ESPN Report: Kenny Looking at Scott Linebrink

[iamshack]

Since you are apparently a stats guy, if the guy's so fabulous, why does his career line look so much like David Riske's?

 

Total -- 281 6 0 0 340.1 295 122 112 35 123 303 24 8 2 79 14 2.96

Total -- 307 0 0 0 339.0 281 141 131 47 145 332 17 14 16 36 13 3.48

 

Which of these two stat lines is better? Especially when one is all NL, and the other is all AL?

 

The main thing Linebrink has on Riske is fewer gopher balls, which likely accounts for the difference in runs allowed and ERA. But at least some of that difference would be lessened by park and league adjustments. Otherwise, the WHIPs are essentially identical. Again, I'd take Linebrink over Riske too. I just wouldn't mortgage the farm to get him.

 

Well, the answer that has already been given was that Linebrink pitches in tougher situations in that he pitches in the 8th, whereas Riske is used more in terms of the 6th and 7th. That makes some sense on some levels, but I would need to see more evidence. I think it is possible to surmise that Linebrink pitches in more stressful situations because of his role. I don't necessarily agree though that there are more important situations which occur in the 6th or 7th than in the 8th. I think that may be more of our own creation, with the creation of the closer role and the setup man role, but in reality, there is nothing which says that the most important situations in a ballgame may not take place in the 6th or 7th innings.

[Kalapse]

Kalapse...question....I know we have been known to like Cesar Carrillo, as others have mentioned in this thread. I also know they may be shutting him down for the remainder of the season. If that was the case, could he indeed be traded still?

Yes, yes he could. If they were really going to trade him though they could just leave him active until a trade was finalized then it's the new team's responsibility to do whatever they want with him.

[iamshack]

Riske = 6th/7th inning

Linebrink = 8th/9th inning

 

It's pretty much as simple as that, it's easier to pitch in middle relief than it is in setup duty.

 

Are you really willing to just accept that premise so easily?

 

*Why* is it necessarily more difficult to pitch in middle relief than in the 8th inning?

 

Yes, yes he could. If they were really going to trade him though they could just leave him active until a trade was finalized then it's the new team's responsibility to do whatever they want with him.

 

Ok, just wanted to get that out of the way before we continued on down that road. He is very similar to pitchers the WS like to draft. I just haven't figured out for sure if that is because they ttruly expect to ever use them in the big leagues, or if they just avoid injuries and have the best trade value....

[illinilaw08]

Adding Linebrink and Cameron fills 3 holes on this team... you add your righty setup man, your 4th OF (no more Mack in CF) and potentially move BMAC into the rotation and if all this takes is Fields, Freddy can be moved somewhere for young arms. Assuming that Crede is the cornerstone at 3B, this deal makes great sense for the SOx.

[iamshack]

Adding Linebrink and Cameron fills 3 holes on this team... you add your righty setup man, your 4th OF (no more Mack in CF) and potentially move BMAC into the rotation and if all this takes is Fields, Freddy can be moved somewhere for young arms. Assuming that Crede is the cornerstone at 3B, this deal makes great sense for the SOx.

Would any one rather try to move Freddy for young SP Prospects and then combine them with Fields in an attempt to get Crawford?

 

That is all I really care to keep Fields around for. To try and get one of these young stars who may become available such as Crawford or MCab.

Edited July 18, 2006 by iamshack

[Kalapse]

Are you really willing to just accept that premise so easily?

 

*Why* is it necessarily more difficult to pitch in middle relief than in the 8th inning?

Actually I do believe this. It's pretty much the same reason why it's so hard to find a reliable closer, for whatever reason as it gets later in the game it just gets harder and harder to get hitters out and when the game is on the line you need a certain type of pitcher in there who can handle that sort of pressure, it's the reason why so many pitchers fail in setup roles and end up getting moved to middle relief. But that's pretty much just how I see it plus this is sort of an incomplete thought, there's a lot more to it that I really can't articulate right now.

[fathom]

Let me add this....in a perfect world, we would hold on to Fields the rest of this season, re-sign Joe Crede, and then Fields, Broadway, and Tracey (among others) as the centerpiece in a deal to either get Carl Crawford, D. Willis, or M. Cabrera.

[jackie hayes]

Would any one rather try to move Freddy for young SP Prospects and then combine them with Fields in an attempt to get Crawford?

 

That is all I really care to keep Fields around for. To try and get one of these young stars who may become available such as Crawford or MCab.

If you're gonna edit this post, take out Cabrera. No WAY he's moved.

[Kalapse]

Would any one rather try to move Freddy for young SP Prospects and then combine them with Fields in an attempt to get Crawford?

 

That is all I really care to keep Fields around for. To try and get one of these young stars who may become available such as Crawford or MCab.

That doesn't really fill a need for this season though and it probably makes the team weaker at the same time. You're giving up your top 2 trading chips in Fields and Garcia and adding a player who will help the offense but is not a necessity right now. You'd have to move McCarthy into the rotation, weakening your bullpen because you'd have to look in house for a replacement since your main trading chips are gone.

 

Let me add this....in a perfect world, we would hold on to Fields the rest of this season, re-sign Joe Crede, and then Fields, Broadway, and Tracey (among others) as the centerpiece in a deal to either get Carl Crawford, D. Willis, or M. Cabrera.

That would be a dream come true, sans Willis. I just have a feeling Fields won't be in Charlotte Aug. 1st. There's just too many holes on this year's team that can be filled by moving Fields at the deadline.

[iamshack]

Actually I do believe this. It's pretty much the same reason why it's so hard to find a reliable closer, for whatever reason as it gets later in the game it just gets harder and harder to get hitters out and when the game is on the line you need a certain type of pitcher in there who can handle that sort of pressure, it's the reason why so many pitchers fail in setup roles and end up getting moved to middle relief. But that's pretty much just how I see it plus this is sort of an incomplete thought, there's a lot more to it that I really can't articulate right now.

 

I understand what you are saying. There are obvious pyschological reasons.

 

The problem with that theory is that it pretty much one in which we created it ourselves. Prior to this creation, it was thought that you use your best reliever when he is needed most, not just in the 9th.

 

Supposedly the White Sox are attempting to sort of have their relievers "unlearn" some of the more traditional roles and learn to be ready to come in and shut the other team when they are simply needed most, not according to some timeframe which says they are needed most.

 

Take a looksie:

 

From BP

Punctuating the Closer's Equilibrium

 

Probably the presentation with the longest and most interesting title was given by Jeff Angus, titled "Punctuated Equilibrium in the Bullpen: The 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox Blend Sabermetrics & Sociology to Deliver a Successful Innovation." Some readers may be familiar with the work of Angus from his popular Management by Baseball blog and the publication of his new book of the same title which he signed for convention attendees. He also has done some writing for BP.

 

In his presentation, Angus took a two-track approach, and first presented a history of the evolution of the bullpen since the late 1970s, and then discussed how that evolution played into the 2005 White Sox' use of their bullpen and their successful "Closer by Situation" strategy.

 

In the first section, Angus takes a look at the role of closer as it has developed over the last 30 years and, interestingly, takes issue with the most frequent theory of its origin. That "origin myth," as Angus calls it, involves Herman Franks' use of Bruce Sutter in the late '70s as the founding combination, followed by Tony LaRussa's deployment of Dennis Eckersley in the late 1980s.

 

That theory is only "partially true"; Angus views the development of the role as akin to Gould's biological evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE). Under that view, there was much experimentation initially, followed by establishment of the dominant model and, finally, intensification where the model's limitations become apparent. That path from initiation to dominance for the "Clean 9th" closer in Angus' terminology (meaning a closer who is brought in almost exclusively to start the ninth inning in a save situation) runs as follows: experimentation in the models used by Franks and LaRussa, to establishment with Jeff Torborg's use of Bobby Thigpen in 1990, to intensification as Jim Fregosi took it to the extreme in his use of Mitch Williams in 1993. That blind adherence to the dominant model ultimately cost the Phillies dearly. Williams struggled in the NLCS and in Game Four of the World Series before imploding in Game Six. Fregosi could only watch, not having developed any other options.

 

.........

 

In the second part of the presentation, Angus looks at how the White Sox overcame the dominant model and perhaps became the vanguards of a new model by employing a "Closer by Situation" model that succeeded where the Red Sox of 2003 and Cubs of 2005 had failed. Angus credits the Sox with being willing to make changes in their bullpen usage and, perhaps more importantly, create an environment where those changes were accepted in a world where hierarchy and the psychological comfort of established roles are king. In Angus' words from his paper:

 

 

Their rational-in-design, revolutionary-in-its-sabermetric-underpinnings idea was to make each reliever understand the truth that he was equally-responsible for the team’s success as the reliever who appeared in an inning named for a different number. As Guillén said, 'If I put you in there in the seventh, close the seventh. If it’s the eighth, close the eighth. If it’s the ninth, close the ninth.'"

This idea underlines the key notion discussed in Keith Woolner's chapter "Are Teams Letting Their Closers Go to Waste?" in Baseball Between the Numbers (BBTN) which basically is that the most highly leveraged situations often occur as early as the 6th inning and often times "closing" those earlier innings will provide greater benefit to the team in the long run. In Woolner's study this equates to about 1.6 wins on average over the course of a season, and as many as 4.5.

 

Angus then illustrates the four phases of the White Sox application of the closer role in 2005 by showing how, over the course of the season, Shingo Takatsu, Dustin Hermanson, Bobby Jenks and Hermanson, and finally Jenks were phased through the 9th-inning role (although never exclusively). What I found interesting was that these transitions were not done from a state of panic or absolute necessity, but appeared planned and therefore instilled confidence.

 

Linkie

[illinilaw08]

Let me add this....in a perfect world, we would hold on to Fields the rest of this season, re-sign Joe Crede, and then Fields, Broadway, and Tracey (among others) as the centerpiece in a deal to either get Carl Crawford, D. Willis, or M. Cabrera.

 

Agreed, especially on Crawford because that would mean the end of Pods defense in LF after this season. However, as was said, trading for Crawford now makes no sense because it creates more problems on the team this year than it solves.

 

Likewise in a perfect world, Freddy and Vazquez turn it around and the rotation solidifies itself thereby exstinguishing the need to deal at the deadline.

 

Unfortunately, as it sits now, the Sox need some extra help and unfortunately may need to overpay to get it.

Edited July 18, 2006 by illinilaw08

[iamshack]

I just think that if you have a chance to acquire a guy like Crawford, and it doesn't hurt your ml team too much, you do it, regardless. He is the long-term replacement to Pods and could be had with pieces we might never need anyways.

[loltrain]

Probably already posted by someone, but it has been reported that the Padres turned down Austin Kearns for Linebrink straight up.

 

I doubt they'd deal him for a minor leaguer or two.

[RockRaines]

That doesn't really fill a need for this season though and it probably makes the team weaker at the same time. You're giving up your top 2 trading chips in Fields and Garcia and adding a player who will help the offense but is not a necessity right now. You'd have to move McCarthy into the rotation, weakening your bullpen because you'd have to look in house for a replacement since your main trading chips are gone.

That would be a dream come true, sans Willis. I just have a feeling Fields won't be in Charlotte Aug. 1st. There's just too many holes on this year's team that can be filled by moving Fields at the deadline.

Fact is, the bullpen isnt the weakness it was at the beginning of the season. Our starting pitching is much more suspect, and if we are planning on moving a starter to let BMAC get a shot, I would hope that our return on a solid starter would be more than Josh Fields would bring us. With that said, I would hope that would be the only move we make this season. I am not ready to replace BA, and I sure as s*** dont want our biggest move to be in the pen.

 

Actually, let me edit that. Call me crazy, and alot of you will. I kinda would like Soriano to patrol LF for a little while. Maybe even bid on Julio Lugo. But for some reason, these other deals seem to be like dealing to deal.

Edited July 18, 2006 by RockRaines

[Kalapse]

Probably already posted by someone, but it has been reported that the Padres turned down Austin Kearns for Linebrink straight up.

 

I doubt they'd deal him for a minor leaguer or two.

Kearns also has some serious injury concerns, has ben incredibly inconsistent and plays the outfield as opposed to a premier position like 3B which is much harder to find an above average talent at.

[witesoxfan]

Let me add this....in a perfect world, we would hold on to Fields the rest of this season, re-sign Joe Crede, and then Fields, Broadway, and Tracey (among others) as the centerpiece in a deal to either get Carl Crawford, D. Willis, or M. Cabrera.

 

Crawford would be amazing. His speed and ability to hit for power make him, like, the most attractable leadoff hitter in the game. Signed through 2010 or so, still plenty young, pretty friggin solid defensively, and he doesn't get caught stealing nearly as much as Podsednik.

 

I actually talked to WHarris about this, and I would love to see Crawford on this team.

[Kalapse]

Fact is, the bullpen isnt the weakness it was at the beginning of the season. Our starting pitching is much more suspect, and if we are planning on moving a starter to let BMAC get a shot, I would hope that our return on a solid starter would be more than Josh Fields would bring us. With that said, I would hope that would be the only move we make this season. I am not ready to replace BA, and I sure as s*** dont want our biggest move to be in the pen.

 

Actually, let me edit that. Call me crazy, and alot of you will. I kinda would like Soriano to patrol LF for a little while. Maybe even bid on Julio Lugo. But for some reason, these other deals seem to be like dealing to deal.

The great thing about dealing Fields for Linebrink is you give up a player who is not currently on your 25 man roster, you upgrade the pen BIG TIME and you upgrade the starting rotation at the same time. So while your trading for a reliever you're also adding a starting pitcher at the same time in McCarthy. So it's not really dealing just for a reliever it's also upgrading our rotation which is the biggest concern of course.

 

I really don't want Lugo anywhere near the Sox, he's going to cost a pretty penny (think Renteria/Andy Marte) and would not fill a position of need not to mention the character issues. Now that would be dealing just to deal. You think Pods sucks ass in LF? Soriano is beyond horrendous plus he'll cost you a s***load along with not upgrading a need, I'd much rather go after Crawford, who is not a free agent next year like Soriano. I don't understand why you'd be against upgrading the bullpen and the starting rotation at the same time but you'd be for adding a LF/SS which doesn't fit a need for this season at all.

 

I actually talked to WHarris about this, and I would love to see Crawford on this team.

Wow, someone's going out on a f***ing limb. :rolly

[witesoxfan]

Wow, someone's going out on a f***ing limb. :rolly

 

k

[hi8is]

you all are like the gum found laid upon urban sidewalks. pink.

[BobDylan]

you all are like the gum found laid upon urban sidewalks. pink.

 

Your avatar is crazy awesome.

[beck72]

Frankly I think the whole switching leagues thing and your ERA will jump is a bit overrated.

 

Scott Linebrink is one of the PREMIER set-up pitchers in all of baseball. He's only what 31 IIRC, so if you traded for him and get him locked up, he should be able to produce over that period of time. His numbers are very good from the past couple of seasons.

 

Antoni Otuska left San Diego, switched teams and league to Texas, and he seems to be doing just fine.

Atlanta and Jeff Francouer comes to mind.

The situations are different. If SD trades a guy like Linebrink, they should expect their new guy to come in and immediately be an upgrade over the two stiffs they have now [bellhorn and Castilla]. Fields may not hit much more than those two [and his d isn't gold glove caliber]. A guy like Mack hands down would be an upgrade over those two.

 

Francouer was brought up from the minors w/o the pressure of replacing a solid major leaguer. If he struggled, no big deal go back down. If Fields struggles, SD is back to square one w/o a solid 3bman. And they lost a key set up man.

[beck72]

SD could use a LHP for their bullpen. ALan Embree is it. I bet Health Phillips could come in and at least be a LOGGY for them. Maybe Boone Logan as well. Jon Adkins is in their pen w/ an under 4.00 ERA.

 

Interesting as well, that the best SP's in the NL west who SD must face are RHP's--Webb, Batista, Penny, Lowe, Schmidt, Matt Morris. Getting a versatile guy like Mack with his lefty bat would be a decent pick up for them.

Edited July 18, 2006 by beck72

[DBAHO]

The situations are different. If SD trades a guy like Linebrink, they should expect their new guy to come in and immediately be an upgrade over the two stiffs they have now [bellhorn and Castilla]. Fields may not hit much more than those two [and his d isn't gold glove caliber]. A guy like Mack hands down would be an upgrade over those two.

 

Francouer was brought up from the minors w/o the pressure of replacing a solid major leaguer. If he struggled, no big deal go back down. If Fields struggles, SD is back to square one w/o a solid 3bman. And they lost a key set up man.

Personally I think Kevin Towers would rather acquire a guy like Fields who he knows could be on that team for almost a decade and contribute for possibly the next decade, instead of going for a stopgap in Machowiak, just to try and make the playoffs this season.

 

You've seen with Adrian Gonzalez how much he has come on this month, kind of like Brian Anderson. I'm sure they would allow that lee-way to Fields as well. They've got a pretty young ballclub that could be good for quite a while, with guys like Peavy, Barfield, Greene etc., Fields would help build that young core.

 

San Diego also has the likes of Justin Leone who is doing quite well in AAA, and Geoff Blum who has shown occasionally from time to time he can hit. Not sure if Machowiak is really an upgrade over that.

[Milkman delivers]

SD could use a LHP for their bullpen. ALan Embree is it. I bet Health Phillips could come in and at least be a LOGGY for them. Maybe Boone Logan as well. Jon Adkins is in their pen w/ an under 4.00 ERA.

 

Interesting as well, that the best SP's in the NL west who SD must face are RHP's--Webb, Batista, Penny, Lowe, Schmidt, Matt Morris. Getting a versatile guy like Mack with his lefty bat would be a decent pick up for them.

 

If the Padres wanted Mackowiak half as badly as you seem to want to get rid of him, they'd have mentioned him somewhere in one of these rumors. They don't want him, give it up.

 

Adding Linebrink and Cameron fills 3 holes on this team... you add your righty setup man, your 4th OF (no more Mack in CF) and potentially move BMAC into the rotation and if all this takes is Fields, Freddy can be moved somewhere for young arms. Assuming that Crede is the cornerstone at 3B, this deal makes great sense for the SOx.

 

You said it perfectly.

[hi8is]

just for kicks, if we did get cameron... dont you think that he would be the full time CF'er and that BA would become the 4th?