almagest

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:48 PM) Did I ever say we shouldn't use stats? Give me a break. You say I am entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that stats are overrated. I never said they can't be used as a barometer to judge how good or bad a player is. I just think there should be more then .ops to determine if someone is good or not. For example (this isn't the best example, but I think it helps my point about stats), if some piece of crap like Darin Erstad got 10 bloop doubles in 10 AB's, he would have fantastic stats. However, if Stan Musial hit 10 straight line shots to the centerfielder in 10 AB's, but all of them were caught, he would have s*** stats. Now, statistically speaking, Stan the Man would suck but Erstad is godly. Now tell me, would that make Erstad a better player then Stan the Man? Heavens no. And that's why you don't use 10 at-bats to determine anything. The sample size is way too small. QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:48 PM) And while I have only seen about 3 or 4 sox games this spring totalling up to about maybe 8 Anderson AB's... how many time have you seen him to declare that he has actually improved his swing and actually improved rather then hit a hot streak? MLB.tv allows me to watch each game, and hear each radio broadcast. Now, I haven't been able to catch *every* inning, but I've seen or heard quite a few of his at-bats, and heard Hawk, DJ, Farmer, Singleton, Stone, other teams' announcers, and the MLB.com announcers mention how he's hitting well and looks much improved. Oh, and I also have his past spring performances, improvement in the second half of '06, and 1136 MiLB at-bats to go on. I feel that's sufficient. QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:48 PM) My opinion is Brian Anderson sucks and 2 good weeks hardly proves anything besides a hot streak. If you don't like that and think it's a hissy fit... I'll take a line from Rhet Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Okay, that's all well and good, but the purpose of a discussion is to see a variety of viewpoints, and present logical evidence as to why you feel a certain way, not "HE SUX CUZ I SEZ SO." That's just a bias, and as I've said before, makes you no different than the "Brian Anderson is the bestest player EVAR" camp.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 09:17 PM) I'm predicting Anderson to be his usual bad self. Does everything have to be based on stats? God, I hate stats. And if Anderson is his usual self no amount of defense can make up for his (again, projected by me) weak stick. If Anderson somehow proves that he is better then my Dog with the bat, then yeah, perhaps he can be worth the spot on the team. But I'll believe it when he actually consistently puts up half-way decent numbers vs. actual pitching in something bigger then a spring training game. You know, to be honest, I don't really give a s***. I think the Sox are going to have a HORRIBLE year this year. I just find it comical that even if the worst of players has a good couple of weeks the automatically become Torri Hunter. I especially find it funny now that everyone has been life long Anderson fans as well. So how do you propose we, as fans with no scouting experience, evaluate players, then? Tarot cards? Magic beans? Jesus? And how many games have you seen Brian play in this spring? Seriously, lay off the self-righteousness already. No one here is saying Brian Anderson is the next coming of Willie Mays. We're just excited that he's showing a good attitude, has improved his swing, is playing great defense, and generally just seems like he's learned a lot. You're entitled to your opinion, but no need to have a hissy fit because someone disagrees with you, and has some relevant evidence to back it up.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) So what... Every player has hot streaks, even ones with as weak of a stick as Anderson's. I am not arguing not to give him another chance, all I am saying is that he sucks and will NEVER ever do anything in the majors. Maybe he will be a 4th OF defensive replacement type of bench player in the majors, but that is all. An .835 career OPS over 1136 minor league at-bats is a "hot streak"? Sounds like you're just as biased as the people who feel he's the "awesomest player of all time."

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) Funny how a couple weeks of good ball vs. mainly crap pitching can now turn Brian Anderson from trash (which I still stand by that he is) to the "awesomest" player of all time. Unless Anderson did a major overhaul with his stance, approach at plate, and swing in general, he will stand no chance, once again, in the majors. He's been starting almost every game. It's not like he's coming in after the 7th inning to face the scrubs. He's a first round draft pick, we traded Rowand and Young to make room for him, and he's also put up a solid .293/.361/.474 line throughout his minor league career. He's obviously got some talent. If he can play good defense for us and have an OPS of around .800, he's basically Torii Hunter. What's wrong with giving him one last shot to see if he can realize that potential, especially since he's playing so well right now?

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) I think I'm gonna settle for a GC controller. I can't find a Wavebird better than $50 used + shipping. Seriously Nintendo, why did you stop making these? It doesn't make sense, especially since they tout the Wii as being compatible with your GC controllers. On a similar note, I bought myself a Wii today. Damn Smash Brawl... Got it for $325 shipped, brand-new, on Ebay. Comes with Guitar Hero III (game only). I figure that game is worth ~$40, and tax would've been $25-$30 (damn Cook County), so I only overpaid by a few dollars, if anything. I didn't want to wait for stores to get stock, nor did I want to call/drive around or ask friends at game stores to hold one for me.

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) In a moment of weakness, I bought a Wii and Brawl. 0473-7487-2815 for a good time Anyone else using the classic controller? Or should I get a gamecube one? Get the Gamecube controller. It's way better, particularly the Wavebirds.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) Somewhat surprising that Cabrera hasn't hit better away. Not only has Uribe benefited from home ballparks, but these 2 are going in opposite directions the past 3 years. Cabrera averaging 40 doubles the past 2 years and some of those turn into homers in Chicago. Cabrera's away numbers make more sense when you realize that he spent almost all of his career in the NL East and AL West. I think the only hitter's park in either of those divisions is Citizen's Bank Ball Park, and that didn't come around until 2003, and Cabrera was traded to the Red Sox 2/3 of the way through 2004. Uribe's away splits are absolutely putrid. I still can't believe how bad they are.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 10:06 PM) Well I counter with this; 1 - Uribe would have hit in argubly the 2 best hitting ballparks in the MLB for his career thus far. Cabrera has not. Good point. Check out their career splits: Uribe: BA OBP SLG OPS .273 .315 .489 .804 Home .235 .275 .366 .641 Away Cabrera: BA OBP SLG OPS .274 .322 .405 .727 Home .271 .319 .400 .719 Away

QUOTE(SoxWS05 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) Fields can work out those kinks in AAA, while Crede wins GG's and SS awards. Face it Crede is starting and Fields will be in AAA come opening day. Pretty sure there's no way you're serious. You'd have to do literally 1 minute of research on Google to find Crede's stats, which just. aren't. that. good. Unless you have, in which case, please elaborate on your theory as to how Crede, with his robust .259/.305/.446 (a stellar 92 OPS+!) career offensive numbers, 0 Gold Gloves, and back injury is worth signing to a long term, expensive contract. And by your logic, no one would ever trade or not sign a mediocre player, because a rookie *might* not work out. Wow... an entire team of Royce Claytons. What a splendid idea! You also continually refuse to accept that the White Sox don't deal with Boras clients, and that Boras clients tend to seek free agency. There's historical precedence here, you know. It's not made up. Sorry, but the opinion of one person on a message board doesn't override years of evidence.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 09:17 PM) Look at all of the past world series winning teams and 9 out of 10 will have this type of batting order for the top four hitters. 1. Fast or pesky hitter 2. good bat handler 3. Good ave and power 4. best power guy. I shouldn't have started this again. Every spring I go on this rant because every body has their own ideas on how to build a team. People keep commenting on how Ozzie wants to bring the "Marlins" here but it's the same philosophy most teams use. Being around the game so long you see many things come and go but the typical lineup has remained constant for the most part. Any evidence that backs this up? Because I've already researched the "fast/pesky" leadoff hitter being prevalent on championship teams, and it's not the case. It's in another thread around here somewhere; I think it was actually a response to you.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) Eckstein is pst his prime. As I recall he won a world series with Anaheim then the Cardinals acquired him and he won a world series there also. Sounds like he was wanted to me. That true with pitchers. Who cares if they win or lose. All that matters if they pitch well. That's the problem with many pitchers today. Who the hell cares if the team wins or loses all that matters is that my stats look good. I need my "quality start" If I pitch 6 innings and give up 3 or fewer runs I did my job. That is the attitude that drove me crazy with Garland, he said this many times. Wins and loses doesn't necessarily tell you how well he pitched but it does tell you if the team won or lost when he pitches. Run support and bullpen pitching prowess are things a starting pitcher cannot control. All a starter can do is keep his team in the game, and pitch to the best of his ability. What's so bad about Garland saying this? QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) A team doesn't go to the playoffs with a pitcxher with a low ERA or high stirkeout to walk ratio. They go if the team wins regarless of individual stats. Show an example of a team that went to the playoffs without pitchers possessing these qualities, then. QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 05:49 PM) Who's being foolish? Back injuries cause problems in a hurry. My only point is GM's and managers build a team with a purpose and most of them like the "pesky" hitter such as Eckstein or the "speed" guy such as Pods at the top of the lineup. Many people here don't like it but these players can be effective. More often than not winning teams are built this way. Of course it doesn't always work no plans ever do, but most winning teams are built along this philosophy. Like which teams?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 4, 2008 -> 10:05 PM) This is how guys like David Eckstein look awful when examining stats but somehow are starting shortstops on WS winning teams and win MVP awards. And that's why teams were lining up to give Eckstein that giant contract, right? QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 4, 2008 -> 10:05 PM) The games are not judged by individual stats. The season is determined by the numbers of wins and loses which are determined by the integration of all the parts. Sometimes the role players add up to more than the sum of their individual stats. This is akin to saying that a pitcher's value is based entirely on his win-loss record and "intangibles."

6-5 Angels, bottom of the 8th. That's what the box score says anyways.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 11:03 AM) So when does Super Smash come out -- this weekend? Is reserving it necessary/recommended? It's likely too late to get a reservation (maybe at Gamestop), though I would never recommend doing so. You should be able to get a copy at Target or Bestbuy or something.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 12:15 AM) Well, you keep bringing up Jeff Kent, but Kent is listed as 30 pounds lighter than Josh Fields at the same height while also being 15 years older. I just honestly don't think Fields is nimble enough, nor does he have a good enough glove to make a transition to 2B. Pretty sure the Sox would've considered it already as well. They know what Fields is capable of far better than we do.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 10:53 PM) Okay, poof he is our 2nd baseman. Who is manning 3rd base after this year. Thats the issue at hand. I really don't think people here understand that Crede has injury concerns, is in the last year of his contract, and has an agent who has a bad relationship with the White Sox. There's a disconnect with reality here that boggles my mind. It doesn't matter how much we like him, or what crazy schemes we can come up with to keep him on the team. The writing's on the wall -- he gone. I also don't remember anywhere NEAR the outcry when Frank Thomas left, and that man is a dominant hall of famer, and played with the White Sox for 14 years. Seriously. What is so good about Crede?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) According to your standards Josh Fields has had exactly 2/3 of a mediocre season in his career and really nothing else. So you move out Crede for garbage to make room for "well, at least he's not Timo Perez." Yeah, but that line of thought completely neglects that Fields is younger, cheaper, not represented by Scott Boras, doesn't have potential health issues, and only has 2/3 of a season of ML experience, compared to Crede's 4 full years and 2 partial years. So even if Fields is mediocre, he's still a better choice. And I'd like to find the method by which you predict the stats of a player who doesn't even have one full year at the ML level. Seems kind of silly to say that someone with that little experience has as much of a proven history of mediocrity as someone who's been in the league full time since 2003.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 11:24 PM) I was watching a video for MLB 2k8 on gamespot, and it does not look good at all. Doesn't seem fluid one bit. Looks almost the same as last year. Still, 2k8 looks a lot more polished than what I've seen of 2008, and I'm a fan of Sony's game.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) im not gonna make any excuses for macdougal, but i guarantee you his problem is not a STRAGHT fastball....its his inability to locate his fastball that still has nice tail (in fact ill bet that his fastball has more movement than just about everyone in our pen except wasserman), and his inability to throw a breaking ball....i remember when this guy first came up with KC and his slider was just absolutely filthy...just one of those breaking balls that opposing hitters just had no shot on when he located it...of course that was always his problem with it, location...he got in trouble cuz he could never get it over Exactly. MacDougal has filthy, filthy stuff. He used to throw close to 100 with his straight fastball, IIRC, but he apparently was told to rely more on his 2-seamer, which is a fantastic pitch (94+ with movement) -- WHEN he gets it over. He still has a good slider, but again, WHEN he gets it over. If he's not throwing strikes often, he gets hit hard. I've often wondered why these guys have such problems throwing strikes consistently, when they know (at least, I hope so) it's the key to success. Is it a mental block, or is it mechanics?

QUOTE(BaseballNick @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) We need more intelligent and insightful thoughts like this on SoxTalk. Man's got a point, though. You can hypothesize almost anything. The evidence points to Fields being the better bet to be successful at this point, though, given his recent performance, health, contract status, and age, when compared to Crede.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) I'm gonna go in the way back machine, because I never got a GameCube and the family still doesn't have a Wii, though we will eventually. Anyways, for historical purposes, how much different was Fox from the N64 version to the GameCube version to the current version? Cuz I definitely dominated everyone with Fox on the 64. Fox is top-top tier in Smash Melee. He and Marth pretty much dominate the game. Captain Falcon is up there, too. Fox is still good in Brawl, though not nearly as good as he was in Melee. At least, that seems to be the consensus now. The ranking of characters fluctuates a lot during the initial year after a game is released, though.

Mlb.com shows no gameday audio for this game, dammit.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 27, 2008 -> 09:37 AM) Thanks. I wonder i fthe quality would be enhanced if i watched it through my PS3/TV No, the video is pre-set at either 400kb/s or 700. The quality of the video is limited on their side, not yours. That being said, the 400k option is tolerable in a decent-sized window, and the 700k is at least standard tv broadcast quality.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) Crede is a great third baseman. Sorry that's what I believe. Why do you believe he is? What evidence is there that points to Crede being on the level of, say, Scott Rolen in his prime?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 07:40 PM) 1.5 good years and 3 mediocre years vs. 2 putrid years. (2007 doesn't count he only played about 1/4 of the season). That sounds decent to me which is what I said he was. I disagree. Good and putrid essentially cancel out. Mediocre != good, and mediocre != decent. Mediocre == "well, at least he's not Timo Perez."