walk/hit 3) with a 3 run lead, not more than 2 walks/hits and/or not more than 1 run can we all at least agree that closing is extremely situational?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 20, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) That's probably not true at all. In the 9th inning, you will see more pinch hitters to pitch against the closer, but (very obvious point coming) who you face in the 7th and 9th innings depend entirely on how you do in innings 1 through 6. It's entirely random. It's not entirely random. Check out the number of typical ABs per game. I'm not saying this is true all the time, but IMO the lineup is set up to go through the heart of the order in the ninth with an average number of hits/walks. I guess I can't really prove this point, but I seem to remember Hawk saying something along these lines. Then again, it's Hawk.

I don't think anyone here would call Jenks an elite closer. I think he is an adequate closer, and that's the only role he can play on this team. I doubt Putz would perform at quite that insane of a clip in the 9th inning exclusively. Another point is that typically the 9th inning is set up to go through the heart of the order, whereas typically the 7th inning is going through the bottom of the order.

I guess my point is that wite's rubric (and WHIP) are oversimplifications of a closer's role. You have to differentiate the following situations a little more: blowout game either way, closer comes in for some work, gives up a walk and two singles and one run, ultimately gets three outs. 3 run lead, get one out, walk 1, get the second out, pitch around a dangerous hitter, get the third out. 3 run lead, get two outs, give up a double to a batter hitting third, and an intentional walk to a cleanup hitter, get the third out. certainly in situations like that, it's perfectly understandable why a closer would give up 2 walks/hits and/or one run. In 1 or 2 run situations, obviously the tolerance must be much lower for error.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2010 -> 09:43 AM) Papelbon's been very disappointing this year and has gone through probably the worst stretch of his career mid-june. The BoSox have one of the bottom bullpen ERA's in the AL and are looking at the same trade names we are, including possibly Soria. There are a lot of bad closers by that rubric, then. J. Rauch - 14/34 (41.2%) M. Capps - 17/42 (40.5%) F. Cordero - 18/45 (40.0%) K. Gregg - 14/37 (37.8%) O. Dotel - 14/37 (37.8%) H. Bell - 15/40 (37.5%) (initially counted one 1.2 IP appearance by accident ) D. Aardsma 12/32 (37.5%) F. Rodriguez - 16/44 (36.4%) C. Marmol - 15/43 (34.8%) J. Soria - 13/38 (34.2%) M. Lindstrom - 12/36 (33.3%) B. Jenks - 12/37 (32.4%) R. Franklin - 11/35 (31.4%) L. Nunez - 12/40 (30.0%) J. Papelbon - 10/35 (28.57%) B. Wilson - 11/39 (28.2%) (he also had 3 appearances over 1 inning where he blew way up) B. Fuentes - 8/29 (27.6%) J. Valverde - 10/41 (24.4%) A. Bailey - 9/37 (24.3%) N. Feliz - 10/42 (23.8%) J. Broxton - 9/40 (22.5%) R. Soriano - 7/34 (20.6%) M. Rivera - 6/36 (16.7%) B. Wagner - 6/40 (15.0%)

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 19, 2010 -> 04:41 PM) I think any outing where a reliever gives up a run or allows 2 or more base runners per inning can be classified as a bad outing. Using that as a rubric, Jenks has had 12 bad outings (and that is not including the first game back against Minnesota when he allowed 2 hits and a run in 1.1 IP against the Twins). That is 32.4% of his appearances. Using that same measure, Putz has had 6 bad appearances and Thornton is at 10. Using that rubric, 16/40 of Heath Bell's appearances have been bad. 10/35 of Papelbon's appearances have been bad. Those are just the first two random names I looked at. 7th inning situations are tough, so are 8th, but I don't think you can apply the same standards to the ninth inning. I also don't think you can apply the same standards when someone is up 9-1 (or even 6-3) when seeing if they gave up 2 walks/hits. Occasionally relievers pitch around a particular batter, for example .

first 137 ABs - .182/.277/.234/.511 last 150 ABs - .287/.301/.427/.728

I just don't understand applying ERA and WHIP to all pitchers under the same auspices. We've gone over this ad nauseum, but certainly coming into a 1-run game in the ninth inning is nowhere near pitching with a 1 run lead in the 2nd. Moreover, ERA is also a troublesome stat for middle-of-the inning appearances, because Inherited Runners Scored tells more of the complete story. In my mind, saving games is an entirely different mentality. Certainly saves are an oversimplification, but it's not as if we can categorically apply the same standards to closers that we do to starters .

If we define things this way: 1) Great game (A) - no walks, hits or runs 2) Good game (B) - 1-2 walks/hits, no runs. 3) Mediocre game ( C) - not more than 3 walks/hits, not more than 1 run, no BS/loss. 4) Bad game (D) - 3-4 walks/hits and 1-2 runs, or 3 walks/hits + 1 run + BS/loss. 5) Horrible game (F) - 3-4 or more walks/hits, more than 2 runs, or 2 runs with a BS/loss. Bobby has had: A - 11 outings, 7 saves B - 15 outings, 11 saves C - 4 outings, 2 saves (no losses, no blown saves) D - 3 outings, 1 win (no losses, no blown saves) F - 3 outings, 2 losses, 1 blown save (one of the appearances the white sox won anyway) so he has had 6 bad outings this year in 37 appearances. Those six bad outings: 1) April 24th vs Sea - the team wins anyway, 5-4, Jenks gets the Win. Doesn't hurt us. 2) April 29th @ Tex - the team wins anyway, 7-5. Doesn't hurt us. 3) May 7th vs Tor - the team was losing already when he entered the game. Doesn't hurt us. 4) May 9th vs Tor - Bobby blows the game. Hurts us. 5) May 26th @ Cle - the team wins 5-4. Doesn't hurt us. 6) July 18th @ Min - Bobby blows the game. Hurts us. In other words, Bobby Jenks has lost us two games in 37 appearances...31 he has made with the lead. The team is 21-1 since May 11th when he enters the game with the lead. Seems pretty good to me. Including the four "mediocre" appearances: 1) Apr 7 vs Cle - entered the game losing. 2) Jun 12 vs Cubs - gave up 1 run, made it closer, got the save anyway. 3) Jul 5 vs LAA - entered the game winning 9-1, gave up one run. 4) Jul 18 @ Min - gave up 1 in that 8-7 win, got the save anyway. I'd call the non-save 2 of those non-factors. The Minny and Cubs games were made sweatacular, but that's what closers do - they still ultimately save the games, and those were rival situations.

As much as anyone, I think this series is an important one to win. I think we have a rare opportunity to perhaps put the Twins behind the 8 ball in the month of July, as if we take 3/4 or do the unthinkable and sweep 4 games we will be either 5.5 or 7.5 games up. Even a split looks pretty good, especially on the road. However, two things: 1) I think there's a really good chance we lose 3/4 games in this series, 2) If we do, no one should panic. Regardless of the Sox' anomalous recent swing of avoiding HR hitting during that 11 game streak, they are still a team that generally needs to hit home runs to win, and Target Field is one of the stingiest parks to do so. This could make all four games really close, and a late inning, two-out, RBI single is something that the Twins seems to specialize in against us, especially in the state of Minnesota. By all means of course, the Sox could remain (inexplicably) white-hot, and god I hope they do. There may not be a professional sports team that I enjoy beating more than the Twins. Bear in mind that the Sox have a schedule in late July through August that they can really fatten up on (lots of Sea, Oak, Bal), and as long as we TCB during that stretch, we will be in position to win 90 games. I think the Twins will have a really hard time going 45-30 down the stretch. Detroit's schedule is so brutal that I'd be surprised if they can manage 87 games unless they do extremely well head to head against us.

If Beckham could just take a few more walks, he'd be well on his way back to a respectable OPS. He's hitting .250 since May 22nd, with 9 doubles, 1 triple and 2 homers, but he's only taken 2 walks while striking out 22 times.

I never actually doubted we'd get apparently back in the race. It was actually my worst-case scenario. I knew even going into the detroit series (which I projected we'd lose), that we had some easy NL love coming up, and I thought we'd at least go 10-5 in those games to get it back to within a few games of .500. So I projected a minimum aggregate record of 35-39 after interleague, maybe even a game under .500, which could have put us within 6-7 games. Of course, I never imagined they'd ACTUALLY be back in the race.

QUOTE (Real @ Jul 11, 2010 -> 01:25 AM) Anybody know what BP Prospectus final win totals are now that we are ahead of the twins? Or what our playoff chances are? http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_oddspec.php

in my opinion tigs have a brutal second half schedule (31 days in a row against over .500 teams, including Sox for seven, Rays for seven, @NYY, @BOS, LAA, TOR and TEX) and seem far more vulnerable, especially on the pitching side. twins by contrast have a relatively soft schedule with not many brutal stretches imagine going up to minny with a 4-5 game lead and the ability to knock them further out of the race...maybe they wouldn't be buyers for Lee.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) For sure no doubt, but some people are acting like the kid needs to pitch against only teams like KC, Seattle, etc.. every night. Eventually he has to face the Bostons, NYY of the world. Luckally he already has that MLB experience from last year, and I'm one of Huddy's biggest fans so I know he can handle it. Of course you will need him to beat a NYY/BOS/TB type team long term. Considering how much people emphasize developing someone psychologically at the major league level, and considering that there's no way you'd use him in the postseason in 2010 (barring some unforeseen phenom-track development) - what's the harm in limiting his exposure this season to 2-3 "bigger" games, and 11-12 starts against more beatable opponents?

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) Sox starters over last 5 games..... 30 2/3 IP, 18 H, 4 ER, 5 BB, 19 K, 0.91 ERA, 0.75 WHIP, 3.80 K/BB Sox are 5-0 over that stretch. Man, throwing the Pena numbers in it's probably even better.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 8, 2010 -> 12:29 PM) Post AS Break, I go: 1. Danks 2. Floyd 3. Buehrle 4. Garcia 5. Hudson Don't skip anyone, and I use a spot starter on August 7th so nobody is on short rest. That sets up the Minnesota series this way: 1-2-3-4 5-1-2 1-2-3 1-2-3 That's maximizing the lefties. Detroit series: 3-4-5-1 3-4-5 4-5-1-2 4-5-1 That maximizes the righties, especially Freddy, against the Tigers. This is a really great idea.

The great thing about 4@Min coming out of the break is that we'll have the big four ready to go, in any order. We save Hudson for the anemic Seattle offense, with their bottom of the barrel park factor. His second start will also be @Oakland, a losing team, and another bottom park factor. His 3rd start would be home vs. that same Athletics team, who btw has just a .699 team OPS. You do have to run him out @Detroit for the four game series, even with the day off, because of the double-header makeup, but it's ANOTHER pitcher's park. After that, his next start would be @Baltimore, which is obviously a brutal team, and another sub .700 team OPS. If form holds, after that it would be vs. Det, vs. Bal, @ Cle... All losing teams with the exception of the two detroit games...I know he may tank completely in the majors, but relatively speaking, you couldn't have asked for a better schedule alignment than this for a questionable fifth starter slot.

Was there really just a comparison to arguably the greatest right handed hitter of all time?

Latest Pecota Playoff Odds

No matter what guys, he's ahead of where nearly everyone thought he would be, and that's goooood.

much has been made of this "Quality Starts" run the sox are on (I think it's now 23 in 25 games). Did you guys know that the 2009 Sox led the AL in quality starts and that every Sox team (even 07) going back to 2005 has been in the top 5 in the AL in QS? The 2010 Cubs are second in the NL in quality starts... how much can this stat really mean with results like that? Generally speaking, good teams are at the top of the QS list but the results can be all over the map.

Not really Hawkisms, but two of my favorite all time Hawk moments are awkward passages with DJ (I'm paraphrasing): Sometime in 2002 or so DJ: "I really think we have a shot to win at Oakland this year." Hawk: "....." DJ: "I think this team could win two of three." Hawk: "....." DJ: "....." Hawk: "....WHY?..." DJ: "I don't know don't you think this team could win this series?" Hawk: "...." DJ: "....." Hawk: "......No....." After a long rain delay in 2003 or 2004 at home DJ: "I think it would be kind of interesting to start games at 9pm." Hawk: "....." DJ: "You know, shake things up a bit" Hawk: "....." DJ: "....." (long 2 minute silence) Hawk "....NO....."

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) I feel as though I'm missing something here, using his BR gamelog Beckham is 27/112 with a .241/.263/.348/.611 line with 7 doubles, a triple and a HR since June 22nd. Just to prove it out: 27 H - 9 XBH = 18 TB 7 doubles x 2 = 14 TB 1 triple x 3 = 3 TB 1 HR x 4 = 4 TB 18+14+3+4= 39 TB 39 TB / 112 AB = .348 SLG even if it were 109 AB: 39 TB / 109 AB = .358 SLG Your slugging percentage is off by nearly 100 points. EDIT: oh and his K:BB since May 22nd: 19:2. That's outrageously bad. This seems correct. I must have had an addition error in calculating my slugging totals.