Quentin "one bad step" from being lost for season

[ILMOU]

Ok, since you singled out my abandon ship post, why is every "reasonable chance" post so statistically nebulous? They have a reasonable chance based on what evidence, according to you?

 

I'm not taking the bait, Lil' Bulldog. Game to watch.

 

[Greg Hibbard]

I'm not taking the bait, Lil' Bulldog. Game to watch.

 

It's too bad I took the time to back up my points with data, because apparently you were just interested in flaming my post.

 

I love the way nearly every opinion like this essentially ends with "because I think so" or "I have _____ opinion"

 

 

 

[ILMOU]

It's too bad I took the time to back up my points with data, because apparently you were just interested in flaming my post.

 

I love the way nearly every opinion like this essentially ends with "because I think so" or "I have _____ opinion"

 

Have a nice day!

 

[Milkman delivers]

Remember Dye, he was "injury prone".

 

I say shut down Q for the rest of the season and get his foot in the best possible condition it can be for February 2010, whether it be surgery, therapy, ice and heat, new shoes, whatever the hell it takes.

 

Just cause he's had some injuries, you don't give up on his offensive potential. But there really is no need to risk him making it worse this year. Lets face, even if we somehow win the division, we won't go far in the playoffs.

 

Dye was never injured on the Sox for an extended period of time in his first two seasons. Carlos Quentin has missed like a quarter of the games he's had on the Sox in two years.

[BearSox]

Dye was never injured on the Sox for an extended period of time in his first two seasons. Carlos Quentin has missed like a quarter of the games he's had on the Sox in two years.

 

In Dye's earlier years, he battled a lot of injuries and teams eventually gave up on him, we came in, signed him cheap, and got one of the best FA signings in the past 10 years, I'd say.

[Dick Allen]

Also, there's a million ways we could break this down statistically that would be unfavorable to the sox.

 

Teams that were 30-34 or worse after 64 games that won the world series?

Teams that even won more than 90 games after being 30-34 after 64 games?

Do you see this team going 60-38 down the stretch? Or even 15 over? Why?

 

And measuring things statistical is what we do in baseball, which is why my analogy is completely relevant - because whatever percentage probability we assign to the White Sox can be assigned to an analogous game situation. Whatever longshot pie-in-the-sky hopes you may have - if they don't stack up statistically, why on earth would we make dumb roster decisions because of them?

 

Which stat do you want to go to next?

How about the fact they are in a bad division and are 3.5 games out and Detroit is losing and there are 97 games left? Making the playoffs even if they do go down quickly, and that would still have to be determined, has huge benefits to the team. Extra gates may bring a better ballplayer to the team next year. Once again, it makes no sense to sit Quentin out if he wants to give it a shot. Worst case scenerio he has to have surgery. Well, he may have surgery anyway after the season and will be ready to go next year. I don't see how he is a dumb roster decision. Not trying to win a very winnable division would set this team back with their fanbase dramatically. Maybe not with you because apparently in your world there probably are only 3 or 4 teams that should try to win every season because statistically the odds are against the others. 1 out of 14 is a lot better than zero.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Dick Allen

[kev211]

It's too bad I took the time to back up my points with data, because apparently you were just interested in flaming my post.

 

I love the way nearly every opinion like this essentially ends with "because I think so" or "I have _____ opinion"

He was arguing the hottest team going into the playoffs usually makes the series. Not that the worst team does it. Why do you think wildcard teams make the world series so often? Because usually the Wild Card race is extremely close so the team that wins that is usally hot going into the playoffs.

 

Other then that we have a month and a half before the deadline to decide if we want to blow this team up or not. It doesn't have to begin right now. This team especially the pitching staff is showing signs of life so lets see what happens.

Edited June 18, 2009 by kev211

[Dick Allen]

In Dye's earlier years, he battled a lot of injuries and teams eventually gave up on him, we came in, signed him cheap, and got one of the best FA signings in the past 10 years, I'd say.

1999,2000,2001 Dye played more games each season than he ever has in a season with the White Sox. The Braves traded him in a deal of prospects. The Royals traded him because of money. He fouled a pitch off his leg in Oakland and broke his leg. I think it was a playoff game. It affected him horribly. He was getting his act together a little bit with Oakland, started off very slowly with the Sox but took off. I wouldn't say he was injury prone, it was one real big one and a freakish one at that.

[greg775]

Man, CQ is one beat-up player. I wonder if he'll always have injuries in terms of the way he crowds the plate. Won't he be whacking inside pitches off his instep and foot all the time?

Not flaming, I just wonder if he was a one-season wonder only because of injuries.

[ThunderBolt]

In Dye's earlier years, he battled a lot of injuries and teams eventually gave up on him, we came in, signed him cheap, and got one of the best FA signings in the past 10 years, I'd say.

Dye has a decent track record of health before nearly destroying his leg as as A. When we picked him up for cheap, it was an investment, almost a Herm can fix-em type of deal.

[Greg Hibbard]

He was arguing the hottest team going into the playoffs usually makes the series.

 

Usually? The 08 Phillies and 07 Rockies were really hot towards their push in september (with split WS results), The 2005 Astros were hot, The 2005 White Sox were finally hot in their last 10 games.

 

but for as many examples for, I can find as many against recently, just scratching the surface, so I don't really know about "usually":

 

The 2008 Rays went 13-13 in September.

The 2007 Red Sox went 6-7 in their last 13.

The 2006 Tigers went 12-16 in September, including 0-5 in their last 5 regular season games.

The 2006 Cardinals, for all their recent fanfare from fans of mediocre teams everywhere, went 4-10 in their last 14, and nearly had the biggest choke in the history of divisional play going into the playoffs. They were actually a pretty damned GOOD team for most of the second half until the last half of september.

 

Regardless of who's hot this IS most likely going to be the division that produces the worst record.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Greg Hibbard

[Jordan4life_2007]

Usually? The 08 Phillies and 07 Rockies were really hot towards their push in september (with split WS results), The 2005 Astros were hot, The 2005 White Sox were finally hot in their last 10 games.

 

but for as many examples for, I can find as many against recently, just scratching the surface, so I don't really know about "usually":

 

The 2008 Rays went 13-13 in September.

The 2007 Red Sox went 6-7 in their last 13.

The 2006 Tigers went 12-16 in September, including 0-5 in their last 5 regular season games.

The 2006 Cardinals, for all their recent fanfare from fans of mediocre teams everywhere, went 4-10 in their last 14, and nearly had the biggest choke in the history of divisional play going into the playoffs. They were actually a pretty damned GOOD team for most of the second half until the last half of september.

 

Regardless of who's hot this IS most likely going to be the division that produces the worst record.

 

Dude, you make fathom look like Hawk when it comes to the Soxtalk king of neverending pessimism.

[joejoesox]

One thing I've been pondering about the last couple days, is the AL Central the only division in baseball to not have a "Marquee" team? By "Marquee", I mean a nationally popular team with a large fanbase.

 

AL East. Yankz, Redsawx

AL West. Angels are pretty popular nationally and in the media.

AL Central. ???

 

NL East. Braves

NL Central. Cardinals, Cubs, both huge draws nationally.

NL West. Dodgers

 

This doesn't really hold any relevance overall, but when people like to pretend the AL Central doesn't exist (I was having a conversation with a guy who's a huge Red Sox fan, and we were talking about the ASG Ballots, and he was saying "There's really not a great catcher to represent the AL." And I said, "Uh, Joe MAUER?" And his response was basically "Oh yeah, lol"), it's pretty laughable that it's the media's lack of representation of this division where most of the national ignorance comes from. It's easily the least popular (If you go down the list, team by team, and then more/less combine the national popularity of each team) division in all of baseball

[Greg Hibbard]

Dude, you make fathom look like Hawk when it comes to the Soxtalk king of neverending pessimism.

 

Why are you wasting time attacking the person and not the point?

 

All I've done this entire thread is use statistically historical data to illustrate trends. It's factual that an extremely low percentage of teams with the worst record of playoff contenders win the world series, and it's factual that in the last 4 years, half the WS teams were hot going in and half were not. Every time someone has responded with a point to me directly, I've responded with relevant stats.

 

I'm extremely positive about this team once they solve two or three fundamental problems. I would pull the plug, trade all our dhs, develop a couple of our young pitchers, and try to resolve the 3B and CF issue for 2010.

 

Half-assed pseudo-standing pat is not going to get us to 95-100 wins.

 

Also, I don't understand how some people can strangle statistics like batting average, OPS, etc, and then the moment something disagrees with a "gut feeling" they have, they throw their entire philosophy on the relevance of baseball stats completely out the window for that set of statistics. Either stats and trends tell us something or they don't.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Greg Hibbard

[ILMOU]

Also, I don't understand how some people can strangle statistics like batting average, OPS, etc, and then the moment something disagrees with a "gut feeling" they have, they throw their entire philosophy on the relevance of baseball stats completely out the window for that set of statistics. Either stats and trends tell us something or they don't.

 

OK, Bulldog, I'm going to break it down for you one more time, though I believe the inference should have been obvious from my posts.

 

After stating that the chances were "less than 10%", your own regurgitation of the facts confirmed that 5 of 28 teams with the worst record in their league among playoff teams went to the World Series, which works out to ~18%. This percentage, and my observations from the Wild Card era, allow the Sox a "reasonable" chance, IMHO. To you, obviously, this chance is not "reasonable".

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

You then stated that the important number was 7.1% because only the Cardinals won it all. So the only successful season in a thirty team league is one where we win the whole enchilada? Really?

 

 

[Greg Hibbard]

After stating that the chances were "less than 10%", your own regurgitation of the facts confirmed that 5 of 28 teams with the worst record in their league among playoff teams went to the World Series, which works out to ~18%. This percentage, and my observations from the Wild Card era, allow the Sox a "reasonable" chance, IMHO. To you, obviously, this chance is not "reasonable".

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

So every batter who comes up with a .180 batting average has a "reasonable" chance of getting a hit each and every time. Ok.

 

You then stated that the important number was 7.1% because only the Cardinals won it all. So the only successful season in a thirty team league is one where we win the whole enchilada? Really?

 

I'm personally no longer interested in empty division titles. I will concede that a pennant would mean something, but losing the world series is ultimately a disappointing season with an easier justification. See the 2006 Bears.

[Greg Hibbard]

To step back from this ridiculous argument a bit, would I be happy if the Sox won the division? Sure I would, if the Sox were addressing long term goals as well. Would I be happy with a division title at the expense of risking Quentin's health and not addressing the glut of dh's, the 3b problem, the CF problem? Absolutely not.

 

79 wins could win the AL central, so I guess another point I would make is why not majorly retool with the division being as insanely takeable as it is?

Edited June 18, 2009 by Greg Hibbard

[ILMOU]

So every batter who comes up with a .180 batting average has a "reasonable" chance of getting a hit each and every time. Ok.

 

First, you compared our season probabilities to a game in the 7th inning, when in terms of games played, we're in what would be the 4th "inning" of a season, having played 65 0f 162.

 

Now you're comparing World Series chances to a single at bat.

 

Love your fire, man, but your analogies need some work.

 

[Balta1701]

To step back from this ridiculous argument a bit, would I be happy if the Sox won the division? Sure I would, if the Sox were addressing long term goals as well. Would I be happy with a division title at the expense of risking Quentin's health and not addressing the glut of dh's, the 3b problem, the CF problem? Absolutely not.

Viciedo, Danks, Beckham, Getz, and Ramirez aren't enough to consider those goals addressed for the long-term as well as possible?

 

There's certainly no guarantee that they'll all succeed, but they're all talented, under our control for a number of years, and several of them can fill those spots you worry about. And let's say 1 or 2 of them do bust...then we have the guy we just drafted this year, or maybe we have some luck from somewhere else in the draft...or finally, we have a good amount of financial flexibility because we have 3-4 cheap young guys in our lineup and so we can go out and buy a guy to fill in the spot.

 

I think we're on fairly sound footing for the long-term...it's just a question of developing these guys we already have and seeing who sticks and who doesn't.

[ILMOU]

To step back from this ridiculous argument a bit, would I be happy if the Sox won the division? Sure I would, if the Sox were addressing long term goals as well. Would I be happy with a division title at the expense of risking Quentin's health and not addressing the glut of dh's, the 3b problem, the CF problem? Absolutely not.

 

Well, if there was any medical evidence stating that we're risking Q's health by asking him to play through the pain, if he can, then I'd be with you. Lots of players have played through it, more or less, with pretty fair results. It will be good to know IF he can play with some pain, cause this guy may never be completely healthy, given his history. At any rate, from all I've read, he'll be ready by ST even if he waits til October for a surgery, so what's the big deal?

 

We're three freakin' games out! We've got 4 starters looking strong. Q can be the difference maker.

 

Who says we're not addressing the other problems? Our top prospect is manning 3rd now and could be the difference maker himself. The "glut" of DH's is resolving itself with the expiring contracts or a probable trade if the Sox do stink it up over the next few weeks. Regarding the CF problem, KW's painted himself into a corner, granted, and waiting for JorDanks MIGHT be our best option at this point, though I realize that's an unsatisfying solution for this season. We still don't know who'll be available in trade as a stopgap CF, if we're fortunate enough to be buyers at the deadline.

 

Our play over the next few weeks will (and should) dictate the speed with which the org addresses the problems, as well as how we handle Q.

 

[Greg Hibbard]

Viciedo, Danks, Beckham, Getz, and Ramirez aren't enough to consider those goals addressed for the long-term as well as possible?

 

There's certainly no guarantee that they'll all succeed, but they're all talented, under our control for a number of years, and several of them can fill those spots you worry about. And let's say 1 or 2 of them do bust...then we have the guy we just drafted this year, or maybe we have some luck from somewhere else in the draft...or finally, we have a good amount of financial flexibility because we have 3-4 cheap young guys in our lineup and so we can go out and buy a guy to fill in the spot.

 

I think we're on fairly sound footing for the long-term...it's just a question of developing these guys we already have and seeing who sticks and who doesn't.

 

- I think getting rid of the glut of dh's and getting back talent for it is a must this season. It is a rebuilding year in disguise.

- I think we can rely on 1-2 prospects out of every 10 talented prospects as working out long term. Even Mike Caruso, who worked out for one season, wasn't really much more than a flash in the pan because after 1998-1999, he didn't do anything. You look at a trade like the white flag, and how much long term value did Mike Caruso or Lorenzo Barcelo truly have? Granted, Howry and Foulke certainly panned out as top flight relievers.

- Ramirez is a middle infielder, so are Beckham and Getz. Beckham may be able to be a 3b, but do we really know? Is it a good idea to play him there? I think the jury is out. Danks and Viciedo are way too far away to know yet. CF and 3B need major league solutions for 2010 and 2011 and we don't currently have good ones for next year. I'm hoping Beckham works out there, because it would obviously be amazing if he did.

- None of your points address my point about Quentin, which is why not shut him down this season, regardless of how in this race we are, when we have a very small realistic chance of doing much in the postseason, and his injury concerns are very real? We have probably a 30-40% of winning the division, maybe even 50%, even with a healthy Q, then we have a smaller percentage of advancing, and so on. You multiply all those out and it gets to be really negligible.

 

 

Stan - kudos. Keep it real yourself and I'll do the same.

[elrockinMT]

I am not sure about the surgery option. I had the same injury thing and received cortisone shots and was told it needed time to heal on its own, which was a long process. Maybe there is some type of foot surgery, but I wouldn't be so quick as to jump on that bandwagon. Wait till the end of the season or we are out of the race, whichever comes first.

[The Ginger Kid]

Play him. Hell, he managed to limp out a double AFTER he heard the "pop" in Anaheim. The guy's a beast, he's robo, let him play banged up. If he blows the tendon then you have surgery. I don't see why this is even a question.

[ptatc]

Play him. Hell, he managed to limp out a double AFTER he heard the "pop" in Anaheim. The guy's a beast, he's robo, let him play banged up. If he blows the tendon then you have surgery. I don't see why this is even a question.

 

Mostly because if it hurts to put weight on it, it will effect his swing. Which will make him ineffective. No use putting an ineffective players ouit there. The foot was obviously bothering him for a long time prior to the DL stint.

 

GMs don't like to risk the careers of one of their better players.

[greg775]

Would I be happy with a division title at the expense of risking Quentin's health and not addressing the glut of dh's, the 3b problem, the CF problem? Absolutely not.

 

I want to win the division. If we were assured of doing that and not making any moves til the offseason, I'd say take the division title.

As far as CQ's health, our team does have good doctors. If they say he can play, play him. The guy is major injury prone anyway. If he needs surgery, operate now. If he can play w/out surgery and won't need it in offseason, play him now. If surgery is needed in the postseason, do it NOW though.