Eminor3rd

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 12:31 PM) Luck had nothing to do with this year. Timely injuries, horrible defense, and even worse baserunning are the big problem. Right, so from a front office/roster building perspective, luck had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Based on what I know about AAAA White Sox pitchers, Axelrod is due to throw a perfect game tonight.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) This also brings about the idea of "clutch." In almost every circumstance, there is no such thing as "clutch." Guys will have "clutch" seasons but they will also have seasons where they are not "clutch," when in reality their numbers will not be signficantly different. Now, you can surely find areas where some guys are better or worse, but at the end of the day, Dunn's splits with RISP - .224/.395/.457/.852 - and with no one on base - .238/.345/.496/.842 . The other thing it brings up to me, and this was read in Baseball Between the Numbers, which is a BP book, is that Mike Redmond hit like .500 in his career against Tom Glavine. There are extreme sample size issues though, and while Redmond may have had a bead on Glavine, over time that would have evened out and Redmond only would have been a .300 hitter (or whatever) against Glavine in his career. When you hear people (Hawk) say "he sees him well, he's 4 for 9, 2 of those hits left the yard," you should say to yourself "that means absolutely nothing whatsoever because he could just as easily go 0 for his next 3 and suddenly he's not even hitting that well. These two were both way off topic, but they popped into my head right away. Yep. When SABR guys say "clutch" doesn't exist, they aren't saying that pressure and emotion are not parts of performance, they are simply saying that "clutch" does not exist as a predictive statistic. Largescale studies have shown, overwhelmingly, that no matter the particular "pressure" situation (i.e. versus a pitcher, in the ninth, RISP, playoffs, etc.), his career numbers are a better predictor for his future outcomes than his previous performance in similar situations. It's a matter of smaller sample data. Clutch is real, it just isn't something you can use to make roster decisions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) I think this is also where the non-stat crowd gets some ammo. The same group of individual, high priced talent, has bombed for the second year in a row as a group. The problem might not be the individuals, but how they all fit together. The Sox have had the same thing happen over the years too. No doubt -- and that's a part of the job that AA has to do too. The due diligence about how the team will work together. It's just interesting that we never really get a large enough sample of a group of guys to be able to definitively tell if it is a chemistry issue or not, and so we have to rely on intuition both in building the team and evaluating the results. This is another factor that simply cannot be predicted reliably, though you can do better with intuition here than with something like event distribution. Very difficult to be a GM.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Why would you want to keep a player who nobody would offer anything of value for? Because unlike all those other teams, you have already committed $15m to him. That money is a sunk cost. That no other team wants him for $15m does not make him valueless. We don't want him at $15m either, but we already bought him at $15m. If you bought an expensive car, realized it wasn't worth it, but couldn't get anyone to buy it from you for enough that you could recoup your loss, would you give it away? Would you leave it in the garage and buy another car instead? No, because you still need to drive to work. The money you paid is gone, and the car is still your best way to get to work, even if you overspent on it. So until a better option for transportation presents itself, you drive the car.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) My favorite story I've ever read was one where they took a league full of 30 completely average teams in every way - neutralizing for anything and everything - and they ran 1000 seasons worth of simulations. At the end of nearly every single one of those seasons, you had a fair number teams with 88-92 wins and a fair number of teams with 70-74 wins. The conclusion was that the only determining factor in all of those teams was merely luck. Not everything is that cut and dry in the majors today, but more of it is than people realize. I think, talent wise, this Sox team was probably about 79-81 wins coming into the year. Due to injury and trades, they are going to finish well below that 10 game threshold, but if they end up around 64 or 65 wins, it's going to end up right around that mark (Peavy is at 1.3 fWAR and Thornton at 0.3 fWAR in Boston, Rios is at 0.7 fWAR in Texas, and Gavin Floyd is typically a 2-4 fWAR pitcher who was out for the year and struggled previously due to injury). If the Sox make solid additions and are bold but smart with their offseason moves, I definitely think they can go into next year with a team that's got 85-87 win talent and then you hope you get the breaks from there. Yes, this is so important for everyone to understand. That was either in The Book or Baseball Between the Numbers, right? It's also critical for the anti-SABR crowd to understand what you mean when you say "luck" there -- it's not luck that determines those events on the field, it's a player's distribution of performances. From a front office perspective when trying to project how its team will perform, event distribution "acts as luck" because it cannot be reliably predicted. So he's not saying players just run out there flail around and get lucky or unlucky, just that where their successes or failures fall and how they coincide with those of their opponents is beyond the player's control. A .300 hitter will get the hit 3 out of ten times, but which three of those ten will be hits is effectively random when trying to make a projection over the course of a baseball season. Front offices need to be confident their team's talent is within those error bars, and then it's up to the players to go out and succeed. Run this season over again, and the Blue Jays and Red Sox might switch places. AA and his team put enough talent on the field to compete, that just just didn't compete. A lot of little things can ad up in one direction or the other over 162 games.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 11:35 AM) The Indians and Royals went into the year with plans of being "competitive." They are not going to win the Central, but both still have very legitimate chances at winning a Wild Card. They are also both set up to be (what I like to call) "BETTER" next year. That might not happen and they may fall back, but they have teams capable of winning 90 games in 2014. If the Sox go into next year with a goal of winning 85 games, you are looking at a team that's not going to win 85 games simply because of the nature of baseball is one of volatility and unpredictability. If they stay really healthy and their performance is up to par, they'd probably win 88 games, but if they suffer from injury and underperformers, they probably only win 75-78. That is the nature of the beast. Beyond that, at least an 85 win team is interesting for most of the year. As a fan, I prefer that than the POS the Sox ran out in June, July, and August. --- Regarding Dunn, he also has a tendency to hit balls a lot ways. Chicks still dig the long ball. You aren't getting anything valuable for him and, in fact, you'd probably still have to pick up $5-7 million MINIMUM just to get a team to take him on to save you some money. It's not smart business. This ^ You have to get within the error bars. 10 or so games will be decided purely by luck. If your true talent is 85 wins, you're in the race. And getting rid of Dunn makes no sense, Marty. If you could get something of value, you'd trade him, but you can't, so you have to use him. There's no argument for eating money to get rid of him other than tanking for more losses, which does not sit well the with fanbase, the league office, or the player's union. You can hate him, but there's no one better to replace him.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 20, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) I can't believe only 5 picked under 500. Hindsight is 20/20, eh?

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/that-time-the...price-is-right/ Click the link for the picture. Because it's September 20th and we're 60-92.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) But if our slow pitchers helped cause the defensive woes ... and if the defensive woes caused us to lose 33 one-run games, hmmmm would he have been worth signing? If it was up to you, we'd have a $275m payroll of 35 year olds.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) If you were him, would you be trying to lock up a 6 year, 9 figure deal this offseason or would you try to push your luck to stay healthy the whole way? I'd take the money and hit free agency again. But I'm not already making ~$500k per year like he is.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) This conversation led me to look up some numbers...it appears that this Mike Trout fella is pretty good. Yeah that kid is going to be so filthy rich if he stays healthy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) Nice work

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 06:37 PM) 7 bWAR. His fWAR isn't as spectacular. Good catch. I didn't notice that.

http://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/..._puts_him_in_a/ Someone put a chart together listing Chris Sale and the 11 other pitchers in history to put up 7+ WAR seasons but end up with a sub-.500 record.

Lol, I've never seen a thread crash and burn so quickly and efficiently.

Yay marketing!

Quick hands there by Semien.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) This is the concern with any player that isn't in the MLB. You look at what he does when he isn't doing well and then you wonder...will those things happen a BUNCH at the next level and be his downfall? It's difficult to tell. Yeah, it comes down to the Sox scouting assessment. If they feel like his swing won't translate, I wouldn't pay a dollar for him. But if they are among those high on him, they should really go balls out.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 11:26 AM) I'm still liking taking a chance on Chase Headley even if it takes Santiago to get him. He's a gold glove 3rd basemen who if you discard his 1 really bad month still put up a .269/.361/.473(inflated by his .308/.400/.718 September so far.....763 ops if you discard Sept)....I know people will bring up how he only had 1 big year but if you look at his home/road splits he's put up an ops over .800 in 2011(.864), 2009(.803), and 2008(.831) on the road as well. So I think taking him out of Petco and putting him in the Cell will do him a lot of good....I'd like to get him for less than Santiago if possible but probably wouldn't hesitate to do it straight up. But he's 30 and a pending free agent next year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) Assuming they were to get rid of Kendrick, I think they'd have interest in Beckham, but whether they'd give up Bourjos for him is something I'd question just due to cost and service time alone. Trying to think of impact bats that could be available is a bit more difficult. Are we talking about impact bats like Jose Bautista or perhaps other smaller bats instead? Unfortunately we're probably still talking prospects if we're considering moving Santiago/Quintana. I actually don't think the Brewers would even move Gomez for one of those two guys, but I agree the thought makes sense on paper.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) Angels, like the Brewers, will be looking for pitching. Indeed. I don't think I'd give them one of our starters for anything they have available. Maybe Bourjos + Cowart + Cron, but that sounds like a lot in current prospect dollars.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) I like Gomez, and while I agree he's not a +20, I also think he's better than the +5 he showed last year. I think he's legitimately a +10-12 defender in CF, which is still incredibly valuable. I think the power is for real, I think he is about a 115 wRC+ offensively, and I still think there's room to grow. The question is: do you want to pay a premium for a marginal upgrade offensively, or perhaps deal for someone like Bourjos while taking a hit offensively? Yeah, I think that is the real question. Since we have no offense even in our corners, I feel like we need to save our bullets for a true impact bat, even if it's a lumbering first baseman. I'd swap busts for Bourjos and try to get a stick with Santiago. Angels are supposedly going to try to deal Kendrick in the offseason, think they might want Beckham as a stopgap replacement?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 08:21 AM) ARGH lol, you KNOW he edited that line in, too. He read over the post, saw nothing controversial, and had to go back and throw an oldie in.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Sep 16, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) "Garcia is hitting .225 since starting out .360 with the White Sox" I told you guys it wasn't sustainable. Not saying he can't improve, but he needs to learn to identify pitches before he's going to be an impact hitter.