Bananarchy

QUOTE (Superstar Lamar @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) Why would anyone get angry over the opinion of a person regarding an international player when that person is not an international scout nor has never seen the player? He is talking outside of his area of expertise. I'm not sure why he would have even offered an opinion on the matter. I'm also not sure why he was asked for his opinion on the matter. He's not unqualified. His information came from international scouts. People don't want to hear the antithesis to what they believe.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) If you only look at one metric to determine the performance of a player then the answer would be yes. Of course if only look at strikeouts he's pretty mediocre as well. Jose Quintana was 10th in WAR in 2016. One stat that shows about where he belongs.

QUOTE (FT35 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) Wins as they are defined now, maybe. Mediocre, no, but Hall-of Fame? ehhh...I don't know...still early, but I would say no now even if he continues down this same path for the rest of his career. It's more the way the game is played now. The fact is, wins don't really mean anything. The fact that you can blow a save and still get a win is stupid. And starters only pitch 6-7 innings now anyway. It just doesn't make sense as a stat anymore.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) You are incorrect on this. There is just a group that doesn't take it seriously. Thank you for the insult by the way. I don't think you can come with any single stat or number that encompasses all factors. You should look at all of the information available to make a sound decision (on anything really) and totally ignoring any information just because it doesn't encompass everything is a poor way to go about the decision making process. All information is valuable. Just because some people who look too narrowly at information have a judgement on that piece doesn't mean it's an absolute standard. Wins don't encompass anything. You can't draw a conclusion about one piece of the puzzle based solely on the performance of the whole, ESPECIALLY when the one piece is at best 35% of the picture. It's like grading intelligence based on head size. It's not meaningful

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:29 AM) The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value. Thought exercise: A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence. But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence. But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win. So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third. The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control. So basically you are saying 60% of the pitchers wins are invalid because they are due to outlying factors This is why no one with any level of baseball acumen takes pitching wins seriously QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still. You? Stuck in the past? You don't say.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:53 AM) I guess Lester could have a shot. Bumgarner if he gets back and pitches like this for 4-5 more years. Lester might get in because he played for the Red Sox and the Cubs. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) WAR is still a very flawed stat. But it's reasonably fair comparing players across eras. Pitching wins, by comparison, is NOT a stat.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) This is exactly why the exercise of comparing stats across eras is so futile. The game has changes and different phases. The comparison really needs to be with how dominant a player was in his own era as the first litmus test for the HOF. It's not really, though. WAR is adjusted for era. We know how much more dominant x player in the 1960s was verses today.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) i think you are wrong here. The value of them has decreased, rightfully so, but they are not meaningless. A 20 win pitcher vs. a 10 win pitcher, generally stayed in the game longer, was able to be more efficient with pitches, was able to be more competitive deeper into games. As someone said earlier it has decreased significance in a single season as in your example but carries a little more weight over multiple seasons or even a career. Win count does nothing to support your claim. Wins are meaningless. You're talking about innings pitched, pitch count.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:00 AM) Should we be concerned this singing hasn't been made official yet? No.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ May 23, 2017 -> 11:54 PM) Saying that wins "mean nothing" is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone would take. That said, I think it's completely reasonable to acknowledge that wins are far more a product of overall team performance and run support received by a pitcher than they are a product of pitcher performance. I don't think anyone would argue that a 20 win pitcher with a 4 ERA is better than a 10 win pitcher with a 3 ERA, given equal or nearly equal innings pitched. The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. Your example is a perfect example. A 3 ERA pitcher is (generally) better than a 4 ERA pitcher. A 20 win vs 10 win pitcher tells you almost nothing.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ May 23, 2017 -> 09:45 PM) Anybody else friends with Danny Mac on Facebook? He will accept almost anyone's request. Anyway he was at a wedding somewhere recently and he, Jurko and Harry took a photo together. ESPN 1000 has been horrible since they broke up. Really miss that show. That was far and away the best radio show in Chicago Sports. So much fun. Harry Teinowitz has lost SO much weight

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 23, 2017 -> 09:25 AM) http://www.insideradio.com/people_moves/ma...ee01fa52dd.html 16 years... CBS Radio sports “The Score” WSCR (670) Chicago producer/anchor Matt Abbatacola leaves the station after 16 years. According to Chicago media reporter Robert Feder, Abbatacola was passed over earlier this year for the co-host position with Dan Bernstein when Terry Boers retired in January. That position went to midday host Jason Goff who is now paired with Bernstein in afternoons. “The Score” operations manager Mitch Rosen confirmed Abbatacola’s exit telling Feder, “I wish him nothing but the best.” I'm very fond of Matt Abbatacola. Hope he finds a good landing place. QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 23, 2017 -> 10:47 AM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/break...0523-story.html Greenberg and Golic on "poisonous terms" apparently as show nears its end. This isn't surprising. Golic is clearly very unhappy with the direction they're going. Honestly, it will be a shame to see Greeny reduced to another ESPN talking head. I feel like in Mike and Mike he's better.

Rebuilds this early on aren't measured in wins or losses. I will say Rick isn't costing the team games at this point like Robin did.

He's joking it doesn't matter move on

What a non-playoffs

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 23, 2017 -> 06:37 AM) The Sox should be looking to cash in on Avi. Find someone who needs a bat this summer and turn him into 3 assets. They should also be cashing in on Jose Abreu given he's so much older than the new core. I get that from a tangibles point of view, but the White Sox should probably try to keep him happy and he will likely make up his value in taking care of the younger guys. It also helps that he's not our most valuable tradable asset by a long shot. If we were talking NL, I think I would agree with you, but with the DH we can hide Abreu just fine longer term.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ May 22, 2017 -> 04:10 PM) Does he have a lot of helium? He eats 10 Brussels Sprouts per every Twinkie Moncada eats

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 22, 2017 -> 04:07 PM) Would the Brewers trade Thames for Avi, and vice versa? Both essentially have three year deals, including 2017. $15 million/3 years is cheaper than we'll end up paying Avi if this continues. Thames is already 30 but LH. Which one is more likely to have "figured things out?" Already subject of PEDs rumors from the Cubs. Why would the White Sox do this?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 22, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) Where can I obtain a McFartington jersey?

As someone with an ethnic last name and an english first name, I no longer care. I don't care if he calls himself Poopdick McFartington if he can hit.

My coworker just congratulated me on the Robert signing. Lol

The sound off the bat. Dang. Go Sox.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 22, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) That would have my guess. Mine, too, but the name is clearly not Spanish. It would almost certainly be English or French

QUOTE (bmags @ May 22, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) White Sox confirmed it's Robert as in Robert Kennedy but, Badler today said the announcers mostly said it as Robert too, it just got confused when people assumed it was Robert due to it being of norman origin/latin/french pronunciation likely in Cuba. Right. That's what I was thinking as well. There's literally no way it was "Robert". Unless he went ahead and was like "I'm playing in America and I want to be a brand name, so let's go with the American pronunciation". Does anyone say Robert in the highlight videos? They're all speaking Spanish, so "Robert" like Redford would stick out.