Yep, Josh Fields can't hit fastballs

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 1:58 PM CST in White Sox News

After looking at the White Sox Pitch Type Data for the returning starting pitchers, I decided to see if we could learn anything from the available pitch type data for our hitters. Well, just Josh Fields for now, but I plan on expanding that in the near future.

Again, I'll point you towards The Hardball Times article with league averages and let you draw your own conclusions from Fields' data.

I've included Contact%, which isn't included in the THT article, but is available on all player pages at Baseball-Reference.com. I don't have the pitch-type data for contact rate, but you can see just how much trouble Fields has with the fastball through this method.

The ML average contact rate (for all pitches) is 80%; Fields checks in at 72% overall and 73.3% for our sample. The average Major Leaguer swings and misses (WHIFF%) at just 6% of the fastballs thrown; Fields is more than doubles that rate at 14%, and makes contact less than 70% of the time he moves the bat off his shoulder against fastballs.

I'd have to take a look at the data from other high-strikeout sluggers to form an opinion about whether Fields inability to hit pedestrian fastballs will keep him from becoming a major leaguer. But right now, I think we can at least back up what we all saw over the course of the season with some hard data. Fields does not handle the fastball well at all.

[Hardball Times] [Josh Kalk's Pitch f/x tool] [Josh Fields Pitch Type Data]

Tweet Comment 128 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

He already is a major leaguer, no?

Whether he becomes a good, or passable, one is another story.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 28, 2007 2:20 PM CST reply actions

Technically

I believe you saw some results (specifically power) that I don't think he can maintain without a change in swing/philosophy.

He's a dangerous hitter with good bat speed, but he has to change/shorten his load phase or pitchers are going to discover they can blow him away with 89MPH fastballs.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

On another topic,

being a former World Series hero doesn't make you bulletproof:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7611338

Don't eff with us in Florida, boy!

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 28, 2007 2:24 PM CST reply actions

man, that's horrible

nor is the woman he killed drunkdriver(allegedly)-proof

Mosi Tatupu! Mosi Tatupu!

by Nordhagen on Dec 28, 2007 3:10 PM CST up reply actions

I'm also not a big fan of the fact

he's missing changeups and splitters too. Apparently it isn't just the fastball, but also anything that comes out of a pitcher's hand looking like a fastball.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

by MarketMaker on Dec 28, 2007 2:31 PM CST reply actions

caveats

the Splitter is just 34 pitches of data... I don't think we can draw anything from that...

and while he may have had some trouble with the change up, he was much closer to league average there than he is against a fastball, which is obviously the most thrown pitch in baseball.

League Averages

+-----------+-------+---------+-------+-----------+---------+

| PitchType | Ball% | Called% | Foul% | Swinging% | InPlay% |

+-----------+-------+---------+-------+-----------+---------+

| FB        |  0.36 |    0.19 |  0.19 |      0.06 |    0.19 |

| SL        |  0.36 |    0.14 |  0.17 |      0.13 |    0.20 |

| Curve     |  0.40 |    0.19 |  0.13 |      0.11 |    0.16 |

| Change    |  0.40 |    0.11 |  0.14 |      0.13 |    0.21 |

+-----------+-------+---------+-------+-----------+---------+

| All       |  0.37 |    0.17 |  0.17 |      0.09 |    0.19 |

+-----------+-------+---------+-------+-----------+---------+

InPlay - includes home runs

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

Added Jerry Owens to the data

Against lefties, he helpless against anything but fastballs.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 2:32 PM CST reply actions

And Orlando Cabrera

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 2:57 PM CST up reply actions

What's the formula you're using?

You defined WHIFF, but how are contact %, etc being defined? None of these figures add up to 100% if you add across the rows, eg WHIFF% + FOUL% + CONTACT% does NOT = 100%.

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 28, 2007 3:06 PM CST reply actions

WHIFF% and Foul%

are just StrikesSwinging/pitches and Fouls/pitches, respectively... I didn't include Ball% (balls/pitches), which would add up to 100% with WHIFF, Foul, and InPlay+HR%.

Contact% is exactly what it sounds like. The players contact rate [(hits+fouls+in play outs)/(hits+fouls+strikesSwinging+in play outs)] on pitches swung at... It's a subset of the other measures..

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 3:16 PM CST up reply actions

Got it, that makes sense thx

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 28, 2007 3:26 PM CST up reply actions

After looking at Cust's data

I now realize I should have included Ball% and strikes called %, as they can vary wildly....

I've updated the link, and now the first 5 columns should add up to 100%.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 10:51 PM CST up reply actions

Outstanding

My inner Vulcan thanks you, live long and prosper!

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 30, 2007 6:59 AM CST up reply actions

Great stuff Cheat!

The one I'd really like to see for comparison to Fields is Thome. In Fields' best case scenario he aspires to be Thome with less walks (high K rate, great power, but probably more of a Konerko level of walks). It seemed to me he was doing a little better job with the fastball at the end of the year (purely subjective observation on my part).

One thing that I was struck by as the season went on was Fields' pure power. He hit some absolute bombs, balls that went a lot farther than i thought they would off the bat. So I was intrigued and had been meaning to do a diary looking at that. This looks like a good place to post it.

Probably the best way to look at pure HR power these days is HR/AIR or HR/FB. HR/AIR I belive includes line drives and infield flys.

HR/AIR MLB leaders more than 300 PAs:

Carlos Pena 21.6%
Ryan Howard 21.1%
Jim Thome 21.0%
Jack Cust 20.6%
Alex Rodriguez 20.6%
Adam Dunn 17.9%
Ryan Braun 17.9%
Prince Fielder 17.3%
Barry Bonds 17.2%
Josh Fields 17.2%

For reference Konerko is the next best Sox at 12%, sig. far down the MLB list.

So 10th in MLB for HR/AIR. For HR/FB Fields ranked 9th in MLB with the same group of ten as for HR/AIR.

Another thing you may have noticed is that most of the folks on that list are lefties. Looking at righties. The list is:

A-rod
Braun
Fields

My interpretation is that he has the potential to be an elite power hitter if he can lower his K rate, especially on FB. I think he can still be a league average hitter wih even a small improvement in that category. Although I'm very interested as to the whiff% of the Thomes, Cust and Howard's of the world.

by bhoov on Dec 28, 2007 3:08 PM CST reply actions

Matching my

subjective observations, his K rate decreased rather dramatically in Sept. (23.7% vs. 30% overall). Obviously we don't know if this was as a result of whiffing less on fastballs, but it should be interesting to see what happens next year.

by bhoov on Dec 28, 2007 3:16 PM CST up reply actions

Can you learn to hit a fastball?

I've seen guys eventually learn how to handle breaking balls as they gained experience, but I can't recall anyone who learned to hit a fastball over time. I would think that's innate reaction time, either you got it or you don't. Based on how times he swung through mediocre meatball fastballs over the heart of the plate when he was sitting on it with a hitters count, I'd lean to the latter.

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 28, 2007 3:33 PM CST up reply actions

I think I would lean towards the former

but over a shorter period of time though. What I mean is every level you move up the average speed of the fastball increases. So it may take some hitters longer to adjust, up to a period of months. But I agree that with the fastball if you haven't adjusted within a year you're probably not going to. With the breaking pitch you can probably "learn" how to hit over a longer period of time.

So, did he adjust in Sept. with his decrease in K% or was that just normal variation around his mean? Don't know. But that's why I'll be interested to see what happens next year.

by bhoov on Dec 28, 2007 3:53 PM CST up reply actions

I'm looking for comparables

I can't find a single player (sluggers specifically) who has as much trouble with the fastball as Fields... Only Cust has come close, but even he makes more contact on fastballs and offsets the lack of contact with more patience. Cust is much worse against breaking balls, but he appears to recognize this and just watch them, nearly all of them; he watched 82.5% of curveballs and 71.4% of sliders.

Fields watched 62.5% of curveballs and 50% of sliders.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 10:20 PM CST up reply actions

Not to put you to work, Cheat,

but I know I would be interested to see how he compares with other "sluggers." Also, is this something that improves with age/experience? Fields just turned 25, right? Good stuff. Thanks.

by palehose67 on Dec 28, 2007 3:08 PM CST reply actions

Thome's data is interesting

It'll be up in 20-30 minutes...

Preliminarily, against fastballs, he WHIFFed at 9% of them, made contact 77+% of the time he swung, and hit most of his HR. Yet he only had a .199 BABIP on fastballs.

I suppose this is because when he got one he liked, he knew what to do with it, hitting HRs. You would think that he would still have a higher BABIP on fastballs given his ability to smoke them over the outfield wall.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 3:42 PM CST up reply actions

Thome's data should be up

He had big trouble with the curveball based on the pitch f/x data...

He put only 6.5% of curveballs into play versus 21% for league average, made contact 58% of the time he swung at them (though I don't have baseline for that), which seems really bad.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pu3ZedtKEM2tfiqXTQF4tQA&gid=3

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

something wrong with that data

It has Thome at an overall BABIP of .253. His BABIP was .319 according to fangraphs.

by bhoov on Dec 28, 2007 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

its incomplete....

Only 90% complete

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 4:24 PM CST up reply actions

That does seem like a big discrepency

but I just checked and my calculations are accurate.

Thome saw 2244 pitches this year, and pitch f/x only captured 1493 of them. So, I suppose he could have had some extreme "luck" during those other games... He only had 5 HR in those 750 pitches, so he was getting good results on BIP.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 5:51 PM CST up reply actions

Cheat, did you know Kalk has

an app set up in addition to the player cards? He doesn't advertise it that well on his site and it's pretty useful.

So, for example, we know that Fields can definitely handle below average fastballs, which is how he killed AAA so readily. I chose righties since he kills lefties anyway. He only whiffs way up in the zone there.

His work against above average fastballs is the stuff that hurts him. He whiffs 16% of the time and managed just as many HRs as against the below average fastballs on nearly 3 times as many pitches.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 4:59 PM CST reply actions

It's like Lake Wobegon...

where 3/4 of the fastballs are above-average.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 28, 2007 5:00 PM CST up reply actions

Some more stuff

Josh vs. sinkers

The speed is around average, but he doesn't whiff with nearly the same frequency. So dealing with the vertical break is an aspect of his struggles it seems?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 5:33 PM CST reply actions

I wonder...

if they had done that kind of breakdown with Ron Kittle, what they would have come up with? Because Josh Fields strikes me as a similar-type hitter to Kittle.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 28, 2007 5:36 PM CST reply actions

Kittle will be at the fantasy camp

If I share a beer with him I'll ask him bout that comparison. Since he was ROY I bet he'll scoff at that notion.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 28, 2007 7:04 PM CST up reply actions

I need to learn this stuff

I've put off taking the time to read and understand this new pitch f/x data, but I think I'd better put myself to looking at it in the next few weeks. There seems to be a lot of neat stuff here that I'm missing. I'll be heading up to Montreal to see the Hawks play, so that seems like as good a time as ever.

Quick question to Cheat (or anyone else who cares to answer)... have the last two entries (the one on Danks as well as this one) pretty much listed most of the 'stuff' needed to grasp everything that's 'going on' here?

by CWSKeith on Dec 28, 2007 5:53 PM CST reply actions

And by "stuff"

I mean links to places like The Hardball Times as well as Kalk's entries/site.

by CWSKeith on Dec 28, 2007 5:54 PM CST up reply actions

Oops

Forgot Kalk's blog

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 6:08 PM CST up reply actions

It's not complicated at all

All I've done is display some results based on pitch type (as determined by an algorithm using the pitch f/x data)...

I haven't touched any of the pitch f/x data, I'm just using the provided tools to break down how some of our players have performed vs. league average.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 5:59 PM CST up reply actions

I've been gathering links for future fantasy

purposes:

Joh Walsh's opening salvo about the Sinker it's also a good primer as he checks out what the terminology means first
Josh Kalk examines an average pitcher
Dan Fox did some stuff on what it means to have a good eye
this might be the best one. a look at an average fastball, curve, slider and change that's where Cheat is getting these expected averages from
Walsh's pitch identification tutorial
Not pitch f/x, but still sweet: expected BABIP and such based on GB/LD/FB from Dan Fox's blog
Also not pitch f/x, but it is THT
...this examines reliever usage and whether over-use is responsible for some of the wild fluctuations we see in reliever performance

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 6:07 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks Colin

those'll work -- along with Cheat's prior two posts, I should be able to kill an hour-and-a-half of the flight to Vermont (we're driving into Montreal from there).

by CWSKeith on Dec 28, 2007 7:39 PM CST up reply actions

keine problem

I really think this stuff will come in handy for fantasy.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 28, 2007 10:26 PM CST up reply actions

first

FIRST

Toonderstrook's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67492521

by Soulja Boy on Dec 28, 2007 6:53 PM CST reply actions

Konerko vs. Fields

Below is a clip I made to compare the loading of both Konerko (fastball hitter) and Fields. Look specifically at how little movement there is in the position of Konerko's hands before swinging compared to Fields. Considering you have 0.45 seconds to react to a 90MPH pitch, any wasted movement can be crucial. Fields simply cannot catch up to pitches above the belt because of how much power he's loading into his swing. I know Fields hit fastballs poorly as a whole, but I'm willing to bet he fared much better against those down in the zone. His WHIFF% was low for pitches that are down in nature (sinker, curve).

by 3E8 on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 PM CST reply actions

low pitches

Here are all of the hits Fields had captured by pitch f/x...

And here are all of Fields swing-and-misses as captured by pitch f/x...

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 8:55 PM CST up reply actions

Nice confirmation

Many batters feast on pitches left up in the zone. But it seems like at least 75% of Fields' extra-base hits were on pitches in the lower-half of the zone.

by 3E8 on Dec 28, 2007 9:17 PM CST up reply actions

If we could get even more granular

I'd like to see the ball/strike count on each pitch in those diagrams. IIRC, a big chunk of those fastball swinging strikes down the middle of the plate between the belt and the letters came on hitter counts. The dude can sure crush the curveball though.

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 30, 2007 7:03 AM CST up reply actions

Added Konerko

Like Thome, he had a low BABIP against fastballs (specifically RHP) but he made much more contact. Konerko WHIFFed at under 4% of the fastballs he saw (compared to a 6% league average) and made contact 93% of the time he swung at fastballs.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 28, 2007 9:36 PM CST up reply actions

That's pretty awesome

Fields has a pretty classic power hitter hitch. Isn't that normally resolved by lowering the hands in the stance, to cut down on the time taken to load? And shouldn't Walker have noticed?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 29, 2007 12:27 AM CST up reply actions

One technique Fields could use

Is to keep his back elbow up more. A higher back elbow allows you to keep level on the ball more. Then you can finish with a hands high set to give you the arch he looks for. When your elbow is down you get into a hitch when you change level to strike the ball. I wouldnt worry about him losing power through the hitting zone, its just finding a hitting coach thats capable of making changes without messing more up. Walker doesnt like to change or tinker with hitters like this. He likes for them to use what got them here. After watching that side shot you can see why he gets beat on the high fastball. Its hard to bring your hands down, then up and catch up with a high fastball. If you do hit it, you are more likely to shear it and pop it up or foul it back.

by southsideirish71 on Dec 29, 2007 1:26 AM CST up reply actions

Walker

Only tinkers with hitters when they are going well. Or when he isnt satisfied that they are getting enough power.

by southsideirish71 on Dec 29, 2007 1:27 AM CST up reply actions

SSI, you are right on

I was sucking mightily last week at the batting cage and remembered what they taught me in Little League 40 years ago - "Get your back elbow up!". I figured ihad little to lose, and - voila! Level contact.

Are you the ghost of Teddy Ballgame?

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 29, 2007 6:42 AM CST up reply actions

Or the ghost of my grandpa.

He put me in essentially a Chuck Knoblauch stance when I started facing high school pitching -- elbow up, hands high and almost all the way back. Of course, it's not like I had any power to begin with, so I didn't have to worry about sacrificing it.

Struck out three times in 28 games.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Dec 29, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

pshaw

i would hope you'd only strike out three times against high school pitching.

by larry on Dec 29, 2007 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

Take it easy, Ted Williams.

by SSH2005 on Dec 29, 2007 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, but Jim was 7 years old

when he faced high school pitching. Give the kid his due.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 29, 2007 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

Thank you

At least somebody here followed my career.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Dec 29, 2007 2:48 PM CST up reply actions

excuse after excuse

"i didn't have enough power. i was young for my level. mommy didn't love me." own up to it: you just weren't tough enough, margalus.

by larry on Dec 29, 2007 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

In other words

You're saying I was Ryan Sweeney before Ryan Sweeney was Ryan Sweeney.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Dec 29, 2007 3:25 PM CST up reply actions

coach fox was saying just that

"that margalus is ryan fucking sweeney." no one understood then. but we understand now. oh, do we understand.

by larry on Dec 29, 2007 3:30 PM CST up reply actions

I still have the bubble gum

that came with your card.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 29, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Unfortunate

I wish I was more confident about Fields. He's the only position prospect to do anything for the Sox in a long time.

To be fair to him, he flashed elite power potential last season -- more than potential really, since 23 HRs tied him 21st in the AL. And he was more athletic than I thought he would be; I think he could be a very good LF.

But it really seems like his offensive production is unsustainable with his current technique. And who knows if he can generate the same kind of power numbers with loading as he currently does. What's doubly troubling is that I have no faith that the Sox coaching staff can help Fields out in any way.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 28, 2007 11:37 PM CST reply actions

I too thought of that

Quieting his hands may hurt his ISO, but on the flip side it would help him make more contact and maybe increase his line drive %.

by 3E8 on Dec 29, 2007 1:10 AM CST up reply actions

He's well past .200 ISO

So would it really hurt his game that much? I doubt it.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 29, 2007 8:59 PM CST up reply actions

Poorly worded

I shouldn't say hurt cause I guess that did sound like it will turn bad, which is not the case. He was around .250 this season.

by 3E8 on Dec 29, 2007 11:36 PM CST up reply actions

he's got plenty of power

that he needs to turn into some semblance of OBP

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 12:22 AM CST up reply actions

And also -- thanks Cheat

This work and the stuff on the pitchers is really outstanding. Fantastically informative.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 28, 2007 11:38 PM CST reply actions

And informatively fantastic.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 29, 2007 12:36 AM CST up reply actions

yes nice work, two bats up!

now if we had a good hitting coach

walker's multi-year extension must be close...

by The Wizard on Dec 29, 2007 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

Cheat

There are 3 guys in MLB with higher K% than Fields: Gomes, Cust and Mark Reynolds. Do you have their whiff% vs. FB? Reynolds is an interesting comp. Same age, experience level and position. Not as much power better overall hitter, but in the weaker pitching league. Really interesting data. Wish we had complete monthly splits to see if his improved K% in Sept. was because of lower Whiff% on the fastball. I guess time will have to tell.

by bhoov on Dec 29, 2007 4:03 PM CST reply actions

I wouldn't call Reynolds a better hitter

He has a .378 BABIP in the majors. I don't think any non-speed guy can come close to maintaining that number.

(Fields BABIP was .293 last season)

The NL West must not have had a whole lot of pitch f/x enabled parks, because we've only got 1/2 of Reynolds pitches seen captured. In that time, he did strike out on more fastballs than Fields and had a worse contact rate. But he was also much worse on breaking balls (as you would expect from a high-strikeout guy). He WHIFFed at 25+% of sliders thrown, for example.

Gomes is a guy to whom I've often compared Fields in the past. We have even less data on him than we do Reynolds (about 1/3rd of his ABs). He's your standard high-strikeout guy who can't hit breaking stuff. The thing that I noticed is that he seemed to have more pitches called for strikes against him.

Cust I kinda covered last night. I'll put together a spreadsheet of high-strikeout guys by the end of the weekend... At which point, I think we'll have come to the conclusion that Fields is a unique ballplayer. Whether those unique tools will play at the major league level will be up for discussion.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 29, 2007 5:06 PM CST up reply actions

plugging in some numbers

It looks like BJ upton may be the best comparison we find... Upton, like reynolds, posted a much higher average than Fields thanks to an unsustainably high BABIP.

I think it's telling that the only players we can find with truly similar numbers are what you would consider not-fully-formed, young players who, similarly, will have to adjust to become perennial above-average-to-all-star major league players.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 29, 2007 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

My bet is

that's because they either adapt or crap out of the game. You can't last too long striking out that much.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 29, 2007 8:12 PM CST up reply actions

Usually they can't hit the breaking ball

Brian Anderson is typical. If they had this f/x data for him in 2006, there'd be a huge clump of sliders down and away that he's flailing at.

The guys who can't catch up to the fastball are usually at the end of their careers. The dearly departed Erstad was like that last year, early in the season they were just pumping heat down the middle of the plate on him and not even bothering with any breaking stuff. If he somehow got around on it he'd break his bat and dribble it to 2B.

This kind of data is dangerous. I expect Fields is going to be attacked with a lot of high heat by every team next year, let's see what he does.

"We can stay with Jerry Owens in center field...So we've got a lot of flexibility" - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Dec 30, 2007 7:11 AM CST up reply actions

Erstad wasn't whiffing though

he just couldn't do anything with it. Fields, when he catches up, mashes. I think he could be very Cecil Fielder, though I really don't know what his stats line looks like. That massive hitch Fielder had always made me laugh though. He was my favorite non-Sox player back in the day when I still sorta rooted for the Tigers because of my dad.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 4:47 PM CST up reply actions

HOW BOUT THAT SHIT

Man, I've been on a high all day. And you need to check out all the Lloyd quotes. What an utterly classy human being.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 2, 2008 1:20 AM CST up reply actions

Great game - very glad you upheld

the Big Ten honor. Wasn't sure they really wanted the win with 4 TO's, but they dominated on both sides of the ball.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Jan 2, 2008 12:34 PM CST up reply actions

Did Russell Branyan play last year?

I remember looking up his career K% awhile ago and it was something nutty like 35%.

by 3E8 on Dec 29, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

Check the graph!

Go to SO/PA

Looks like maybe he was figuring something out toward the end there. If he can get his K rate to around 25%, he'll be in a good spot. We'll see.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 29, 2007 8:11 PM CST up reply actions

what are your predictions for Fields next year?

i think he could put up a .273/.320/.490 line with about 35-40 home runs

by Jbasic89 on Dec 29, 2007 4:15 PM CST reply actions

That's fair

I could see a higher OBP.

by 3E8 on Dec 29, 2007 5:20 PM CST up reply actions

I think that's about right...

maybe a bit too high on the AVG though.

by SSH2005 on Dec 29, 2007 6:24 PM CST up reply actions

No way he hits .273

At least, there's not much reason to predict him to do so. His K's are a big big problem. But I think that's a tad low ISO too.

Give me .250/.310/.480

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 29, 2007 7:41 PM CST up reply actions

Interesting stuff...

Jose Canseco has completed a deal to publish a sequel to his book "Juiced" and is likely to have it ready in time for Opening Day.
Canseco has said on more than one occasion that he has information on Alex Rodriguez, and he claimed he was surprised earlier this month that Rodriguez's name was nowhere to be found in the Mitchell Report. Expect more accusations once Canseco's sequel comes out.

Source: New York Post

by SSH2005 on Dec 30, 2007 1:11 PM CST reply actions

i guess somebody needs money again...

by larry on Dec 30, 2007 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

True...

but who has Canseco lied about so far?

by SSH2005 on Dec 30, 2007 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

who knows?

let's be frank. i could have written the book he wrote based upon pure supposition. i'm not saying what canseco wrote about players he "knows" were using was necessarily untrue but it wasn't all that insightful either. and it's not like he provided any evidence, other than his own word, either. wow, the texas rangers were steroid heaven. thanks, jose. we only thought that for about a decade. canseco thought roger clemens and barry bonds were probably using based upon their performances at an older age. kudos for that bit of logic, jose. no one had come up with that inference before.

i don't know what he's going to provide in another book that will be any better than what he wrote in his first. seems to me that he would have already used up any first-hand knowledge he had. if he wants to cash in, i have no problem with that because he was out at the forefront of this "expose" and has been forthright about his own usage. but putting much stock into what he says/writes seems dubious.

by larry on Dec 30, 2007 2:32 PM CST up reply actions

Oh, lar,I think he might be construed

as slightly more credible than any evidence we might present. How?

He admita to juicing.
He was there.
He is not under indictment, trying to save his skin.

Reprehensible though he might be for breaking the "code" of narcing on his fellow frat brothers, he's been candid, if not respectable.

And he's not CSI, bro. I can't imagine he'd have copies of checks, or witretaps. He seems awfully credible to me.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 30, 2007 6:47 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah but he's broke and needs the money

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 7:09 PM CST up reply actions

Ah money,

The great motivator

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 31, 2007 10:05 AM CST up reply actions

that's nice

i don't take any single person's word for anything. and my point was more that he hasn't told us anything we didn't already know to a high degree of certainty. what he says doesn't really add much. this second book is clearly an attempt to cash in - i rather doubt he was holding back in his first book and, like you say, he's not CSI so what is he going to have that we haven't already heard or, alternatively, that we should actually believe?

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

Matt Clement to Indians? Kris Benson to Pirates?

Link:

It appears most likely free-agent pitcher Matt Clement, who missed last season with Boston after undergoing shoulder surgery, will sign with either the Pirates or Cleveland. He wants to stay close to the new home he built in Butler this year.

Clement is hopeful of landing a major-league contract, something Pittsburgh doesn't seem willing to offer.

Could it be Kris Benson redux with the Pirates? They were one of nearly a dozen teams that scouted his workout before Christmas. Like Clement, Benson is a free agent after missing last season while recovering from shoulder surgery.

by SSH2005 on Dec 30, 2007 1:13 PM CST reply actions

clement to indians

would probably mean cliff lee would certainly be moved.

by larry on Dec 30, 2007 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

Maybe they finally complete a deal for Jason Bay?

by SSH2005 on Dec 30, 2007 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

i don't think

the pirates would take on lee's salary. sort of pointless and their GM says he won't do pointless things. cardinals or reds or another team in a more win-now mode would probably be a likelier destination.

by larry on Dec 30, 2007 3:38 PM CST up reply actions

Clement isn't exactly

a guarantee to make 34 starts.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 4:49 PM CST up reply actions

neither is cliff 'i made 16 starts in 07' lee

they've got sowers and laffey. one or both could provide the same or better for a fraction of the cost of lee. clement would just provide another option, again at a fraction of the cost. a competitive team should, if at all possible, have six guys available who can start passably.

by larry on Dec 30, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

i figured that's why they'd keep

Lee, but they've actually got a number of passable options. What would they turn Lee into? Prospects? Corner OF? He's got league average K and BB rates with crap GB/FB, which means he's probably not average. On top of which, he's turning 30 this year. But it's not like he's making even 5M in '08. FWIW, I don't think Sowers is a major league pitcher. He's Carlos Silva with worse control and his GB tendencies evaporated in '07. Laffey's probably the best of the three and he and Miller make 6. If they can't turn Lee into a contributor to this year's team, though, I don't know that I would trade him.

And Liverpool, you'll be glad to know, played an uninspiring final 20 minutes as I saw it. Gerrard and Torres, at least, ought to take some criticism. Gerrard looked tired and made bad choices and managed to execute them poorly. Torres was more or less the same, just less visible. And Man City could really use someone with some touch and pace up front.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

eh

liverpool once again succeeded in making themselves irrelevant in the league. two horse race. how they play now doesn't matter.

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 11:47 AM CST up reply actions

There's still the CL

But yeah -- the past couple games (Ls vs Reading and Man-U, draw at Man City) have more or less ensured their fate. Torres had some great chances in the second half yesterday -- he was far from his best form.

Did I see those Champions League draws correctly? Arsenal vs Milan? LFC vs Inter? That's certainly something to look forward to...

by CWSKeith on Dec 31, 2007 1:51 PM CST up reply actions

"total class" eh?

I was sorely disappointed. The yellow he took was poor form and he had to have had at least 5 chances in and around the box to do something that I saw.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

any chance they don't qualify for the CL?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

no

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

all right

that emphatic 'no' presupposed a few things that should be fairly safe - like, say, not dropping points at home to teams that will be relegated. otherwise known as wigan athletic. of course, if they can't manage to do things like that, either man city or everton could steal in. of course, if that happens, rafa would - and should - be summarily hanged by the kop.

by larry on Jan 2, 2008 4:15 PM CST up reply actions

then again Adam Miller looks ready

anyway, so moving Lee isn't that big a deal.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 4:51 PM CST up reply actions

What?

Adam Miller looks ready? ..........

by joasnmun55 on Dec 30, 2007 9:34 PM CST reply actions

for an arm transplant

by 3E8 on Dec 30, 2007 10:25 PM CST up reply actions

His winter ball peripherals

were fine, he had a huge BABIP and he's spent the last two years in Buffalo. He appears to have been injured some, but all I know is what I can see in the stats.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 30, 2007 10:39 PM CST up reply actions

i'd be concerned

about having him start extensively next season at the major league level. i'd start him in buffalo with an eye towards using him in the bullpen and maybe spot starts later in the season. he's injury prone, didn't pitch many innings last year, and i think his high total for a season is somewhere around 150. i go back and forth with whether he's a bullpen guy or a starter. the stuff obviously says he can start but the injury history makes me question whether he'd hold up.

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

i haven't seen him pitch

so i can't comment on stuff, but from the sound of it, he seems like an adequate 6th starter along the lines of how Gavin Floyd was used. you aren't counting on more than 60 IP from a guy like that, I'd guess.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

Walker already impacting Danny Richar.

Dominican Winter League Stats.

Danny Richar -- .218/.256/.244, 17 hits in 78 at bats, 2 doubles.

Keep it up Greg.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 31, 2007 8:31 AM CST reply actions

good thing we have juan

as insurance... oh wait, those are close to YOU-ribe's major league numbers...

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 31, 2007 8:33 AM CST up reply actions

Josh and fastballs

Isn't there usually a greater concern when a young hitter can't hit breaking stuff? I thought catching up to a fastball is the minimal requirement for a major league hitter.

Maybe "Walk" can work with him? And then Josh can do the opposite and be successful.

"Each one of my (off-season acquisition)targets has that edge to them, that go-getter attitude. We need it. We will embrace it." - Kenny Williams (11/28/07)

by tailgater on Dec 31, 2007 2:37 PM CST reply actions

When is Mike Cameron going to sign?

Jeez, it seems like the free agent signings have gone dead lately. I guess they are waiting until after the holidays.

by SSH2005 on Dec 31, 2007 2:46 PM CST reply actions

I

just don't think we want him. I haven't seen anyone talk about it here, but didn't he leave here unhappy and with a big chip on his shoulder? I can't remember what happened but I don't think he left on good terms from either sides perspective. And, the more I think about it, it's probably just as well.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:13 PM CST up reply actions

How long ago was that?

I can't imagine that would color the signing overly. Was KW even in the organization then? And the chance for a ~.340 OBP and a ~.440 SLG from CF would be a pretty huge deal for this team. It's the sort of deal that puts us close to the 87 win range, imo. It's about after that when buying wins becomes really pricey, so I think that's about where KW should aim.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 4:19 PM CST up reply actions

I hear you.

For whatever reason, I'm just ambivalent about Cameron right now. Whether that has a rational basis, I'm not even sure.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:22 PM CST up reply actions

Maybe I'm getting more excited about Alexei.

I reread a scouting report from an international scout from a National League team...the guy really likes him....as does Baseball America, based on four different scouts' opinions. Now, I'm not saying he's necessarily a CF, but maybe.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:27 PM CST up reply actions

From what I've read...

the comparisons are to Pablo Ozuna, with maybe five more homers a season. It's a good, low-risk signing, but I'm not holding my breath that the Sox have a budding star in this guy.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 31, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not

sure where you read that, or that it may be true, but, if you subscribe to Baseball America, check out the articles they've written on him.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:31 PM CST up reply actions

From aforementioned scout:

"He profiles as an above average big leaguer in right field...." He goes on to give him the following....grades...hitting 60 power 40.....arm strength 60 fielding(of) 50 fielding(if) 55 speed 60....he also likes him just as well or better at ss.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:38 PM CST up reply actions

We'll see.

Scouts thought that Joe Borchard would be great, too.

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath. If he can eventually play a decent center field and put up a respectable batting line (say .270/.330/.400), I'll be happy.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 31, 2007 4:47 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

what else is there to go on? Four different scouts liked him...I agree that it's curious no one else really chased him....all of it is pretty odd...we'll see.

by dantesox on Dec 31, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions

87 wins?

Maybe 77 wins.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 31, 2007 4:24 PM CST up reply actions

C'mon JRE

The infield upgrades are already worth that many wins. That plus Carlos Quentin and Mike Cameron make an outside shot for 87.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 4:58 PM CST up reply actions

Nope.

Not unless the Sox don't get any regression whatsoever from Thome, Konerko, Buehrle, Jenks, Linebrink or Vazquez, and the young starting pitchers step up big-time. Then maybe the Sox will finish above .500.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 31, 2007 5:07 PM CST up reply actions

Regression doesn't necessarily mean

get worse. Buehrle's going on 29. Vazquez put up some of the best peripherals of his career. Linebrink, ok fine, but he's a middle reliever and his net impact is minimal. Thome's OBP isn't going anywhere, though his games played might. We would do best to sit him against lefties.

I feel like you haven't read anything that's been posted over the last couple weeks. There's plenty of reasons to be optimistic about this team, as long as your expectations are reasonable.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 5:39 PM CST up reply actions

optimism is fine

realism is fine, though, too. 87 wins seems pretty aggressive. that's a fifteen win improvement you've got. and i'm not sure where they're all coming from.

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 5:43 PM CST up reply actions

I'm saying that they've got a chance for it

I'm sticking with 82 for now, but JRE's saying we'd be lucky to get 77 without justifying it much other than with vague conjecture.

Also, what's the deal with Davenport's WARP scores? They had Uribe at ~3 WARP1 and Cabrera at ~6. How is Uribe adding any wins over replacement? He had a .222 EqA and was average at best in the field. What gives?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 5:48 PM CST up reply actions

welcome to the vagaries of defensive stats

i think JRE was using a bit of rhetorical flourish. but there's probably a grain of truth to it. if you think they've got a chance to be 5 games over, they have a decent chance to be 5 games under, too. the sox don't have much margin for error.

by larry on Dec 31, 2007 5:54 PM CST up reply actions

hmm, good point.

if ballyb would step off the ledge and start playing the optimist again, maybe i wouldn't be doing this, dang nabbit.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

So that's how you use the word

"vagaries". I have up until recently used it as a modified version of "vague".

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

I think...

82 wins is an optimistic projection. That's if most things go well. Can they win 87 games? Sure, in the sense that about every MLB team not in Pittsburgh can win 87 games. Is that a realistic goal in the AL central in 2008? No. A realistic goal is a .500 record and third place.

Your mistake is in thinking that the 2007 White Sox were a "true talent" 72-win team. The reality is that the Sox actually finished 5 wins above pythag - they were lucky to finish so well. Improving to a "true talent" 87-win team means improving by 20 games, and they did not do that this winter.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 31, 2007 7:18 PM CST up reply actions

No, I'm aware. But the value of

pythag as the season goes on becomes less and less as teams get closer and closer to their true talent level. BP adjusted their playoff odds report to reflect that weighting, iirc. Not to mention, I happen to think it's not a coincidence that the Sox under Ozzie have generally performed above their Pythag. That's a pet theory and I won't pretend I can prove it.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 31, 2007 7:22 PM CST up reply actions