NO Trade Clause

[WHITESOXRANDY]

I think that this is a really good thread. It will be intersting to see how it turns out. The Riske is as good as Linebrink crowd vs. the Linebrink is better because he has pitched in more crucial innings. Let's see how the two do this year and compare their deals later in the season.

 

There clearly have been some once-great relievers available this winter that are being signed for considerably less money than Linebrink"s $ 19 mil. I am skeptical but I hope he's an 8th inning lights out guy for the Sox. That would be huge.

[CWSGuy406]

What pressure was that?

 

Santo, you forget that we have certified psychologists on this board who can tell who is "choking", who caves under pressure etc etc.

 

I always seem to forget that too...

[NorthSideSox72]

Santo, you forget that we have certified psychologists on this board who can tell who is "choking", who caves under pressure etc etc.

 

I always seem to forget that too...

Some of us used these things called "statistics", showing how certain pitchers did better or worse in certain high-pressure "situations" on the field.

 

Not all of us who point out that certain pitchers don't do well under pressure are just pulling that out of our asses. MacDougal, for example, does poorly in those situations. Its not just a hunch or something.

 

[Kalapse]

Some of us used these things called "statistics", showing how certain pitchers did better or worse in certain high-pressure "situations" on the field.

 

Not all of us who point out that certain pitchers don't do well under pressure are just pulling that out of our asses. MacDougal, for example, does poorly in those situations. Its not just a hunch or something.

Except in 2006 when he was dominant in a setup role with the contending White Sox.

[CWSGuy406]

Some of us used these things called "statistics", showing how certain pitchers did better or worse in certain high-pressure "situations" on the field.

 

Not all of us who point out that certain pitchers don't do well under pressure are just pulling that out of our asses. MacDougal, for example, does poorly in those situations. Its not just a hunch or something.

 

In this thread? In this thread I see crap-ass statistics like "holds" used to show Riske wasn't good under pressure.

 

Like someone could've said -- Hey, Keith, you do know that Scott Linebrink ranked better than David Riske did in WXRL last season, right? -- and I would've been all like, "Damn, no way!" and would've been compelled to look at BP and see that Linebrink did, in fact, rank 59th amongst relievers while Riske, despite his fantastic ERA, ranked 95th. No, instead I get holds and butchered statistics that mean -- frankly -- jack s*** to me.

 

And I see that Riske may sign for 3/$15. No way I would want the Sox to give him that. 3/$12 is kind of even stretching it a bit.

 

Giving more than $4 and more than two years to non-elite relievers is usually dumb anyways.

[103 mph screwball]

Pressure absolutely can have an effect on a pitcher. People can have different physiological reactions to stress. MacDougal or Riske may get a huge surge of adrenalin. That's great if the need to run from a lion or bear. It can be a negative to a pitcher causing them to tighten up, over throw, or not think as clearly. Others may thrive because the pressure causes them to focus more and have more of an edge. Joe Crede may be a better hitter in crucial game situations because of this. I've heard that there is no such thing as "clutch" and that it is just a statistical thing. I think that is crap. The players are human and react differently to challenges.

[NorthSideSox72]

Except in 2006 when he was dominant in a setup role with the contending White Sox.

Not so much, no. I put these stats in a thread a few weeks ago, and they bear repeating...

 

Splits from 3 years, 2005-2007 for average against/OBP against...

 

Low pressure...

None on: .227/.297

Leading off an inning: .243/.317

None on with outs: .211/.277

 

High pressure...

Runners on: .287/.377

Scoring Pos: .293/.401

 

See a trend? You can look at other pitchers in the current Sox pen (like Thornton for example, who I was citing previously as a comparison), and they don't have that kind of differential. He doesn't do well under pressure.

 

But really, this isn't the point I was making. I was responding 406's post that labeled everyone who disagrees with him as armchair psychologists. Some of us look at the actual results when making these assessments.

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, back on Riske (sorry for the MacDougal hijack), he actually does a little better in those scenarios. Here are his 3 year splits in those same stats...

 

Low pressure...

None on: .236/.286

Leading off an inning: .255/.294

 

High pressure...

Runners on: .216/.297

Scoring position: .214/.319

 

And Linebrink?

 

Low pressure...

None on: .251/.307

Leading off an inning: .213/.278

 

High pressure...

Runners on: .214/.280

Scoring position: .214/.312

 

He seems to do better with runners on than not. And a final fun comparison between Riske and Linebrink: Close and Late, 3 years...

 

Riske: .267/.324

Linebrink: .229/.291

 

So, I think there is at least some merit to the idea that Linebrink might be better than Riske in high pressure situations.

 

[Kalapse]

Not so much, no. I put these stats in a thread a few weeks ago, and they bear repeating...

 

Splits from 3 years, 2005-2007 for average against/OBP against...

 

Low pressure...

None on: .227/.297

Leading off an inning: .243/.317

None on with outs: .211/.277

 

High pressure...

Runners on: .287/.377

Scoring Pos: .293/.401

 

See a trend? You can look at other pitchers in the current Sox pen (like Thornton for example, who I was citing previously as a comparison), and they don't have that kind of differential. He doesn't do well under pressure.

 

But really, this isn't the point I was making. I was responding 406's post that labeled everyone who disagrees with him as armchair psychologists. Some of us look at the actual results when making these assessments.

I didn't say anything about 2005 or 2007 just 2006. How did he do in high pressure situations during the stretch run of '06 and just '06?

[witesoxfan]

I didn't say anything about 2005 or 2007 just 2006. How did he do in high pressure situations during the stretch run of '06 and just '06?

 

First batter - .185/.214/.185

Leadoff - .120/.154/.160

RISP - .207/.303/.241

Men on - .244/.326/.268

 

0 out - .103/.133/.138 (1 HBP)

1 out - .231/.231/.256

2 out - .265/.375/.382 (all 6 of his walks)

 

he sucked throughout

[NorthSideSox72]

I didn't say anything about 2005 or 2007 just 2006. How did he do in high pressure situations during the stretch run of '06 and just '06?

I think for relievers, who are streaky by nature and don't put in a lot of innings, its hard to justify just looking at part of a year. But 2006 in total...

 

None on: .180/.206

Leading off an inning: .120/.154

 

Runners on: .244/.319

Scoring Pos: .207/.303

Close and Late: .222/.273

 

Overall very good numbers, but again, even at his best, he becomes less dominant with the pressure on.

 

[Kalapse]

He gave up 1 XBH in those high pressure situations, it was a double. His OPS against w/ men on in 2006 was .594.

[NorthSideSox72]

He gave up 1 XBH in those high pressure situations, it was a double.

You want to evaluate him on that stretch of 2006, and ignore 2005 and 2007, go right ahead. Its not like he's Fields or Owens where a partial year is all we have to go on - he's been around awhile now. I think his numbers, as well as his comments in the media, and from watching him myself, that he's too fragile to be reliable as a setup guy. I hope he's not in the pen in 2008.

 

[Kalapse]

You want to evaluate him on that stretch of 2006, and ignore 2005 and 2007, go right ahead.

I'm not doing any of that, I'm just saying that a guy with a reputation for being a terrible high pressure pitcher can find success in high pressure situations on a contending team during the stretch run of a season.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not doing any of that, I'm just saying that a guy with a reputation for being a terrible high pressure pitcher can find success in high pressure situations on a contending team during the stretch run of a season.

And as I showed, even when he was at his best in 2006, his numbers in those situations were worse than they were otherwise.

 

And I wouldn't go so far as "terrible". I think "weak" is a better word.

 

[Dick Allen]

Stats like average with a runner on can be misleading too. What was the score of the game when Riske pitched? What was the inning? Guys like Aardsma have a tough time when its the 9th inning vs. when its the 8th. The Cleveland Indians wanted no part of David Riske on the mound late in close games. People can rip people coming to the conclusion Riske doesn't seem to handle pressure very well all they want, the fact is in an era where the bullpen is very important, 3 contending teams desperately in need of bullpen help at the time, dumped this guy without a second thought, and then he flourishes on a last place team. That's the fact. Its not only this site that questions Riske's stones. Its common knowledge. Maybe he's over it, but I think the Brewers may found out he's not the hard way.

[iamshack]

Stats like average with a runner on can be misleading too. What was the score of the game when Riske pitched? What was the inning? Guys like Aardsma have a tough time when its the 9th inning vs. when its the 8th. The Cleveland Indians wanted no part of David Riske on the mound late in close games. People can rip people coming to the conclusion Riske doesn't seem to handle pressure very well all they want, the fact is in an era where the bullpen is very important, 3 contending teams desperately in need of bullpen help at the time, dumped this guy without a second thought, and then he flourishes on a last place team. That's the fact. Its not only this site that questions Riske's stones. Its common knowledge. Maybe he's over it, but I think the Brewers may found out he's not the hard way.

 

Absolutely. This is no secret. I brought it up several pages ago because I had read about Riske being a choke on Indians boards when the White Sox acquired him from Boston. Then I watched it happen while he was on the Sox (still cannot get the vision of Torii Hunter ripping a monster home run off Riske after one of Javy Vazquez's "6th inning meltdowns" in 06'). Then Buster Olney references Riske as having a reputation for "wilting under pressure" in his article. I don't know, maybe every single team's fans that Riske has pitched for seem to harp on the fact that he chokes (there is a reason fans have come to believe his name is very well-suited for him), and this truly isn't the case at all, but it certainly does seem to be coming from everywhere that Riske is not someone to be counted on in the late innings of a close ballgame.

[jackie hayes]

I think for relievers, who are streaky by nature and don't put in a lot of innings, its hard to justify just looking at part of a year. But 2006 in total...

 

None on: .180/.206

Leading off an inning: .120/.154

 

Runners on: .244/.319

Scoring Pos: .207/.303

Close and Late: .222/.273

 

Overall very good numbers, but again, even at his best, he becomes less dominant with the pressure on.

First, it makes little sense to make a sample size argument while relying on reliever splits, even over 3 years. Now, if you can show that the standard deviations (hey, we're using stats, so let's talk stats) are small enough that those splits are reliable, I'm open to correction. But I really doubt you'll be able to show that.

 

Second, even if the splits were reliable (which I doubt), you would have to compare them to league averages for them to be meaningful. There are reasons beyond 'unclutchness' that a pitcher is not as good with runners on -- fielder positioning, the basic odds about the hitter he's facing, pitch selection, etc.

 

Third, why is it we praise "clutch" pitchers? Because of the drama? You can say that unclutch pitchers wilt under pressure. You can just as well say that clutch pitchers apparently don't give a f*** until they've already done damage. Why would I praise someone who's too lazy or indifferent to do a good job the entire time they're out there, especially when they're only going to be out there for one inning?

[NorthSideSox72]

First, it makes little sense to make a sample size argument while relying on reliever splits, even over 3 years. Now, if you can show that the standard deviations (hey, we're using stats, so let's talk stats) are small enough that those splits are reliable, I'm open to correction. But I really doubt you'll be able to show that.

 

Second, even if the splits were reliable (which I doubt), you would have to compare them to league averages for them to be meaningful. There are reasons beyond 'unclutchness' that a pitcher is not as good with runners on -- fielder positioning, the basic odds about the hitter he's facing, pitch selection, etc.

 

Third, why is it we praise "clutch" pitchers? Because of the drama? You can say that unclutch pitchers wilt under pressure. You can just as well say that clutch pitchers apparently don't give a f*** until they've already done damage. Why would I praise someone who's too lazy or indifferent to do a good job the entire time they're out there, especially when they're only going to be out there for one inning?

First, I tend to avoid using the word "clutch", and I'm pretty sure I didn't use it here.

 

Second, I could care less about their demeanor out there. Calm and collected is fine. A bit hyper is fine too. Whatever works for them.

 

Third, the whole reason I used a 3 year period is that it was going to be much more statistically reliable than a half season. I couldn't tell you the standard deviation for a 3 year split, but you figure a reliever like MacD, Riske or Linebrink might put in 40 to 60 innings in a full season, that's 150 IP over 3 years. So, maybe the equivalent of 50 to 100 IP with runners on, give or take. I'd consider that a decent sample size.

 

[jackie hayes]

First, I tend to avoid using the word "clutch", and I'm pretty sure I didn't use it here.

 

Second, I could care less about their demeanor out there. Calm and collected is fine. A bit hyper is fine too. Whatever works for them.

 

Third, the whole reason I used a 3 year period is that it was going to be much more statistically reliable than a half season. I couldn't tell you the standard deviation for a 3 year split, but you figure a reliever like MacD, Riske or Linebrink might put in 40 to 60 innings in a full season, that's 150 IP over 3 years. So, maybe the equivalent of 50 to 100 IP with runners on, give or take. I'd consider that a decent sample size.

Whatever word is used, it means the same thing. This isn't even semantics, it's aesthetics.

 

I said nothing about demeanor.

 

"much more statistically reliable" != "statistically reliable"

[CWSGuy406]

I'd consider that a decent sample size.

 

150 IP? Seriously? That's barely a full season for a starting pitcher.

 

I think enough has been shown that Riske has tended to do worse in more "clutch" (however we want to define that -- late innings, closer leads) situations, but I still think you guys are underrating him. Again, that WXRL stat had him ranked in the 90s. I'm not going to claim that it's a perfect stat, but I'm pretty sure it adjusts for the guys he's facing as well as the situation he's in (I may be wrong there). With 30 teams having six-to-eight men bullpens, Riske seemingly slots in perfectly as a #3 reliever on a perfectly average team. If he's your fourth best reliever, your probably in pretty good shape. If he's your second best (or best) reliever, you're probably in some trouble.

 

Here's what I've been arguing -- or at least I think it's what I've been arguing. We're paying Linebrink 4/$20 to come here and be, for all intents and purposes, our second best reliever, when the signs (peripherals) are showing he may struggle to even be a middle inning type. No -- I wouldn't want the Sox to sign Riske with the expectations that he could come here and be a set-up guy, but I would've rather they'd offer Riske 2/$8-10 (which he may or may not have taken, I'd guess he wouldn't've) or not give anyone that much money in the frst place.

 

My basic issue here is with the principle of giving non-great relievers big money (relative -- when compared to other relievers). There seems to be the thinking that Kenny's logic for building last year's bullpen was poor, and nobody has really shown that it was poor. Sure, the Sox (scouts or Kenny or whoever) may have identified the wrong guys for last year's bullpen, but I have no issue with throwing a lot of good arms/failed starters together and seeing who sticks, especially when they were basically trying to put together the back of the bullpen that way (they thought Jenks - MacDougal - Thorton would be solid -- it obviously wasn't, but I'm not sure anyone could've predicted massive collapses from the latter two).

[NorthSideSox72]

Whatever word is used, it means the same thing. This isn't even semantics, it's aesthetics.

 

I said nothing about demeanor.

 

"much more statistically reliable" != "statistically reliable"

This is kind of funny. There is one poster trying to assert MacDougal's ability based on about 15 innings of exposure in high pressure situations in part of 2006, and another one telling me that roughly 6 times that much over three seasons isn't enough to be statistically reliable.

 

I give.

 

[jackie hayes]

This is kind of funny. There is one poster trying to assert MacDougal's ability based on about 15 innings of exposure in high pressure situations in part of 2006, and another one telling me that roughly 6 times that much over three seasons isn't enough to be statistically reliable.

 

I give.

First, different posters can have different arguments. Who knew?

 

Second, I think you're not understanding Kalapse's argument.

[NorthSideSox72]

150 IP? Seriously? That's barely a full season for a starting pitcher.

 

I think enough has been shown that Riske has tended to do worse in more "clutch" (however we want to define that -- late innings, closer leads) situations, but I still think you guys are underrating him. Again, that WXRL stat had him ranked in the 90s. I'm not going to claim that it's a perfect stat, but I'm pretty sure it adjusts for the guys he's facing as well as the situation he's in (I may be wrong there). With 30 teams having six-to-eight men bullpens, Riske seemingly slots in perfectly as a #3 reliever on a perfectly average team. If he's your fourth best reliever, your probably in pretty good shape. If he's your second best (or best) reliever, you're probably in some trouble.

 

Here's what I've been arguing -- or at least I think it's what I've been arguing. We're paying Linebrink 4/$20 to come here and be, for all intents and purposes, our second best reliever, when the signs (peripherals) are showing he may struggle to even be a middle inning type. No -- I wouldn't want the Sox to sign Riske with the expectations that he could come here and be a set-up guy, but I would've rather they'd offer Riske 2/$8-10 (which he may or may not have taken, I'd guess he wouldn't've) or not give anyone that much money in the frst place.

 

My basic issue here is with the principle of giving non-great relievers big money (relative -- when compared to other relievers). There seems to be the thinking that Kenny's logic for building last year's bullpen was poor, and nobody has really shown that it was poor. Sure, the Sox (scouts or Kenny or whoever) may have identified the wrong guys for last year's bullpen, but I have no issue with throwing a lot of good arms/failed starters together and seeing who sticks, especially when they were basically trying to put together the back of the bullpen that way (they thought Jenks - MacDougal - Thorton would be solid -- it obviously wasn't, but I'm not sure anyone could've predicted massive collapses from the latter two).

I don't like giving Linebrink 4 years either. I think $4-5M/year is close to reasonable, but I would think that 3x$4 should have gotten him. A few million difference. But in any case, I agree with your basic point that just because the bullpen last year sucked from May through July, that it means KW necessarily needs to go the opposite road this year. Relievers are notably streaky.

 

But I do think that adding 1 experienced, reliable, solid setup guy or mid-reliever like Linebrink is worthwhile. Not just because it gives a consistent setup guy for Jenks and improves the overall pen, but also for his influence on the youngsters and less-than-stables around him. I see no reason to go out and get any more bullpen help at this point. This pen:

 

Jenks

Linebrink

Thornton

Wassermann

Logan

*

 

With the * being one of the younger future marginal starters who can do long relief (Broadway, Phillips, Haeger, Masset) and who isn't traded away during this offseason. I think that's likely to be a decent bullpen. Trade MacDougal if you can, same for some of the names I just mentioned, if they can fetch anything. Have Day, Aardsma and a few others in AAA ready in case someone like Wassermann falters or if someone gets hurt.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Second, I think you're not understanding Kalapse's argument.

Please inform me.