Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) After stating that the chances were "less than 10%", your own regurgitation of the facts confirmed that 5 of 28 teams with the worst record in their league among playoff teams went to the World Series, which works out to ~18%. This percentage, and my observations from the Wild Card era, allow the Sox a "reasonable" chance, IMHO. To you, obviously, this chance is not "reasonable". It really is as simple as that. So every batter who comes up with a .180 batting average has a "reasonable" chance of getting a hit each and every time. Ok. I'm personally no longer interested in empty division titles. I will concede that a pennant would mean something, but losing the world series is ultimately a disappointing season with an easier justification. See the 2006 Bears.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:32 PM) Dude, you make fathom look like Hawk when it comes to the Soxtalk king of neverending pessimism. Why are you wasting time attacking the person and not the point? All I've done this entire thread is use statistically historical data to illustrate trends. It's factual that an extremely low percentage of teams with the worst record of playoff contenders win the world series, and it's factual that in the last 4 years, half the WS teams were hot going in and half were not. Every time someone has responded with a point to me directly, I've responded with relevant stats. I'm extremely positive about this team once they solve two or three fundamental problems. I would pull the plug, trade all our dhs, develop a couple of our young pitchers, and try to resolve the 3B and CF issue for 2010. Half-assed pseudo-standing pat is not going to get us to 95-100 wins. Also, I don't understand how some people can strangle statistics like batting average, OPS, etc, and then the moment something disagrees with a "gut feeling" they have, they throw their entire philosophy on the relevance of baseball stats completely out the window for that set of statistics. Either stats and trends tell us something or they don't.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 08:30 PM) He was arguing the hottest team going into the playoffs usually makes the series. Usually? The 08 Phillies and 07 Rockies were really hot towards their push in september (with split WS results), The 2005 Astros were hot, The 2005 White Sox were finally hot in their last 10 games. but for as many examples for, I can find as many against recently, just scratching the surface, so I don't really know about "usually": The 2008 Rays went 13-13 in September. The 2007 Red Sox went 6-7 in their last 13. The 2006 Tigers went 12-16 in September, including 0-5 in their last 5 regular season games. The 2006 Cardinals, for all their recent fanfare from fans of mediocre teams everywhere, went 4-10 in their last 14, and nearly had the biggest choke in the history of divisional play going into the playoffs. They were actually a pretty damned GOOD team for most of the second half until the last half of september. Regardless of who's hot this IS most likely going to be the division that produces the worst record.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) I'm not taking the bait, Lil' Bulldog. Game to watch. It's too bad I took the time to back up my points with data, because apparently you were just interested in flaming my post. I love the way nearly every opinion like this essentially ends with "because I think so" or "I have _____ opinion"

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) We disagree. They have a reasonable chance still, IMO. Don't get so worked up. Ok, since you singled out my abandon ship post, why is every "reasonable chance" post so statistically nebulous? They have a reasonable chance based on what evidence, according to you?

Also, there's a million ways we could break this down statistically that would be unfavorable to the sox. Teams that were 30-34 or worse after 64 games that won the world series? Teams that even won more than 90 games after being 30-34 after 64 games? Do you see this team going 60-38 down the stretch? Or even 15 over? Why? And measuring things statistical is what we do in baseball, which is why my analogy is completely relevant - because whatever percentage probability we assign to the White Sox can be assigned to an analogous game situation. Whatever longshot pie-in-the-sky hopes you may have - if they don't stack up statistically, why on earth would we make dumb roster decisions because of them? Which stat do you want to go to next?

I also think that if you think the White Sox have the talent to be anything but the worst division winner at less than 90 games, you are completely delusional.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) Thank you for making my argument for me. Your earlier comment doesn't exactly dovetail with the 14.2% and 21.4% above. This comparison to a 7-1 deficit in the 7th inning is beyond meaningless. Too early to pull the plug. In addition to the 5 WS participants with the worst records, just three years ago in our own division, Minnesota's season completely turned around about this time and they won 96 games. There's still time to see if this thing might come together for the Sox, and still time to shut down Q and/or make trades, if it doesn't. A productive Q is still a decent possibility this season. So making the world series, regardless of whether you win it, is this the most important thing to you despite any injury concerns? I personally think the 7.1% is the important number there.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) The "plan for next year" crowd really burns my butt in situations like this. If you make the playoffs with a hot team, the won-loss record is virtually immaterial. IN ADDITION to the 2006 Cardinals, who gave the '02 Angels, '03 Marlins or even the '04 BoSox a great chance to win the WS? But each did, as a Wild Card. And that's just this decade. You're dadgum right I want the Sox to do all they can to make the playoffs this year! The meathook reality for Sox fans is that there will be no attendance at the Cell if we're not competitive. Our park is not a tourist attraction. Then, the $40 million + we've got coming off the books with expiring contracts doesn't necessarily get plowed back into payroll, until we start winning again. Kenny's "win-now and every year" mantra is borne more out of pragmatism, than a personal philosophy. Did the 02 Angels, 03 Marlins or 04 Bosox, as wild cards, have the worst record in their respective league out of all playoff participants? Would the 09 White Sox be making the playoffs as a wild card? Apples to apples. Division winners entering the playoffs with the worst record in their respective league out of the playoff participants - how many have made/won the world series? Forgetting about wild cards for a moment, and just looking at the teams who participate in the world series with the worst record in their respective league out of the playoff pool: AL World Series participants since 1995: 2008 Tampa Bay Rays, 97 wins, 2nd best record in AL 2007 Boston Red Sox, 96 wins, best record in AL 2006 Detroit Tigers, 95 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Oak had 93 wins as West winner) 2005 White Sox, 99 wins, best record in AL 2004 Boston Red Sox, 98 wins, 2nd best record in AL as wild card 2003 New York Yankees, 101 wins, best record in AL 2002 Anaheim Angels, 99 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Min had 94 wins as Central winner) 2001 New York Yankees, 95 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Cle had 91 wins as Central winner) 2000 New York Yankees, 87 wins, worst record of AL participants (won world series) 1999 New York Yankees, 98 wins, best record in AL 1998 New York Yankees, 114 wins, best record in AL 1997 Cleveland Indians, 86 wins, worst record of AL participants (lost world series) 1996 New York Yankees, 92 wins, 2nd best record in AL (!) 1995 Cleveland Indians, 100 wins (strike shortened), best record in AL 6/14 times best record goes to the world series (42.8%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 3/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 2/14 times worst record goes to the world series (14.2%) 1/14 times worst record goes to the world series and wins it (7.1%) NL World Series participants since 1995: 2008 Philadelphia Phillies, 92 wins, 2nd best record in NL 2007 Colorado Rockies, 90 wins, 2nd best record in NL 2006 St. Louis Cardinals, 83 wins, worst record of NL participants (won world series) 2005 Houston Astros, 89 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2004 St. Louis Cardinals, 104 wins, best record in NL 2003 Florida Marlins, 91 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2002 San Francisco Giants, 95 wins, worst record of NL participants (lost world series) 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, 92 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2000 New York Mets, 94 wins, worst record of NL participants (lost world series) 1999 Atlanta Braves, 103 wins, best record in NL 1998 San Diego Padres, 98 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 1997 Florida Marlins, 92 wins, 2nd best record in NL 1996 Atlanta Braves, 96 wins, best record in NL 1995 Atlanta Braves, 90 wins (strike shortened), best record in NL 4/14 times best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 4/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times worst record goes to the world series (21.4%) 1/14 times worst record goes to the world series and wins it (7.1%) Before you shout "sample size", there are only four frigging variables here. In the AL, the better league over arguably all of these years but a couple, the distribution is as you'd expect: very top heavy and more relevant, because the AL is still the significantly better league in my opinion. In the NL, the distribution is more random. In both leagues, only 1 out of 14 times in the modern 6 division format has the worst record advanced to the world series and won it. Again, in both leagues, only 1 out of 14 times in the modern 6 division format has the worst record advanced to the world series and won it. The only time it happened in the AL was with the 2000 New York Yankees, and if you honestly think that team was the worst talent-wise... When the team is down 7-1 in a game after the 7th inning, do you have the same mentality that they will win? We are talking similar probabilities here. Risking injury for a longshot like this seems dumb. f*** the 06 cardinals for getting fans of every team talking like this, btw. They are a statistical anomaly by quite a wide margin.

Shut him down. Even if we win the central with the worst record in the AL, I think out of all the world series participants since the 6 division format, less than 10% of them have the worst record in their respective league, and a lower percentage (only the Cardinals?) have actually won. The odds against are similar to coming back from down 7-1 after the 7th inning.

I love it when you analyze

So, a really stupid question that's been probably answered a million times, but - how the hell do you know he's ready this early? what do you look at? His stats are great but it's just been so few games.... Does it have more to do with our need to take a big risk at the expense of his confidence and ability vs. him being necessarily ready?

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) Ozzie? Don't see where there's any crow to eat. I like his personality, but nothing changes the fact he can be a really clueless manager quite often. I think he's got to get some credit for keeping this team's head together when they were 7 under

I'm one of Floyd's biggest detractors. I'm simply at a loss for words looking at his recent starts. All I can say is I was obviously way off base and way quick to pile on when he started so badly. It's like night and day since the beginning of May. Whatever amends I need to make I'd make them here. Floyd truly is a gamer. He's a major league caliber starter and he's definitely able to be at least a capable pitcher. Whether or not he'll be consistent is another story. Also, kudos to O. Guillen and KW for keeping this team's wits about them. They are a vet club, but 7 games under really early has a way of spiralling out of control. For as badly as this team has played at times, for as bad as some of the starting pitching has been, and considering the injuries, to be .500 at this point is a freaking miracle.

Can someone summarize briefly these three points so I don't have to sift through 71 pages: 1) what is the likely package we are giving up? 2) what aspects of this trade would be attractive to peavy, beyond one-time recent world series winner with a mostly different core of players now? 3) has anyone given any indication as to how long he plans to mull this over?

With the season lost, Anderson should get every flipping start. If he can't hit .245 as an everyday player, we should seek to trade him if possible, and if not, DFA him. We need to be done with question marks one way or another by April 2010 and we need to know where we stand with Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 13, 2009 -> 03:27 PM) Gavin needs to face our lineup in a simulated game to give him confidence. Of course, that might be the day we see the good Sox and Thome, Paulie, Dye each hit bombs and AJ gets four hits. This is a scary thread reading how a lot of you think Gavin doesn't have what it takes. We obviously need him. I never thought Gavin had what it takes and was pretty appalled by the extension. Obviously we need someone with major league experience to be a third starter for us, yes. Saying we need Gavin is somewhat like saying the Washington Nationals need some of their starters.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:56 PM) You do realize that plenty of pitchers have had really bad starts to their careers. Would you consider Greg Maddux a 5.00 era pitcher? How about Randy Johnson? Right off of the top of my head, I believe they fall in that category as well. I am not saying that Gavin will be one of those guys, but when history tells you that it is way too early, it is probably too early to completely write off someone. Heck Doc Halladay had an era over 10 in his third go around at the major league level in 13 starts. It didn't end his career. Greg Maddux spent 36 starts around 5.00 era, then never looked back after that. Randy Johnson took about 40 starts to straighten himself out. You're talking about 33 total starts for Halladay, including his 13 start 10+ era meltdown. I'm talking about 69 starts with a 5.20 career ERA. 69 starts is a lot longer than those guys.

Gavin Floyd is Rex Grossman, ladies and gentlemen. There, I said it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) To be fair, Gavin Floyd had a good 2008. Cherry pick all you want, his full season totals were good. Let's look a little more closely at the numbers. His last 20 major league starts (perhaps the most important in terms of trends): 117.1 IP, 143 H, 39BB, 74 ER, 5.68 ERA, 1.55 WHIP His good stretch from September 2007-July 2008 (26 starts long): 131.1 IP, 105 H, 54BB, 50 ER, 3.43 ERA, 1.21 WHIP Note that his BB/IP ratio is about the same between his good stretch of 26 games and his most recent bad stretch of 20 games. Also note that a 1.21 WHIP is not that impressive, and that's his best stretch over his career, truly "cherry picking" (if we can even call a 1.21 WHIP a cherry). His career numbers outside of that ONE good stretch (43 starts long, and includes non-start innings as well): 293 IP, 348 H, 124BB, 195 ER, 5.99 ERA, 1.62 WHIP. "Cherry picking", to me, is taking 5 good months out of an otherwise HORRENDOUS major league career and being patient on that alone, particularly when the last 4 months (now almost as long!) has been bad. His CAREER era over 69 starts and 80 games played is above 5. And you're telling me that this is not a 5+ ERA pitcher???? Again, admittedly: I never liked trading for this player, never really thought much of him, never thought he had what it took physically or in terms of general makeup to be much better than an average-at-best pitcher,and didn't think what he was doing would last. I strongly believed in the luck factor last year, based on what I saw not only in 2007, but in 2006 and the two-three years he had been pitching at the major league level before. Out of curiosity, why are you so quickly to put stock in the 26 good starts he was able to string together, that sabremetrically has been explained as having a high luck factor, instead of the 43 bad starts he's had which make up the better part of his major league career? Perhaps more importantly, why does his stretch of 26 great starts from 2007-2008 mean so much more to you than his most recent 20 starts?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) Chien Ming Wang. If Gavin winds up staying this nasty, do what the Yankees did with their Wang, put it on the DL until it can perform better. And that's what I'm advocating - we need to have a plan B and C for what's happening with this. I'm not saying ditch him outright in May of the first year of his contract, but we'd better damn well know what else we have to work with if we're stuck with this f***ing contract for four years. It's all about options. I just don't know what you do with him if he pitches the entire season abominably badly. Also, to be fair, Gavin Floyd strung together just 4 good months in 2008, from April through July. Those were exceptionally good months, to be fair, but over his last 13 starts in August September and October, he had a 4.84 ERA and a 1.38 WHIP.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) Nice hyperbole, but its not true. By all means, correct me. Statistically speaking, who is the worst AL starter of 2009? Just to be clear, is the position that you are advocating to keep throwing him, no matter how bad the numbers all, all season? If he has an 10 ERA with a 2+ WHIP?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 13, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) I'm not going to claim to know what's wrong with Floyd. But he's a better pitcher than he is right now, and it's only been 7 starts. He may never justify that $15 million contract, but he will be right around a league average pitcher for the duration of the contract, and he could very easily be gone by the end of that. Posts, such as those quoted, are absolutely hilarious. The fact that people are this close to the ledge with this many players is absurd. 3 more starts? Really? After he threw 206 innings of good baseball last year? You're willing to give up on him after 3 more starts? You may as well just jump off that ledge, because if you don't, I might come and push you off. The fact of the matter is Floyd was a questionable signing, as anyone with any sort of brain predicted a massive regression due to the numbers. You speak as if Floyd's previous struggles were wiped completely off the plate. What percentage of his major league starts overall have been quality starts? Again, I ask AT WHAT POINT do we swallow 15 million? I'd like to give him 3 more starts and then SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE to POTENTIALLY replace him. Please read my post literally. I don't know how else to rephrase it. If he's 11-12 starts in with a 7+ era, we have to start at least prepping for 2010 with him potentially not making major league starts for us. To run him out there to give up 7,8,9 per game is not going to give us the 15 million back. I am admittedly no fan of this player, but jesus, his cumulative 2009 stats, no matter how small the sample size, make him the WORST pitcher in the AL.

Here's my question. At what point do we swallow 15 million? Because if the idea is that we keep running him out there because we gave him this contract, somebody needs to lecture this organization on the economic concept of a sunk cost. If this guy has an ERA even above 6.00 (let alone above 7.00) by the all-star break, we potentially have a major meltdown on our hands. I'd give him 3 more starts and then if the regression continues, I don't know what you can do but find out what else you have in the minors to potentially replace him.

A few points: You can be extraordinarily critical of a team and still enjoy the simple things about a baseball game/experience. If the team is down in the first inning, you don't leave, but quite often based on how the team looks you have a very good idea of whether they are capable of winning or losing a game by the middle of the third (which is about where we are right now). Those people who are critical of the team would like nothing more than to be positive about the team, and quite often probably are. And thanks for the good response, bd.