OmarComing25

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 12:26 PM) Now that it's official I really like the fact that the Sox have finally hired a guy who had managed before at the major league level. I think that's important. And he took a Cubs team that was trying to tank and they had a winning record after the All Star break if I remember correctly. What I don't like is that the Sox did not conduct a real search, it's clear they had already decided on Renteria weeks ago. Waiting a week or 10 days, you never know who might become available. I also think that even though he has only been there a short time, I don't like the fact that the Sox yet again, stayed in the "family"...no outsiders permitted. What they desperately need are outside viewpoints, fresh looks at the issues facing them. And of course will Renteria be allowed to pick his own coaches? Probably not all of them. We'll see what the off season brings. Overall I think Renteria is an improvement over Ventura but not as much as I was hoping for. Mark Again, how is Renteria "staying in the family", he's been here for months, not years.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 11:53 AM) If it was that easy to be a closer, more than 2-3% of those former/failed starters could do it. Either all those MLB execs are wrong and emulating the Yankees or Royals is not possible as a blueprint, or high leverage situations are more difficult to pitch than innings 1-3. Let's not forget that those are close to max effort outings every time, especially when pitching 1 1/3rd+ innings. Of course, another problem is repeatability...and the fact that Britton coukd just as easily look like Jim Johnson as Davis/Betances next year. Or look at career years for guys like Thigpen or Willie Hernandez...other than Mo Rivera and Trevor Hoffman and maybe K Rod, few could it well for 10+ years without going off a Brad Lidge. It's also not taking into consideration the AL East had three playoff teams and a pretty decent Yankees team in the same division...it's not like he was rolling over the Twins, A's and Angels every time out. Over half of Britton's (relatively extremely light) workload came from facing the bottom third of the order, and that's without facing any 2nd or 3rd time through the order penalty that every starting pitcher does. I'd much rather face the 6-9 hitters from the Blue Jays or Red Sox than have to go through the entire lineups of the Twins, A's and Angels multiple times.

If the free agent pool was deeper, then there would be no question that they'd go for it again, but it's just so shallow that I'm currently sitting about 50/50 about whether they will sell off or not. Who would we even buy?

With all the chatter about Britton's Cy Young chances I thought this post from Reddit by user yesacabbagez summed it up perfectly why he shouldn't win:

A tiebreaker would have been cool, but I can't say I'm unhappy the Tigers didn't make it.

Hendricks might have cost himself the Cy Young with that first inning.

I really don't understand the view that Renteria is an in-house or organizational hire, he's been here for just a few months. He's not at all like the usual Sox manager hire.

If KW really does step down then the Shields trade immediately goes from awful to great.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) Porcello makes his final start tonight. Could really use a nice RIGHT THERE FRED from Toronto to knock down that pretty ERA. Bill Burr fan?

Both Heyman and Rosenthal support Britton for Cy Young, but if they can justify Britton despite his lack of innings how do they both not vote for Kershaw in the NL?

@keithlaw Zach Britton faced Pillar, Barney, Navarro. This is another reason making a one-inning closer Cy Young is just silly. Turn a lineup over. Got to agree with Keith here, pitching only one inning at a time means closers often miss facing good hitters. Plus, a lot of the elite starting pitchers could at least come close to what Britton is doing but the reverse isn't true.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) Some great moves last season has really helped their pitching future. Fulmer is going to regress, Boyd is bad, and Zimmermann can't strike out anyone anymore, that deal isn't going to look good.

Despite this I will still be very surprised if he comes back, it doesn't make sense for so many reasons, and I'm in the camp that managers matter very little.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 05:59 PM) So you don't think those who are torn on say Porcello and Kluber (2 I feel are likely to win) won't look at how each performed in the post season to make a decision? Of course they would. Isn't the voting done before the postseason begins?

I'll be very shocked if Britton wins it.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 10:43 PM) I think the problem with the offense is, as has been stated, striking out too much. This team does not seem to value not giving up outs. Not striking out means forcing the opposing defense to make a play to get an out. Considering that a given player's defensive value is typically increased by not screwing up, there is value to putting the ball in play. By striking out, an offense is limiting the amount of times that the opposing defense must make a play to record an out, thereby limiting the number of times they will screw up. Not striking out puts pressure on the other team and gives your offense more opportunities to score runs. This is a skill the White Sox should value more than they currently do, including teaching it throughout the system. The Sox are 18th in the MLB in K% this year and were 18th last year. They actually strike out less often than average, but that clearly hasn't helped. The bottom 5 walk rate they've had (haven't had a walk rate in the top 20 since 2009) is far more concerning.

Kershaw once again leads the MLB in WAR among pitchers despite only pitching 135 innings. He has a 1.73 ERA yet is actually underperforming his peripherals. He should be a serious Cy Young contender.

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/CyYoungTracker.py This is also probably a more accurate Cy Young tracker than the ESPN one (though it's probably undervaluing Britton).

He'll have a case but while relievers have won it in the past, they all pitched significantly more innings. Britton is going to end up with less than 70 innings.

Jon Gray with a complete game shutout with no walks and 16 strikeouts at Coors. That's crazy.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Sep 17, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) Saladino has had an 18 game hot streak (OPS of .935 in that span). Before that, he was at a .674 OPS. That puts him dead last among qualified MLB 2Bs. Now at .738, there are only five MLB two-baggers below him (Phillips, Gennett, Panik, Utley and Harrison). Let's not act like Saladino is some proven hitter who can only be prevented from starting at second next year by the acquisition of Moncada or better. He's had a nice 18 games, but he's been BAD for most of his career. If regular Tyler (as in the player we've seen for 88% of his career) shows up and he's a starter, we are going to sink hard. Are you also discounting every other player's best 18-game stretch? Why shouldn't it count?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 17, 2016 -> 12:10 AM) I don't know if it saves him or not, but it's pretty obvious that's what Ventura is trying to do. Development is usually the priority for non contenders in September. It's not even an afterthought for this organization. And Hahn hasn't done a thing to change it, so he obviously sanctions this behavior. It's not just Sale going 119 (he's throwing Q and Rodon like that too). As for tantrums, who's running this operation? Sale? And they're going to reach .500 - probably a little above. Who are they not developing that they should?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/15...-sox-.html?_r=1 Apparently before the game yesterday Abreu told a boy with cancer he'd try to hit a homerun for him.

Fangraphs has the Cubs at 17.2% odds to win it all (Red Sox are 2nd at 15.5%). That's about a 56% chance on average to win each series, that feels about right. Aside from the usual reasons to root against them, I don't want them to win because it's already almost impossible for a lot of people to talk about the Sox without mentioning the Cubs (and this doesn't happen vice-versa), but if the Cubs win it all then this will become 10 times worse, including (especially?) here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) I hope you are not using this to show that somehow there is not a disproportionate amount of minorities who are the victims of police shootings. According to the 2010 US survey the percentage of the US population was as follows: 72.4% white 12.6% black/african american So black people make up 12.6% of the population but account for 28% of the shootings. Ill let you figure out what the problem is (hint its that the ratio is completely out of whack.) And honestly, what is the point of just posting a quote and not actually giving your opinion on it. It leaves the reader trying to assume what you are trying to prove. My guess is that you were trying to show that there actually isnt a problem because more white people get shot. But thats like saying if there are 10million white people and 100 black people, that there is no problem when 150 white people get shot as compared to 99 black people. I mean 150 > 99 right? Old cliche, statistics never lie, but liars use statistics. Wouldn't the more relevant statistic in determining if there's a racial bias in police shootings be the percentage of victims that were shot where lethal force was not justified (the percentage of times where lethal force was justified but not taken could be enlightening too)? If the percentage of unjustified shootings is the same between white and black victims then it shouldn't matter that the numbers don't match the demographics of the general population. The fact that minorities tend to end up in such situations more often is definitely a problem, but that's really a separate issue than what we're talking about here.