witesoxfan Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 09:41 AM) I know people don't like things like the eye test and different roles making a difference, but to me Belisario was the poster boy for both. He got off to a horrible start, and then was a lock down set up guy, until they tried him as a closer. Once he hit that closer role, the self-destruct button was hit, and he was terrible again. I think Bellisario is a textbook case of not having enough between the ears to be a guy who does more than be a middle reliever and set up guy. You can see when Belisario pitches that he has a great arm. He gets great velocity and his pitches sink like they have lead in them. But when you leave them up, major league hitters tend to hit the ball hard. As an aside, no one should suggesting that we stop using the eye test to determine the quality of a player in general. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to figure out the talent of college or high school players or minor leaguers or majors leaguers who have talent but haven't put it together. The eye-test is still incredibly important. All anybody should say is that the eye test is not always going to tell us who our good players are based on a number of things - sample size bias, personal bias, a lack of information (think fielding here - we see a guy make a great play and have no idea where he started or how much ground he covered), and any number of other biases. With statistic databases, such as BP, FanGraphs, B-R, and any number of others, we can start to look at numbers that we wouldn't see because it is nearly physically impossible for one person to watch every single play of every single game throughout the course of a season while noting all of this information, forming an opinion on all of these players, and then ranking the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) You can see when Belisario pitches that he has a great arm. He gets great velocity and his pitches sink like they have lead in them. But when you leave them up, major league hitters tend to hit the ball hard. As an aside, no one should suggesting that we stop using the eye test to determine the quality of a player in general. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to figure out the talent of college or high school players or minor leaguers or majors leaguers who have talent but haven't put it together. The eye-test is still incredibly important. All anybody should say is that the eye test is not always going to tell us who our good players are based on a number of things - sample size bias, personal bias, a lack of information (think fielding here - we see a guy make a great play and have no idea where he started or how much ground he covered), and any number of other biases. With statistic databases, such as BP, FanGraphs, B-R, and any number of others, we can start to look at numbers that we wouldn't see because it is nearly physically impossible for one person to watch every single play of every single game throughout the course of a season while noting all of this information, forming an opinion on all of these players, and then ranking the players. I can get behind that. And yes, Belly was situationally bad last year, but his overall peripherals were exactly in line with his career except for that bloated BABIP. In other words, he should be expected to be much, much "better" this year, even if he pitches exactly the same (peripherals-wise). And yes, he did have the third highest VORP amongst White Sox pitchers, implosions or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 04:41 AM) Maybe the White Sox should reacquire CQ for LaRoche's at-bats against lefties? I don't completely hate this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Glad Sox did not pay that much for a 33 year old SP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) I don't completely hate this idea. The only problem with the idea is you need another hitter for the half of the season CQ will be injured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 09:51 AM) The only problem with the idea is you need another hitter for the half of the season CQ will be injured. yeah, he's made of glass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) I don't completely hate this idea. There's an $8 million price tag that makes it incredibly unlikely, as well as his tendency to get injured and inability to really play the field at all. Plus I think there will be a team with a relatively full time opening come up at DH that will take a shot on him because he's still good against both RHP and LHP. If he could play 1B - it's not that hard, tell him Wash - it would make a bit more sense. The problem right now is that the spots he'd play - LF, RF, 1B, and DH - are probably 4 of the 5 most solid spots on the entire team. Quentin would be an extreme luxury at this point for the Sox and I don't think it's something that ultimately makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) There's an $8 million price tag that makes it incredibly unlikely, as well as his tendency to get injured and inability to really play the field at all. Plus I think there will be a team with a relatively full time opening come up at DH that will take a shot on him because he's still good against both RHP and LHP. If he could play 1B - it's not that hard, tell him Wash - it would make a bit more sense. The problem right now is that the spots he'd play - LF, RF, 1B, and DH - are probably 4 of the 5 most solid spots on the entire team. Quentin would be an extreme luxury at this point for the Sox and I don't think it's something that ultimately makes sense. I agree that, at this point, Quentin is a luxury item, but finding someone to take LaRoche's at bats against lefties is still worth looking into. Besides, the Sox are one corner OF injury away from that luxury turning into an all-caps, blinking red NEED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:22 AM) I agree that, at this point, Quentin is a luxury item, but finding someone to take LaRoche's at bats against lefties is still worth looking into. Besides, the Sox are one corner OF injury away from that luxury turning into an all-caps, blinking red NEED. At this point, that's a minor problem with the Sox current roster construction. At this point, it's safe to assume that the Sox will carry 12 pitchers. Here's what we're looking at otherwise (these names matter a little less, as some could change) C - Flowers 1B - Abreu 2B - Sanchez SS - Ramirez 3B - Gillaspie LF - Cabrera CF - Eaton RF - Garcia DH - LaRoche C - Brantly IF - Beckham IF/OF - Bonifacio There's one remaining roster spot. In theory, that could go to a guy like Quentin, but $8 million for a bench player with no real acceptable tool other than an ability to hit the ball hard is rather expensive even if you could get him for free player wise. I will agree with the contention that I wouldn't hate the move, but I wouldn't be particularly satisfied with it either. Ultimately, Michael Taylor may fill that role at a level slightly less than what Quentin would at a fraction of the cost. Regarding an injury putting the Sox in a dire position, you can say that about quite a few teams, but the Sox don't have a lot of high ceiling talent in the upper minors either, which also hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:39 AM) At this point, that's a minor problem with the Sox current roster construction. At this point, it's safe to assume that the Sox will carry 12 pitchers. Here's what we're looking at otherwise (these names matter a little less, as some could change) C - Flowers 1B - Abreu 2B - Sanchez SS - Ramirez 3B - Gillaspie LF - Cabrera CF - Eaton RF - Garcia DH - LaRoche C - Brantly IF - Beckham IF/OF - Bonifacio There's one remaining roster spot. In theory, that could go to a guy like Quentin, but $8 million for a bench player with no real acceptable tool other than an ability to hit the ball hard is rather expensive even if you could get him for free player wise. I will agree with the contention that I wouldn't hate the move, but I wouldn't be particularly satisfied with it either. Ultimately, Michael Taylor may fill that role at a level slightly less than what Quentin would at a fraction of the cost. Regarding an injury putting the Sox in a dire position, you can say that about quite a few teams, but the Sox don't have a lot of high ceiling talent in the upper minors either, which also hurts. No one in their right mind would take Quentin at $8 mil. San Diego would have to pony up half that to make it even worth considering. (And why wouldn't they? They have Kemp-Myers-Upton-Venable ahead of him.) Michael Taylor is just not very good, and the Sox lack of position prospects in the upper minors is the very issue. Quentin specifically may or may not be the guy, but the Sox should be looking for someone with that kind of profile for that last roster spot, either now, in Spring Training, or before the trade deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) No one in their right mind would take Quentin at $8 mil. San Diego would have to pony up half that to make it even worth considering. (And why wouldn't they? They have Kemp-Myers-Upton-Venable ahead of him.) Michael Taylor is just not very good, and the Sox lack of position prospects in the upper minors is the very issue. Quentin specifically may or may not be the guy, but the Sox should be looking for someone with that kind of profile for that last roster spot, either now, in Spring Training, or before the trade deadline. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:45 AM) No one in their right mind would take Quentin at $8 mil. San Diego would have to pony up half that to make it even worth considering. (And why wouldn't they? They have Kemp-Myers-Upton-Venable ahead of him.) Michael Taylor is just not very good, and the Sox lack of position prospects in the upper minors is the very issue. Quentin specifically may or may not be the guy, but the Sox should be looking for someone with that kind of profile for that last roster spot, either now, in Spring Training, or before the trade deadline. I think there are a couple teams who could, at the very least, afford to pay Quentin $8 million, so I don't see that as nearly as big of a problem. There is also the need to acquire him too. If the Sox somehow got the Padres to eat about $4 mill while the Sox gave up someone like Kyle Hansen, yeah, it'd be a worthwhile move, but I don't see that happening. I did like what I saw from Taylor at the end of the year. Good bat speed, but it's a really long, mechanical looking swing with big holes in it. I think he'd function just fine in a backup role. They'd be in trouble if he had to start though. I won't care if he doesn't end up in that role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The big problem with Q other than his contract is he really can't play the OF anymore. The guy looks like a 70 year old Dick Butkus going down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 11:59 PM) Simply untrue. They help you hit the ball farther and recover faster, but they can't make you a better hitter. Steroids don't make you hit at the high average level that Piazza did for as long as he did. Stats prove you wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Stats prove you wrong. Nah. See Brady Anderson and the hundreds of other players who didn't become superstars. They don't make bad players hall of famers. But regarding CQ. Reeeeeally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 12:56 PM) Nah. See Brady Anderson and the hundreds of other players who didn't become superstars. They don't make bad players hall of famers. But regarding CQ. Reeeeeally? Brady Anderson was a superstar for a season, actually. Dude hit 50 homeruns out of nowhere and had an MVP season, then went back to being a normal guy with a lot of injury problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:16 PM) Brady Anderson was a superstar for a season, actually. Dude hit 50 homeruns out of nowhere and had an MVP season, then went back to being a normal guy with a lot of injury problems. I know. That's my point. Why didn't that happen with Piazza? Or rather, why didn't Anderson hit like Piazza if steroids really are so incredibly powerful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:18 PM) I know. That's my point. Why didn't that happen with Piazza? Or rather, why didn't Anderson hit like Piazza if steroids really are so incredibly powerful? Because Anderson only used them for one season while Piazza kept using them his whole career? It's not rocket science here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:19 PM) Because Anderson only used them for one season while Piazza kept using them his whole career? It's not rocket science here. ding Dan Uggla is another guy you can look at and be very suspicious of his numbers before MLB PED testing got pretty tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) Because Anderson only used them for one season while Piazza kept using them his whole career? It's not rocket science here. You have literally zero proof on either count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:20 PM) ding seriously? you guys believe that? you believe that after a season like Anderson had, he went "you know what, maybe I shouldn't use these anymore. I don't like making millions of dollars" Ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Serious question, do we really know that Piazza used steroids? I wasn't alive during the majority of his Dodger years and I didn't start watching baseball until he had just left the Mets, so I have no knowledge on whether or not he used them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) Serious question, do we really know that Piazza used steroids? I wasn't alive during the majority of his Dodger years and I didn't start watching baseball until he had just left the Mets, so I have no knowledge on whether or not he used them. No we don't. There's no proof he used, though there are stories from ex-players. But he never failed any test or was caught doing anything illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:20 PM) You have literally zero proof on either count. Prove me wrong. Oh wait, you can't because Bud Selig didn't care that his players were roided up and there was no drug testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:22 PM) Serious question, do we really know that Piazza used steroids? I wasn't alive during the majority of his Dodger years and I didn't start watching baseball until he had just left the Mets, so I have no knowledge on whether or not he used them. Yup. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.