White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:22 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,207
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Maybe they have enough pitching. I agreed with Peavy, without, they are just average. I would rather build a team that has a chance to actually win and do damage vs. the same old same old of 82 win teams that maybe get hot, win 86-87 games, sneak in, and get swept. That is not a very successful season to me.
If Peavy were still on the Sox, going into the 2014 season he would, at best be the #3 starter on the Sox and very possibly could be the #5 starter by season's end. He's not relevant to the make-up of the pitching staff which was very good most of this season.

I agree, I'd love to build a 95-game winner, too, but I don't think you need to lose 100 games for a decade to do it. Plenty of other teams have shown it is more than possible to juggle success at the MLB level with success in growing one's own farm.

All that being said, I'd much rather build a team that can certainly win 85-ish games, hope for a few lucky bounces here and there, and be realistic contenders for much of the season instead of watching another year of 100-loss baseball. That's for damn sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses_Scurry View Post
I don't see why signing Granderson to a team-friendly deal would have to interfere with the rebuild. I don't think anyone here wants them to sign him to a long-term contract. Hell, if he has a good enough year, and the Sox are out of contention they can trade him for more prospects to maybe accelerate the rebuild.
Yeah, exactly, nobody wants Granderson at all costs, but if you're telling me you wouldn't take him for a short contract that doesn't have an NTC and isn't financially crippling, why not? The Sox don't have any blue chip OF prospects other than Garcia ready for the Majors. After him it's all Viciedo, De Aza, and Danks... Ugh. These guys suck.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:54 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
If Peavy were still on the Sox, going into the 2014 season he would, at best be the #3 starter on the Sox and very possibly could be the #5 starter by season's end. He's not relevant to the make-up of the pitching staff which was very good most of this season.

I agree, I'd love to build a 95-game winner, too, but I don't think you need to lose 100 games for a decade to do it. Plenty of other teams have shown it is more than possible to juggle success at the MLB level with success in growing one's own farm.

All that being said, I'd much rather build a team that can certainly win 85-ish games, hope for a few lucky bounces here and there, and be realistic contenders for much of the season instead of watching another year of 100-loss baseball. That's for damn sure.



Yeah, exactly, nobody wants Granderson at all costs, but if you're telling me you wouldn't take him for a short contract that doesn't have an NTC and isn't financially crippling, why not? The Sox don't have any blue chip OF prospects other than Garcia ready for the Majors. After him it's all Viciedo, De Aza, and Danks... Ugh. These guys suck.
Maybe on Jake, I still think he slots into the 2-3.

I love Sale, and Quintana showed a lot of growth this year. In a perfect world we go into the season with him as a 3. I don't know about Danks's health but I feel ok with him as a 4. I like Johnson in the 5. Santiago as the swing man is fine. He really ran out of gas late, and does not always show the ability to pitch deep into games. But he has value in the pen.

I think the rotation could use a solid/strong 2, but it is not a need. But with that rotation, it won't matter if we have a bottom 3 or 4 offense and defense.

I admit I judge success and failure harshly, very harsly, but honestly I would rather endure a year like this that leads to change vs. a year where we hover .500 and never get past 3rd place. Baseball hell and Baseball purgatory are not much different to me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-09-2013, 01:10 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
If Peavy were still on the Sox, going into the 2014 season he would, at best be the #3 starter on the Sox and very possibly could be the #5 starter by season's end. He's not relevant to the make-up of the pitching staff which was very good most of this season.
This is a common misconception with teams that start young pitchers who are very good early. The way Santiago ended is way more indicative of his skill set. His second half era was more than half a run higher than the first half, his k:bb ratio was cut in half, and he allowed a .272/.371/.427 line. Making matters worse, he got progressively worse every month of the second half. It's pretty apparent the league caught up to him (which shouldn't be a surprise considering his success is built around a trick pitch players haven't seen in years).

Not to mention - a large part of our staff being good most of the year was Peavy's numbers... and Dylan Axelrod, who is complete garbage time now. And I don't know what's possessing you to assume that Peavy would be moved below Danks in the rotation.

Sale and Quintana are really it for guys that had full, good years that we can feel relatively safe counting on. Peavy would have made three. And almost everything I've read assumes Quintana is being shopped. So while the staff on a whole had a good year last year, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's not going to repeat without adding pitching to the roster.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-09-2013, 01:40 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,207
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
This is a common misconception with teams that start young pitchers who are very good early. The way Santiago ended is way more indicative of his skill set. His second half era was more than half a run higher than the first half, his k:bb ratio was cut in half, and he allowed a .272/.371/.427 line. Making matters worse, he got progressively worse every month of the second half. It's pretty apparent the league caught up to him (which shouldn't be a surprise considering his success is built around a trick pitch players haven't seen in years).

Not to mention - a large part of our staff being good most of the year was Peavy's numbers... and Dylan Axelrod, who is complete garbage time now. And I don't know what's possessing you to assume that Peavy would be moved below Danks in the rotation.

Sale and Quintana are really it for guys that had full, good years that we can feel relatively safe counting on. Peavy would have made three. And almost everything I've read assumes Quintana is being shopped. So while the staff on a whole had a good year last year, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's not going to repeat without adding pitching to the roster.
I'm not even considering Santiago part of the rotation next year, but a good point, I guess it is only fair to point out that the other side of the coin is that Peavy could probably be as high as our #2 starter next year if every possible thing goes wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-09-2013, 01:55 PM
Huisj Huisj is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
It's pretty apparent the league caught up to him (which shouldn't be a surprise considering his success is built around a trick pitch players haven't seen in years).

According the pitch data, he threw a whopping 112 screwballs this year. That's one every 5 or 6 batters. I suppose it's possible that some of those got classified as changeups since it basically does look like an extreme circle change. Even if you count every changeup he threw as a screwball (which probably isn't accurate), it's still 1 every two batters faced.

I think his struggles later in the year are as much to do with running out of gas (not surprising for a guy who wasn't a starter earlier and had never thrown that many innings before in a season) as with the league figuring him out. His control got worse and he seemed to always be behind in the count, and he got hit harder as a result. You know who had a similar late-season problem the year before? Quintana and Sale. Guess we should have written them off too.

I'm not ready to give up on him yet like so many around here are.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-09-2013, 01:58 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,207
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huisj View Post
I think his struggles later in the year are as much to do with running out of gas (not surprising for a guy who wasn't a starter earlier and had never thrown that many innings before in a season) as with the league figuring him out. His control got worse and he seemed to always be behind in the count, and he got hit harder as a result. You know who had a similar late-season problem the year before? Quintana and Sale. Guess we should have written them off too.
Santiago's never been as good as Sale or Quintana, though, at least not over any real length of time.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-09-2013, 02:36 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I disagree, the Sox have the pitching to compete today. Right now. You don't need to build a 95-win juggernaut to get to the postseason, you just need to build a good enough team to claim one of the 5 playoff berths. 1/3 of the league gets to go to the playoffs now.
This year, that required 92 wins. Good luck, Sox.
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-09-2013, 02:37 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
This is a common misconception with teams that start young pitchers who are very good early. The way Santiago ended is way more indicative of his skill set. His second half era was more than half a run higher than the first half, his k:bb ratio was cut in half, and he allowed a .272/.371/.427 line. Making matters worse, he got progressively worse every month of the second half. It's pretty apparent the league caught up to him (which shouldn't be a surprise considering his success is built around a trick pitch players haven't seen in years).

Not to mention - a large part of our staff being good most of the year was Peavy's numbers... and Dylan Axelrod, who is complete garbage time now. And I don't know what's possessing you to assume that Peavy would be moved below Danks in the rotation.

Sale and Quintana are really it for guys that had full, good years that we can feel relatively safe counting on. Peavy would have made three. And almost everything I've read assumes Quintana is being shopped. So while the staff on a whole had a good year last year, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's not going to repeat without adding pitching to the roster.
Ah, but Quintana had a crap second half last year, so as to him, your hypothesis does not apply.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-09-2013, 02:57 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I'm not even considering Santiago part of the rotation next year, but a good point, I guess it is only fair to point out that the other side of the coin is that Peavy could probably be as high as our #2 starter next year if every possible thing goes wrong.
Which there's plenty of precedent for recently.

There's a lot of young guys to look at, so it's a blessing we're not likely to compete this year. And if there's low cost veterans filling needs in the meantime (like Granderson) and some of the young low ceiling pitchers have Santiago/Axelrod years, it's not impossible we could end up with that 82 win team anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huisj View Post
According the pitch data, he threw a whopping 112 screwballs this year. That's one every 5 or 6 batters. I suppose it's possible that some of those got classified as changeups since it basically does look like an extreme circle change. Even if you count every changeup he threw as a screwball (which probably isn't accurate), it's still 1 every two batters faced.

I think his struggles later in the year are as much to do with running out of gas (not surprising for a guy who wasn't a starter earlier and had never thrown that many innings before in a season) as with the league figuring him out. His control got worse and he seemed to always be behind in the count, and he got hit harder as a result. You know who had a similar late-season problem the year before? Quintana and Sale. Guess we should have written them off too.

I'm not ready to give up on him yet like so many around here are.
He throws a change that he developed because the screwball wasn't enough. His problem wasn't running out of gas. He didn't lose velocity and his location didn't suffer. His problem was his out of zone pitches for swing and misses went down significantly (the general rule on this is that the league adjusted). Not only did he stop getting swings and misses off his breaking stuff, but now they're balls. Without developing another solid offering, I don't think there's any chance he works out as a starter.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-09-2013, 03:22 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
Ah, but Quintana had a crap second half last year, so as to him, your hypothesis does not apply.
I don't think Quintana's as good as he's pitched. I think the White Sox agree (which is why they're trying to sell high).
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-09-2013, 03:46 PM
ZombieRob ZombieRob is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Braunfels Texas
Posts: 7,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
I don't think Quintana's as good as he's pitched. I think the White Sox agree (which is why they're trying to sell high).
I would of agreed with you the 1st year he pitched for us, but not the second. I don't think he's a fluke and he has the biggest nads on this pitching staff when it comes to gutsy pitching.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-09-2013, 04:24 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieRob View Post
I would of agreed with you the 1st year he pitched for us, but not the second. I don't think he's a fluke and he has the biggest nads on this pitching staff when it comes to gutsy pitching.
I'm just not enthralled with guys with below average stuff that rely on a combination of location and deception to be effective. Sure, some guys, like Bruce Chen, make a career out of it with only a few bad years. But the vast majority of those guys don't last half a decade.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-09-2013, 05:30 PM
ZombieRob ZombieRob is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Braunfels Texas
Posts: 7,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
I'm just not enthralled with guys with below average stuff that rely on a combination of location and deception to be effective. Sure, some guys, like Bruce Chen, make a career out of it with only a few bad years. But the vast majority of those guys don't last half a decade.
There's a TON of soft tossing lefties who have been effective. And he still throws around 90.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-09-2013, 06:23 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieRob View Post
There's a TON of soft tossing lefties who have been effective. And he still throws around 90.
Not many of them are elite though, or terribly consistent. It's not what I'd spend money on if I were building as staff. Pre-arbitration is fine, but once again I think the White Sox are on the same page which is why they're shopping him.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-10-2013, 12:36 AM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 18,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieRob View Post
I would of agreed with you
I know, I know, you guys hate me for this, but it is my biggest, biggest pet peeve of all of grammar mistakes:

WOULD OF and COULD OF are *never* correct. It is WOULD HAVE or COULD HAVE, also properly shortened as WOULD'VE or COULD'VE.

I don't care what they "sound like."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.