notin

The Yankees might be the team to beat in the AL, but the White Sox are perfectly capable of doing so...

Let’s pass the hat...

Agreed on both counts...

The more I think about (which is admittedly not much), I would be OK with Duran opening the season in CF. He might flop, but CF is one of their deepest positions throughout the organization. If they wait too long on Duran, at some point Rosario and/or Jimenez could be knocking on the door as well. This could be a good problem to have, but if they start experimenting now it’s not necessarily a bad thing...

Well, we don’t really know what DD was allowed to spend after 2018, but I do think he did some unwise spending (Eovaldi). Bloom it appears was not allowed any increase in net spending and was charged with reducing payroll...

In fact, the Red Sox took a bigger step down (.148 point drop on winning pct.) from 2018 to 2019 than they did from 2019 to 2020 (.119 point drop in winning percentage)...

It still doesn’t mean the Sox have a better chance at the postseason with Duran over Bradley. Duran might be the more likely player at this point, but that’s only because he’s already here...

There is no truth that a younger untried player increases the Sox chances of making the post-season more than adding Bradley does. Even if said younger player, whom I presume is Duran, has a true breakout season, which is the strawman portion of the point...

And at least one complete surprise nobody will put up stellar numbers throughout spring training in an attempt to make an impression, and many fans will claim he needs to be on the team. Any guesses about who? I'll nominate Michael Gettys...

You also thought they were the clear best in the AL last year after they signed Cole...

And yet he is still playing. I'd have thought he would have quit baseball to eat full time by now...

Rice did play up until 1989, and he was third in MVP balloting as late as 1986.

But how many of those incentives will Paxton reach if he has a 2.7 fWAR season?

As much as I would like to see the Sox add someone like Odorizzi, at what point does signing someone like him just make trading Price look like a bad move? Odorizzi might cost a $14mill AAV, but with the Sox already committing $15mill to Price, I have to wonder if simply holding on to Price (which then costs the Sox only $2 mill more) would have been the right move. Is Odorizzi going to be better than Price over the next couple seasons? If not, you're essentially paying the same thing for a lesser pitcher...

German is the Yasiel Puig of the pitching world. So far, teams aren’t lining up to sign Puig...

Maybe they can trade him to Tampa for another prospect...

Use Zone % on Fangraphs

BAA and WHIP have the same fatal flaw - home runs and weak grounders to third count the same...

Probably worth noting that 2018 8th inning data is also based on giving up 2 ER in 3.1 IP....

Career ERA 2.00 in the 7th 2.45 in the 8th 2.09 in the 9th So... not really. I do think some fans have a comfort level with how a pitcher should be used. So when one isn’t used as they like/want/expect, they remember the failures more clearly...

If only the Sox could acquire pitchers as durable as the Yankee rotation, which is Gerrit Cole plus 4 pitchers who averaged 11 IP last season. Gerrit Cole is the only difference between the Sox rotation and the Yankees. Granted, it is a good difference to have. But then, I did not think the goal here was "better rotation than the Sox."..

There was a lot less specialization when he played, but I think the "I just want to get out there" mentality has always been in baseball. No one wants to be a benchwarmer. I do think a lot of relief pitchers want to closer role, but probably more so because it pays significantly more than other bullpen roles. Not because of the actual role itself..

Hard to say. In a 60 game season last year, Tampa got saves from 12 different pitchers, including 5 who had multiple saves. So were they being situational here? I didn't watch all of their regular season games (Did anyone on Earth do that who was not a Ray or married to one?) It is hard to say because the rules for a save are rather lax and sometimes just mean pitching the last 3 innings of a game regardless of the score. For example, one of the pitchers with one save was Anthony Banda, who got his against Boston in a 17-8 game. But then Chaz Roe had only one save, and it was in a 6-3 game against the Yankees. Situational? Andrew Kittredge also had one save, and it was in an 8-7 game against Boston...

Some are absolutely creatures of habit. Some absolutely want defined roles. But as these are human beings, they simply do not all fall into the same category. Former closer Kent Tekulve was often critical of his usage and said "I should never pitch 3 days in a row but I should never go 3 days without pitching." No mention of inning. No mention of roles or pressure. He apparently just wanted to be out there as often as he felt he could handle. And I would not be surprised if the overwhelming majority has the exact same mindset. They didn't spend their whole lives playing baseball just so they could reach the majors and sit back and wait for situations to arise that suited them...

Ok goody, this argument again. Sure it takes a special mentality to close. Is that any different than the mentality it takes to start or set up or perform middle relief? I do not think pitchers who blow the lead in the 7th inning laugh it off and tell their teammates that they have their work cut out for them. (And contrary to "closer mentality" logic, a blown save is not automatically a loss. Many of them simply tie the score.) If it takes a special mentality to close because the game is on the line, isn't it also on the line for the hitters? After all, iof they fail, their team loses. Doesn't that offset the "closing pressure"? Or if all the pressure is on the closer, then that means there is no pressure on the hitters, and therefore there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. (Oh no!! I went there.) I think any pitcher capable of making the majors has to have a certain mentality, regardless of roles. (Hitters, too.) And pitchers (and hitters) who do not have it struggle to make the majors or struggle to stay there. The minors are littered with mega-talented arms capable of topping 100 mph who never get more than a September call up. Heck, some never get out of A ball. And of these arms, some of them simply lack the mental make up to handle the game at the next level, and that is why they peak where they peak. Rick Ankiel was a prime example, as his mental makeup was so bad, he changed to the outfield and gave up pitching altogether. (I remember once on MLB2N during Ankiel's struggles, Tim Kurjikian made the incredibly prophetic statement "If Ankiel continues to struggle pitching, he can always switch to outfield because he is such a good hitter." Wow. Yes, he really said that.) But the analytic strategy is simple: if your closer is your best reliever - and he usually is - use him against the best hitters. If the 4-5-6 hitters are due up in the 8th, why are you not using your best pitcher? And why are you saving your best for the 7-8-9 hitters in the 9th? The "opener" strategy was based on this logic, because as the game is unfolding, you do not always know who will be due up in the 9th, but you do always know who is due up in the first. So use one of your better if not your best arms then and take away one trip through the lineup for the opposing best hitters...