Eminor3rd

Why are we assuming that the Sox are counting Abreu's signing bonus as part of the 2014 payroll ceiling?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) Assumming the catcher everyone or at least a majority of people would really be happy with in 2015 or 2016 is available at a reasonable price this offseason could also be a reach. Someone has to catch. If AJ is the best choice, I don't see him "taking ABs" away from Flowers or Phegley is wrong, because obviously if getting a catcher is a top priority, those are not guys the team is going to be building with anyway. If you aren't going to go after McCann, is it wise to lock yourself into Salty? This guy was benched during the World Series. If that is a guy you want to give $10 million a year for multiple years? Obviously the White Sox want to acquire guys that will perform and be with the team for years, but the odds are stacked against that being possible. I don't see AJ coming back, but those so opposed, I don't see the point. Not everyone on the 2016 White Sox will be acquired this winter. It's just that it delays the inevitable. We aren't going to find all our 2016 White Sox this year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be searching for all of them. I'd rather snatch a reclamation project like Kurt Suzuki or something than AJ.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Nov 10, 2013 -> 11:01 PM) The weak Alexei to St. Louis rumor should be dead now. The Cards and Rockies are discussing a Tulowitzki trade (Cards would be incredible if he stays healthy). On an unrelated note, Gordon Beckham got married yesterday. The Tulo rumor appears to be pretty weak as well.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) I don't follow your reasoning. Why would some other catcher be the answer to our turning things around? We were pretty successful with AJP behind the plate Because our team is bad and AJ is old. Bad teams need players to be young so that they will be good for several yeasrs, forming a semi-permanent foundation to which the team can add and develop other players.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Ramirez had a .690 OPS and .373 SLG from the 2 spot. In the three spot it went to .713 and .413. Specifically for homers, he hit 2 in 372 PAs in the 2 spot. He hit 3 in 158 PAs in the 3 spot. He only had 27 PAs in the 6 spot and was awful. In the 7 spot he only had 77 PAs put hit 1 homer, and .695 OPS/ .384 SLG. None of these samples are big enough to be predictive, though.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Dude, Gordon Beckham sucks. Yeah. The thing with him is that he doesn't even look good when he's hot. He just looks like he's running into some balls. He has never really seemed " dialed in" to me. Hits just fall in for a couple weeks at a time.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) So much for Bryan Pena. Signs a 2 year deal with the Reds. Going to back up Mesaroco. Hanigan likely to get traded. Came here to post that, too. I wouldn't have minded Pena in the absence of a bigger move.

QUOTE (wardo @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 03:12 AM) Been following the forum for a while. First post. My realistic 2014 lineup. CF: DeAza (don't see him as a non-tender candidate) 2B: Beckham RF: Garcia 1B: Abreu LF: Viciedo DH: Dunn/possibly PK 3B: Gillaspie/Keppinger SS: Ramirez C: Flowers/Phegley/Dioner Navarro Rotation: 1. Sale 2. Quintana 3. Santiago 4. Someone like Phil Hughes/Johnson 5. Danks Welcome!

If they get a position player, I'd just like them to prioritize the hit tool. Worried some guy's power might not develop? Fine. If he has bat-to-ball skills, I'll gamble on the rest of his game. Would much rather that than gamble on speed turning a guy into a five-tooler.

I mean I don't think they're going to sweat it if they have to keep him without figuring the starter out, but a million bucks is a million bucks. I'd be surprised if Hahn wouldn't want to get it sorted out first if at all possible.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) Viciedo and DeAza are almost certain to be kept. The only way Beckham and Flowers aren't kept is if replacements for them are acquired before the December 2 deadline. Yeah, that deadline is interesting. I'd be surprised in Hahn's first move isn't to try to get a catcher. Because Flowers is an obvious non-tender on every team except ours.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) I assumed when he said "look into taking advantage of" that it was something that would require effort on the part of the Sox. If the Cubs leave WGN and that leads to increasing White Sox viewership on the same channel, that doesn't require any effort on the part of the White Sox. Although I'd consider giving up a kidney to get them off WCIU, if that helps. I'd consider giving up your kidney for that too

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) So there is no situation that you would ever recommend going against a 90% success rate. I'm just saying that if there were other factors involved, it wouldn't be a 90% rate. Wite is assuming that when it comes down to it, it's 90%. As to whether or not you'd take the chance, it depends on the risk/reward. But in this case, it's win or loss and standing pat isn;t an option. So yeah, I tazke 90% success over 10% success every time.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) Depends on the variables involved at the time. Those are baked into the "1 in 10" part

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:44 AM) But that is one reason I used 3%. If the OBP the next AB goes from .320 to .350, that's an increase of 3%. If the odds the bullpen implodes are 3%, it's pretty much a wash. I'll go with the guy who is cruising as long as his pitch count isn't inflated and he's feeling fine instead of the unknown. If he gives up a hit or 2, then you take him out. And that is what Ozzie did during the WS, and what he would have done during the ALCS. If you don't need your bullpen, there is no point using them. Here's SOME context: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/sd-md/ So that's vague, but it fits with your estimation of Jenks. A "handful" could be 3 and a season's worth of appearance for him was about 60, and 3/60 = 5% So you're choosing between adding 30 points or so to the batter's OPS versus taking a 5% chance on a meltdown from your RP.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL! Yes. But there is a MASSIVE difference between an educated guess and a random/gut feeling/whatever guess based on nothing. That's the point: dismissing something that doesn't prove everything all the time is stupid. You don't need absolute certainty for something to be useful.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) Just looking at his game logs in 2005, Bobby Jenks gave up 3 runs in a game himself 3 times. For it to be 3%, the team only had to do it 5 times. Yeah, like I said, definitely plausible. Just wondering if there is a larger sample consensus on those things. Like, for example, is a team's or player's SD/MD predictive from year to year, or does it need much higher samples? Seems like this is something that has probably been looked at and should definitely be factored into the discussion.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:35 AM) It would be interesting to see the actual comments after these games. I bet there was more Ozzie was a genius than idiot. Probably more interesting would be the gamethread when El Duque shut down Boston. I know when he was trotting in I was WTFing, and when it worked out, I didn't think of Ozzie as a guy who made a dumb decision that somehow worked out. I wasn't thinking that either.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Too many variables involved. This is not strat-o-matic. According to what? How are there too many variable involved? What are they? What is the threshold for "too many?" There are always too many variables involved to predict the future with certainty. That does NOT mean you shouldn't use what you know to hedge your chances. Just randomly guessing when you don't have to isn't really trying very hard. There are too many variables involved in human biology to ever really get the field of medicine right. Should we stop trying? Has our incomplete picture of medicine NOT helped us increase the quality of our lives?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) Considering you are using sabermetrics for your argument which is heavily dependant on math, I think you would have to agree the 1 in 1000 that the Sox bullpen implodes isn't anywhere near accurate. I would say there would be at least a 3% chance they implode. Probably nearly the same as the difference of the percentage of getting on base between the 3rd and 4th times through the order. You MIGHT be right, that sounds like a plausible number. But you might also be wrong. Might there be research that shows this so we can judge the accuracy or your estimate? Maybe a league-wide shutdown/meltdown ratio? Somebody put some effort into that stat a couple years ago.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point. Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have. How many time in a row will you need to post this before Marty stops asking the same question?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:03 AM) How this offseason unfolds (keeping or dealing Quintana) may give a clue about who they think will be available at #3. I think there's just WAY too much that can change with the draft class next spring to be making moves now based on that. It's just weird because they still have a whole season that is going to happen before June.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) The result is the only thing that matters. If you want to think Ozzie was a genius because he left his pitchers in, fine. If you want to think Ozzie was "not smart" for not yanking his pitchers, fine. The Sox won. Why have a problem with what was done 8 years later? I don't think we do. I mean that was started the argument, but I feel like both wite and I have been trying to steer it away from 2005 as much as possible. I only revived the thread because I saw that article that I thought was a much more complete and clear numerical argument than what we'd been referring to from FanGraphs. I'd rather discuss the merits of the short/long hook versus what Ozzie did. I'm glad we won.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series. At no point, has anyone argued that Ozzie should not have allowed his pitchers to throw complete games in the World Series. No one. At any point in this thread. We were arguing the general idea of the "genius," or lack thereof, of having a long hook on starters because greg associated it with Ozzie and his greatness.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions.