Eminor3rd

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 03:12 PM) WAR sometimes doesn't agree with the eye test, but FWIW, Flowers had a 2.3 bWAR and 1.8 fWAR last year, so he's considered to be a league average catcher. $2.7 mil for a $10 mil value ain't bad at all. Not a league average CATCHER, but a league average PLAYER. There's a huge positional adjustment for catchers, which makes a mediocre catcher a more valuable player than a mediocre guy at almost every other position. He ranks #20 for catchers. So Flowers, on the strength of a BABIP and HR/FB rate that are well into the range of unsustainable, ended up approximating a league average player. There's no reason to believe he'll do that again, and even if he did, he'd still be a below average catcher.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) Flowers isn't great, but neither is the vast majority of all major league catchers. For the price, it ain't bad. He's below average.

He's not going to sign an extension.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 11:19 AM) Non-Moncada, but Schwarber being so high on that list is insane. Gallo at #5, lol

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) not saying that his bat is "The" reason why he's in...as everyone has said previously...a choice of who goes in is ultimately a composite decision...mostly of where you stand versus your peers/generation (offensively, defensively, pitching, etc) , longevity, your accomplishments (whether awards, championships, etc), where you stand in history (most incomparable due to changes in game over time). When i cite his OPS, its not me saying "see! this is why he should be in!", but rather a simple complement to him for being on that list. I personally like OPS as a singular general overview of offensive prowess, but am aware that there may be other statistics that might be more relevant, but aren't as simple for the layman to understand. QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) OPS is not really a good stat to compare players from different generations as it's not adjust for park and league factors. If you really want to compare them you need to use OPS+ or better yet wRC+. Yep, exactly. I rant for wOBA against OPS about every three months, but even if you want to use OPS, you should go for OPS+ if you're comparing guys across eras, simply because it adjusts for offensive environment, and therefore adds context. Both OPS+ and wRC+ are indexes, which means they compare differences to average. 100 is league average every year, adjusted to the environment, and each point in either direction represents 1% above or below average. Raw stats from the steroid era don't compare to raw stats today, but an index takes care of this for us. Great example: Craig Biggio (OPS: .796 | OPS+: 112) vs. Lou Whitaker (OPS: .789 | OPS+: 117). Biggio had the better raw numbers, but they were less valuable than Lou's because Lou was doing what he did in an era where offense was down. Lou was a better hitter compared to his contemporaries than Biggio was compared to HIS contemporaries. Lou was 17% above average (in terms of OPS) for his career, Biggio was 12% above average.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) Castro is obviously better than Flowers, but is he enough of an upgrade to give up what you would have to give up to get him? The Astros aren't going to trade him for Jordan Danks and the rights to Brian Anderson. I don't like Flowers, and I realize he hit a "lucky" .230 or whatever he hit last year, and it probably "should" have been .185. But it's not unreasonable to think he could hit .220-.230 without being lucky. It's not that much. Frankly, I think the Sox should have gone after Cervelli, now with Pittsburgh. He didn't cost much, and IMO he is better than either Flowers or Castro. Based on what the rumored prices were in November, absolutely not. However, I have to think he's still an Astro for a reason. No one would pay what they asked before, so if he's popping up in rumors again, maybe the price is dropping.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 09:32 AM) Because the hall of fame is also all about performing at a high level for a long time. 2000 PA is only 3-4 seasons. I can't think of any hall of famer that only played for 3-4 seasons, can you? 8000 PA can range between 10-13 seasons. No, but I can think of lots of solid second basemen that played for at least 3-4 season that definitely aren't hall of famers, and it turns out a lot of them were better hitters than Craig Biggio over the course of their careers. Some examples: George Grantham, Danny Murphy, Jim Delahanty, Ben Zobrist, Don Buford, Fred Dunlap. Also, tied for Biggio in career wRC+ is Neil Walker. I'm not saying Biggio isn't a hall of famer, I'm just saying it wasn't due the the brute force of his bat. Pointing out that using a particularly inflated offensive statistic puts him in the middle-of-the-pack among guys who managed to play a long time isn't a good argument for him. I mean, how many guys ABOVE him on your list aren't even in? Off the top of my head I can think of three likely: Jeff Kent? Bobby Grich? Lou Whitaker? EDIT: Just checked. No Lou Whitaker (though Lou has a higher wRC+), but there is Alfonso Soriano!

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 12:21 AM) Didn't he hit something like .220 last year? That's even worse than Flowers. Yes, obviously batting average isn't everything, but Castro only had one decent hitting season. Which is one more than Flowers, who has had none ever.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 05:24 PM) With a minimum of 8000 plate appearances, Biggio ranks 12th out of 28 in OPS. #13 is Ryne Sandberg. No idea why you'd set the PA bar that high, unless you were specifically trying to give him credit for being a "compiler," which is the biggest criticism against him. Also, it makes no sense to use OPS when comparing player across different time periods, especially when you're talking about someone whose career spanned the entirety of one of the most extreme periods of offense in history. If you set it to minimum 2000 PA, and use wRC+ (which is an index adjusted to the offensive environment of the era), he's #31. #32 is Bobby Doerr.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) With the amount of big-money pitchers that will be available next year, it may be in Jeff's interest to sign an extension with the Sox. There are only so many teams that can afford the big contracts. And if he goes to FA, there will be at l;east 6 pitchers all looking for that big money. Who's going to pay it? You can always find one or two stupid clubs, but now you have to find 6. Its going to be a numbers game, and it may actually favor the Sox for once. Any deal that's team-friendly enough for you and I to feel comfortable with is a deal that will be EASY for him to land in FA, no matter how many big names are out there. If he gets to the point where people are bidding him up -- the winner, buy definition, will be the first team willing to go high enough that it ISN'T comfortable. Put another way, if his 2015 performance puts him in a position to actually accept 5/110 or something, then that probably means he didn't pitch that well and we'll be afraid to give it to him.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) So you wouldn't put Tom Glavine or John Smoltz in the Hall of Fame? Yes Player C is Buehrle if he pitches 5 more seasons at the same level as his last 5. By the way Buehrle is at 51.8 fWAR today. So by your 60 fWAR rule he is only 3 of his average seasons or 2 of his good seasons away from at least being in consideration. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying I don't buy the logic that "if guy A is in, similar guy B has to be in" in general because there are so many mistakes there already. The 60 fWAR rule was a Bill James "rule of thumb" I read in his book, I think.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 10:16 AM) Not yet, but if the scenario that I laid out earlier plays out I really need you to explain to me why two of these guys are first ballot Hall of Famers and why one of them is not even close. Player A - 305-203, 3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 4413.1 IP, 2607 K, 1.314 WHIP, 3.1 BB/9, 5.3 K/9, 1.74 K/BB, 64.3 fWAR Player B - 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 125 ERA+, 3473 IP, 3084 K, 1.176 WHIP, 2.6 BB/9, 8.0 K/9, 3.05 K/BB, 78.7 fWAR Player C - 263-207, 3.81 ERA, 117 ERA+, 4108 IP, 2323 K, 1.283 WHIP, 2.0 BB/9, 5.2 K/9, 2.54 K/BB, 67.0 fWAR Well, I don't buy the argument that just because one mistake was made, we need to keep making more. Like, for example, Jim Rice does NOT belong in the HOF, but he's there. Does that mean we have to induct every guy better than Jim Rice now? I say no. That said (I'm assuming Player C is a projected Buerhle line if he did 5 more years at his current level), if a guy eclipses 60 fWAR, he should usually at least be considered.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 01:13 PM) His 3.81 ERA is high for the Hall when looking at it without context. The average HOFer has an ERA of 2.98 and the highest is Red Ruffing at 3.80. The average ERA+ of starters in the HOF is 123, Buehrle sits at 117. Some others around that number include Warren Spahn (119), Bert Blyleven (118), Steve Carlton (115), Gaylord Perry (117), Fergie Jenkins (115) and Nolan Ryan (112) The average HOFer also has 253 Ws, 3801 IPs, 2153 Ks, and 70 bWAR. Those are all numbers that Buehrle can reach should he choose to. I used bWAR here because with the talk about FIP and its inaccuracies with pitchers like Buehrle I felt it appropriate even though it is generally less accurate. If you look strictly at bWAR, Buehrle would currently be ranked 47th amongst HOFers with a chance to move to the top 25-30 if he keeps pitching. Buehrle certainly has some detractions that will probably keep him out. He never really came close to winning a Cy Young, he was never viewed as being that dominate and he didn't really have a pitch that was memorable. I.E. Ryan's fastball, Big Unit's slider or Blyleven's curveball. Again, I don't think he gets in, but it would certainly not be a joke if he did. He has already had a better career than some inducted and would move to the middle of the pack if he pitches another 5 years. Overall he was not one of the best pitchers to ever play the game, but he was above average and at time significantly above average. Combine that with his consistency and durability and he really has been one of the most valuable pitchers that we've seen. The bolded lines are not consistent, IMO. It takes more than an above average player to make the HOF cut. Buehrle is awesome; not even close to a hall-of-famer.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 07:41 AM) Tyler Flowers was tied for #12 in MLB in WAR by catcher last season (2.3) Right, so he was middle of the pack with a .355 BABIP and a 21.1% HR/FB rate. Also, he's #20 of 30 by fWAR at 1.8

Still need a starting catcher. There, I said it.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 13, 2015 -> 05:48 PM) I loved Coopers quote and I love every bit of how Buehrle pitched. He is one of my all time favorite pitchers to watch for the way he did things. Maybe that is just something that stat people can't appreciate but he was awesome to watch pitch. He was and is extremely unique on the mound. I'm criticizing the terrible writing, not Buerhle.

Classic Phil Rogers contradictions, lol: Wtf? Lol, and his opening argument is Buerhle made 30 startas abunch of times, rofl. Also, this gem from Don Cooper: Lol, that's awkwardly precise there, Don. "Oh man, he practically only shakes off signs point six six repeating times per season."

Ugh.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 13, 2015 -> 11:06 AM) Why the hell would you trade prospects for a rental? If the SOX traded for this guy for a year, they are dumber than I thought. Whether or not he signs an extension, they bought ONE YEAR of him for those prospects. If they decide to offer him a contract top buy more, that's fine, but it's a separate deal. Whether we like it or not, they DID buy a rental. And the move needs to be evaluated based on what they bought rather than what they will be in the future.

He's going to free agency.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) Top 3 are as good as it gets. Back of the rotation? Ugly. 8-10 makes sense to me. Agreed

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 09:37 AM) Chris Beck at #6 is interesting as well. 2015 will be a big year for him Yeah, aggressive on Beck. However, after reading the whole article, it looks like it's more about them being down on Micah/Hawkins/etc. than high on Beck.

I found Soxtalk before WSI and never looked for anything else. The way you guys talk about it is intriguing, though -- sometimes I want to start posting there just to see how long it takes me to get banned.

Weird

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 04:13 AM) you snort it, you inject it, you suck on it, whatever, in my America, you never see the HOF. Same goes for the gamblers, Pete was a great player but he @#$%ed up. Some of these baseball writers are voting for the PED users, don't they get it? thanks, douglas The problem is that there are a ton of players you consider "model" hall of famers that did this stuff a bunch, but the media just didn't care. John Milner reported buying amphetamines from both Willie Mays and Willie Stargell, for example. Paul Molitor admitted to using cocaine. Orlando Cepeda was actually ARRESTED for smuggling marijuana into the country from Puerto Rico. Which, to me, doesn't bring up the issue of the Hall being "tainted" as much as it shows me that this stuff is only a big deal if we decide to make it a big deal. As of right now, you know that Willie Mays used amphetamines on the field, and I'm guessing you're going to let that slide into the back of your brain and still consider Willie Mays an inner-circle hall of famer.