Greg Hibbard

He is on an awesome tear, and I hope to god it continues. The low number of walks still concerns me, because we he hits a bad patch, it's probably going to be particularly bad. Unless he can keep jacking jacks at the rate he's doing it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 31, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) You can always mute it and make your own comments. If you're watching the game, why do you need someone to tell you if its a strike? Remember when you could get the SAP feed and listen to some of the studio guys do defacto play by play? (can you still do that?)

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 31, 2012 -> 02:14 AM) Yes, let's move him from the rotation to the bullpen to the rotation to shutting him down BACK to the rotation. THAT'S how you develop a young arm. Good lord. --- The biggest stigma of limiting young pitcher's innings on the Internet generally stems from the Verducci Effect. The Verducci Effect stems from Verducci's conversation's and trust within Rick Peterson's school of teaching. And, just so we are all aware, Rick Peterson has not been a pitching coach in the Major Leagues since 2010. To clarify the rule here, it tracks the proceeding season of a pitcher 25 years or younger who increased their workload by 30 or more innings who pitched in the major leagues during that season. The 2 rules for the season after that...the season Verducci tracks...are that: 1) The pitcher can't get hurt 2) The pitcher can't put up a worse ERA which means that, yes, in fact, John Danks is a case of the Year After Effect because he put up a 3.77 ERA in 2009. Nevermind the fact that he was a legitimate #2 starting pitcher, noooooo, he is a perfect example a pitcher who faced the ramifications of a super increased workload the following season. If anything, he's looking like the perfect example of the reason why you don't resign pitchers to long-term contracts. Oh, BTW, David Price, also a perfect example of the Year After Effect. I mean, come on, 2.72 ERA in 208 innings compared to 3.49 ERA in 224 innings? OBVIOUS REGRESSION AND HE IS TERRIBLE. It's overly cited and generally overblown. There is some credence to it, naturally, but to inhibit a pitcher from continuing their development because they've reached the 30 inning threshold? It's stupid. If those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their careers, then they weren't going to succeed anyways, and if those 30 innings are going to seriously endanger their health (as a pitcher), then they weren't going to remain healthy anyways. As an example, Kyle Lohse was a pitcher who was developed "properly." (psssst, don't mind the fact that in 2000, he put up an ERA of 6+ at AA...ERA DOESN'T MATTER IN THE MINORS HEHEHEHE) 98 - 170.2 IP 99 - 165 IP 00 - 167 IP 01 - 177.1 IP (between MiLB and MLB, so the year it would take effect). ERA was 2.79 MiLB, 5.68 MLB 02 - 180.2 IP, 4.23 ERA 03 - 201 IP, 4.61 ERA - 24 years old So, uhhhhhhh...Year After Effect? Nope, because he was "properly developed." --- The idea of shutting Chris Sale down is silly and absurd. If his arm can't handle 170 innings, then he's destined for a career in the bullpen or following the shadow of someone like, I dunno, KERRY WOOD. The main concept behind the Verducci Effect is to protect young arms when and where you can. Develop them slowly and build the innings up over time. It all makes sense. But if you are 4 games up in the division come mid-August and you decide to shut your best pitcher down because of some arbitrary number that some pitching coach came up with at some point along the way, then you are bound and determined to sabotage your own season. It sounds like something the f***ing Montreal Expos would do. I'm having a hard time following some of this post, but I'm fascinated by the concepts discussed here. Is the concept that you should not increase ANY pitcher's workload under 25 by more than 30 IP from one year to the next? What is the most innings you would have Chris Sale pitch this season?

Not to get too far ahead, but we;re coming home to a very beatable set of three teams...something like 7-2 on this homestand is very doable...which would be putting us at 19-3 over 22...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 30, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) And CLE lost. 1.5 up. Two straight sweeps, 8 wins straight, 11 of 12. Booya. 12 of 13

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 30, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) the f*ck? I worded this crudely. Sure, watching the team was fun during the first half, and the playoffs/WS were utterly magical, but the second half, particularly august and september, was utterly brutal night-in and night-out from a stress standpoint. I had more *fun* watching the 2000 team.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2012 -> 08:32 PM) I'm gonna go old school and say 1983 and 1999. I'm assuming you mean 1993? Unless you like 0-fer west coast swings in August?

Despite the '05 World Series win, I had very little fun watching the '05 team during the regular season, as games were frequently nail-biters and low-scoring. I'd bet a lot of people here might say the same thing. In August and early September, particularly, the offense was so anemic that it was flat-out difficult to watch. The most fun I've ever had watching a team before this year was the 2000 season, mainly because of Frank's renaissance season and a collection of fun "regular" guys overacheiving (Valentin, Perry, Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, and Eldred in particular). Even though the team fell off severely towards the end of the season, it was such a breath of fresh air to look up and not see us in second place 11 games behind Cleveland. It was such a treat to win that division. I've heard a lot of people say the '77 hitmen were also a fun team to watch, despite their lack of a postseason, but I was too young. Certainly the '83 winning ugly season was awesome, as well. With this lineup and the solid starting pitching, with so many surprises up and down the lineup and throughout the staff, it seems that this team is a contender to be just a fun team to watch for the whole season. I find myself wondering from day to day which cog in the lineup will produce, and don't worry if the starter will come with a quality effort (if not his best stuff). That all coupled with such low expectations going in have made for such an enjoyable season from a fan's perspective thus far, with only a couple of genuinely frustrating stretches that have lasted mere days. There are very few real problems in the lineup, in the staff, in the clubhouse, off the field...anywhere. And when that's the case...it's easy to remember how much fun this game can be to watch. What are your thoughts?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 23, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) ADA cf Gordo 2b Dunn dh ***NEVER FORGET*** 1b Rios rf AJP c Tank lf Alexei ss O-Dog 3b hopefully this will be our daily lineup for the rest of our intraleague schedule, excepting the occasional days off

QUOTE (sunofgold @ May 23, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) I partially excuse Morel b/c he hasn't been playing healthy and never should have been batting 2nd. However, I think that now it is ODawg's job to lose. Guy is a Gold Glove winner, thus he should at least be average defensively at 3rd. If he can be an average hitter from the ninth spot, that will work. He might be a little crazy in a good way. Like Jurassic Carl? I mean, hell, we won a world series with that in the clubhouse...

Greg Hibbard disag....oh, never mind I don't care how fast he talks or how annoying he is if he can hit .250.

I don't mind Hawk. I would very much mind some bland, middle of the road, safe broadcaster, or an ex-player who wasn't knowledgeable or articulate. Think about when the Cubs had to replace Harry with a parade of Josh Lewin, Chip Caray, Dave Otto, Joe Carter....it wasn't pretty for a long time. Replacing Hawk might be harder than you think.

Seriously, this is an awesome thread.

I want to believe!

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ May 20, 2012 -> 11:49 AM) And that's while scalding the ball right at people (sporting a May BABIP of .263) May OPS would be .811 without that Wells home run robbery. Fun with sample sizes and arbitrary dates! By the same token, he's probably one 0-fer away from being sub 700?

QUOTE (fathom @ May 20, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) They aren't? It's been great watching Viciedo and Beckham in May. Viciedo has been much better. Is beckham's may really that much better?

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ May 20, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) Is this 02 or 04?? Stop it, theyre playing good baseball right now, enjoy it. Because 7 out of 11 doesn't happen every year. I do enjoy this, I just am not sold on the team being particularly competitive on a divisional or league level. Also, I would be enjoying this a lot more if our young hitters were producing.

Even if we did have a serious run to 28-22, recall that the 2002 team started with that record and yet still sputtered to 81 wins. The 2004 team started 29-21 and ended up with 83. Let's take a wait and see attitude until mid June before we go jumping on any bandwagons.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 19, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) 1 post-season win in 6 seasons, Dick. KW's record is what it is. So basically you're chastising our GM for baseball being the hardest sport to qualify for the playoffs in. 8 teams out of 30 go. In any other sport, our record in 2010 and 2006 would have sent us. Here is a list of other teams that have had 1 or less playoff win in the past six years; Toronto Baltimore Minnesota Kansas City Seattle Cubs Cincinnati Pittsburg Houston San Diego Florida Washington Atlanta 14 out of 30 teams haven't won more than 1 playoff game in the past 6 years. How many current GMs have won a world series anywhere?

My biggest worry: a 6-under record against AL teams through May a 10-over record against NL teams a 5-under record against the rest of the AL schedule grumblings about how close we were, despite the obstacles, if the team had only performed ....and no real long term plan. or in other words, what's come to be known as "a typical White Sox year."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) Welcome to rebuilding. You keep saying this as if it's an overt plan by the organization. In another thread, you said "they didn't" after someone said "....for a team that expects to compete." Am I missing something? Where exactly did they say "we are rebuilding"? I've never heard Williams say that, nor do I believe for a second that if this team was 3 games under but 3 games out that he would throw in the towel. Do you?

It's nauseating, but I could see KW saying "I put the White Sox in a position to compete for a division title in 2012, and so we needed to stand pat at the July deadline to see if they could do it...." I'm really afraid of this team being too .500ish and too close to the front for KW to do anything, when really it's past time to tear the whole thing down and suck for a couple of years, at least.

You don't lose your best hitter, you put your dh in the field somewhere if he is your best hitter. Losing the dh usually means you lose something like your sixth best hitter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) This team is going to be streaky this year. That's what happens when you have this many kids in the line up. That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked, though...

Outside of the infamous 4-18 stretch last year and a similarly abysmal 4-17 stretch in 2007, this is the worst 22 game stretch of baseball the White Sox have played since 2003, when they went 11-27 during a particularly brutal stretch of the early part of the season. As fans, are we finally willing to let go of this team having the potential of being competitive, regardless of the strength of our division, and more importantly, do Williams and co. finally have it in them to trade everything they can in July (Konerko, Peavy, Thornton and anyone else they can unload) and truly start over? Or....does one more three-four-five game win streak put this team back in neutral?