white sox heavily in the left handed relief market

[southsider2k5]

Sorry for being snobby but I'm having trouble with all the grammar, punctuation, and capitalization mistakes lately. Some of these posts are flat out tough to read. I hope some action happens soon.

 

I'm not sure what "action" you are looking for, but no one is getting in trouble on Soxtalk because of their posting grammar. I mean have you read a Jason Gage post?

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

6 teams had more blown saves than the white sox and 3 other teams had 21. 2 teams with 21 or more blown saves made wild card play in games. The median number of blown saves in MLB was 19.

Not all blown saves are created equally. There's the bone crushing ninth inning blown save, and there's the statistically accurate, but less important seventh inning blown save. I'm wondering if a little deeper analysis would show that the Sox were worse than these numbers would lead you to believe.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I'm not sure what "action" you are looking for, but no one is getting in trouble on Soxtalk because of their posting grammar. I mean have you read a Jason Gage post?

 

Haha my post was poorly written too. I meant "action" as in the White Sox doing something so it's not just hypotheticals anymore. I don't expect anyone here to police grammar.

[southsider2k5]

The difference in contracts will be significant for a reason. You have to pay for consistent production.

 

That is kind of an oxymoron when you are talking about relief pitchers. Heck look at Miller. His FIP was double in 2013, what it was in 2014. His WHIP was .80 versus 1.37 in 2013. His 2013 walk rate was double his 2014 rate (5.0 vs 2.5). It goes on and on.

[southsider2k5]

Haha my post was poorly written too. I meant "action" as in the White Sox doing something so it's not just hypotheticals anymore. I don't expect anyone here to police grammar.

 

Glad to hear it! And on that point, I agree.

[Balta1701]

Not all blown saves are created equally. There's the bone crushing ninth inning blown save, and there's the statistically accurate, but less important seventh inning blown save. I'm wondering if a little deeper analysis would show that the Sox were worse than these numbers would lead you to believe.

I've still got nothing after looking through a variety of stats. We're not the worst in 9th inning ERA, we're just about as bad in the 9th as we were in 7th-9th, and in all cases not historically so, a couple teams were worse in every ranking. We're 6th from the bottom in fWAR out of the bullpen. Pretty much every stat you want, we're ~bottom 5, with the same teams about tied with us and the same teams worse than us.

 

I know it's tempting to say this is the worst bullpen in history and all we have to do is moderately improve it and we'll be competing for the central but it's just not true. This was a bad bullpen, but not ridiculously so, and pretty much every stat says the same thing. A great bullpen would be a big boost but it wouldn't make this anywhere close to an 88 win team on its own.

[Dick Allen]

I've still got nothing after looking through a variety of stats. We're not the worst in 9th inning ERA, we're just about as bad in the 9th as we were in 7th-9th, and in all cases not historically so, a couple teams were worse in every ranking. We're 6th from the bottom in fWAR out of the bullpen. Pretty much every stat you want, we're ~bottom 5, with the same teams about tied with us and the same teams worse than us.

 

I know it's tempting to say this is the worst bullpen in history and all we have to do is moderately improve it and we'll be competing for the central but it's just not true. This was a bad bullpen, but not ridiculously so, and pretty much every stat says the same thing. A great bullpen would be a big boost but it wouldn't make this anywhere close to an 88 win team on its own.

Why aren't you taking percentages into account? And if they were just as bad in the 7th inning, it shows the bullpen cost them when the game was tied or they were down a run or 2 but got blown out when a blown save wasn't recorded.

 

The bullpen was horrible. The team won 73 games, but some of that was because guys like Wilkins were playing. If they were playing to win as much as possible after they were basically non contenders, it isn't inconceivable this team would have won 2 or 3 more. There needs to be several moves made, but a solid bullpen makes this team a lot better.

[Balta1701]

Why aren't you taking percentages into account? And if they were just as bad in the 7th inning, it shows the bullpen cost them when the game was tied or they were down a run or 2 but got blown out when a blown save wasn't recorded.

 

The bullpen was horrible. The team won 73 games, but some of that was because guys like Wilkins were playing. If they were playing to win as much as possible after they were basically non contenders, it isn't inconceivable this team would have won 2 or 3 more. There needs to be several moves made, but a solid bullpen makes this team a lot better.

Their save percentage was 4th worst in MLB. A team that made the wild card play in game (oakland) was 3rd worst.

 

No matter how you slice it, this bullpen was bad but not historically so. It contributed to us being bad but it was one problem in a hugely long list. That's why throwing big money at single positions is, to my eyes, a mistake - because we have failures up and down the list. Fixing one or two of them isn't enough.

[LDF]

with the pitching and the pen, with what the sox have or in the

future, there will be blow out games where the sox looses as

all teams will.

 

when the sox improve the problems the whole pitching rotation,

and pen. those improvement will help. saying that they will improve

by this amount will be impossible to say. but the games where we

could've won but lost will be different this in 2015.

[Whisox05]

I would unquestionably prefer getting both Duke/Thatcher on 2yr deals than Miller at 4 years and $10m+ per.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the next time a four year deal for a reliever works out, it'll be the first. Or at least AMONG the first. I can't think of one right now.

 

So again we want 2 worst guys then miller. Again thatcher and duke are 2 and 3 years older then miller. Both thatcher and duke have been primarily national league pitchers. Thatcher comes over to the angels during the season and era balloons up to a 8.53. Let's also look at the batting average against them from 2011 to 2014 as relievers:

Thatcher 2011 .216, 2012 .250, 2013 .267, 2014 .293

Duke 2011 .296, 2012 .212, 2013 .291, 2014 .223

Miller 2011 .259, 2012 .194, 2013 .217, 2014 .181

 

To me that shows that thatcher average against is going up pretty nicely over the years. Duke is pretty much a jekyll and hyde. Miller is a bit more consistent then both plus he's done it in the al

[witesoxfan]

So again we want 2 worst guys then miller. Again thatcher and duke are 2 and 3 years older then miller. Both thatcher and duke have been primarily national league pitchers. Thatcher comes over to the angels during the season and era balloons up to a 8.53. Let's also look at the batting average against them from 2011 to 2014 as relievers:

Thatcher 2011 .216, 2012 .250, 2013 .267, 2014 .293

Duke 2011 .296, 2012 .212, 2013 .291, 2014 .223

Miller 2011 .259, 2012 .194, 2013 .217, 2014 .181

 

To me that shows that thatcher average against is going up pretty nicely over the years. Duke is pretty much a jekyll and hyde. Miller is a bit more consistent then both plus he's done it in the al

 

Miller is also going to cost around $40 million for 4 years, and he's been fairly inconsistent as well.

 

It's no surprise that the White Sox have interest in Miller but if they ultimately sign him for $10 mill a year over 4 years, I'll be a bit upset.

[Dick Allen]

Miller is also going to cost around $40 million for 4 years, and he's been fairly inconsistent as well.

 

It's no surprise that the White Sox have interest in Miller but if they ultimately sign him for $10 mill a year over 4 years, I'll be a bit upset.

It's better than spending $7 million a year on Downs and Belisario.

[Whisox05]

Miller is also going to cost around $40 million for 4 years, and he's been fairly inconsistent as well.

 

It's no surprise that the White Sox have interest in Miller but if they ultimately sign him for $10 mill a year over 4 years, I'll be a bit upset.

 

Miller's fairly inconsistency is still better then both of thatcher and duke. Miller's higher ba against is 4 years ago and still way better then the other 2. I'll be more upset if we get one of duke or thatcher and turns into scott downs 2.0

Edited November 17, 2014 by WhiteSoxLifer

[witesoxfan]

It's better than spending $7 million a year on Downs and Belisario.

 

Why? Miller could just as easily get hurt and be a shell of his former self and his addition by itself is not going to take the Sox from 75 wins to 88 wins. Frankly, it could be a worse contract than Scott Linebrink was for the White Sox. At least with Belisario and Downs, there was no committment beyond 1 year.

[caulfield12]

The last time we invested "heavily" into set-up guys, it didn't go so well with MacDougal, Dotel and Linebrink.

 

That said, we have to find the middle ground between buying at an absolute peak and finding "bargains" on the downside who end up costing almost as much (and probably moreso if you factor in replacing them constantly) as the premiere players.

[Whisox05]

Why? Miller could just as easily get hurt and be a shell of his former self and his addition by itself is not going to take the Sox from 75 wins to 88 wins. Frankly, it could be a worse contract than Scott Linebrink was for the White Sox. At least with Belisario and Downs, there was no committment beyond 1 year.

7

 

Scott linebrink really should have never been signed in the first place. His 3.55 era with Milwaukee was the best in 3 years and that's was being traded to them in the season. He was also a primarily nl guy before the sox signed him. The one year of belisario and downs is why the bullpen sucked so bad. Those buy low guys with chance of high upside killed us last year. Paulino, Cleto, Boggs, Veal etc.

[GGajewski18]

The last time we invested "heavily" into set-up guys, it didn't go so well with MacDougal, Dotel and Linebrink.

 

That said, we have to find the middle ground between buying at an absolute peak and finding "bargains" on the downside who end up costing almost as much (and probably moreso if you factor in replacing them constantly) as the premiere players.

 

Jesse Crain was really good until the last year of his contract when he got hurt.

 

That was a heavy investment in relief pitching.

[Baron]

[/b]

 

That is kind of an oxymoron when you are talking about relief pitchers. Heck look at Miller. His FIP was double in 2013, what it was in 2014. His WHIP was .80 versus 1.37 in 2013. His 2013 walk rate was double his 2014 rate (5.0 vs 2.5). It goes on and on.

 

That's definitely a valid point.

[witesoxfan]

7

 

Scott linebrink really should have never been signed in the first place. His 3.55 era with Milwaukee was the best in 3 years and that's was being traded to them in the season. He was also a primarily nl guy before the sox signed him. The one year of belisario and downs is why the bullpen sucked so bad. Those buy low guys with chance of high upside killed us last year. Paulino, Cleto, Boggs, Veal etc.

 

Signing buy low types with upside netted the Cubs Jake Arrieta and it certainly helped them get Addison Russell. To abandon that because it didn't work out a couple times is absurd.

 

(also not sure why you included Cleto, Veal, or Boggs...Boggs pitched in exactly 0 games with the MLB team last year, Veal represented depth, and Cleto was a waiver claim)

 

I've been saying this a lot lately, but if this were next year, I'd be a lot more interested in signing these guys. Andrew Miller just doesn't make sense for $10 mill a year for a team that's in the rebuilding process. This is year 2 of the rebuild and while they can still be competitive, I don't think you'll see them be considered a favorite until 2016. Being patient and spending money wisely would be far better than spending all of it just because they have it. Frankly, if the Sox go out and commit an additional $50 mill per year for the next 3-5 years, then what do the Sox do next year when they have additional openings come up and they need to be filled? Are you going to trade the minor leaguers at that point?

[witesoxfan]

Jesse Crain was really good until the last year of his contract when he got hurt.

 

That was a heavy investment in relief pitching.

 

Jesse Crain signed a 3 year, $13 million deal. Andrew Miller might sign for 3x that amount and more than 2x the AAV.

[Baron]

Jesse Crain signed a 3 year, $13 million deal. Andrew Miller might sign for 3x that amount and more than 2x the AAV.

 

3 for 30 last I read

[witesoxfan]

3 for 30 last I read

 

So 4/$40 isn't a stretch.

[GGajewski18]

Jesse Crain signed a 3 year, $13 million deal. Andrew Miller might sign for 3x that amount and more than 2x the AAV.

 

Times have changed in baseball. At that time, that was an expensive deal for middle relief pitching.

[witesoxfan]

Times have changed in baseball. At that time, that was an expensive deal for middle relief pitching.

 

What? No it wasn't. Scott Linebrink signed a 4 year, $19 million deal prior to the 2008 season and Dotel signed for 2 years and $11 million. It was a risky deal because it was a middle reliever. Crain's ERAs in the 4 years prior to signing with the Sox:

 

2007: 5.51

2008: 3.59

2009: 4.70

2010: 3.04

 

[Eminor3rd]

The last time we invested "heavily" into set-up guys, it didn't go so well with MacDougal, Dotel and Linebrink.

 

It literally NEVER goes well. That's the point. Miller is no doubt better than Duke/Thatcher, but there's such a strong precedent that relievers aren't good for more than a couple years. There are a handful of like legendary guys that are exceptions, basically, but otherwise long-term reliever deals NEVER work. Or if they do, it's like less than 5% of the time.