Eminor3rd

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) 2013 Addison Reed 2.9 BB/9 2013 Aroldis Chapman 4.1 BB/9

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 25, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) fangraphs has a helpful link up that shows the historical league average for the past decade or so: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/plate-discipline/ 30% is league average...Viciedo was at an awful 42.5% last year, and was trending in the wrong direction entirely, as that was up from 36% and 40% in '11 and '12. So, for him to now get back down to 34% is pretty impressive. Usually these numbers start to normalize around 100 PA so he's onto something here. If he's still at around 34% by July you can probably say this is a new, improved Viciedo. edit: ht to Eminor. Awesome news on the normalization sample.

Another promising number: 91.4% Z-Contact compared to a career 83.7%. No idea if that's sustainable, but if so, above average zone contact + above average power is really promising. League average is usually ~87%

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) I'm not calibrated on that number...is that actually good or is that just good relative to what he was doing before? League average is usually ~31%. Visiendo's year by year: 38.7%, 36.4%, 39.9%, 42.5%

Used to LOVE this guy. Thought he was way under the radar with the Yankees. Has been extra bad though. Hopefully he's a Coop candidate.

34% O-Swing! If he keeps that up, I'll fly in to Chicago and have a session on the upper concourse where you guys can all stone me for hating on him so hard. Still waiting for the other shoe to fall, though. Hope he proves me wrong.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 24, 2014 -> 09:59 PM) Our offense is good enough to make almost anyone a winner. No not you Felix Diaz. Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandy Williams?

I don't know, guys, do you want to attach those criteria to the definition of the word "rookie?" I see what you're getting at, but a rookie is a rookie. I think the ROY award is designed to identify breakout players for fans, and I think that's what it does.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 25, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) Good thing the D-Backs gave up on Eaton. I think they just felt like Pollock would be almost as good and Eaton wasn't liked by some guys in the clubhouse. Seemed logical to move him.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Apr 24, 2014 -> 09:48 PM) Didn't like this deal when it happened, his stats aren't helping his cause now, total bust (hopefully not), couldn't hit Zach f***in Stewart last week, I've loved Reed since his days in Kanny where I saw his velocity in action, much rather have extended instead of deal him for this bum, hopefully he proves me wrong Calling him a total bust is a bit aggressive. He's age appropriate for his level and we're 24 days into the season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2014 -> 08:46 AM) I've never understood it. Teams have 4 or 5 righties in their rotation all the time. The World Champion White Sox had 4. So what if they had 4 lefites. If 4 lefty starters is a no no, then shouldn't 1 be a no no? Get good pitchers. Don't worry about what side they throw from. And, to further that, don't worry even what position they play. All that matters is who is the BPA that the Sox are confident they can turn into a ML player. For the 800th time -- this is not the NFL or NBA. So many things will change by the time these draftees are ready to go, it's not realistic to draft for need. The only type of player you can realistically PLAN and being in the Majors the same year or next would be a pitcher that could be a RP, and if some GM uses #3 overall to get an extra bullpen arm for this year, he should be fired. There is literally not a single player in the entire White Sox system that should be considered a "block" to any player in this draft.

As of today, I'd be pleased with SIGNING Rodon at 3. But I think there's a real possibility that he goes the Appel route, in which case I want the Sox to be goddamn sure about being able to sign him if they draft him. Because of this conundrum, I'd rather him just be of the board.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Apr 23, 2014 -> 10:38 PM) I'm not even gonna touch this one. It's gonna turn on the E Minor bat signal. I don't want to get dude out of bed. lol

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Apr 23, 2014 -> 07:59 PM) Matty Ice shuts it down!

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Apr 23, 2014 -> 05:12 PM) If I understanding that tweet correctly, we have shifted more than any other team, therefore we have more outs recorded via the shift.....okay...isn't that to be expected? Wouldn't you also assume the team that shifts the LEAST has the most amount of "in zone" outs recorded? Does that correlation then mean that you should never shift? I'm just failing to see how this proves the shift does or doesn't work. It's like saying the team that bunts the most has the most sacrifice bunts, therefore sac bunting is always the right thing to do. It doesn't. It just shows that we went from a defense that NEVER shifted last year to one that shifts as much as anyone this year.

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Apr 14, 2014 -> 09:49 PM) Man... the Charlotte Knights are going to be tough to beat this year. They're 6-13

QUOTE (oldsox @ Apr 23, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) The Sox web site lists him as prospect #15 with an ETA of 2016. lol

Engel is my dude.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 22, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) Over under 4.5 walks for Leesman today. Over. I think they want him to eat 7 innings today.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:58 PM) What's the better stat, FIP or xFIP? Also, we couldn't even get a lottery ticket prospect for Lindstrom last year. I'm not saying he's a horrible reliever, but he's not a closer and that's not just based on his performance so far this year. They're just different. FIP is a descriptive statistic, xFIP is a predictor. Or, another way: FIP is what happened, xFIP is what SHOULD have happened. The major difference in the calculation is that xFIP regresses HR rate, which is by far the most unstable factor involved.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:22 PM) Forgive me, what's FIP? Fielding Independent Pitching. Basically, it's ERA based on only the "true outcomes" of pitching -- HR, BB, and K. It's an attempt to strip the effects of defense and batted ball luck from pitcher evaluation. It's typically used to identify regression candidates. If a guy's ERA is drastically lower than his FIP, he's probably getting lucky from good defense, conveniently placed balls in play, and/or fortunate hit sequencing, like if all the HRs he gives up are with the bases empty, or he strands way more runners than usual. If a guy's ERA is drastically higher than his FIP, the opposite is true and he's a good candidate to start seeing much better results given the same input. Over time, FIP has shown to be among the better predictors of statistical regression on pitchers, but there are exceptions -- guys that seem to consistently post FIPs higher or lower than their ERAs year after year. The guys that "beat" FIP and defy negative regression are those that seem to have a knack for inducing weak contact, like Bronson Arroyo, or those that seem to have an inhuman ability to never give up homeruns, like Matt Cain. The guys on the other end are those that never seem to live up to their potential, like Ricky Nolasco or Bud Norris, or those that are good but really seem like they should/could be elite on better teams, like Zack Greinke or Javy Vazquez.

Let's just f***ing forfeit if there's no CG

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 01:14 PM) I think this is the biggest mistake/misrepresentation of stats. I don't think any are predictive in nature. I think they are all reactionary based on history. They are only predictive to the extent that history repeats itself in the same form that it has already happened. This is an excellent point and is exactly what I was trying to get across to Marty a few days ago RE: "track record." The advanced stats we have now, particularly those that measure offense, are very good at accurately describing results. But very few are good at predicting the future with any level of precision. The best we can do now is identify the factors that will affect results going forward, but we can't get much past "it'll get worse" or "it'll get better." There are just too many factors involved. Players are changing, teams are changing, the environment is always changing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) It will be interesting to see what effect shifts have on defensive metrics moving forward. Your infielders won't require as much range, I think sure-handedness will become a premium. I was watching ESPN last night and the White Sox are 4th in baseball right now using shifts. Houston is far and away #1. I do think, at least defensively, the eye test is much better than UZR. Jeter's name gets thrown out there, but the only people who have thought he was elite defensively are those voting for GG, and we all know offense has come into play for that award. 3 years for results? Do we not yet know if Viciedo is a good OF or not? The shift is a huge issue. Right now, BIS simply ignores plays when shifts are implemented, because they don't know how to deal with them. This wasn't a huge deal even a few years ago, but shifts are becoming so common that large chunks of data are starting to be ignored, further reducing our already barely large enough samples. Fortunately the MLBAM stuff they're implementing now will actually use analysis of recorded video rather than simply positioning points like UZR. Things are about to get much better there.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) And if defensive metrics need 3 seasons to be accurate, doesn't that mean that WAR ultimately may not be accurate? No, it means WAR ultimately may not be predictive. Defensive metrics in low samples are accurate, but they aren't predictive.