Sox to Make Hard Push for Granderson

[Balta1701]

Hate to be THAT guy but there is a lot of talk of an '08 team that won 1 playoff game and then failed the following year. That should hardly be the team we are trying to emulate

If the MVP candidate hadn't broken his own hand in late 08 and hadn't then lost pretty much the full 09 season with Plantar fasciitis...we're talking about a totally different history for this team. That's one I'll legitimately chalk up to injury - yeah, we were able to get him in the first place because of injury, but that's a solid model for how rapidly this franchise, even with a weak system, has successfully retooled rapidly before.

 

And I'm hoping we already signed a comparable guy this offseason. Maybe with a better health record.

[southsider2k5]

I have to admit that what they're doing over there is pretty cool. I mean, Baez, Soler, Bryant, Olt... I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Also, what about Zapata? He hasn't been that popular on this board, but he should be here in a few years.

 

Zapata has to be at the very least 4 years away. 5-6 is probably realistic, and still really agressive.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Hate to be THAT guy but there is a lot of talk of an '08 team that won 1 playoff game and then failed the following year. That should hardly be the team we are trying to emulate

Oh Future you know Balta was just using that team as an example of a s*** team that got into the playoffs the next year in order to spread a little good cheer . Besides being THAT guy you're also the guy who just got done advocating boom or bust from season to season. The playoffs look like an uphill battle from where we were last year let alone any kind of sustained success. When the Sox do manage to make the playoffs 2 years in a row I think it would be the 1st time in Sox history or at least since the playoff system started.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I totally agree with your thoughts on CF and I wanted Bourjos before he was moved I just don't know how likely it is.

 

Another thing, I don't if I think or I am confident we'll compete but that is where the FO wants to go so it's definitely something to note when looking ahead this offseason.

I thought Bourjos was a perfect fit for the Sox and was disappointed the Cards beat us to the punch. Haven't done much looking to see who might fit the bill but I like Juan Lagares of the Mets . Here's a little something on him from Fangraphs. Unfortunately he's not LH. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/juan-lagare...sin-of-runners/

Edited December 1, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Chicago White Sox]

Let's get 90 from Abreu and Viciedo next year and we'll pull that off with ease.

Lol...and I thought I was an optimist. We should all be happy with 60 HRs from the two of them next year. I mean, only 11 guys in baseball had 30 or more HRs last year. You're really going to be in for a world of disappointment if you think 90 is a realistic number.

[Jake]

Zapata has to be at the very least 4 years away. 5-6 is probably realistic, and still really agressive.

 

I took that to mean that he would be popular on this board in a few years

[brian310]

I wouldn't want Granderson unless it meant Dunn was the odd man out making Viciedo the DH. Otherwise, its a deep draft, lets not waste our high draft position.

Edited December 1, 2013 by chisoxfan310

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I wouldn't want Granderson unless it meant Dunn was the odd man out making Viciedo the DH. Otherwise, its a deep draft, lets not waste our high draft position.

Alejandro De Aza named 37th best CF in baseball out of 40 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1755728...center-fielders

[ILMOU]

Alejandro De Aza named 37th best CF in baseball out of 40 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1755728...center-fielders

 

Would he do worse or better among the list of LF'ers do you think? Just curious.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Would he do worse or better among the list of LF'ers do you think? Just curious.

 

It's from Bleacher Report, so it really shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway.

[ILMOU]

It's from Bleacher Report, so it really shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway.

 

Yeah, I gotta pay more attention. I tend to not read the words in links. Based on the D metrics, which I'm no fan of, I think he'd likely rate better for LFers, but I could be mistaken.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Stan Bahnsen

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It's from Bleacher Report, so it really shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway.

I don't think it 's difficult for knowledgeable people to make a list like that . To automatically dismiss it for that reason is pretty silly. Of course there will be disputes among fans but the list in general is fairly accurate. Of course there will be those who disagree amongst fans. That can't be avoided. They used various respected websites to compile their lists.

 

Baseball-Reference.com provided basic stats. FanGraphs offered more complex stats, most notably plate-discipline data that was referenced for both hitters and pitchers. Brooks Baseball afforded spray charts; zone profiles; and, most importantly, pitch data. Pitch types, velocity and movement data all came from there.

 

Lastly, Baseball Prospectus produced additional data and was particularly handy in forming the health sections by way of its injury records. Rotoworld helped with more recent injury updates.

 

They took everything into consideration . Hitting, hitting for power, baserunning,fielding and health.

Edited December 1, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Yeah, I gotta pay more attention. I tend to not read the words in links. Based on the D metrics, which I'm no fan of, I think he'd likely rate better for LFers, but I could be mistaken.

For corner outfielders they did a top 70. Avisail wasn't on it ,Viciedo was 64. Dubtful De Aza even played enough LF to even qualify and I sure can't argue with their placement of De Aza or Viciedo.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Top 150 starting pitchers 131. Danks , 58. Quintana , 5. Sale. Santiago wasn't among the 150 which seems curious considering he had 1 more start than Danks and pitched better but Danks also didnt pitch in relief. Also no Eik Johnson and they do put some prospects in the list most notable Archie Bradley who they ranked 47th This list seems the most open to arguments.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I don't think it 's difficult for knowledgeable people to make a list like that . To automatically dismiss it for that reason is pretty silly. Of course there will be disputes among fans but the list in general is fairly accurate. Of course there will be those who disagree amongst fans. That can't be avoided. They used various respected websites to compile their lists.

 

Baseball-Reference.com provided basic stats. FanGraphs offered more complex stats, most notably plate-discipline data that was referenced for both hitters and pitchers. Brooks Baseball afforded spray charts; zone profiles; and, most importantly, pitch data. Pitch types, velocity and movement data all came from there.

 

Lastly, Baseball Prospectus produced additional data and was particularly handy in forming the health sections by way of its injury records. Rotoworld helped with more recent injury updates.

 

They took everything into consideration . Hitting, hitting for power, baserunning,fielding and health.

 

I don't understand the arbitrary point values given. De Aza was given something like a 13/25 for baserunning. Why 13? Why out of 25? I'm not saying their actual rankings on that list are bad, I just don't understand their scoring system for figuring that list.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I don't understand the arbitrary point values given. De Aza was given something like a 13/25 for baserunning. Why 13? Why out of 25? I'm not saying their actual rankings on that list are bad, I just don't understand their scoring system for figuring that list.

It was actually 12 out of 20 for baserunning. And I can't answer why they picked a 20 pt. system for running the bases. But a 12/20 seems fair. He has speed but not elite speed and his SB percentage wasn't good per attempt nor was his baserunning. He provides value for speed and not much when you factor in his blunders.

 

Looks like they wanted a 100 point sytem overall divided by 6 categories with some categories worth more than others.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Jake]

Alejandro De Aza named 37th best CF in baseball out of 40 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1755728...center-fielders

 

It isn't that it came from B/R, it's that it's based on nothing. They claim to consult various statistics, but the actual point values they assign are based on their gut feeling (that is informed by stats, but who knows to what extent). That's dumb.

[ILMOU]

Top 150 starting pitchers 131. Danks , 58. Quintana , 5. Sale. Santiago wasn't among the 150 which seems curious considering he had 1 more start than Danks and pitched better but Danks also didnt pitch in relief. Also no Eik Johnson and they do put some prospects in the list most notable Archie Bradley who they ranked 47th This list seems the most open to arguments.

 

Pitchers list has some ridiculous overrates: headlined by Hamels (13) , Bailey (15), Garza(43) and Samardzija (34), LOL .

 

Of course, it will be bad luck, again, when these guys allow many more runs, again, than their basic numbers would seem to indicate. Some guys suck out of the stretch or are otherwise distracted with men on base. Fip and xFip were invented by these guys' agents.

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It isn't that it came from B/R, it's that it's based on nothing. They claim to consult various statistics, but the actual point values they assign are based on their gut feeling (that is informed by stats, but who knows to what extent). That's dumb.

I think you have to remember that list was for who they consider best for 2014 so a certain amount of speculation went into it.

[Jose Abreu]

I think you have to remember that list was for who they consider best for 2014 so a certain amount of speculation went into it.

Then surely, Santiago would be on it and Quintana would be top 50?

[witesoxfan]

The 07 white sox put up the fewest runs in the league, worst OBP in the league, worst sb% age in the league, 12th in ERA out of 14 teams, and 12th in errors out of 14 teams.

 

It's actually kind of remarkable with how bad that 07 team performed that the '13 team lost more games than them. The 2007 Sox were terrible in every aspect of the game, including pitching. Every aspect of the game you mentioned.

 

In 07, Cleveland went to the ALCS and barely were beaten by the Red Sox, the Tigers were a year removed from a world series birth, and the Twins had solid 06 and 08 campaigns at the bookends. The Tigers, Indians, and Twins could all be called strong competitors - it literally came down to the last day of the season the next year. It wasn't the AL East but that was a solid division with a number of legit, evenly-matched competitors. And the White sox became one of those competitors in 1 season after being incredibly bad in 07. Andy Gonzalez as a starting IF bad.

 

I see the idea that the Sox had a good pitching staff this year brought up a lot, but it was actually in the lower half of teams (9th ERA, 11th in FIP, 9th in xFIP). There are some arms that are likely to improve on those numbers (Danks) and replacements should put up better numbers than others (whoever for Axelrod), but the pitching can still improve drastically. There are some good pieces in place, but I think next year could be pretty similar pitching wise, especially if they deal a starter (like I expect them to).

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Then surely, Santiago would be on it and Quintana would be top 50?

If they used FanGraphs Steamer projections maybe not . They weren't too kind to Santiago for next year .Also there are still a fair share of Sox fans who don't think Quitana can sustain what he's been doing. The ones who doubted him after his 1st good year still hoping to be right in their analysis though if it were me I'd be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It isn't that it came from B/R, it's that it's based on nothing. They claim to consult various statistics, but the actual point values they assign are based on their gut feeling (that is informed by stats, but who knows to what extent). That's dumb.

All trades and free agents signings are based in part on past and future perceived worth. That's why you have some people liking or hating on trades and signings. I think the lists are useful for fun and not thinking they're the defintive word . That's whats fun abour baseball ,comparing players to each other.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Jake]

All trades and free agents signings are based in part on past and future perceived worth. That's why you have some people liking or hating on trades and signings. I think the lists are useful for fun and not thinking they're the defintive word . That's whats fun abour baseball ,comparing players to each other.

 

The problem is that they tried to make quantitative. They made a series of small, subjective opinions about each player and turned them into numbers and then analyzed the result of the numbers as if to say, "numbers don't lie!" Nobody could say with a straight face that Alejandro is one of the worst CF in baseball, but the numbers say so (that a guy made up)!

 

If he just said, I think this guy is better and here are some reasons I'd take it more seriously. Instead, the results don't even reflect his opinions, but rather an arbitrary score based on his opinions -- in other words, I guarantee the list is not in the order it would be if he tossed out the numbers and just ranked them based on who he thought was better.

[Jake]

All trades and free agents signings are based in part on past and future perceived worth. That's why you have some people liking or hating on trades and signings. I think the lists are useful for fun and not thinking they're the defintive word . That's whats fun abour baseball ,comparing players to each other.

 

The problem is that they tried to make quantitative. They made a series of small, subjective opinions about each player and turned them into numbers and then analyzed the result of the numbers as if to say, "numbers don't lie!" Nobody could say with a straight face that Alejandro is one of the worst CF in baseball, but the numbers say so (that a guy made up)!

 

If he just said, I think this guy is better and here are some reasons I'd take it more seriously. Instead, the results don't even reflect his opinions, but rather an arbitrary score based on his opinions -- in other words, I guarantee the list is not in the order it would be if he tossed out the numbers and just ranked them based on who he thought was better.