McCarthy to Texas for Danks and Masset

[Soul]

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

 

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio.

 

Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story.

 

White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

 

Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is.

 

You think of it as proof of luck, and I think of it as proof of an organization do a great job for a season.

 

Pythagorean is another of these stat analyses that attempts to determine winners while ignoring all the non-statistical things that have an impact on whether a team wins or loses.

 

A team is not a collection of statistics. That's a video game.

[Soul]

You're right, I will keep thinking that. Nothing anyone says will knock me out of the real world, and into the realm of the "prisoners of hope" who wish, if they could only get lucky (like those darn White Sox), they could see a Cubs World series.

 

What is your reason for lumping those who think luck plays a part, into the group that is begging for luck to bring the Cubs to the World Series? It's a rather absurd line you are drawing in the sand. Luck plays a part, whether you want to admit it or not. It's not the determining factor. You still need the talent and skill and determination to get into a position where good luck will mean anything. And it's not necessarily true that every WS winner has been the recipient of more good luck than anybody else. But luck plays a part. When an 83 win team wins the WS, and virtually the same pitching staff goes from WS heroes to regular season also rans, you know luck is involved somewhere.

 

Or more likely, they just played better than their opponents in that season when necessary and won the World Series because of it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following

 

In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected.

 

In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected.

 

So in summation, the 2005 Whitesox rotation was very lucky. Ohh and those are regular season stats...you don't want to know how lucky they were in the playoffs. Ok just for some more fun they were .072, .097, .106, .134, and .247 lower than expected respectively in the postseason.

 

They were also quite a bit better defensively in '05.

[nilodnayr]

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

 

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio.

 

Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story.

 

White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

 

Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is.

 

You think of it as proof of luck, and I think of it as proof of an organization do a great job for a season.

 

Pythagorean is another of these stat analyses that attempts to determine winners while ignoring all the non-statistical things that have an impact on whether a team wins or loses.

 

A team is not a collection of statistics. That's a video game.

 

As easily understood in my tone, I do not base my case on pythagorean, but rather the lucky batting average per ball in play that the rotation had in 2005. Calling it proof of a great job means that you believe that the whitesox had control over the much lower than expected BABIP. If that is the case then why did they not control it in 2006? (Hint: its not the case). Their defense did not change significantly.

[Soul]

I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck.

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

 

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio.

 

Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story.

 

White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

 

Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is.

 

You think of it as proof of luck, and I think of it as proof of an organization do a great job for a season.

 

Pythagorean is another of these stat analyses that attempts to determine winners while ignoring all the non-statistical things that have an impact on whether a team wins or loses.

 

A team is not a collection of statistics. That's a video game.

 

As easily understood in my tone, I do not base my case on pythagorean, but rather the lucky batting average per ball in play that the rotation had in 2005. Calling it proof of a great job means that you believe that the whitesox had control over the much lower than expected BABIP. If that is the case then why did they not control it in 2006? (Hint: its not the case). Their defense did not change significantly.

 

The disconnect is, you believe stats will prove out who is the best team. When it doesn't, you call it "luck." I know there's more to a team and how they perform than just stats, and so I incorporate statistics into my assessment but don't get frustrated when they don't prove out, and don't turn to luck as an explanation when my set of stats didn't work as a predictive model.

 

The reason the White Sox won in '05 and not in '06 may not have been shown in the statistical analysis, but it most certainly doesn't suddenly become luck just because it can't be explained with stats (or, more precisely, with the stats that people decide to use).

[nilodnayr]

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following

 

In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected.

 

In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected.

 

So in summation, the 2005 Whitesox rotation was very lucky. Ohh and those are regular season stats...you don't want to know how lucky they were in the playoffs. Ok just for some more fun they were .072, .097, .106, .134, and .247 lower than expected respectively in the postseason.

 

They were also quite a bit better defensively in '05.

 

To what degree? I did a cursory look and their feilding % wasn't that different (I know its a bad metric). Also, the only difference in players was Anderson replacing Crede (slight downgrade). The bench was a little different with Cintron and and Mack replacing Blum, Everret, Perez, and Harris. In aggregate the 2006 sox defense were pretty much the same bodies as the 2005 sox defense so how do you explain the large swing in BABIP?

[nilodnayr]

 

The disconnect is, you believe stats will prove out who is the best team. When it doesn't, you call it "luck." I know there's more to a team and how they perform than just stats, and so I incorporate statistics into my assessment but don't get frustrated when they don't prove out, and don't turn to luck as an explanation when my set of stats didn't work as a predictive model.

 

The reason the White Sox won in '05 and not in '06 may not have been shown in the statistical analysis, but it most certainly doesn't suddenly become luck just because it can't be explained with stats (or, more precisely, with the stats that people decide to use).

 

Stats show the why. Why was a team good? The game is to stop your opponent from scoring while scoring as many runs yourself. Stats show how well a team performed at each of these tasks. Stats also show why teams performed how they did at these tasks. Did a team get on base a lot, did they hit for a lot of power. Did their pitchers keep guys off the bases, did they keep the ball in the yard. Stats also more deeply show why they were successful or unsuccessful. Did hitters get on base because they took walks, or because they hit for a high average. Digging deeper, longitudinal stastical analysis has given us norms, predictors. Is a high OBP with a low IsoD sustainable? How can average be predicted using contact rate? When a ball is put into play how does the hitter have control over whether or not it will be a hit or an out? Is there a statistic that allows one to predict, eliminating interference, what that rate should be?

 

One of the main reasons the white sox won in 05 and not in 06 IS shown by statistical analysis as I have pointed out, you are just ignoring it.

 

The White Sox rotation was a main reason they won the WS in 05. A main reason the rotation was successful was a lower than expected BABIP. In 2006 their BABIP was as expected and they came in third.

 

Do you not attribute the 2005 BABIP to luck? Especially when faced with the evidence comparing it to 2006. What do you attribute it to?

[Soul]

 

The disconnect is, you believe stats will prove out who is the best team. When it doesn't, you call it "luck." I know there's more to a team and how they perform than just stats, and so I incorporate statistics into my assessment but don't get frustrated when they don't prove out, and don't turn to luck as an explanation when my set of stats didn't work as a predictive model.

 

The reason the White Sox won in '05 and not in '06 may not have been shown in the statistical analysis, but it most certainly doesn't suddenly become luck just because it can't be explained with stats (or, more precisely, with the stats that people decide to use).

 

Stats show the why. Why was a team good? The game is to stop your opponent from scoring while scoring as many runs yourself. Stats show how well a team performed at each of these tasks. Stats also show why teams performed how they did at these tasks. Did a team get on base a lot, did they hit for a lot of power. Did their pitchers keep guys off the bases, did they keep the ball in the yard. Stats also more deeply show why they were successful or unsuccessful. Did hitters get on base because they took walks, or because they hit for a high average. Digging deeper, longitudinal stastical analysis has given us norms, predictors. Is a high OBP with a low IsoD sustainable? How can average be predicted using contact rate? When a ball is put into play how does the hitter have control over whether or not it will be a hit or an out? Is there a statistic that allows one to predict, eliminating interference, what that rate should be?

 

One of the main reasons the white sox won in 05 and not in 06 IS shown by statistical analysis as I have pointed out, you are just ignoring it.

 

The White Sox rotation was a main reason they won the WS in 05. A main reason the rotation was successful was a lower than expected BABIP. In 2006 their BABIP was as expected and they came in third.

 

Do you not attribute the 2005 BABIP to luck? Especially when faced with the evidence comparing it to 2006. What do you attribute it to?

 

Lower than expected-----what some people expected, based on some numbers.

 

Like it or not, you will never be able to predict with certainty what a team will do based simply on statistics. Teams like the 2005 White Sox will forever stand as a flaming bastion that, try as you might, you cannot quantify teamwork completely into a nice little neat box. They may be used as a very strong factor, but when they fail to predict a team like the '05 Sox one must step back and accept that other factors which can not be quantified in the box score also have an effect. To simply call it luck is not only incorrect, but is actually an amusing irony since it is the very thing that the statistics attempt to dispel in the first place.

 

I love statistics. But worship them as the end of all analysis? That's myopic.

 

Anyhow, I doubt anyone else wants to read us go around in circles for the rest of the evening, so I'm done with this.

[Mizzou]

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following

 

In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected.

 

In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected.

Is expected BABIP the same across the board for all pitchers, or does it depend on the actual pitcher? How does a person come up with a pitcher's expected BABIP?

[Backtobanks]

If all of the other components (luck, health, etc.) weren't important factors in determining the WS winner, we could just look at the stats and determine the WS winner on paper. Obviously, most years it would be the Yankees.

[goonys evil twin]

Lower than expected-----what some people expected, based on some numbers.

 

Like it or not, you will never be able to predict with certainty what a team will do based simply on statistics. Teams like the 2005 White Sox will forever stand as a flaming bastion that, try as you might, you cannot quantify teamwork completely into a nice little neat box. They may be used as a very strong factor, but when they fail to predict a team like the '05 Sox one must step back and accept that other factors which can not be quantified in the box score also have an effect. To simply call it luck is not only incorrect, but is actually an amusing irony since it is the very thing that the statistics attempt to dispel in the first place.

 

I love statistics. But worship them as the end of all analysis? That's myopic.

 

Anyhow, I doubt anyone else wants to read us go around in circles for the rest of the evening, so I'm done with this.

 

People who like to use statistics to evaluate baseball teams are admitting that statistics cannot predict everything that will happen, and that luck can play a part in the final outcome, and you are on here chastising people for myopic stats worshipping.

 

Your unwillingess to admit that luck can play a part in the outcome of a sporting event goes beyond myopia, it's plain old foolish.

[Soul]

Uh-huh. And your decision to take what I'm saying about a 162 game season + playoffs and try to cast it as saying the same thing about a single sporting event is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, goony.

[nilodnayr]

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following

 

In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected.

 

In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected.

 

In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected.

Is expected BABIP the same across the board for all pitchers, or does it depend on the actual pitcher? How does a person come up with a pitcher's expected BABIP?

 

There maybe individual pitchers and hitters (or types of pitchers and hitters) that explainably consistantly exceed expectations in regards to BABIP. In the McCarthy trade thread cheapseats said that knuckleballers have different BABIP than other pitchers. A deceptive motion may lead to one pitcher having a lower than expected BABIP because they do a good job of hiding the ball from the hitters giving them little time to react leaving them with less of an ability to hit the ball hard (although Dontrelle does not), a fast hitter may have a higher than expected BABIP because his speed allows him to beat out infielders that others would get thrown out on (although Pierre does not). A team with stellar defense with excellet range will curb BABIP as they will be able to get to more balls and make more outs (or errors). Park factors also play a large part in BABIP, thats why often you will see a pitcher's BABIP compared to his teams offensive BABIP (anyone know what the whitesox's offensive BABIP were for 05 and 06?). I compared the 05 difference between actual and expected with the 06 to do my best to isolate the luck.

 

Expected BABIP = LD% +.120

[nilodnayr]

Uh-huh. And your decision to take what I'm saying about a 162 game season + playoffs and try to cast it as saying the same thing about a single sporting event is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, goony.

 

And my exercise showed that 162 games + playoffs is not a large enough sample to normalize BABIP.

[Mizzou]

Expected BABIP = LD% +.120

Thanks. So LD% is just the percentage of balls in play that are line drives then? Or is it the percentage of at bats that result in line drives?

[nilodnayr]

 

The disconnect is, you believe stats will prove out who is the best team. When it doesn't, you call it "luck." I know there's more to a team and how they perform than just stats, and so I incorporate statistics into my assessment but don't get frustrated when they don't prove out, and don't turn to luck as an explanation when my set of stats didn't work as a predictive model.

 

The reason the White Sox won in '05 and not in '06 may not have been shown in the statistical analysis, but it most certainly doesn't suddenly become luck just because it can't be explained with stats (or, more precisely, with the stats that people decide to use).

 

Stats show the why. Why was a team good? The game is to stop your opponent from scoring while scoring as many runs yourself. Stats show how well a team performed at each of these tasks. Stats also show why teams performed how they did at these tasks. Did a team get on base a lot, did they hit for a lot of power. Did their pitchers keep guys off the bases, did they keep the ball in the yard. Stats also more deeply show why they were successful or unsuccessful. Did hitters get on base because they took walks, or because they hit for a high average. Digging deeper, longitudinal stastical analysis has given us norms, predictors. Is a high OBP with a low IsoD sustainable? How can average be predicted using contact rate? When a ball is put into play how does the hitter have control over whether or not it will be a hit or an out? Is there a statistic that allows one to predict, eliminating interference, what that rate should be?

 

One of the main reasons the white sox won in 05 and not in 06 IS shown by statistical analysis as I have pointed out, you are just ignoring it.

 

The White Sox rotation was a main reason they won the WS in 05. A main reason the rotation was successful was a lower than expected BABIP. In 2006 their BABIP was as expected and they came in third.

 

Do you not attribute the 2005 BABIP to luck? Especially when faced with the evidence comparing it to 2006. What do you attribute it to?

 

Lower than expected-----what some people expected, based on some numbers.

 

Like it or not, you will never be able to predict with certainty what a team will do based simply on statistics. Teams like the 2005 White Sox will forever stand as a flaming bastion that, try as you might, you cannot quantify teamwork completely into a nice little neat box. They may be used as a very strong factor, but when they fail to predict a team like the '05 Sox one must step back and accept that other factors which can not be quantified in the box score also have an effect. To simply call it luck is not only incorrect, but is actually an amusing irony since it is the very thing that the statistics attempt to dispel in the first place.

 

I love statistics. But worship them as the end of all analysis? That's myopic.

 

Anyhow, I doubt anyone else wants to read us go around in circles for the rest of the evening, so I'm done with this.

 

People do not expect that, statistical analysis shows that. I for one like the fact that you will never be able to predict with certainty what a team will do based simply on statistics, otherwise what would be the fun of going to the bleachers and creating an Old Style tower (besides the Old Style and the women).

 

 

Ahhh, so it was teamwork that lead to the low BABIP in 05 and not 06...I guess Rowand made a lot more difference than everyone thought! KW must be an idiot for trading him away otherwise they totally would have won another world series, what an idiot.

 

Its not that the BABIP analysis failed to predict the 05 whitesox, its that it CORRECTLY predicted the 06 whitesox as they came back to the expectation. If KW was smart he would have realized Garland was quite lucky and would not repeat his 05 performance and traded him.

 

I don't think you are really comprehending the argument here. The statistics used are not intended to dispel luck, but rather identify it. Maybe you just don't understand what BABIP is.

 

Here is a great explanation from Baseball Prospectus

[Soul]

...again, the definition of luck. But whatever. We all believe what we want to believe.

 

And I believe I broke my promise to be done with this argument. Sorry.

[Mephistopheles]

LD% isnt really much of a stat for a pitcher. There's slight correlation for the uber elite GB pitchers.

[CubinNY]

...again, the definition of luck. But whatever. We all believe what we want to believe.

 

And I believe I broke my promise to be done with this argument. Sorry.

 

I believe you are correct Soul.

 

Statistics show what was done. They are tangible proof that something happenend. However, the numbers don't "say" anything. It is the inferences that are made about what the numbers show that "say" things. Inferences are opinions based on the data. Two people could look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

 

In science luck/chance is something to be gotten rid of. Usually this is done through randomization of the subject pool. If the scientist has done the right thing, luck plays a very little role in the outcome of the experiment. If the the variable under study is not found to be correlated with the results, the scientist doesn't say the results were do to luck. He/she says he/she doesn't know why it occured.

 

Luck certainly plays a part in an individual baseball game or even a few games in a row. That is why the playoffs are such a crap shoot. But by the way some people talk about luck one would think that these guys/teams are all lottery winners.

 

I seriously question some of these articles about the roll luck plays over the course of 162 games. Random variation and luck are not the same thing. It just means that the results are not likely to be repreated and the data are likely to regress to the mean, either for better or worse. But this is a closed system and without really looking up the data I'd say there is probably a large standard deviation in the data pool (in terms of BABIP). In other words there will always be outliers who overperform and underperform. The mean is just that. If an individual doesn't perform up to the mean or perfroms above the mean, it doens't necessarily say the person was lucky or unlucky. It says that they were better or worse than average.

[AI]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH. Masset may be ready, but is probably better off starting out at AAA and moving up in late May.

[goonys evil twin]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH.

 

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill.

 

I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

[fromthestretch]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH.

 

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill.

 

I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

 

The one thing he has going for him is his age. He may have good stuff, but his numbers certainly don't stand out. He has a good strikeout rate, but tends to give up quite a few hits. The biggest problem I see is that he has some trouble keeping the ball in the park. A few more months at AAA couldn't hurt.

[AI]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH.

 

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill.

 

I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

Have you seen him pitch? He's not ready. He's barely spent any time in AAA and he didn't exactly dominate. He's not blowing anyone away with his stuff and doesn't have good command of a third pitch yet. He needs another full season at AAA.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH.

 

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill.

 

I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

Have you seen him pitch? He's not ready. He's barely spent any time in AAA and he didn't exactly dominate. He's not blowing anyone away with his stuff and doesn't have good command of a third pitch yet. He needs another full season at AAA.

 

Full season? Nah, he just needs to show more consistancy with his curve - his change and FBs are fine. That won't take a year.

[AI]

Not to redirect the thread back to its original purpose, but anyone who thinks that Danks will be big league ready is HIGH.

 

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill.

 

I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

Have you seen him pitch? He's not ready. He's barely spent any time in AAA and he didn't exactly dominate. He's not blowing anyone away with his stuff and doesn't have good command of a third pitch yet. He needs another full season at AAA.

 

Full season? Nah, he just needs to show more consistancy with his curve - his change and FBs are fine. That won't take a year.

I completely disagree about his fastball. He's still not locating well as evidenced by the home run totals and he's not overpowering anyone. But I still think he can be a decent major leaguer if he's not rushed.