Ron Karkovice Fan Club

So Long, And Thanks For All the Fisch

2008-01-28T11:51:00.000-06:00

There's a pointless inside joke in the title of this, the final post in the Fan Club's illustrious, um not entirely unmeritorious, history. Yes, the Ron Karkovice Fan Club will be no more in 3, 2, 1.

Well, ok, there is one more piece of business to take care of before we shut off the lights. For those of you who can't stand the thought of a baseball season without my sparkling wit and dazzling insights -- um, anyone, hello? -- I will be blogging away at a new home this season: Life in the Cell. It can be found at www.lifeinthecell.com

The Cell features a group of talented, experienced writers who will give you more funny, brilliant Sox coverage than one should be allowed. How I fit in evades me. So, stop by, check us out at the new home, and enjoy the upcoming season.

Throwing the Iguchi Out With the Bath-Water

2007-07-27T16:35:00.000-05:00

The trade of Tadahito Iguchi was inevitable. The White Sox acquired Danny Richar to be their every day second baseman by next season. Best to let him get his feet wet now. Iguchi is a free agent at the end of the season, and was barely above replacement value now.

But this is all we get for him?!? Three teams -- the Phillies, Mets and Pads -- all had targetted Iguchi as their first priority at a position of need. How is an 18th round pick, striking out less than a batter an inning in Low-A ball the best possible return here? Michael Dubee's professional career sounds like a favor to his dad, Rich, who just happens to be the Phillies' pitching coach.

Maybe the Mets and Pads weren't offering a real prospect for Iguchi either. But would the Mets or someone have offered to take Jose Contreras off our hands if we also threw in Iguchi? Quite frankly, that seems like better use of our asset. Also, rumor has it that no one is offering more than a B-level prospect for Jermaine Dye. Would someone have been willing to give us a guy with some real upside in exchange for both Dye and Iguchi? Could he have been packaged with Rob Mackowiak -- a lefty utility guy who clearly has more value on the bench of a contender than on a sinking Sox ship?

I'm not upset they dealt Iguchi. Heck, I'm now looking forward to seeing Richar this weekend (you hear that Ozzie, if I see Alex Cintron at second this weekend, I'm going to be really irritated). But you have to consider the move in the context of an overall strategy to be competitive again next season. Richar was going to be at second next year no matter what. So, I'm not sure how this move helps at all. It seems like we just wasted an asset.

Say it ain't so, Kenny!

2007-07-20T09:31:00.000-05:00

First, Kenny Williams tells the Tribune that he's excited to see what the White Sox can do when Scott Podsednik and Darrin Erstad come back. Then, the Trib start murmuring about how the Sox can win 90 games if they just play .700 ball the rest of the way. Today, Ozzie tells the Sun-Times that there are no trades on the horizon. Maybe this is all just a smoke screen, but if it's not, then oy vey.

Contrary to Herm Edwards otherwise brilliant diatribe, you don't actually play to win the game. You play to win the championship. And, the White Sox can't do that this year. If they proceed as if they do still have some hope, instead of preparing now for next season, then all they can accomplish is to set the franchise back.

According to Baseball Prospectus's play-offs odds report, which runs the rest of the season a million times (based on current winning percentage and an expected winning percentage that starts with a team's third order winning percentage so far, and then allows for regression) the Sox have a .02% chance of making the play-offs, or one in 5000 chance if that makes the team's dire straits clearer. Yes, they can win 90 games if they play .700 ball the rest of the way. But 90 wins probably won't get them into the post-season. The AL wild card winner has averaged 95 wins. Plus, even the best teams don't play .700 ball. And, has this team done anything to indicate it has that kind of talent? That last point is emphasized by BP's Pecota-adjusted play-off odds report. If you adjust the teams' expected winning percentages the rest of the way based on Pecota's expected performance by the team's individual players, then the Sox chance SINK to .01%. Kenny, that's 1 in 10,000. In other words, the Sox are much more likely, based on their current roster, to fall further out of the race, than charge back into it.

This has implications. First, if the Sox allow guys like Podsednik and Erstad, and even the red-hot Rob Mackowiak, who should not be part of the team's future, to take at-bats from guys like Jerry Owens and Ryan Sweeney, then they shouldn't be allowed to run a franchise anymore. Owens and Sweeney, and even Brian Anderson, may not be the answers in the Sox outfield next year, but shouldn't we find out? It was reassuring to hear Ozzie say that Andy Gonzalez will play significant time at shortstop the rest of the way. I doubt he's the answer there. But let's find out because we know that Juan Uribe isn't.

Second, I don't care how little future value we can get for Jose Contreras, trade him now for whatever you can get. He has NO future value to this team, especially at his price tag going forward. As for Dye and Iguchi, if someone wants to give up a good prospect for them, grab him. If the team thinks those guys are better answers than anyone else they're likely to find at the right price next season, then great, keep them, but make sure you get them signed. If you're not going to re-sign them, then trade them for whatever you can get. But don't let guys with value leave for nothing.

The White Sox need to be realistic. They CANNOT contend this season. What's the point of wasting at-bats on Erstad, Podsednik, Uribe, or even Dye and Iguchi if they're not coming back? Why make a futile run at respectability. I think White Sox fans are smart enough now that they would be more excited about watching the kids play the rest of the way than watching this crew's last gasp.

Just How Good is Mark Buehrle?

2007-07-19T09:46:00.001-05:00

The White Sox lost season has left me largely bereft of topics to write about. And then, all of a sudden, today I've got 437 ideas. Oh well. We'll get to them over time. But let's start with this one: just how good is Mark Buehrle?

Last night was typical of the dilemma Buehrle presents. In 6.1 innings, Buehrle gave up only one run. Anyway, you cut it, that's a good outing. But he gave up 10 hits and struck out only three. Even Buehrle admits that those kinds of numbers usually don't add up to six-plus innings and only one run. But that's how Buehrle has lived in the majors: too many hits and too fews strikeouts, and yet very few runs allowed.

Readers know I was critical of the recent extension for Buehrle. Yes, the Sox got him for $30 million less than market value, but that's just because the market had him overvalued by $50 million. Buehrle doesn't miss a lot of bats. He has good command, and he gets hitters to put the ball in play on the pitch he wants them to hit. It forces ground balls and pop ups. But when a guy like that ages even a little, loses just the tiniest bit off his stuff, hitters turn those pitches into line drives and home runs. Guys like Buehrle have steep declines. Some have countered this argument by pointing to the extended decline phase of Greg Maddux's career. The comparison is flawed. Buehrle's best seasons have been comparable to Maddux's decline phase. Even if the two really were similar, what does that mean Buehrle's decline phase would look like?

And they're not that similar. In his career, Buehrle has struck out around five batters per nine innings. Maddux struck out six or seven hitters per nine innings at his peak. During his long slow decline, he's come down to Buehrle's strikeout ratio, but for his career he's still a full K per nine better. Buehrle really is comparable to Old Maddux (distinguished like Old Elvis from Young Maddux).

General perception aside, however, do pitchers like Buehrle really fade fast? According to PECOTA, Beuhrle looks a lot like two guys who briefly pitched for the Sox: Jerry Reuss and Jim Kaat. Let's take Kaat, who is PECOTA's closest comparable, and a really strong one at that. After turning 28 during 1967, Kaat went on to win 14 or more games another five times, including winning more than 20 for the Sox in '74 and '75. Reuss also won 14 or more games three times after turning 28, and picked up another 13 wins for the Sox in 1988, when he was 39. So far so good. As you continue down the list of Buehrle's comparables there are some more ominous comparisons. For example, number three on the list is another Sox hurler, Jim Abbott, who was pretty much washed up by the time he was 28. So, Buehrle's future is a gamble, but it is certainly one with some upside.

And, whatever Buehrle's future holds, unlike Abbott, he is definitely not washed up at 28. In fact, by some measures, he's having his best season of his career. His 2.98 ERA is the lowest of his career, and he has his second lowest walks and hits per nine innings. Only in 2001, his first full season in the bigs, did he allow fewer base runners per nine overall. Only the team's anemic offense and shoddy bullpen have kept Buehrle's win total down, and name out of the Cy Young discussion.

That's right, Buehrle is fifth in the majors, and third in the AL, in VORP among pitchers. I was shocked when I looked that up and saw how high he ranked. In the AL, only Dan Haren and Johan Santana have higher VORPs. Yes, those are the two guys everyone is talking about for Cy Young. Nor is it luck. Buehrle's batting average on balls in play is actually higher than Haren's or Santana's. But how exactly he is as effective as those two is a mystery. Haren strikes out nearly two more batters per nine than Buehrle, gives up two fewer hits per nine, allows fewer home runs, but somehow Buehrle has been almost exactly as effective as Haren overall. Santana also gives up fewer hits than Buehrle, and he strikes out more than four more batters per nine. Buehrle shouldn't even be in this guy's league, but he is.

Yesterday, as I marvelled once again at the fact that Buehrle was struggling to get anyone out, and yet no one could score on him, I began to become more optimistic about the next few seasons of Mark Buehrle. Maybe this guy just has a way of maximizing the utility of the skills he has. Statistics explain big picture developments, but there are always individual outliers who don't fit the model. Buehrle seems to be one of those guys. His peripherals suggest an ERA almost a run higher than his is. How does he do it? Maybe it's smoke and mirrors, but then Buehrle is one of the greatest and most consistent illusionists in all of baseball. Would I have bet $56 million dollars on Buehrle keeping this illusion going? No, but Buehrle's fooled me before.

What You Get For The Money

2007-07-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

$20 million a year for Ichiro. $35 million a year for A-Rod? $17 million dollars a year for Big Z, who will play in, at most, 35 games each season? Even Mark Buehrle's contract just seems ridiculous to me. And, I don't mean in an, "Oh my God, these guys make so much money," kind of way. From a baseball perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

These contracts are part of a bigger problem though: baseball people seem entirely incapable of valuing baseball talent. And don't give me that, "If the market will pay, then they're worth it," nonsense. If you can get the same production for less money, then it's not worth it.

I think the problem stems in part from the lack of a salary cap in baseball. I'm not advocating for a cap, that's another debate for another day, and anyway, if I had to give a knee-jerk reaction, I'd say that I'm against having a cap. But the absence of a cap has allowed GMs to become lazy about valuing production. If you know you have exactly $100 million dollars to spend, then you have to carefully determine whether a player is worth X percentage of your payroll. But without the cap, you can pay a guy you like whatever you have to in order to sign him, and it doesn't feel like you're sacrificing anything.

But you are. See, every team, even the Yankees, has a budget of what they can afford to spend for on-field talent. And every dollar you spend at one position IS a dollar you can't spend elsewhere. So paying more for a player than his production is worth will eventually kill you. Not so quickly if you're the Yankees, immediately if you're the Twins.

Say two teams are getting the same production out of one spot in their starting rotation -- let's say a VORP of 28. One team signed their guy off of waivers, and will pay him $380,000 this year. The other team signed their guy as a big name free agent, and will pay him $6.3 million this year. Both teams are really happy with their signing, but team A now has an extra $5.5 million to spend on talent somewhere else, that they might not have had if they signed the expensive free agent. Now, in this example, baseball's financial imbalance, and the incompetence of some of its GMs, are relevant. Team A is the Orioles, who while they made a great signing when they grabbed Jeremy Guthrie off of waivers, generally have no clue about how to spend the money they saved by acquired an ace for less than half a million bucks a year. Team B is the Red Sox, who being at the top of baseball's financial heap, can afford to spend serious cash for a guy Daisuke Matsuzaka without sacrificing a whole lot at another position.

But for a team like the White Sox -- among baseball's "haves," but not obscenely wealthy, and blessed with a GM who generally seems to spend money in a way that is at least somewhat productive -- having an extra $5 million bucks to spend at, say, second base, could be the difference between returning to contender status, or languishing in the cellar for a few years

You could put together a near all-star team for the $30 million a year A-Rod will get paid next season. If the Mets can get fairly comparable production from David Wright for $1.2 million, as someone is getting from A-Rod for $30 million, then the Mets are better off, even if A-Rod's production is somewhat better. Which is why, no matter how good A-Rod and Ichiro are, overpaying for their services -- as measured by how much similar production would cost on the open market, as opposed to how much the market is willing to pay for that specific player -- is a mistake.

The inability of GMs to properly value production is hamstringing the trade market too. Teams are starting to value their own young prospects more. Pre-arbitration talent is key in the current economic scheme because that's where you can most readily find players whose salaries are actually below the cost of comparable production on the open market. It's why the Mets are paying $1.2 million bucks for Wright, whose production would cost about $26 million a season on the market (using BP's MORP stat, which measures, coincidentally, the value of a player's production on the open market). Anyway, all of a sudden teams won't offer their top prospects for average big leaguers. No one wants to be the next guy to trade Jeff Bagwell. Nevertheless, when another team offers a good prospect for an average established player, the GM with the established guy often feels as if he's being offered 30 cents on the dollar. "They won't offer their top prospect for this guy because they value their prospects, so the prospect they are offering is a low-ball offer."

It doesn't work this way. While teams are starting to properly value their own prospects, they continue to undervalue everyone else's prospects. People always value that which they have more than that which they want. Plus, GMs are more familiar with their own prospects. But part of the problem is that GMs continue to underestimate the value of cheap, young, productive talent.

How does this play out? Jose Contreras makes about $9 million a year. His production is worth about $4 or $5 million a year. So, if the Sox can trade him for a decent prospect, one who can give comparable production even, but for less money, then they've won the trade. The Mets won't give the Sox a top prospect like Lastings Milledge for Contreras, but they might give up Mike Pelfrey. Pelfrey has struggled mightily this year, but clearly has the talent to be a middle of the rotation kind of guy: 10-15 wins a year, and ERA in the 4.00 to 4.50 range. That sounds a whole lot like what the Sox get out of Contreras, but because Pelfrey is still young, it comes at a lot lower price. Pelfrey may have lost some of his sheen, but that doesn't mean that he's a low-ball offer. In fact, if the Sox could get him for Contreras, they should jump at the opportunity.

Or take another player the Sox covet: Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp. The Dodgers won't cough up Kemp for Contreras straight up. Kemp can play all three outfield spots and has top of the order skills, all for the low, low price of $380,000 a year. Signing a guy who could give the team comparable production on the open market this off-season would run about $16 million a year, based in MORP. So, if the Dodgers want Contreras and Jermaine Dye for Kemp and some lesser prospects, the Sox should do it. They cut $16 million dollars from their payroll and replace Dye's production in the outfield. That leaves a whole lot of money to both replace Contreras's production on the mound (which remember, should only cost about $5 million a year), and to upgrade at SS, 2B, or one of the other outfield positions. That's how you build a winning baseball team for the long haul. I sure hope Kenny Williams gets that.

Woe, Oh, We're Half Way There! Woe, Oh . . .

2007-07-09T09:38:00.000-05:00

I've returned to the country, we've reached the All-Star Break, and frankly, other than rumors of a horrible on-field melt down last Friday, the White Sox are pretty much as I left them. Hrm. Obviously, this is a bit of a lost season at the big league level, but that makes it extremely important as a season for building a foundation for the short and intermediate term future. Obviously, the biggest step, one way or the other is the new Mark Buehrle contract. We'll get to that, but let's touch on some other things first.

Speaking of the future, he's coming, and his name is Faustino De Los Santos. He's a couple years away still, but in Low-A ball this season he has 96 Ks in 77 innings, and only 42 hits allowed. He's got a devastating fastball/slider combo, and looks like he could someday lead the rotation or bring up the back end of the bullpen.

Another pleasant development on the farm, and one that could make an impact by next season, is the continued potential, and improved production of Gio Gonzalez. There's a reason they like the prodigal prospects best. Gonzalez has a 2.91 ERA and 110 strikeouts in 92 double-A innings. Depending on what happens with Jose Contreras, Gonzalez may be in the rotation by next season.

Speaking of rookie members of the rotation, perhaps the best development at the big league level is John Danks demonstration that he belongs. Danks has a 4.62 ERA and 68 Ks in 89 innings of work. His PRAA (pitching runs above average) is two. In other words, he's been two runs better than an average big league starter so far this season. Being almost exactly league average, if not the tiniest bit better, is really good for a rookie who many believed was pushed into the bigs too soon this spring.

Also showing he belongs in the bigs is third base prospect Josh Fields. His .252 batting average, five home runs and 18 RBIs don't look great. And, he still strikes out at an alarming rate. But Fields has also been almost exactly league average. He's -1 BRAA (batting runs above average) and 1 FRAA (fielding runs above average). I suspect his numbers will improve during the second half as he gets into a real rhythm and comfort zone with the big club. He's raised his batting average and on-base percentage 20 points, and his slugging percentage 40 points, in the first 10 days of July. Fields has always been a little slow to settle in at each new level as he moved through the organization. His emergence gives the team some flexibility, along with Joe Crede, in its approach to third base and left field next season. They could keep both and send Fields to the outfield, or trade Crede to fill a need in the outfield.

Part of the reason the Sox very much need to address the outfield this off-season is the refusal of their top outfield prospects to develop. Brian Anderson is forgotten and Ryan Sweeney may be headed that way. His potential has always been based partly on his physical build, which suggests that a lot of home runs are locked away just out of sight. Well, another season is passing, and those home runs still haven't emerged, at AAA or in the bigs. He hit one home run in 45 at-bats with the Sox and five home runs in 244 at-bats for Charlotte. He is still very young, but he is also still all potential and no production.

And so we come to the Sox biggest move so far: re-signing Mark Buehrle for four years, 56 million dollars. I'm torn about the decision. Buehrle's value will never be higher to someone else, or lower to the Sox. If he could have been turned into Lastings Milledge or Jacoby Ellsbury, then I think that would have meant more long term to the team. With this new deal, and its trade escalator and no-trade clause, that can never happen now. On the other hand, the price on the extension sure seems right given the cost of starting pitching these days. That's a lot less than guys like Barry Zito are getting. And yet, it's still too much. Buehrle is a finesse pitcher. The slightest loss of stuff with a guy like that and pop-ups become home runs, ground balls become line drives. As Buehrle ages and his stuff declines just a little, he figures to go down hill fast. I can't express joy that the team is strapped on for that ride. As Baseball Prospectus pointed out last week, Mark Buehrle's career numbers are almost identical to the downside of Greg Maddux's career, from 2001-2007. What will the downside of Buehrle's career look like?

I know the Sox got Buehrle for 30 million less than the market would have dictated. I still think they paid too much. Yes, better to spend 50-plus million dollars on Mark Buehrle than Ted Lilly or Gil Meche, but I like that Kenny Williams has always refused to succumb to the market pressure to overpay for starting pitching. So, I don't like that he abandoned his usual philosophy here.

What's a Buehrle Worth in American Dollars?

2007-07-02T16:26:00.000-05:00

It is becoming ever more apparent that Mark Buehrle will not be with the White Sox next season. If they could have resigned him at a significant discount, then I was fine with that. But the truth is that evidence shows most finesse guys don't age well, especially ones who can't miss bats with their breaking stuff either. Just the slightest decline in quality and guys like Buehrle go from giving up ground balls to giving up line drives, from giving up pop ups to giving up home runs. So, rather than be saddled with a potentially fading and untradeable player (it was Buehrle's demand for a no-trade clause that apparently torpedoed negotiations), I agree with Kenny Williams that his best course is to maximize his return on Buehrle now.

So, what is that maximum return? The Mets, Braves, Cardinals, and Dodgers are apparently after our dependable lefty. So, I've compiled a quick wish list of prospects from these teams. I leave for Italy tomorrow. I return on the 8th. I'd be a happy man if one of the following guys was in a White Sox' (or Charlotte Knights') uni by the time I re-enter the country.

I'm going to cover the teams in the random order I listed them above. From the Mets, I want outfielder Lastings Milledge. The White Sox will need to replace at least one corner outfielder this off-season (unless Jermaine Dye makes a shocking return for '08). Milledge was on a 13 for 39 streak at AAA before being sidelined by injury. And PECOTA projects a WARP on 19.9 for him from 2008-2011.

From the Braves I covet shortstop Brent Lillibridge. He runs, he draws walks, he plays D. He also strikes out a lot, but not enough to stifle his numbers too badly. He's probably a little further away than Milledge, as he seems to be struggling somewhat from the move to AAA from AA. But the Sox will definately need to address the short stop spot this offseason, and short stops are a lot harder to come by than corner outfielders. Also, the Braves have a shortstop prospect they like even more ahead of Lillibridge (note, I prefer Lillibridge, which I suppose is obvious from the column), so he should be quite available. PECOTA projects a WARP of 21.2 over the next four seasons, which is pretty remarkable.

The Cardinals have always seemed like a likely landing spot for Buehrle, a St. Louis native, when he reaches free agency. Knowing they have a better than most chance of signing a new deal with the lefty has put the Cards squarely in the derby. The name going around is Anthony Reyes. Reyes is 0-10 with a 6.40 ERA this season. His PECOTA projection is an 11.6 WARP for the next four seasons, which is well below Milledge and Lillibridge. I'm not sure the Cards have the young, nearly-ready prospect to entice the Sox when their are so many other possible trading partners out there.

Finally, the Dodgers have been discussed as a possible destination for several Sox players, including Dye and Buehrle. On interesting piece in play is Chad Billingsley. Billingsley is 5-0 with a 3.44 ERA in a swing role. PECOTA projects an 11.6 WARP for him as well, but his greater success this season makes him more attractive than Reyes to me. The Sox will need a starter or two over the next couple of years. Billingsley may be a piece of a package to acquire Buehrle. I'd be a lot more interested, however, if the Dodgers made talented outfielder Matt Kemp part of the package.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm off for the next week to Florence. Wine, food, spectacular art and architecture, and the Redhead will just have to suffice to keep me from pining to badly for another week of exciting White Sox baseball. The face of the team may have changed significantly by the time I return. I'll be hoping someone like Milledge, Lillibridge or Kemp is part of that new look.

Reports of the Fan Club's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

2007-06-29T09:04:00.000-05:00

The other day a buddy of mine observed that all his favorite blogs seem to die. Well, the Fan Club is not dead. I've just been really, really busy. Oh, and I'm out the country for a couple weeks starting tomorrow, so this is a one-off post until I get back and back on track for real in mid-July. But the Bulls' draft deserves a mention. . . Wait, what do you mean he wasn't talking about the Fan Club when he said "favorite blogs?"

I hate the Joakim Noah pick. I really dislike the guy. The goofy suit at the draft, the overacting after every halfway decent play, the fake thug routine in his post-game interview after Florida's second NCAA title, the HAIR -- it all annoys the shit out of me. I like quirky athletes. This guy is not quirky, he's desperate for attention and doesn't trust his performance on the court to earn that attention. And, not to knock a guy for staying in school, but he's old for a modern rookie. Other guys will have years of experience under their belts by the time they're Noah's current age. I hope we trade him. Besides, for the moment he may be duplicative of Ben Wallace on this team.

Having said all that, it's too bad he acts like a schmuck because there would be a lot to like about this pick. First, I'm not sure the Bulls need a post scorer. Luc Longley never scared anyone on the block. Second, I'm not sure Luol Deng or Tyrus Thomas can't become that post scorer. The Bulls can get easy baskets by posting up Deng and by getting transition buckets. They already play at a high pace. Noah blocks shots, rebounds, is a great outlet passer, and runs the court. He could flourish with the Bulls and really improve the team's already potent fast break attack. If this were Roy Hibbert I'd probably be exstatic. And, there are some really good signs for Noah's potential too. All those blocks and steals in college show that Noah is athletic enough and quick enough to really make it in the NBA. Maybe his play will win me over.

Mark Buehrle Trade Partners

2007-06-18T09:02:00.000-05:00

The speculation around baseball is that Mark Buehrle will be the first major asset moved this trading season. It makes sense. Buehrle is a valuable asset, so the Sox will get a good return on him. He is a free agent at the end of the season, and by both rumor and logic (the Sox refuse to overpay for starting pitching) it seems clear he won't resign in Chicago. And the White Sox are objectively, irreversibly out of the race in the AL Central. Plus, Kenny Williams is uber-aggressive. He knows what he wants and goes and gets it. He usually moves before his colleagues in the GM fraternity.

So what does he want? Well, Williams has never been one to dress up trades with major league relievers and journeymen, the kind of names that appease fans, but cripple franchises. He'll get prospects he likes for Buehrle and Jermaine Dye, as well as Juan Uribe and Tadahito Iguchi should he choose to part ways with them. But the Sox should aim for nearly major league ready prospects. First, they're safer. Second, with the right haul, the Sox can be contenders again next season. Positionally, the Sox need to get through trades, as well as next season's market, a young starting pitcher, a short stop, a second baseman, and an outfielder. To me, the easiest positions to fill on the market will be outfield and second base (it wouldn't be the end of the world if they just resign Iguchi to man second). So, between Dye and Buehrle, the Sox should aim to produce a young shortstop and young pitcher, each of whom can start next year.

The leading name in speculation as a trade partner are the New York Mets. The Mets have need of both a starter and an outfielder. The two prospects most likely to be targeted by the Sox are Lastings Milledge, a corner outfielder, and Philip Humber, a starting pitcher. Coming into this season, PECOTA pegged Milledge as having a SuperVORP of 135.3 over the next five years, and an Upside of 140.9 (these numbers will come into perspective as we discuss more prospects, but suffice to say, this guy is an almost surefire everyday outfielder, and a potential star). Milledge has been hurt most of this season so far, and only has 42 at-bats between AAA New Orleans and the bigs. Humber, on the other hand, doesn't look like much more than a swingman, fifth starter type to PECOTA. And, after a hot start this year, he's cooled off to 7-5 with an ERA near 5.00 for New Orleans this season.

All in all, it would be a mistake to send both Buehrle and Dye, as some have speculated, to the Mets. They don't have the depth of young talent to make it worthwhile. Mike Pelfrey would be slightly better than Humber, but he's still probably a middle of the rotation guy at best. It wouldn't be a mistake to trade Buehrle and Dye for Milledge and Pelfrey, but I think they'll get more value splitting the two and picking the top of the prospect heap from two teams. So, is it worth it to send Buehrle to New York for Milledge? Milledge is a stud, and an outfield of Fields, Sweeney and Milledge next season would look pretty good, and be a major improvement. But is corner outfield too easy a position to fill through free agency? The only way to really answer that question is to see if the Sox could get a top short stop prospect for Buehrle.

Whether or not its the Mets, the speculation is that one of the rich, competitive, but flawed teams in the NL East will strike first in the trade market. Baseball Prospectus has hypothesized about the Atlanta Braves. The Braves have two shortstop prospects. Yuni Escobar, who PECOTA sees as an almost certain big league starter, and almost certainly not a star. His SuperVORP ove the next five seasons is 39.7, and his Upside is 37.5. This year, Escobar has continued a career long trend of hitting for a good average, but doing it without much power or drawing many walks. On the positive side, he almost never strikes out. The same cannot be said for Brent Lillibridge, the Braves' prospect at AA Mississippi. Nevertheless, he is BY FAR the more interesting prospect. While his projected SuperVORP of 123.9 is lower than Milledge's, his Upside of 149.1. With his strikeout rate, there's a maybe 20% chance this kid never makes it, but his ceiling is high. PECOTA's comparables include Julio Lugo, Orlando Cabrera, and Michael Young, but it also includes Joe Jester. You get the idea.

Either way, the Sox should keep Dye out of it, and trade him to a team like the Dodgers, who are searching for offense (maybe for Chad Billingsley -- Vazquez, Garland, Danks, Billingsley and Gonzalez could be a heck of a rotation by August of next year, and then for a long time to come). Me, I'd take the chance on Lillibridge, assuming both partners are willing to dance, just because I'm not sure they can get a shortstop in free agency. But the Sox aren't making a mistake taking either one.

Random Musings

2007-06-15T08:58:00.000-05:00

It's a slow day. The White Sox didn't play yesterday, so they couldn't lose. We're too far from the NBA draft or NFL training camps to say much about that. The NBA Finals themselves were uninspiring, and have been a foregone conclusion for weeks. But I do have a couple of random thoughts to share, while we're gathered here.

First, I can't stop the Mike and Mike juggernaut, not that I thought I could. They were still going on this morning about how they had once again added a word to the sports vernacular. As I discussed yesterday, there is nothing new about the word ridonculous, or its use in a sports context. I have to imagine thousands of listeners have e-mailed this fact to Mike and Mike. And, yet, they ignore this fact and continue with their self-aggrandizement. Actually, the two of them are becoming increasingly self-aggrandizing, a fact which they hide by pretending to be self-deprecating. It's irksome and pathetic. So, if you think of it, take a moment to drop the two of them a line and let them know we're on to them, at least as far as ridonculous goes.

Also, there was a great article about how the White Sox can be competitive again by next season at Baseball Prospectus. BP is a subscription site, but articles like this make it worth it. Suffice to say none of Tadahito Iguchi, Jermaine Dye, Mark Buehrle, Darrin Erstad or Juan Uribe are part of the picture. Joe Crede and Josh Fields both are, as well as Luis Castillo, Chad Billingsley, Brent Lillibridge, and some Japanese slugger. It's good stuff.

I figured I would round this column out with a smattering of interesting columns and articles from my Chicago blogging brethren. And there are some good ones out there. But we're all writing the same depressing things about how bad the Sox are. I do like Life in the Cell's zombie photo though. You can check out all of their stuff by clicking on the links to the right.

It's Not New, You Numbnuts!

2007-06-14T09:03:00.001-05:00

Ok, I love Mike & Mike. Call me a sucker, but their shtick amuses me. I listen every morning while getting ready for work. But, Mike, Mike, ridonculous is not a new word. You cannot copyright it, trademark it, patent it, or even debate its spelling because it already exists. Here it is in Urban Dictionary.

You see, this morning Mike and Mike attempted to establish a new word to replace "filthy" when describing a pitcher's outstanding stuff. Each of their options was flawed, but I have a solution. We'll get to that in a bit. First, there options: ridonculous, schnizzily, savage, fecalicious, and unkempt.

As mentioned, ridonculous is not a new word, which is largely what had Mike and Mike excited about it. I admit it sounds good. And that's why I, and I assume thousands of others, have been using it to describe spectacular, or "filthy," sports plays for years. In fact, here it is in sports discussion from back in '05 where a Red Sox fan inaccurately predicts the divisional playoffs: "Because we wear down pitchers like nobody's business. We drive pitch counts insanely high and have some guys with ridonculous OBP's. That being said I don't think the ChiSox can beat us in the playoffs." Point is, if the goal was to add a word to the sports lexicon, they failed. They merely discovered a word the rest of us have been using for years.

As for the others . . . Schnizzily is kind of fun, but really, it could mean anything. It doesn't even sound like it means "filthy," or outstanding. It is, as Tim Kurkjfjksgnvjkian, or someone, pointed out this morning, too soft.

Savage is nothing new. Saying a curve ball is savage is just like saying its nasty, or wicked, or any other word that means really, really mean. So to all the people who voted for savage, and nearly made it the winner: congratulations. You have voted to maintain the status quo, to uphold the dominant paradigm. America has always thrived on an aversion to new ideas and an unwillingness to embrace progress and change. So, thank you. Oy.

Fecalicious? Let's face it, almost all of us are just uncomfortable with the word fecal, and any of its iterations. First off, there's the uncomfortable association with, um, fecal matter. Then, there's the fact that the word just sounds gross, like yeast or moist. Yuck. Fecalicious just won't work.

Finally, unkempt is just too mild, too polite. Replacing filthy with unkempt is like replacing nasty with mildly unpleasant. Justin Verlander didn't strike anyone out with a mildly unpleasant curve ball. Unkempt is weak.

So, what is to be done? I have a solution. Some of you know, and some of you don't, that I'm a prosecutor at an unnamed county, state or federal agency somewhere in Chicagoland. (Actually, I'm an appellate prosecutor, hence the user name, uh, Criminal Appeal. Anywho . . .). Occasionally I have to deal with briefs, motions or petitions from actual prisoners: pro se filings. Occasionally these prisoners are insane. Recently, I had a prisoner who liked to invent words for his filings. This man has provided us with an answer to the question, how else can we describe a pitcher's filthy stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

SUPERSEGOGATORY. A couple nights ago, Justin Verlander's stuff was just supersegogatory. You'll note that not only is supersegogatory not a word, neither is plain, old segogatory. So, it can't just mean something is extra segogatory. In fact, I have no idea what he meant. Even in context, it was just nonsense. But now, this word has purpose.

So forget filthy or nasty or even ridonculous. The new word for the sports lexicon is supersegogatory. Remember, use it three times today and you'll own it for life.

Whose Fault is it that Donald Rumsfeld Wears White Sox?

2007-06-13T09:20:00.000-05:00

With the White Sox sputtering through another lost series -- this time in Philadelphia, Joe Crede likely done for the year, and Jose Contreras looking every bit his 83 years' of age, I thought now would be a good time to highlight a category in which the Sox actually lead the AL: Rumsfelds.

Rumsfelds are a new Baseball Prospectus statistic. Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, "You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the army you want." Ok, so I may be paraphrasing a little, but you get the idea. Rumsfelds measure how far the army you have is from the army you'd ideally want. A team's Rumsfeld Number is the percentage of that team's at-bats handled by players with a negative VORP, ie. a value below that of a freely available replacement player.

The Tigers grade out best in the AL at 4.2%. Less than one in 20 at-bats for the AL champs goes to a guy with a negative VORP. The White Sox? They grade out worst in the league. Their 49.6 Rumsfeld Number is the highest in the AL. Go Team! Yes, this is just one more statistic that confirms the Sox have the worst offense in baseball. Half of the team's at-bats go to guys who could theoretically be replaced by a career minor leaguer or waiver-wire pick-up, and the team would get better.

So, how do we explain this abyss? Last year the Sox were a good offensive club. This year, with the starting pitching improved, the team should be right in the thick of things. But they've fallen off a cliff offensively. Could management have seen this coming? Should they be blamed?

First, even if this disaster was predictable, and even if management should have acted to avoid it, I'm not suggesting anyone lose his job over it. This management team put together a World Series Champion. They deserve a lot of leeway. It will take much more than this to undermine their credibility.

But this year's collapse was largely predictable. Now, a chunk of the blame lies at the feet of Jermaine Dye. His 240 plate appearance represent 10% of the team's total, and his -1.8 VORP makes him the biggest contributor to that Rumsfeld Number. You can't blame the team for Dye. He was outstanding last year, and has been good his whole career. This year, he's an offensive black hole into which rallies are sucked, their light forever extinguished.

Many of the team's other black holes were all to obvious. Juan Uribe and Rob Mackowiak have each collected more than 100 plate appearances with sub-zero VORPs. Pablo Ozuna and Alex Cintron also have below replacement-level numbers and just under 100 PAs. The offensive ineffectiveness of all four of these Rumsfeld contributors is hardly shocking, and the team never should have committed to a plan in which each received major playing time. When the team's big boppers were playing their best, the ineffectiveness of the rest of the line up didn't derail the offense as a whole. But the shallowness of the lineup made it very vulnerable to slumps by the team's offensive forces. With Dye and Paul Konerko struggling, the team has been sucked into a quagmire of easy outs that team management should have seen coming.

Ok, so the team though Scott Podsednik would be the everyday left fielder, not Rob Mackowiak. But that points to another problem. They also expected Darrin Erstad to play every day, rather than sub-zeros Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, and Jerry Owens. And, they expected Joe Crede to play every day, rather than sub-zero youngster Josh Fields. But the team should have realized that aging, injury-prone, (overrated) players like Erstad, Podsednik and Crede were a risk to spend substantial time on the injured list. Not only did the team have too many weak hitters, it had too many question marks at other spots in the order.

Speaking of Crede, he has struggled to play through his ailing back. It's a valiant effort, but he did contribute 178 negative VORP plate appearances before finally succumbing. And, I wouldn't rush to get Erstad back. He's only .5 VORP from adding his 200-plus at-bats to the Rumsfeld Number and driving the team above 60%.

So, yes, management could have largely seen this coming. A shallow line up with too many weak spots and injury risks was asking for this kind of collapse. But now that the team has fallen out of the race, I don't think they should worry about their Rumsfeld Number creeping even higher. As mentioned, right now guys like Fields, Sweeney, Owens and Anderson are contributing to the Rumsfeld Number. These guys need all the at-bats they can get now, so that the team knows whether they can be a part of the next contender. Hopefully, their VORPS will climb above zero, and they'll cut into the Rumsfeld Number, but if they get a bunch of at-bats, don't find success, and that Number creeps even higher, it doesn't necessarily mean the team has done something wrong. Alex Gordon, the Royals best prospect has contributed 9.4 to that teams Rumsfeld Number of 29.8. First, it's depressing how much higher the Sox' Number is, but second, can you fault the Royals for giving Gordon every chance to prove he's the real deal? Of course not. And no matter how it plays out, the Sox should give their young guys the same opportunity.

So, yes, it is Sox' management's fault that Donald Rumsfeld wears White Sox, but they shouldn't worry too much about continuing to allow him to do so. The team's Rumsfeld Number at the end of the year will tell us less about management's decisions the rest of the way, than who contributes to it. If it's Erstad, Uribe, and Mackowiak, for example, then they should be criticized for wasting at-bats on aging, ineffective players. If it's Sweeney, Fields and Owens, on the other hand, then at least they began evaluating their assets moving forward.

No Surrender

2007-06-08T09:29:00.000-05:00

It's not a white flag when there's nothing left of your season to surrender. With the MLB draft underway, Josh Fields getting his first extended taste of the bigs, and another lost week at Comiscular dragging the '07 Sox deeper into the depths, it's time for this team, and this blog, to look to the future.

I know it's still relatively early; we're only about a third of the way through the season. But let's face it, the White Sox are playing terrible baseball. They're 26-30, nine games behind the Indians in the division and 6.5 behind the wild card leading Tigers. And, when you look at the Sox stats -- be it runs scored and allowed, or the peripherals that lead to runs scored and allowed -- you see that the Sox deserve to be three of four games worse than that. When Baseball Prospectus ran the rest of the season a million times, the Sox made the playoffs 1.2% of the time. If they adjust player performance for pre-season predictions of production, the Sox make it only .4% of the time. This season is over.

What does that mean? Well, first the Sox should deal any future free agents whom they won't resign. That includes Mark Buehrle, Jermaine Dye, and even Tadahito Iguchi if they don't plan to keep him (Iguchi is the only one of the three who they probably should keep based on performance and likely market rates). They should also move any overrated veterans behind whom they have a young replacement. Fields, Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, Jerry Owens, and Luis Terrero may or may not be the Sox answers at third base and across the outfield, but the Sox believe they are. Now's the time to find out. If guys like Scott Podsenik, Darrin Erstad and Joe Crede can get back on the field, establish that they're somewhat healthy, and seduce some other team, then the Sox should trade them now and get what they can. The same probably goes for aging pitcher Jose Contreras.

The Sox system is one of the weaker one's in baseball. Fields is a nice player, almost certain to be the team's everyday third baseman, and with a decent shot to develop into a star. But Eric Hinske is the best player on PECOTA's list of comparables for the guy. In another system, he wouldn't stand out so much. The Sox need to restock, especially offensively. Use the value in current players to do so now. The window on this group is closed. We got our World Series win while it was open. That's the best thing to happen to Chicago baseball in nearly a century, but let's not set the franchise back by clinging to that core now that it's time is gone.

The Sox have built up some depth of talent on the mound. It's not great, but it's better than their offensive prospects. Lance Broadway, Charlie Haeger, Heath Phillips, Gavin Floyd, Adam Russell, Gio Gonzalez, Jack Egbert, Kyle McCulloch, and Clayton Richard are all prospects who may someday start for the Sox. Few of them have top of the rotation potential though, even if they reach their ceilings. So, even here the Sox have work to do.

They resumed that work yesterday, on day one of the MLB draft. Aaron Poreda was exactly what the Sox needed. He's a high upside guy. While his development has been slow, he has the frame and stuff to end up being outstanding. After overly safe picks like Broadway and McCulloch, the Sox needed to take a bit of a risk, and get a guy who might someday be an ace. Plus, Poreda was allegedly atop Oakland's board, as well, and they've shown a penchant for finding good young pitching, so that's a good sign, right? And, Nevin Griffith is another upside guy (although awfully scrawny at this point) who Bryan Smith thought would go much higher. There's no right way to draft anymore, but it's important for a system to have balance between reliably producing average players and occasionally producing busts and stars. The Sox helped balance their system yesterday, and that's a good thing for the future.

The Sox face the Astros tonight at Comiscular. It's hard, therefore, not to think about the fact that this same group of guys basically won a World Series against these same Astros less than two years ago. But teams age. Injuries take their toll. This group won't reach that summit again. The goal of every team should be to win a championship, and the fastest way for the Sox to reach that goal is to clean house now. And there's no need to wave a white flag when doing so. You can't surrender when you're not even part of the fight.

Night At The Ballpark

2007-06-05T09:02:00.001-05:00

Well, there was no Roger Clemens, but it was still an interesting night at the ballpark, nevertheless. Without Clemens around, attention returned to the two proud, but struggling, franchises on the field. Ozzie Guillen expressed his dismay, jokingly one assumes, towards the Yankees for failing to come through on their promised distraction.

He was probably doubly irritated that Clemens wasn't there to take the heat (as my buddy Scalia's Gavel observed, Clemens is such a prima donna that he didn't even give us a chance to make fun of him in person for being a prima donna) in the ninth inning. With the Sox leading 6-1, one on, one out, Ozzie emerged from the dugout to pull starter Jon Garland. At that moment, despite the five run lead, every ounce of frustration built up this season came forth. Thirty-thousand plus fans let Ozzie know they didn't approve of the decision. Now, part of that was fear of the bullpen, and part of it was frustration on Garland's behalf. But the decision was somewhat defensible -- Garland had thrown 120 or so pitches -- and regardless, this time a year ago people would not have booed Ozzie. It's that simple. Whether or not he's lost the team, Ozzie has lost the Sox' fan base, and that's remarkable given that he delivered the city's first World Series championship in nearly a century.

Speaking of the bullpen, Matt Thornton was one of the few guys on the team actually getting people out. Now he's getting lit up? Can we not catch a break out there? I think Bret Prinz has proven that he can be a league average reliever, which is a heck of a lot better than what we have had, and Ryan Bukvich is a former prospect who throws very hard, but the pressure on these guys to come through is immense. While we're making short observations: the woman behind me brought a sign to get ESPN's attention. She was the only female along with a few guys -- some Yankees fans, some Sox fans -- and she was so proud of her sign. The she opened it up and realized that it read: Hey Yanks, prepare for an Especially Serious Poundig Now!" Yes, I mean for that to read "Poundig." She forgot the "n." Sox fans make me so proud. Also, to the guy sitting in front of me: making fun of her lisp was probably not the best way to pick up the chick sitting next to you.

Anyway, returning to our scheduled blog: last night also brought together two players often mentioned in trade rumors together. Rumors swirl that the Sox and Yanks may deal Jermaine Dye and Bobby Abreu straight up for one another. I'm skeptical, but if it's for real, I like the deal for the Sox. Dye is 33 years old. For the moment, he has a remarkably reasonable contract. He is making $7 million this season, while PECOTA projects his value at $14.5 million for 2007. But this is the last year he'll be a value. After this year he'll be a free agent, and probably cost more than the $9 million a year that PECOTA says he'll be worth over the next three seasons. Abreu, on the other hand, is making a robust $15.6 million this season. He too is 33, and his salary is also not out of line. PECOTA projects his value at $16 million this year. PECOTA projects that Abreu will be worth $11 million a year for the next three seasons. Obviously, one thing you can take from this is that PECOTA thinks Abreu will be more valuable over the next three years. In fact, PECOTA says Abreu will have a SuperVORP (think of it as total value) of 42.8 from 2008-2010, as opposed to 39.7 for Dye. It projects comparable value for this season. Next year, Abreu will still be under contract at $16 million, when PECOTA projects his value at around $14 million. Still, not crazy. And, as mentioned, as a free agent, Dye will probably command far more than the $11.5 million PECOTA says he'll be worth in 2008.

Still, all in all, this is a fairly close match-up. So, is it just moving pieces for the sake of moving pieces? Well, having the option to lock Abreu up for 2008 at a reasonable price gives Abreu slightly more value. The likely slower decline to Abreu's skills gives him another edge. Abreu's skill set is one that typically serves a player much later into his career. PECOTA sees a remarkable resemblance between a 2007 Dye and a 1991 Dave Henderson. Henderson was out of baseball 1994, never played 110 games in a season after '91, and hit a grand total of 25 home runs over the last three years of his career. In '91 Henderson was a year younger than Dye is now. And the comparison is not unique. Other comparables for Dye -- relatively nonathletic, pull-hitting sluggers -- include the rapidly fading 2006 version of Cliff Floyd, and the washed-up 1986 version of Jim Rice. There are exceptions. Dye also looks like a 1985 Dave Winfield to PECOTA. Winfield played until he was 43 and hit 186 home runs from 1986 on.

In contrast, Abreu's comparables include still in their primes 2000 Kenny Lofton, 1972 Carl Yastrzemski, and 1992 Ricky Henderson. Abreu's speed and patience generally bode well for a long, relatively successful twilight to his career. On the other hand, there are no guarantees. His top two comparables are a 1994 John Kruk and a 1991 Von Hayes. Neither was in baseball two years down the road.

So what does all of this add up to? I guess this: Bobby Abreu and Jermain Dye have comparable value, but Abreu is a little more valuable, more likely to have a long, productive tail end of his career, and locked up for 2008. Plus, we have pieces that duplicate Dye's power. We lack pieces that can duplicate Abreu's on-base prowess. So, if the Yankees really asked about a straight swap, then I say do it. But no one should think that move alone will drastically change the team's fortunes this year.

And, as I saw last night, those fortunes, bleak as they appear, are starting to wear on the patience of Sox fans. And, on their spelling.

Throw Me A Bone Here!

2007-06-04T09:24:00.000-05:00

It is developing to be a long, slow summer for Chicago baseball fans. Another series, another team, another country, same stupid results for the White Sox this weekend. Well, at least I get to see Roger Clemens return tonight. Huh, what was that?

A couple of weeks ago I was reading an article about how many minor league starts Clemens wanted to make. I started counting forward starts and realized that he might very well make his first big league start at US Comiscular. So I bought a couple tickets (my season tix are weekend-only). I got them a face value. Then, it was confirmed that he would indeed debut tonight, and prices at the club's ticket exchange doubled. I would have re-sold for a profit, but I was too excited to finally see something exciting at a Sox game this season.

Then, in the third inning of yesterday's Yankees-Red Sox game, Roger Clemens called Brian Cashman to inform him that he would have to miss his start Monday because of a fatigued groin. WHAT?!? Who the heck calls the GM during a game to have this discussion? And, did Clemens self-diagnose; why was he making this call and not a team doctor? And, what the hell is a fatigued groin anyway? Does the Rocket need a fluffer? Viagra? The Yanks have a minor league deal with Clemens. They can cut bait right now without owing another cent. They'll save 28 million dollars; Clemens can't save this season anyway; and he's apparently becoming an ever-increasing prima donna. Plus, if I don't get to see his debut, no one should.

Anyway, instead, I'll be off to see Matt DeSalvo take on the Sox tonight. It's ok. I enjoy going to see the Sox under almost any conditions, so I'm still looking forward to it. Of course, it's probably going to rain, so I won't even get the booby prize. Like I said: it's shaping up to be a long, slow summer.

He Gone?

2007-06-01T08:58:00.001-05:00

The White Sox have now lost five games in a row, slipped below .500, and appear headed down the slippery slope so many of us feared before the season even began. The Sox are hardly out of it -- the Twins, for example, were in much more dire straits (Brothers in Arms is now stuck in my head) last year at this point -- but the situation is grim. The Indians are really good. They've opened a seven game lead on the Sox. And, perhaps most disturbing, there are two other teams who seem better equipped to contend with the Tribe than the Sox are.

So, naturally, speculation is beginning that Ozzie Guillen may not be long for his job. Normally, I don't take that stuff too seriously. I'll think about when it actually happens. But when the Great Peter Gammons says it may be coming, as he did on the radio this morning, I take notice.

So, should Ozzie be fired? Well, on the one hand, Ozzie is obnoxious, arrogant, homophobic, and a dinosaur when it comes to offensive baseball. I don't think managers have too much of an effect on a team's performance, so all things being equal, I'd rather have the team be managed by someone I respect as a person -- *cough* Harold Baines *cough* -- than someone I don't like. I don't like Ozzie. Plus, he really is in the dark ages offensively. Last night, for example, the Sox ran themselves into out after out in an effort to manufacture runs. I thought we had crossed that threshold where everyone realized that outs were the most precious commodity in baseball. You don't give them away.

On the other hand, as Gammons said, Ozzie only gets fired if the team believes that their performance is not matching up to their talent. He's not sure that's the case. He's not sure the team thinks that's the case. I'm almost certain that's not the case. This is a .500 team. In fact, they've won more than their fair share of games this year. They're 24-25, but based on peripheral stats, they look more like a 21-28 team according to Baseball Prospectus. That's starting to look an awful lot like the 72-90 team PECOTA thought the Sox would be before the season started. Based on performance so far, BP says the Sox have about a 4% chance of making the play-offs. But if you adjust performance the rest of the year for what PECOTA expected of guys before the season started, they have a 1.6% chance. In other words, any way you slice it, the Sox are over-achieving this year. Yikes.

And, as archaic as Ozzie's offensive attitudes are, he's pretty creative in player usage, finding ways to get the guys he believes are his best players on the field. I may not always agree with his analysis of who to get on the field, but getting his guys out there is a skill. And Ozzie is usually pretty good at managing his pitching staff. He has certainly demonstrated a willingness at times to use his best pitchers in the highest leverage situations, even when "The Book" might suggest something different. And, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that any manager has much of an impact on team performance, so what exactly do the Sox accomplish by firing Ozzie?

I don't like Guillen. I'm tired of his act. But, truthfully, I think it's unlikely he'll be fired. Even with Gammons's speculation, I'll believe it when I see it. And even if it does happen, I don't expect it to make any difference in the Sox slide into temporary irrelevance in the AL Central.

Dog Days Starting Early

2007-05-30T09:10:00.000-05:00

Keep it interesting. That's all I ask. Ok, the World Championship in 2005 changed my expectations level somewhat, but still, all I really ask on the White Sox each season is that they keep it interesting. Be part of the race until September. Be part of the conversation on Baseball Tonight. I fear that won't be the case this year. I've feared that all along. The White Sox look like a .500 team. And that's how they're playing. Some days the pitching is there, some days the hitting is there, and some days they have it all and look like contenders. But they lack the depth on the mound or at the plate to do it consistently and truly compete with the Indians in the Central.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Look the Sox have played even worse than their record this season, but that record is not so bad. They are at the moment above .500, and only one game out of the Wild Card in the loss column -- a preposterous observation a quarter of the way into the season, if I do say so myself. But I just feel "blah" about the whole thing. Maybe going to Minnesota does it to me. That dome is one of the most soul-less places left in baseball after the recent wave of stadium construction and rehab. And, the team is the kind of group you'd love to root for, but who you absolutely hate to play against. They sap your will. It's not getting beat by Johan Santana and Justin Morneau that bugs me; it's getting beat by Nick Punto and Jason Tyner. It's losing because of ground balls that bounce 75 feet into the air off the green concrete that passes for a field there.

These doldrums are bad. I'm actually excited about inter-league play. Inter-league play is the kind of thing that's needed to drum up interest in places where they don't really care about baseball. Usually I view inter-league play as an annoying interruption of the divisional race. This year, I bought tickets for an extra Cubs-Sox game at Comiscular, and I find myself contemplating who excites me on the Houston Astros. A couple of weeks ago, I bought tickets for the Sox-Yanks game Monday because I heard that Clemens might be making his first start then. It paid off. But I find myself more excited about seeing Clemens start than going to a Sox-Yanks game.

Maybe this team will get on a role. As much as they lack depth, the top of their roster is very good. Unlike most .500 teams, the Sox have the talent to put together a really good record with the right combination of health and luck. Maybe the Sox will show passion and fire, and I'll get fired up, too. But I fear that the dog days of summer may drag a little more than usual this year.

No Such Luck

2007-05-23T10:59:00.000-05:00

Long shots were all the rage at last night's NBA draft lottery. Unfortunately, the Bulls weren't one of the teams cashing in. The Portland Trailblazers and Seattle Sonics each overcame long odds to jump to the top of the draft. Aside from the joy that I take (bizarrely) in seeing Bill Simmons and the rest of the Celtics' fan base suffer, I lament that the Bulls were an Eddy Curry tip-in from having Portland's odds of winning. Oh well.

The ninth pick remains an insanely valuable chit given this year's deep draft. Rumors are that Roy Hibbert will withdraw from the draft, which is a shame. I thought an athletic front line of Hibbert, Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas blocking shots, grabbing rebounds, and throwing outlets to Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni was probably the Bulls' best bet to be something unique and very, very good.

Nevertheless, good options remain. I suspect the Zach Randolph rumors are nonsense. Still some kind of sign and trade packaging Andres Nocionin and whoever the ninth pick is for Randolph would make a modicum of sense. Portland will have Greg Oden and Lamarcus Aldridge to man the middle, and Nocioni would allow them to part ways with Darius Miles, which the Blazers would apparently love to do. The Bulls meanwhile would have Wallace, Randolph and Thomas up front, with Deng, Sefolosha, Gordon, Hinrich and Duhon in the back court. That team contends for the Eastern Conference title.

A more realistic option, I believe, is the Bulls moving up, probably with the Celtics, to take Yi Jianlian. John Paxson apparently loves the tall, versatile Chinese forward. He is big, and can score from anywhere on the floor. Yi will not be a foreign bust. I also think he'd fit in well with the Bulls high paced attack. If Thomas can guard centers, and there are few in the league right now big enough and skilled enough to be a problem, then he and Yi could make a dynamic duo for the future. Thomas, Yi and Deng might be the most athletic, exciting, and talented front line in the NBA one day.

But what would the cost be to move up? And is it worth paying when a player meeting the Bulls' immediate need will likely be available at nine? The Bulls need a guy who can settle on the block and score in the half court when teams slow it down and take away the Bulls pick and roll/pop game. Spencer Hawes is the most gifted post scorer in this draft, and he's a really good one at that. Everyone compares him to Vlade Divac. Don't you think Divac would have helped this team? Plus, he's a good enough face-up jump shooter to play pick and pop with Hinrich too. Again, Wallace, Hawes, Thomas, Deng, Nocioni, Gordon, Hinrich, Sefolosha and Duhon is the rotation of a legitimate contender.

The ping pong balls may not have bounced the Bulls' way last night. But that's no reason not to be very excited about this off-season, and the team's future.

David Aardsma: Traitor

2007-05-21T09:37:00.000-05:00

David Aardsma must still be being paid by the Cubs. He must be a traitor to the White Sox' cause. That's the only explanation for the suddenly flammable nature of the previously effective reliever. His ERA went up 3.37. Not his ERA went up to 3.37, it went up that much. He entered the weekend with a 1.64 ERA and exited with a 5.01. Actually, Aardsma had an ERA over 5.00 in day games last year, so maybe that explains it. The sample size is too small to read much into, but Aardsma's ineffectiveness in day games may reflect some sort of truth about his pitching.

Anyway, Aardsma's ineffectiveness was just one odd aspect of an odd weekend. What else would you expect from this Crosstown Garbage. (I detest this series by the way. I relish the tribal aspects of sports. There is unity when everyone in US Comiscular is pulling together for the Sox to beat the Twins. There is much less enjoyable about the hostility felt at the ballpark when a third of the fans are suddenly rooting for the other team. And I certainly had no interest in being at Wrigley this weekend as part of a vocal minority). The Sox entered the series with one of the more effective bullpens in baseball. The Cubs saw the pen as their principle question mark. But it was the Sox' pen that blew up.

As expected, NL pitching provided something of a tonic for ailing White Sox bats. Paul Konerko has even found his way above the Mendoza line. What was less expected was the effect of Cubs' bats on our pitching. Oh well. Honestly, the Cubs have played better than the Sox this year. The Cubs have the stats and run differential of a pretty good team. The Sox have the numbers of a .500-ish team, and they're only that good because of heroic pitching so far. The bats really better wake up at some point.

Speaking of which, as much as Ryan Sweeney and Brian Anderson would make more valuable parts of the outfield picture than Luis Terrero and Darrin Erstad, its hard to fault the club for returning the struggling Sweeney to Charlotte. If it helps his long-term development into a starting major league outfielder, then the marginal loss of production is worth it. Sweeney wasn't doing much with the big club anymore anyway.

In other interesting prospect news: Joe Crede left Sunday's game with back problems. He's been playing with two herniated discs for two years. As the Redhead (Official Wife of the Fan Club, for those with short memories) can tell you: ouch. Anyway, I wonder if Crede is going to miss extensive time whether Josh Fields might not get a taste of the big time in his absence. Fields has been struggling early this year at Charlotte, but he's heated up of late, and offers some intriguing pop when he doesn't swing and miss.

Anyway, the Bulls are through. The Sox have reached the quarter pole above .500 and 4.5 games back of the Indians and Tigers. And, the Crosstown/interleague nonsense has begun. Sounds like baseball season is finally here.

The Matadors Are Singing

2007-05-18T10:27:00.000-05:00

The end of an opera is supposedly marked by a fat lady singing. The closest I can think of in the case of the Chicago Bulls are The Matadors -- the Bulls' dance team consisting entirely of fat, old guys. Anyway, those fat guys have sung. The Bulls are done.

It is odd that the Bulls led four of the six games at the half, and three games by at least 19 points, and yet lost the series four games to two. I should also note that the Bulls were outscored dramatically during this series when the Redhead wasn't watching. Last night she watched her Tivo'd episode of Ugly Betty during the third quarter. Somehow, she refuses to take responsibility for her role in the end of the Bulls' season.

The Bulls shot five of 18 from three point range last night. That's 27.8%, sad for a team that shot 39% during the regular season, second best in the league. Some credit goes to the Detroit defense on that front. They held opponents to 34% from behind the arc this year, fourth best in the NBA. Still, flat out bad shooting was part of it too. Kirk Hinrich was the worst offender, going 0 for three behind the arc and three of 13 overall. Given how poorly he was shooting, it's hard to criticize Hinrich for becoming pass happy in the second half. Nevertheless, this marked the fourth time this series (at least) that Hinrich played scared at key stretches of the game.

Maybe Hinrich will mature past the yips that plagued him this series (his over-passing resulted in a handful of turnovers in the second half). However, as the Bulls now begin their off-season, I think it's clear that if the team is going to move a member of its core group in a deal for an interior scorer, that guy should be Hinrich. Luol Deng is the team's best player. Andres Nocioni's value is at an all-time low coming off his injury. And, Ben Gordon brings a unique skill (the ability to score explosively) that no one else on the team can duplicate. I'm not sure the team needs to make a deal (Spencer Hawes should be available when the Bulls pick, and he's been compared favorably to Vlade Divac as an offensive minded center), but if they do, Hinrich has value, and his skill set can be replicated by Chris Duhon and Thabo Sefolosha.

The other guy who didn't bring much to the table last night was Ben Wallace. Wallace had six points and seven rebounds, and shot a brutal two of eight from the charity stripe. He was a team-worst minus-17 on the night. His achy back may have played a role in his struggles, but age, and the likelihood of injuries, are one reason why the contract the Bulls gave him was a mistake. He's also one dimensional, and when he can't control the game defensively, he offers nothing on the offensive end. Nevertheless, this contract is well structured as these things go, and Wallace is a valuable part of the front-court rotation going forward. He's just not worth max money. The Pistons have a similar component in Antonio McDyess at a much more reasonable price. In fact, McDyess's player efficiency rating was much higher than Wallace's this year. McDyess scored twice as many points per 40 minutes as Big Ben, and grabbed nearly as many rebounds per 40 minutes (11.5 to 12.2), all for $10 million less, this year alone.

This was a good year for the Bulls. They improved in the regular season, and advanced further in the play-offs than any time since MJ roamed the United Center floor. They discovered a stud scorer in Gordon, a budding all-star in Deng, a potential defensive stopper in Sefolosha, and a energizing, shot blocking, game changing young big man in Tyrus Thomas. But they also discovered some flaws that must be addressed. Namely, they need an offensive minded big man to add to Thomas and Wallace in their front court rotation. The Heat have gotten old, the Pistons will age, the Nets may be dismantled this off-season, the Cavs appear to be as flawed as the Bulls, and the Raptors probably even more so. The Eastern Conference will be wide open next season. Hopefully the Bulls will be ready to claim it.

NBA Ramblings

2007-05-16T09:35:00.000-05:00

So, I wrote a brilliant (trust me) 1000 word post earlier this morning, and Blogger ate it. Now, you're all going to be deprived. But I will put together a shorter version, touching on my key points.

First, the Bulls played well, and shot the lights out, and return to the United Center down three games to two. It's tough not to ask what if. What if, during game three, Scott Skiles remembered that teams get timeouts in the NBA? What if Skiles wasn't the last guy in Chicago to realize that Tyrus Thomas had an important role to play in this series? The Bulls have led three of the five games by at least 19 points: what if they were coming home up three to two?

It's pointless to ask. Game four wouldn't have played out the same way if the Bulls held on in game three. Or maybe it would have. The point is that there's no way to know. At this point, I'd put the Bulls chances at less than one in four to win the series, but that's a heck of a lot better than as of Sunday morning.

Kirk Hinrich largely shed the fear and panic that have plagued him in the fourth quarter earlier in the series. I'd like to thank the league for not suspending Captain Kirk for what may or may not have been a below the belt shot to Flip Murray (although it was clearly above Kirk's belt, since Flip's bait and tackle were about forehead high on Hinrich at the time). Anyway, it was also nice to see Ben Gordon finally have a good shooting night. Luol Deng continued to quietly be the Bulls' best player. And, Thomas brought energy, athleticism and complete chaos to the proceedings, all of which the Bulls thrive on.

It was also fun to see a classic Rasheed Wallace melt down. It's not clear why Wallace's antics warrant a single tech, whereas standing in the wrong spot can bring down a full suspension. Of course, the NBA has a moral code designed for fourth graders. You can't walk too far from the bench, um, because I said so. The Spurs have now been rewarded -- two Phoenix starters suspended for a game versus one Spurs reserve suspended for two is a win for San Antonio -- for thuggishly trying to injure the Suns' best player. Stu Jackson has explained this travesty by saying that any rule applied consistently is fair. He has also explained that the NBA can't possibly have a rule that requires officials to make a judgment call about the severity of a player's infraction or his intentions in leaving the bench.

First off, this argument is complete bullsh*t in this setting. This is a court of basketball, not law. The only goal is to create an even playing field on which the best players and team can prevail. That goal has been thwarted here. Considerations of rule of law, procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection are out of place in this context. Second, the rule sucks. Officials are asked to make judgment calls all the time: was that defender still moving, who initiated contact, does Sheed's tantrum deserve a second T? Even this rule asks the league to determine whether an altercation was on-going when the players left the bench. That judgment call is why Tim Duncan wasn't suspended when he wandered out to the key area from the bench while the game was going on the other night. And if the NBA wants to pretend that it has formal legal system to govern player's actions, well the law is full of judgment calls. Prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute a crime, judge's weigh the relevance and improper prejudicial value of evidence, and juries (notoriously terrible decision making bodies) determine defendants' intentions all the time. Instead of sticking to their arena of competition, the league seems to be trying to govern itself by playing at something it doesn't really understand. The end result is that the Suns got screwed, and whether the rule was applied consistently or not, the integrity of this year's playoffs are undermined.

Um, now that that rant is over, we return you to your regularly scheduled blog. Go Bulls.

Staying Alive

2007-05-14T09:31:00.000-05:00

Well, that was a stupid title. Now I'm going to have a disco song stuck in my head the rest of the day. If you do too, I apologize. Nevertheless, it is what the Bulls were doing on Sunday. The Bulls are still almost certain to lose the series, probably in game five in Detroit. Still, it was nice to get a win.

The Bulls once again built a big lead, more than 20 points this time, but unlike Thursday, they held on to win yesterday. I can identify three differences between Thursday's game and yesterday's. First, Skiles actually called a time out early enough to slow Detroit's roll at a crucial moment. Second, Skiles inserted a fresh Tyrus Thomas into the line-up at a key time, and the rookie brought energy and fearlessness to the floor. And, third, the Red Head stayed awake. The Red Head, Official Wife of the Fan Club, fell asleep Thursday with the Bulls up by 19. Yesterday, she made it through the game. You tell me if you see the difference.

Anyway, a correction from my post about game three. The Official Father of the Fan Club -- it's family week here, apparently -- reminded me that it was Greg Anthony, and not Anderson Hunt, who had the testicular fortitude to keep taking shots against Duke in 1991. Hunt froze up as bad as Larry Johnson and Stacey Augmon. That's why it was so devastating when Anthony fouled out. Also, my friend Eisy would like me to clarify that Grant Hill wasn't really a bust as a pro, he was just injury prone. The point remains, however, that he was a better college player than pro player. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Chicago Sports Blog.

Hubie Brown yesterday, in a rare moment of lucidity, called the Bulls' guards out for over-passing, leading to too many turnovers. He mentioned it while Detroit was making a run, and I pointed to the same problem as a big part of the reason why the Bulls blew their lead in game three. The Bulls are a ball movement team, so it's tough for Skiles to criticize his players for passing too much. However, all series the Bulls, especially Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon, have been prone to take tough passes over easy shots. It shows in the turnover numbers, and it cost the team game three.

Luol Deng has been the one fearless guy this series, and has reinforced my belief that he is on the verge of joining the league's elite. For everyone clamoring for a post scorer who can demand a double team, Deng will be that guy soon. Keep in mind that Michael Jordan was that guy when the Bulls won six titles. It doesn't have to be a power forward or center, it just has to be a guy who creates a mismatch. Deng, with his long arms and increasing strength and knowledge of how to use his body, is becoming a mismatch for small forwards on the block. And he's too quick for a power forward. Throw in smart passing out of double teams, and you have your mismatch guy. Starting next season, the Bulls offense in the half court should probably flow through Deng first and foremost. And when they need to create a good, quality shot, the ball should go to Deng on the block.

Anyway, he got some help finally last night in the form of Tyrus Thomas. Thomas had 8 points, 4 rebounds and a block in 9 fourth quarter minutes. He actually led the team in 4th quarter shot attempts. Thomas has actually been the Bulls' most aggressive player this post-season. Usage measures the number of possessions a player "uses" per 40 minutes. A player "uses" a possession if he attempts a shot or free throws, or makes an assist or turnover. Thomas's 26.3 per 40 minutes leads the Bulls. Deng and Gordon are next at 23.0 and 22.8 respectively. Obviously, usage isn't necessarily a good thing. Missed shots and turnovers are uses of a possession. But in a series in which the Bulls have been too passive, Thomas's aggressiveness serves a purpose. I hope he gets more minutes in game five. Skiles should put him in whenever the Bulls show signs of being scared or passive.

One final note: my friend Purd thinks Hinrich intentionally punched Flip Murray in the ball-sackal region on Murray's facial of Captain Kirk. To examine the evidence, go here. I think he flailed wildly and happened to "pick a peach," as Purd put it. Purd believes the most damning evidence is around the 20 second mark of the footage. What do you guys think?

Out Manned

2007-05-11T09:26:00.000-05:00

This isn't about who has more talent. This isn't about who has more skill. This series is about a lot of things the importance of which I normally downplay in sports. The Pistons have out manned the Bulls -- not in a their players are simply better than ours kind of way, but in a their players have more courage, determination and savvy than ours.

It almost makes me feel nostalgic. Before there was MJ, Scottie, and Horace winning championships, there was the Bulls getting maimed by the Pistons. The Bulls would get knocked down, and they wouldn't get up again. The early 90's Pistons were the fiercest team I've ever seen on a basketball court. I'm not sure the Bulls ever overcame that. It's just that by the time the Bulls swept the Pistons in 1991, the Bulls were so sublimely talented that no degree of toughness could slow them down. Plus, the talent half of the Pistons' talent plus toughness tandem was fading due to age and injury.

This year's Bulls were always much better at home than on the road. Opening against the Heat at home they gained confidence and momentum, and were able to keep it going in Miami. Opening against the Pistons in Detroit, the Bulls were beaten down and embarrassed. It was apparently enough for Chris Duhon to punch his own ticket on the end of his Bulls' career. He no-showed a film session and collected a DNP-Coach's Decision in game 3. Ben Wallace has taken to mixing spurts of energy and production with periods of skulking about, both on and off the court. He showed up late for game 3, played well early, but spent much of the third quarter not getting back on D.

Returning home, the energy and confidence of the crowd, which remains one of the best in basketball even in the UC can't channel that energy the way Chicago Stadium could, got the Bulls off and running. The Bulls needed to stake the Pistons last night. Up 19 points in the 3rd quarter, the Bulls needed to not only hold on to win, but to put the Pistons away. Instead the Bulls played scared, the Pistons came back, and we can all start debating Roy Hibbert vs. Spencer Hawes.

Actually, last night's game reminded me of something other than the old Pistons-Bulls rivalry. Ironically, this memory comes from March of 1991, the same year the Bulls finally toppled the Pistons in the east. In 1990, UNLV mauled Duke in the NCAA finals 103-73. Entering the national semi-final in 1991, UNLV was on a 45 game winning streak and heavily favored over Duke again. But this Duke team was a group of stone cold killers. As much as Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill have disappointed in the NBA, the three were the toughest, most confident, savviest group of college players that I've ever laid eyes on. Guys like Brian Davis and Thomas Hill had also picked up that swagger, allowing them to play far above their talent and skill. In fact, it was Davis who would connect on the three point play (the old-fashioned way) that gave Duke the lead for good down the stretch. But what I remember most about that game, and what I was reminded of last night, is how scared UNLV looked down the stretch.

UNLV led at the half. They led by four with three minutes left. And then they fell apart. Greg Anthony may or may not have been scared, but he fouled out fairly early. Moses Scurry probably wasn't scared, and in any event looked like a hardened criminal (probably a good guy and gentle soul, just scary looking), so no one would say he was anyway. But Larry Johnson and Stacey Augmon were quaking in their free sneakers. The two best players on what some were calling the best team of all time, and they were terrified. They were afraid to shoot. They dribbled too much, passed too much, and when they did shoot, hesitated first and then missed because they were out of rhythm. Johnson missed free throw after free throw down the stretch, and their final possession deteriorated into complete chaos.

Ladies and gentlemen, playing the roles of Johnson and Augmon last night: Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich. From the mid-third quarter on, the two of them looked terrified. They dribbled too much, over passed, and were afraid to take big shots. Luol Deng, like Anderson Hunt in 1991, kept firing away, but his teammates lacked the guts to back him up. I wonder if energy guys like Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefolosha and Andres Nocioni could have helped lift a flat team in the third quarter. We'll never know. Skiles never called their numbers. Nocioni entered with less than three minutes left in the period and neither Thomas nor Sefolosha played in the second half.

This is not a condemnation of Gordon, Hinrich or the current Bulls. They're young. Unlike the Rebels on 91 who were done after that year, the Bulls can learn and grow from this experience. Hopefully they will. The Pistons are ageing. Chauncey Billups is a free agent. They'll probably resign him, but that may mean they can't resign guys like Carlos Delfino and Jason Maxiell, who were necessary pieces to eventually replace ageing guys like Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, Antonio McDyess, etc. A window will open for this Bulls team, and hopefully they'll be more ready when that time comes.

Better Luck This Time

2007-05-10T09:08:00.000-05:00

There's nothing like a series against the hated Twins to re-focus attention on the South Siders. In fact, win, lose or draw (well, no decision, at least), I was planning to take a look at White Sox rookie John Danks this morning. As it turns out, the young hurler (the Baseball Writers' Association of America requires that label to be placed on all pitchers under the age of 26) came up big for the Sox in Minnesota.

Danks has had a weird year so far. Before collecting his first big league win last night, Danks was 0-4. Clearly, he had pitched better than that. But his ERA was hovering above 5.00, so he hadn't pitched that well, right? Last night he gave up one run in six and a third innings. Suddenly, he is 1-4 with a 4.33 ERA. So, does a 1-4 record with a better than league average ERA indicate he's still a tough luck starter? Or, has he not really been as good as his 4.33 ERA indicates?

Prior to last night's game Danks had a normalized runs allowed of 4.63. League average is 4.50. He had a defense-adjusted ERA of 4.73. Again league average is 4.50. What that tells us is that the Sox defense has been playing well behind Danks. Danks has pitched well by some measures. His 7.2 strikeouts per nine, and 2.1 walks per nine are both much better than league average. Even his 10.0 hits allowed per nine is just slightly worse than average. Danks's problem, before last night, has been the long ball. He's allowed 1.5 HR per nine, much higher than the AL average, which is less than one per nine innings.

Last night, Danks didn't give up any home runs, so even though his strikeout totals were typical, and his total base runners allowed was typical (fewer hits and more walks than his normal outing), the results went from below average to above. Wins don't tell you much about a pitcher because offense and bullpen play such a large role. But the bottom line is that Danks had been below average (but close enough for a fifth starter) before pitching really well last night.

So, can Danks sustain last night's success, or is he more likely to return to his slightly below average form prior to last night? Well, Danks's .279 Batting Average Against on Balls in Play (BABIP) is the worst among White Sox starters. On the other hand, that's still better than his 90th percentile projection from PECOTA. And, PECOTA expected Danks to be as homer happy as he's been. Two things speak especially well for Danks's future: he misses more bats than expected, and he misses the strike zone less than expected. My expectation is that Danks will be an even better piece of the puzzle than we expected when we acquired him. But for this season, I think we'll be seeing the slightly below average pitcher from his first five starts more often than the really good pitcher who showed up last night.

Not Just a Fugly Mascot

2007-05-09T09:04:00.000-05:00

Southpaw, the White Sox thing-a-mabob mascot, is fugly. He's also apparently the only southpaw on the team. That's the only way to explain how Justin Morneau wound up hitting against righty Nick Masset in the 10th inning last night. Oh wait, there's another explanation -- more on that in a second.

Between work and the Bulls' run, I haven't dedicated much time to the White Sox yet this season. And, frankly, it's still too early to get any real big picture answers about this team. But it's not too early to focus on Ozzie Guillen's inexplicable bullpen usage last night.

Obviously, it's not Ozzie's fault that Mike MacDougal couldn't get his job done last night. There will be nights like that. Anyway, MacDougal's off night wasted a great start by Javier Vazquez. However, thanks to a solid outing from David Aardsma (who leads the league in consecutive a's), the Sox reached the Twins' half of the 10th still tied at four.

Ozzie called on Andrew Sisco at this point to fac Luis Castillo. Castillo is awful against lefties. Ozzie had now turned to a lefty to get him out twice in one game. In the eighth inning, Matt Thornton induced a run-scoring ground out from him. Now in the 10th, Castillo came through with a double off of Sisco. With another lefty due up in Jason Kubel, Ozzie stuck with Sisco, who rewarded him with a strike out.

One out, man on second, and Torii Hunter due up. Hunter is a righty, and he's been crushing the ball this year, but he's hit righties nearly as well as lefties. He's followed by another righty, Michael Cuddyer, who over the past three seasons has had nearly identical success against righties and lefties. And just behind him sits the Twins' best hitter (with Joe Mauer out injured), left handed first baseman Justin Morneau. Unlike Hunter and Cuddyer, Morneau has a distinct platoon split. He kills righties; he's mortal against lefties. One other note, Sisco has nearly identical numbers against righties and lefties as well.

But Ozzie chose Nick Masset. And then he intentionally walked Hunter. So, if we take Hunter out of the equation, Ozzie's choice was between Sisco against Cuddyer and Morneau, or Masset against Cuddyer and Morneau. Obviously, the match-up most likely to kill you here is the righty killer Morneau against Masset, which is exactly what happened. Wouldn't you rather take your chances with Sisco against Cuddyer than giving a favorable match-up to the reigning MVP in the 10th inning?

But Ozzie even had a third option. See, the Sox are carrying a bloated 12 man pitching staff. Among this dirty dozen is the mysterious Boone Logan, last seen on May 4th, when he threw a taxing inning in which he unleashed eight whole pitches. But it must have been taxing because even though the Sox have three lefties for no discernable reason except when a guy like Morneau surfaces in the 10th inning of a game, Ozzie didn't use Mr. Logan. Might Cuddyer have beaten Sisco? Sure. So, Ozzie used Masset to get him. He still could have brought in Logan to face Morneau. Do I like Logan? Not especially. But lefties are only two of seven off him this year, and as I mentioned, Morneau kills righties.

Did I mention Morneau is the defending MVP? Presumably Ozzie is aware that Morneau's OPS was 140 points higher against righties than lefties from 2004-06. Certainly he's aware that his OPS is a full 200 points higher against righties than lefties this year. So, Ozzie, armed with enough relievers to defend Sparta, what the heck were you thinking last night?