Eminor3rd

Also, to be fair, Marty did TOTALLY ask for this lol QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 07:19 PM) I did not write the quote you attributed to me SS2K5 and according to the guidelines of this site "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false."

QUOTE (LDF @ May 2, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) If the sox didn't like what may avail at #3 (ref signability) they may select a lower rated player and come to a predraft agreement with him and his camp. this has been done before with the sox and past draft #1. That being said, if the right pitcher is not there and Hoffman concerns, I would like alex Jackson c/of. Any thoughts??? Yeah, that's plausible, but I don't see it happening with us this year. Two of Rodon, Aiken, Kolek, and Jackson will be available. If it was only Hoffman (assuming the injury risk remains), Nola, and Beede, I could see them possibly reaching for an underslot choice.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 2, 2014 -> 09:15 AM) Rondon will be in the White Sox top 10 prospects if he keeps this up won't he? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) I would say whoever they draft automatically assumes the #1 prospect in the White Sox system. I think you dudes are thinking of different dudes.

QUOTE (shakes @ May 2, 2014 -> 08:44 AM) Did you just post something knowingly false? According to the guidelines of this site "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false." Can I get an admin ruling on this? lol

Yeah, that's the point: you build a core out of the (hopefully) 25% or so guys you can get to pan out via draft/int'l/trades, you develop a few solid role players internally, and THEN you make a splash or two on the FA market to fill in the gaps. Now you've spent your big bucks where you know you needed it most and you minimized your risk. What you DON'T do is "sign a bunch of dudes just in case your team turns out good because you have a low payroll anyway." This is the Marty model, and it is prone to collapse because you're (1) committing to assets that you're guessing you'll need beforehand, (2) paying market elite prices for "best available" player instead of truly who is worth because you're spending just because you HAVE the money rather than whether you SHOULD spend it, and (3) assuming massive amounts of risk long-term by limiting the liquidity of the players you have, thus being extremely prone to decline and injury. The former method takes some patience but pays dividends for years to come once in place, the latter is a hail mary that can trash your hopes for years to come if you miss.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2014 -> 08:34 PM) The Dodgers lost $80 million last year. That's insane

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 1, 2014 -> 07:08 PM) Keith Law stated on Buster Olney's podcast (today's edition) that he thinks the White Sox will select Erick Fedde with the third pick right now. Said Hoffman's elbow pain is worrisome and will cause him to drop. That would be an ultra disappointing selection. Law did not say it with any sort of confidence, however. But I can understand Hoffman over Rodon if the medicals check out on Hoffman, but Fedde over Rodon would be disappointing. http://m.mlb.com/video/v31229355/draft-rep...college-pitcher Everything I've seen on him has him going in the mid-teens.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 1, 2014 -> 06:52 PM) Would you take Tanaka on the Sox right now for what the Yankees paid for him? If not, why not? I probably would now, but I had to sit and think about it for a second. This is given our relatively low salary commitments and the fact that the Sox would probably NOT re-sign him to a mega-contract if he stayed this good and opted out, meaning we'd get him at 3/60 or whatever, with a real chance to compete in that third year. Still a big risk, though. An injury over the next 3 years could make him a massive albatross overnight. His age at least makes him less of a risk to lose velocity, though, and thus simply become ineffective like so many older SPs on long deals. EDIT: Also, it's difficult to predict how much higher another team would have had to go to BEAT the Yankees offer, especially one coming off a 99 loss season and committed to some form of rebuild.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 1, 2014 -> 05:17 PM) The Yankees don't care because they have more money than they know what to do with and they know the best way to increase franchise value is to win. Besides, the damage a bad contract can do is vastly overstated. I know WHY they did it, I'm just saying that it's not hard to believe the Sox FO when they say they were a legitimate player on him, because the richest team in the sport had to bend over completely to win the bidding. I would not have expected (or even wanted) the Sox to have BEAT that offer, especially before we knew if he was for real.

The thing to remember about the Tanaka contract is that it's a very bad contract. He gets $20m/yr up front and then has an opt-out after three years. If he pitches well at ALL then he's gone or you have to give him a bigger contract, if he's hurt or sucks, the Yankees are on the hook for an elite-level salary. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't blame the White Sox for not beating that contract, especially considering what an unknown he was then versus now. It was a desperate play.

Personally, I don't see any reason why this team should lose any more games this year. And because I think they'll win out, I don't think they'll be buyers at the deadline because why would they need anything if they just won like 60 games in a row? In fact, they'll likely need to sell off excess talent.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 07:19 PM) I did not write the quote you attributed to me SS2K5, but according to the guidelines of this site "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will frequently use this bulletin board to post material which is knowingly false."

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) you made it sound as moving a player to another position so he can play was a silly move. all I kept on saying is baseball teams do it a lot. move player to other position due lack of fielding, to take advantage of his bat, to develop him for a position which may not have prospects. you mention that it was silly ...... I never mention moving him back to 3b ..... that is the best I can remember. It's not silly in a vacuum, but there are two things about how teams usually do it that are important: (1) it's nearly always to an easier position, and (2) it's almost never done until they're absolutely sure it needs to be done Nearly all of the exceptions to this rule come when there's a roster crunch, and those are most often considered temporary moves. So, the fact that Ravelo was moved down the spectrum at such a young age is probably indicative that they think he really seriously can't cut it at third, or else they'd have given him much more time to improve.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) And we've told you that a gazillion times.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) Daryl Van Schouwen ‏@CST_soxvan 8m Ventura looking for 50-60 pitches from starter Noesi today. That's a very curious plan.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:13 AM) There's a good amount of players who try to do this in baseball, yet none of them have a .600 BABIP. QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) I don't buy this. While his approach is improved, it's next to impossible to have 60% of your contact land where fielders aren't. Because he hasn't been swinging for the fences and has shown a semblance of an idea with two strikes doesn't equal a .600 BABIP. Yeah, these ^

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) The comparison ends because we aren't comparing like samples. Tony Gwynn would too put up an insane BABIP if he knew was coming, as would most any other hitter. Again, that becomes obvious when you look at the different in how hitters hit when they know what is coming. If there was no difference, in your version, a pitcher tipping pitches should see no difference in his BABIP against, nor should a guy who is getting his signs stolen. Do you believe that to be true? I think it's true that they can hit better if they know what's coming, and that is reflected in an increased LD rate. I also think it's true that they can generally increase the direction in which they hit the ball (pull, push), which is reflected in more hits to RF (in Tyler's case). I DON'T think it's true that they can hit the ball with such precision as to avoid defenders to the degree that 60% of everything that comes off his bat finds a hole. More importantly, historical precedent doesn't think it's true. If it was, you'd see the best contact hitters in history having months like this when THEY got hot and had an approach that pitcher's needed to adjust to. But that was kind of Feeky's whole point, this has never happened.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 09:08 AM) maybe kajillion zillion, but certainly not bajillion. that is just silly Fair enough, I'm prone to hyperbole

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) The "luck" is in his approach. He quit trying to pull that ball and hit it to the LF foul pole. He shortened his swing and redesigned it with the full intention of doing exactly what is is doing with the slow stuff on the outer half. He isn't try to hit it 500 feet. He is actually trying to dump it into RCF. You can see that with his swing. Whether he hits it to RF or LF, a certain number of those should be playable by a defender, based on historical precedent. We know this (these) number(s). Way more of Flowers this year have fallen in for hits than average. This is the luck. If you disagree, you're saying that his approach doesn't just allow him to hit it to RF, but specifically in gaps to the side or in front of fielders. He is finding the holes at a rate much higher than every player ever, so even if you think he has developed an ability to control the bat like Tony Gwynn, he's still been successful about 20-25% than everyone in history right now, which is unaccounted for. This is the luck component, my friend.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) Yes. I would. These are major league baseball hitters. When they KNOW what is coming, they can hit it. At that point it becomes glorified batting practice. That is why the arts of stealing signs, seeing where catchers set up, picking up pitchers who tip their pitches, etc, are so important. If it were simply "luck" in theory there should be no difference between knowing what pitch is coming, and not knowing, as it relates to the result of how a ball is hit. If BABIP were simply a measure of "luck" there should be no difference in results if you know what is coming, or if you don't. We all know that isn't true. Again, watching batting practice. In an extremely simplified version of baseball, these guys kill the ball. Yes, but the LUCK is where the ball is landing, not how hard he's hitting it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 09:49 AM) Luck implies that if the pitchers made no changes, Flowers would revert back to his old self. As I have consistently said, he will take a plunge when pitchers throw out the old book on Flowers and make new adjustments. That isn't "bad luck" or a lack of "luck". That is baseball, and pitchers trying to get out batters. All those numbers say it what I can see on my TV screen. Flowers and probably Steverson figured some things out and have plan of attack for how pitchers are going after Flowers. When the pitchers change, so will Flowers numbers. That has nothing to do with luck. And no has ever said the guy was a .350 hitter. That is absurd. He won't be a .350 hitter because pitchers won't pitch him the same way. No, I think you're still missing what I'm saying. Here's a Flowers flowchart of the argument being made: PART 1: Flowers' approach. Decreased O-swing, increased contact NOT luck; sustainable PART 2: Flowers' batted ball profile. Increased LD rate, decreased FB rate NOT luck; probably not entirely sustainable (hot hand) PART 3: Flowers' batted ball results .357 xBABIP vs. .600 BABIP Luck; the improvement afforded by I and II should earn him a 40-50 point increase in BABIP, not a 300 point increase This third part is, essentially, just that balls are falling where defenders aren't. This is the part that is very much mostly luck. The likeliness of the types of hits he's been getting to fall is baked in to the xBABIP formula. To suggest that his improvement is allowing him to receive hits at a greater rate than historical batted ball coefficients is, again, to suggest that he has developed preternatural bat control. So, again, there IS real, sustainable improvement that has come from his approach. But it's only good for about a 40-50 point increase in BABIP. Which is significant, but it's not near enough to make him the star-level hitter his number are suggesting.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) The most surprising name on that list, to me, is Austin Jackson. Not because he's poor hitter, but because it shows how the evolution of the game has changed over 100 years. Old school thought was always to do what you could to put the ball in play, and while overall stuff has improved over the last 100 years, you sure don't see guys striking out less than 10% of the time anymore (nevermind the 1.7% that Wee Willie Keeler did). Guys are taught that striking out isn't as bad anymore and that a lot of times it's better to try and make good, hard contact on the ball rather than making weak outs. There are other guys on that list with high K% too - Choo, Trout, even Votto and Jeter, comparatively speaking. Yeah, makes you wonder if it's a generational talent thing (pitchers are super good and/or hitters just extra bad at the moment) or if it's genuinely a coaching philosophy to prefer extra bases to on-base rates. I actually tend to think it's more of the former -- it nicely explains how pitchers could throw 400 innings in a season if they simply weren't throwing nearly as hard. I wish we had contact rates for guys back then.

It's pretty safe to say that if the bat gets to be ML-caliber, they'll find a place to put it in the lineup.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 05:31 AM) I am going to ask of those posters who are way smarter than I to answer this, is it the weather or is it the pitching stress of learning different types of pitches at the young age ? That is the bajillion dollar question.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 06:19 AM) Many teams have success with the rotating DH strategy. The key is to not have Mark Kotsay involved in anyway This