PDA

View Full Version : This Team Could Break the Franchise Home Run Record


Lillian
05-22-2008, 07:16 AM
I understand that we're all worried about this team's poor batting average.
I also agree that the Sox do have too many guys who seem to swing for the fences. And everyone can see they could really use some more team speed. That said, this team could set a record for home runs. It may not be enough to get to the World Series, unless the pitching staff can keep up this fantastic performance. However, those who continue to criticize, fret, and complain over what they perceive as an inept offense should reconsider.
There has been so much angst over a potential repeat of last year, that I'm afraid many can't see what is developing here. This is not the 2007 White Sox, and it may be more potent than the 2006 team.
I've hesitated to say this until there was enough of a sign of life to be able to state it without total incredulity, and it may sound like I've been drinking the Cool Aid, but I'll say it now.
When the weather heats up, this team is going to simply crush the ball. They have a chance to break the franchise record for homeruns.

We aren't the same team as last year because we didn't have Crede, Swisher, Cabrera or Quentin.
Oh I know, Cabrera hasn't hit yet, and I don't like his whole approach. He should just be trying to make contact, and spray the ball around, especially on this team, which hardly needs another slugger.That said, he will hit.

And yes, Swisher has not found his stroke yet either. But just remember, this guy hit 35 homers in 2006 at age 25 playing in Oakland, which is not a hitter friendly park. He also played on a team without much protection in the lineup.

That brings up another important point. This Sox lineup has the potential to be so powerful all up and down the lineup that there will be no place for opposing pitcher to hide.
Here is a realistic prediction of what this lineup could produce in homers:

Cabrera 10
A. J. 15
Quentin 35
Thome 35
Dye 40
Konerko 35
Crede 30
Swisher 30
Uribe 20

Maybe we Sox fans can't see it because we're too close to it, and we have our tradition of perennial angst, but I'll bet the rest of the League is shuttering at the thought of having to face this lineup.

turners56
05-22-2008, 08:18 AM
Home runs are over-rated. This team will hit homers, but I can care less if we break it if we don't get past the regular season.

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-22-2008, 08:50 AM
Look how well that worked for us in 2004 - we led the majors but were home in the postseason.

Screw the HR record - win the Central instead.

HomerCoach
05-22-2008, 08:53 AM
Look how well that worked for us in 2004 - we led the majors but were home in the postseason.

Screw the HR record - win the Central instead.

I say we might as well accomplish both!:dtroll:

cws05champ
05-22-2008, 09:12 AM
Here is a realistic prediction of what this lineup could produce in homers:

Cabrera 10
A. J. 15
Quentin 35
Thome 35
Dye 40
Konerko 35
Crede 30
Swisher 30
Uribe 20


I think Dye, Konerko, Swisher and Uribe are a little overstated. Uribe probably will split time the rest of the year, Swish(IMO) will be a 22-24 HR guy, and Konerko closer to and even 30. Dye could approach 40 if stays in the 4 hole but still more likely for 30-32.

doublem23
05-22-2008, 09:20 AM
Home runs are over-rated. This team will hit homers, but I can care less if we break it if we don't get past the regular season.

They're not overrated when they account for the majority of the runs you've scored.

balke
05-22-2008, 09:24 AM
Don't jinx Quentin by putting up 35 for him. He's on a good pace, but he could easily get stuck under 30 by season's end. Dye getting 40 is pretty optimistic too, although I think someone on the team will, and it could be him.

All together I think I guessed 230 HR's would happen for the Sox if everyone was healthy and producing (as there was a thread made up for it). Right now that looks like a good number.

Lillian
05-22-2008, 09:27 AM
Look how well that worked for us in 2004 - we led the majors but were home in the postseason.

We might have won it all in 2004, if Thomas and Ordonez weren't lost to the DL the second half.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:28 AM
They're not overrated when they account for the majority of the runs you've scored.

They're still over-rated :tongue:. Hitting 220 homers a year has gotten the White Sox nowhere. The year they struggle to hit 200, they win the World Series.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:28 AM
We might have won it all in 2004, if Thomas and Ordonez weren't lost to the DL the second half.

Without a fifth starter? I don't know man...

doublem23
05-22-2008, 09:33 AM
Without a fifth starter? I don't know man...

It's debatable, but if Thomas and Ordonez didn't go down there wouldn't have been much need to acquire Carl Everett again, so Majewski and Rauch could have been used to acquire another pitcher.

:dunno:

I think they would have won the division in 2004 with a healthy line-up, and once you make the post-season, anything can happen.

ondafarm
05-22-2008, 09:35 AM
. . . Maybe we Sox fans can't see it because we're too close to it, and we have our tradition of perennial angst, but I'll bet the rest of the League is shuttering at the thought of having to face this lineup.

Shuttering?

Craig Grebeck
05-22-2008, 09:38 AM
HR = guaranteed runs

guaranteed runs = overrated

?

doublem23
05-22-2008, 09:39 AM
HR = guaranteed runs

guaranteed runs = overrated

?

HR also difficult to hit with any sort of consistency.

Only boobs like Ed "Home runs kill rallies" Farmer probably don't like HR that have been hit, but it'd be nice to see this team find ways to score runs that didin't involve the longball.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:39 AM
HR = guaranteed runs

guaranteed runs = overrated

?

Historically, the White Sox like to hit homers with nobody on base. In that case, they're over-rated.

balke
05-22-2008, 09:40 AM
This is the season they picked up Garcia before the trade deadline. The Sox would've coasted into the playoffs with a healthy lineup.

R Alomar / W Harris
A Rowand
Thomas
Maggs
Konerko
C Lee
Crede
Valentin
S Alomar/Davis

Buehrle
Garcia
Garland
Loaiza
Schoenweis

But that's not because of hr's. That's because your lineup is just disgusting. 4 guys who can hit .300 with high OBP. and put up 30/30 numbers. Aaron Rowand who was pretty damn good that year, and a solid supporting cast of hrs.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:40 AM
This is the season they picked up Garcia at the trade deadline. The Sox would've coasted into the playoffs with a healthy lineup.

R Alomar / W Harris
A Rowand
Thomas
Maggs
Konerko
C Lee
Crede
Valentin
S Alomar/Davis

Buehrle
Garcia
Garland
Loaiza
Schoenweis

Loaiza was traded for Contreras. Schoenweis sucked.

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 09:41 AM
I understand that we're all worried about this team's poor batting average.
I also agree that the Sox do have too many guys who seem to swing for the fences. And everyone can see they could really use some more team speed. That said, this team could set a record for home runs. It may not be enough to get to the World Series, unless the pitching staff can keep up this fantastic performance. However, those who continue to criticize, fret, and complain over what they perceive as an inept offense should reconsider.
There has been so much angst over a potential repeat of last year, that I'm afraid many can't see what is developing here. This is not the 2007 White Sox, and it may be more potent than the 2006 team.
I've hesitated to say this until there was enough of a sign of life to be able to state it without total incredulity, and it may sound like I've been drinking the Cool Aid, but I'll say it now.
When the weather heats up, this team is going to simply crush the ball. They have a chance to break the franchise record for homeruns.

We aren't the same team as last year because we didn't have Crede, Swisher, Cabrera or Quentin.
Oh I know, Cabrera hasn't hit yet, and I don't like his whole approach. He should just be trying to make contact, and spray the ball around, especially on this team, which hardly needs another slugger.That said, he will hit.

And yes, Swisher has not found his stroke yet either. But just remember, this guy hit 35 homers in 2006 at age 25 playing in Oakland, which is not a hitter friendly park. He also played on a team without much protection in the lineup.

That brings up another important point. This Sox lineup has the potential to be so powerful all up and down the lineup that there will be no place for opposing pitcher to hide.
Here is a realistic prediction of what this lineup could produce in homers:

Cabrera 10
A. J. 15
Quentin 35
Thome 35
Dye 40
Konerko 35
Crede 30
Swisher 30
Uribe 20

Maybe we Sox fans can't see it because we're too close to it, and we have our tradition of perennial angst, but I'll bet the rest of the League is shuttering at the thought of having to face this lineup.


Yeah, it could happen, but is it what the Sox need to happen? What the team really needs is base runners. We need the guys that are supposed to be able to get on base with a single, double, etc., to get on base so the solos don't happen.

I am not as impressed with HR's as I am with RBI's and OBP. Get em on, get em over, get em in. Simple as that.

Craig Grebeck
05-22-2008, 09:43 AM
Historically, the White Sox like to hit homers with nobody on base. In that case, they're over-rated.
If there is nobody on base, the best scenario is that someone hits a home run. I don't understand your logic. It is a guaranteed run.

Lillian
05-22-2008, 09:44 AM
It isn't just that this team could lead the League in homers, but they could also score a lot of runs. They are 5th in the League now. Two of the four teams, Oakland and L.A., which are in front of them have played 2 more games than they have, and are only ahead of them by one and three runs respectively. Therefore the Sox are effectively third in the League in runs scored.

When you take into consideration all of the road games they've played, and the slow start from some of our veterans, I just don't think that scoring runs is going to be this team's problem.

It still will come down to whether or not they can continue to pitch.

balke
05-22-2008, 09:45 AM
Loaiza was traded for Contreras. Schoenweis sucked.

When your offense is scoring 6-12 runs for you, you can afford to suck a little. He was enough of a stop gap that season for the Sox to win. They just lost the two guys who were the heart of the team going down the stretch.

And the Loaiza trade didn't happen until the team was toast.

Also there was speculation they were going to trade CLee if the team was healthy to acquire that 5th starter, in which case they could've kept loaiza.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 09:48 AM
They're still over-rated :tongue:. Hitting 220 homers a year has gotten the White Sox nowhere. The year they struggle to hit 200, they win the World Series.

While scoring only 741 runs (ninth in AL) because their team ERA was 3.61 (tied for first in AL)...

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 09:49 AM
If there is nobody on base, the best scenario is that someone hits a home run. I don't understand your logic. It is a guaranteed run.


Because one run is as simple as that. When a pitcher faces a batter in the box with no one on base, his concentration is totally on the batter. When you put runners on, especially in scoring position, he has to focus other places, as well, dividing his attention, and increasing the liklihood of a cookie comig across the plate.

Besides, expecting everyone in the lineup to hit homeruns on any given night, is a flawed view. Get on base, and let the big sticks get you in. I guarantee OC, Swish, et al were not acquired because of their ability to hit the long ball.

This theory also supposes that our pitchers will stay on this pace, and our hitters will come around. You can not suppose this as a probability, only a possibility.

Bottom line, we need more guys on base when the HR's happen, so that if our pitcher is struggling, *ahem* Mark Buerhle *ahem* we are not nickle and diming a team, praying for the long ball.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 09:51 AM
Without a fifth starter? I don't know man...

Wow... nice rationale change... I mean that took like 3 posts...:D:

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 09:52 AM
It isn't just that this team could lead the League in homers, but they could also score a lot of runs. They are 5th in the League now. Two of the four teams, Oakland and L.A., which are in front of them have played 2 more games than they have, and are only ahead of them by one and three runs respectively. Therefore the Sox are effectively third in the League in runs scored.

When you take into consideration all of the road games they've played, and the slow start from some of our veterans, I just don't think that scoring runs is going to be this team's problem.

It still will come down to whether or not they can continue to pitch.

But this theory supposes that the other teams won't get better, only us. The majority of MLB teams start slow the beginning of the season, and then pick up steam towards the AS break.

The weather we have played in so far (with the exception of Ginants and Anaheim) usually favors pitchers. Balls just don't fly in the cold like they do in the heat.

Lillian
05-22-2008, 09:53 AM
Regarding the pitching, it's interesting to note that the Sox team ERA is not only the third best in the American League, but there is only one team in the National League with a better ERA. The Braves are the only National League team that has a better ERA than the Sox!!

It will come down to pitching, as it always does. I just hope they stay healthy, and that Broadway continues to pitch well enough to merit confidence in his ability to help, if someone falters, or gets injured.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:53 AM
If there is nobody on base, the best scenario is that someone hits a home run. I don't understand your logic. It is a guaranteed run.

The White Sox tend to hit solo homers. Home runs are a lot more useful when you can hit them with people on base.

turners56
05-22-2008, 09:55 AM
While scoring only 741 runs (ninth in AL) because their team ERA was 3.61 (tied for first in AL)...

So we now know that pitching is a lot more important than home runs hit. Case closed.

Lillian
05-22-2008, 09:57 AM
But this theory supposes that the other teams won't get better, only us. The majority of MLB teams start slow the beginning of the season, and then pick up steam towards the AS break.

The weather we have played in so far (with the exception of Ginants and Anaheim) usually favors pitchers. Balls just don't fly in the cold like they do in the heat.

I agree with both of your points. However, neither point negates that this team may break the franchise record for homers. Nor do they argue against the assertion that it is pitching that will determine the success of the 2008 Sox.

Craig Grebeck
05-22-2008, 09:57 AM
The White Sox tend to hit solo homers. Home runs are a lot more useful when you can hit them with people on base.
No ****. I'm saying when there's no men on base, a home run is the best case scenario -- therefore they aren't overrated.

turners56
05-22-2008, 10:01 AM
No ****. I'm saying when there's no men on base, a home run is the best case scenario -- therefore they aren't overrated.

That's why you'd rather see people hit for base hits rather than swing for long balls almost every single at bat. That whole rally last night started with Cabrera going with the pitch to right. Aren't you tired of the Sox hitting homers with nobody on base the past couple of years? Say a team hits 200 homers, if half of the homers the team hits are solo, the 200 homers is an over-rated number.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 10:02 AM
So we now know that pitching is a lot more important than home runs hit. Case closed.

Aren't they mutually exclusive events?

I mean since the number of HR hit has nothing to do with the team ERA, what point is made with your statement?

balke
05-22-2008, 10:02 AM
The White Sox tend to hit solo homers. Home runs are a lot more useful when you can hit them with people on base.

The White Sox are #1 in the AL with the most homers with men in scoring position. They only trail the Phillies. They are 4th in the MLB in solo shots (#1 in AL).


What they suck at is hitting with 2 outs and men on base (Worst in AL).

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 10:04 AM
That's why you'd rather see people hit for base hits rather than swing for long balls almost every single at bat. That whole rally last night started with Cabrera going with the pitch to right. Aren't you tired of the Sox hitting homers with nobody on base the past couple of years? Say a team hits 200 homers, if half of the homers the team hits are solo, the 200 homers is an over-rated number.

Now you are talking about something else.

No one is disputing that all or nothing swings are a bad thing except in rare circumstances. If the HR's come naturally as a matter of the batters taking their normal cuts then they are just fine. If they are committing too early and swinging from the heels on a regular basis it's obviously not a good thing...

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 10:08 AM
Because one run is as simple as that. When a pitcher faces a batter in the box with no one on base, his concentration is totally on the batter. When you put runners on, especially in scoring position, he has to focus other places, as well, dividing his attention, and increasing the liklihood of a cookie comig across the plate.
Just to clarify, given the choice between:
1) Batter hits a solo home run. A run has scored.
2) Batter gets on base some other way. The pitcher must then divide his attention between the runner and next batter, which might result in a run being scored, should the next hitter come through.

Why wouldn't you take the home run? It is always the best possible outcome of an at-bat.

balke
05-22-2008, 10:10 AM
Basically HR's aren't a problem in anyway whatsoever, so long as the batting avg. isn't hurting because of them. And even in that case, batting average can suffer a little for automatic runs, and hits that clear the bases (3 grand slams so far this season).

I like rally's where everyone gets hits, but that doesn't necessarily mean a HR would've killed that rally. I liked Thome going deep after JD last night.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 10:11 AM
That's why you'd rather see people hit for base hits rather than swing for long balls almost every single at bat. That whole rally last night started with Cabrera going with the pitch to right. Aren't you tired of the Sox hitting homers with nobody on base the past couple of years? Say a team hits 200 homers, if half of the homers the team hits are solo, the 200 homers is an over-rated number.
Echoing a previous response to this quote, you have a point only if swinging for the fences hurts your overall success rate.

And, since you brought up last night's rally, let's say Cabrera did hit a home run to lead off the 6th. The only difference would have been that Dye's home run was now a 2-run shot. The Sox still would have scored 5 runs that inning.

That's what irks me most: when people say that a leadoff single or walk is better than a leadoff home run. Why? You realize, that after the leadoff hitter has hit a home run, the next guy is essentially a new leadoff hitter, and can start your precious rally with a single, only now a run has already scored.

jabrch
05-22-2008, 10:13 AM
Look how well that worked for us in 2004 - we led the majors but were home in the postseason.

Screw the HR record - win the Central instead.


This is not an either/or arguement. You can do both. In fact, hitting more HRs will help to win the central.

balke
05-22-2008, 10:15 AM
Echoing a previous response to this quote, you have a point only if swinging for the fences hurts your overall success rate.

And, since you brought up last night's rally, let's say Cabrera did hit a home run to lead off the 6th. The only difference would have been that Dye's home run was now a 2-run shot. The Sox still would have scored 5 runs that inning.

That's what irks me most: when people say that a leadoff single or walk is better than a leadoff home run. Why? You realize, that after the leadoff hitter has hit a home run, the next guy is essentially a new leadoff hitter, and can start your precious rally with a single, only now a run has already scored.


You also bring up a good point indirectly. The most production we've noticed so far from Cabrera, Ramirez, and Uribe have been HR's. The only weak hitter who's made a difference so far with his bat not going deep has been Ozuna.


I used to like leadoff walks in like 2004 when there were these AMAZING hitters at the 3-4 spot in the order and beyond. If ANYONE was on base, it put the other team's pitcher in a world of hurt. He had to pitch around Thomas to get to Maggs, then Maggs to Clee. If anyone led off the game by getting the batting order to Thomas, there was going to be a run scored more often than not.


With this lineup, its good to have people on base, but the power hitters don't have stroke yet to be pitched around or to be counted on to go yard or hit a clutch double. It is better to just hope the whole team can get hits and hit HR's themselves IMO. Don't rely on Thome Dye and Quentin to do it all.

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 10:18 AM
Just to clarify, given the choice between:
1) Batter hits a solo home run. A run has scored.
2) Batter gets on base some other way. The pitcher must then divide his attention between the runner and next batter, which might result in a run being scored, should the next hitter come through.

Why wouldn't you take the home run? It is always the best possible outcome of an at-bat.


Because possibility is not the same as probability. I am not decrying a solo shot, I am voicing my displeasure of solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR. The two are not equal. Teams have 3,4,5 hitters that are stronger for a reason. If say, hitter #8 gets a lob, and hits it out, great, but I prefer the latter to the former, and supposing that we can win the division without achieving HR's that lead to more than 1 RBI is insane.

balke
05-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Because possibility is not the same as probability. I am not decrying a solo shot, I am voicing my displeasure of solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR. The two are not equal. Teams have 3,4,5 hitters that are stronger for a reason. If say, hitter #8 gets a lob, and hits it out, great, but I prefer the latter to the former, and supposing that we can win the division without achieving HR's that lead to more than 1 RBI is insane.

And as I said already, the Sox lead the AL in HR with RISP. So, that was just a false notion passed in this thread. The Sox HR's really are a huge reason they are successful right now. Uribe's HR's have all been big. Quentin has had big HR's with RISP. Crede has had big HR. Thome has had big HRs. Dye as well.

I can think of games this season for these hitters that all were won with hr's, whether they were solo shots or hit with RISP.

When you have guys like Swisher who's not a .300 hitter, but produces with walks and HR's, you've already committed to winning with the long ball. Embrace it I say. That's about all you'll be getting out of Swish/Uribe/Ramirez and even the studs Thome and Konerko aren't going to lead the league in Avg.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 10:24 AM
Because possibility is not the same as probability. I am not decrying a solo shot, I am voicing my displeasure of solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR. The two are not equal. Teams have 3,4,5 hitters that are stronger for a reason. If say, hitter #8 gets a lob, and hits it out, great, but I prefer the latter to the former, and supposing that we can win the division without achieving HR's that lead to more than 1 RBI is insane.
No one's saying that solo HR are better than or equal to multi-run HR. Of course I'd take a 3-run HR over a solo HR.

However, the issue is not "solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR". The issue is "solo HR vs. getting on base some other way with the bases empty".

Last night, it's not like Thome had the option to hit a multi-run HR. There was no one on base. His solo HR was the best outcome possible.

jabrch
05-22-2008, 10:24 AM
HR also difficult to hit with any sort of consistency.

Only boobs like Ed "Home runs kill rallies" Farmer probably don't like HR that have been hit, but it'd be nice to see this team find ways to score runs that didin't involve the longball.

I don't even believe Farmer doesn't like HRs...I think some of that is tongue in cheek - same as saying when we are four runs down that 3 bloops and a blast tie it up. I think he is fully aware that there are better ways to score runs than counting on luck 3 times and then a GS.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 10:25 AM
Because possibility is not the same as probability. I am not decrying a solo shot, I am voicing my displeasure of solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR. The two are not equal. Teams have 3,4,5 hitters that are stronger for a reason. If say, hitter #8 gets a lob, and hits it out, great, but I prefer the latter to the former, and supposing that we can win the division without achieving HR's that lead to more than 1 RBI is insane.

The Sox are 5th in the AL in runs scored and 3rd in RBI's.

Frater Perdurabo
05-22-2008, 10:37 AM
There's nothing wrong with home runs.

Home runs are wonderful.

The problem is when the home run is the only way you can score a run.

When the homers aren't flying, you need to have the ability to score in other ways.

You can't win a game 0-0.

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 10:44 AM
No one's saying that solo HR are better than or equal to multi-run HR. Of course I'd take a 3-run HR over a solo HR.

However, the issue is not "solo HR's, vs. RISP with a HR". The issue is "solo HR vs. getting on base some other way with the bases empty". No, but some of the posts are leading, in that, a HR is the best way to go, who cares if runners are on or not.

Last night, it's not like Thome had the option to hit a multi-run HR. There was no one on base. His solo HR was the best outcome possible.

but that was situational hitting, and Thome starting to come around and do what he is supposed to do. He is paid to hit the longball, and the point (I think) of him moving down in the lineup was to find his swing again, and remain consistent with it.

Dye had previously homered, so Thome gets up and hits it out, this is an acceptable outcome. However, in the botom of the 2nd inning, when JD is HBP, and Thome hits into a FC, that is not. PK grounded out to 2nd, and advances Thome to 2nd, and Crede strikes out. This is not.

My point is, Swisher and Thome are tied in the AL for 5th place in GIDP, we only have one player that is in the top 20 for hitting with RISP, TCQ is # 12, (Erstad is in first :redneck) and things could be a whole lot better. The long ball isn't always the answer. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 10:57 AM
No, but some of the posts are leading, in that, a HR is the best way to go, who cares if runners are on or not.
No, the posts are saying that a HR is always better than a non-HR. You can't compare a no-one-on situation to a two-men-on situation like this.

but that was situational hitting, and Thome starting to come around and do what he is supposed to do. He is paid to hit the longball, and the point (I think) of him moving down in the lineup was to find his swing again, and remain consistent with it.

Dye had previously homered, so Thome gets up and hits it out, this is an acceptable outcome. However, in the botom of the 2nd inning, when JD is HBP, and Thome hits into a FC, that is not. PK grounded out to 2nd, and advances Thome to 2nd, and Crede strikes out. This is not.
You're indirectly supporting my point. In the 2nd, with JD on first, the best possible outcome would have been a HR from Thome (or Konerko, or Crede). If Thome had singled or doubled there, the Sox would have scored either zero or one run (depending if Dye was only able to advance one base on the single). If he homered, they would have scored two runs.

My point is, Swisher and Thome are tied in the AL for 5th place in GIDP, we only have one player that is in the top 20 for hitting with RISP, TCQ is # 12, (Erstad is in first :redneck) and things could be a whole lot better. The long ball isn't always the answer. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
What does that have to do with home runs? Yes, it stinks that Swisher and Thome hit into a lot of double plays. Yes, it stinks that only one player on the Sox is in the top 20 in hitting with RISP. You know what? Hitting a home run means that you didn't hit into a double play. And hitting a home run counts as a hit, which increases your average with RISP.

I see your overall point, that the Sox could use improvement with RISP (just like any other team that isn't hitting 1.000 in those situations). However, unless you can show that hitting more home runs actually leads to worse hitting with RISP, home runs have nothing to do with it.

digdagdug23
05-22-2008, 11:17 AM
No, the posts are saying that a HR is always better than a non-HR. You can't compare a no-one-on situation to a two-men-on situation like this.

What? No, a HR is not always better than a non HR. That's my point. You saying it more often doesn't change my position. Situational hitting wins ballgames, not the HR every time.

You're indirectly supporting my point. In the 2nd, with JD on first, the best possible outcome would have been a HR from Thome (or Konerko, or Crede). If Thome had singled or doubled there, the Sox would have scored either zero or one run (depending if Dye was only able to advance one base on the single). If he homered, they would have scored two runs. But there would have been runners on base. You can't suppose what might have happened, because nothing happened. Of all 4 of those batters, only one reached base, and one was promptly left stranded. Thome SHOULD have homored there, or at least put the ball in play other than into a FC. And Paulie, and Joe. This is batters failing to move runners over.


What does that have to do with home runs? Yes, it stinks that Swisher and Thome hit into a lot of double plays. Yes, it stinks that only one player on the Sox is in the top 20 in hitting with RISP. You know what? Hitting a home run means that you didn't hit into a double play. And hitting a home run counts as a hit, which increases your average with RISP. But what I am saying is, if the guy that is supposed to hit the HR isn't, and the guy that is supposed to be on base with base hits, isn't, you can't suppose that, in fact, we can win a **** load of games when they aren't hitting homeruns. And further, if they are hitting into DP's, then they really aren't doing their job. Not only are they not getting on base, which is acceptable if they can at least move the runner along, they are killing the runner, as well.

I see your overall point, that the Sox could use improvement with RISP (just like any other team that isn't hitting 1.000 in those situations). However, unless you can show that hitting more home runs actually leads to worse hitting with RISP, home runs have nothing to do with it.

What I am saying is, relying on the HR alone is not going to win the division, much less get us back to the WS. As we have witnessed in many years, it gets us no where unless you can do the little things, as well. RBI's matter more than HR's. How is that flawed thinking?


Yeah, it could happen, but is it what the Sox need to happen? What the team really needs is base runners. We need the guys that are supposed to be able to get on base with a single, double, etc., to get on base so the solos don't happen.

I am not as impressed with HR's as I am with RBI's and OBP. Get em on, get em over, get em in. Simple as that.

This was my original post. If everyone is doing their job, and getting on base, and we are getting the homerun, then I'm impressed. But when we can't get guys on base, and hit the home run, a single shot won't do us any good when other teams can do both.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 11:45 AM
What? No, a HR is not always better than a non HR. That's my point. You saying it more often doesn't change my position. Situational hitting wins ballgames, not the HR every time.
Name me one situation where a HR is not at least equal to some other outcome of an at bat.

Leading off an inning? A home run guarantees at least one run. Anything else can result in zero runs.

Tie game, runner on third, one out, bottom of the ninth? A HR is definitely not worse than any other hit or out that scores the run. It may be excessive, but that doesn't make a sac fly or a squeeze play "better."

But there would have been runners on base. You can't suppose what might have happened, because nothing happened. Of all 4 of those batters, only one reached base, and one was promptly left stranded. Thome SHOULD have homored there, or at least put the ball in play other than into a FC. And Paulie, and Joe. This is batters failing to move runners over.
First of all, Konerko did move the runner over. A lot of good that did. Secondly, you're right, we can't assume what would have happened. But three guys failing to do anything productive does not prove that (a) home runs are bad or (b) the team is relying on the home run to score runs.


But what I am saying is, if the guy that is supposed to hit the HR isn't, and the guy that is supposed to be on base with base hits, isn't, you can't suppose that, in fact, we can win a **** load of games when they aren't hitting homeruns. And further, if they are hitting into DP's, then they really aren't doing their job. Not only are they not getting on base, which is acceptable if they can at least move the runner along, they are killing the runner, as well.
No kidding. But that has nothing to do with home runs. It has to do with players not executing at all. Any team, no matter how they're designed (smallball or home-run-heavy) will struggle if players aren't getting on base and are hitting into double plays.


What I am saying is, relying on the HR alone is not going to win the division, much less get us back to the WS. As we have witnessed in many years, it gets us no where unless you can do the little things, as well. RBI's matter more than HR's. How is that flawed thinking?
It's not necessarily flawed thinking that RBIs matter more than HRs. However, HRs directly lead to RBIs. And the 2005 team sure did rely on the HR - they hit 200 (2nd in the league, I believe) - and they won the whole thing.

This was my original post. If everyone is doing their job, and getting on base, and we are getting the homerun, then I'm impressed. But when we can't get guys on base, and hit the home run, a single shot won't do us any good when other teams can do both.
Again, that's just stating the obvious. Of course the Sox will lose if they only hit solo home runs and the other team is hitting solo and mulit-run home runs. Your issue is more with guys not getting on base, not guys hitting solo home runs.

Moses_Scurry
05-22-2008, 11:59 AM
Echoing a previous response to this quote, you have a point only if swinging for the fences hurts your overall success rate.


I think this sentence is the answer to the debate from the non-HR perspective, and it seems to have been ignored almost entirely!

I think that swing for the fences DOES hurt overall success rate.

For example, Juan Uribe pretty much swings for the fences at every at bat (I'm not sure about EVERY, but let's say he does). This results in a .220 average, .280 OBP, and about 20 homeruns. Yawn. Yay Uribe, you gave the Sox 20 runs.

Now, let's pretend that Uribe NEVER swings for the fences and instead, tries to make solid contact at every at bat. This is completely speculative, but let's say this results in a change to a .260 batting average and about 10 HRs. He'll still hit a fair amount if he is trying to make solid contact, but not as many as before.

However, over the course of a season, he'll have 20 or so more hits. Plus, if he's protecting the plate, trying to make contact and thus fouling off more pitches, etc. etc., he will inevitably draw more walks and wear down opposing pitchers, thus improving the run output of the White Sox even more. I would guess that these changes would result in more runs scored for the team than the 10 runs lost by the lost homeruns.

So, the problem is not the HR vs. Non-HR. The problem is the act of trying to hit a HR at every at bat vs. the act of trying to make solid contact and protecting the plate to get hits/walks.

Just my .02

MetroPD
05-22-2008, 12:03 PM
So we now know that pitching is a lot more important than home runs hit. Case closed.
Pitching wins championships, at least in the modern era. If you have a decent staff that can stay together the entire season, the team will go far.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 12:06 PM
I think this sentence is the answer to the debate from the non-HR perspective, and it seems to have been ignored almost entirely!

I think that swing for the fences DOES hurt overall success rate.

For example, Juan Uribe pretty much swings for the fences at every at bat (I'm not sure about EVERY, but let's say he does). This results in a .220 average, .280 OBP, and about 20 homeruns. Yawn. Yay Uribe, you gave the Sox 20 runs.

Now, let's pretend that Uribe NEVER swings for the fences and instead, tries to make solid contact at every at bat. This is completely speculative, but let's say this results in a change to a .260 batting average and about 10 HRs. He'll still hit a fair amount if he is trying to make solid contact, but not as many as before.

However, over the course of a season, he'll have 20 or so more hits. Plus, if he's protecting the plate, trying to make contact and thus fouling off more pitches, etc. etc., he will inevitably draw more walks and wear down opposing pitchers, thus improving the run output of the White Sox even more. I would guess that these changes would result in more runs scored for the team than the 10 runs lost by the lost homeruns.

So, the problem is not the HR vs. Non-HR. The problem is the act of trying to hit a HR at every at bat vs. the act of trying to make solid contact and protecting the plate to get hits/walks.

Just my .02
Good post. I don't necessarily disagree with you, though your argument is completely hypothetical.

However, there's more to it than getting more hits. Let's say you're correct, that Uribe will get 20 more hits, but 10 fewer HR. I'd say there's a good chance, if he truly shortened his swing, that you'll basically be replacing 10 HR with 27 singles and 3 doubles. Now, the new way is probably better, but can you really say? Remember, those 10 HR definitely produced 10+ runs. Now, it's likely that the 27 singles and 3 doubles produce 10 or more runs, but you don't know for sure. It becomes less likely if you have low OBP guys in front of him.

And who's to say that shortening his swing really helps him all that much; I don't think it's that simple. While swinging for the fences results in more misses, a shortened swing results in more weak hits. Weak hits are more likely to turn into outs.

I don't mean to sound hostile; you raise an interesting point. I wonder if there has been some research done to determine how much of an effect a shorter swing has on hitters.

Moses_Scurry
05-22-2008, 12:28 PM
It's not just about shortening the swing. I don't pretend to be an expert, but there are a lot of guys that hit plenty of homeruns without "swinging for the fences" on every at bat. It can't just be that they are physically stronger players. It's like Tiger Woods. He can hit the ball a mile, but he probably can't bench press any more than other guys who only hit a 200 yard drive. It's in the technique.

We don't KNOW how Uribe would do if he changed his technique in order to meet the goal of just making contact on strikes and not swinging at balls. We do, however, know how he does with his current all or nothing approach, and it isn't pretty. Who's to say that he would lose ANY homeruns by changing to option 2? Look at John Kruk. He was a big guy who put option 2 as his priority instead of option 1. He probably could have hit a lot more HRs, but in my opinion, his bat was more valuable to the Phils than Uribe's bat is to the Sox.

Uribe is a bad example now though. He does what he does, and it's probably too late to change it.

Eddo144
05-22-2008, 12:40 PM
It's not just about shortening the swing. I don't pretend to be an expert, but there are a lot of guys that hit plenty of homeruns without "swinging for the fences" on every at bat. It can't just be that they are physically stronger players. It's like Tiger Woods. He can hit the ball a mile, but he probably can't bench press any more than other guys who only hit a 200 yard drive. It's in the technique.

We don't KNOW how Uribe would do if he changed his technique in order to meet the goal of just making contact on strikes and not swinging at balls. We do, however, know how he does with his current all or nothing approach, and it isn't pretty. Who's to say that he would lose ANY homeruns by changing to option 2? Look at John Kruk. He was a big guy who put option 2 as his priority instead of option 1. He probably could have hit a lot more HRs, but in my opinion, his bat was more valuable to the Phils than Uribe's bat is to the Sox.

Uribe is a bad example now though. He does what he does, and it's probably too late to change it.
Interesting point. I guess that's a sort of problem I have with the people who decry a team for "swinging for the fences." First, you don't know if a player is even capable of changing his approach. Remember, these guys have been playing baseball for 20+ years in some cases. Secondly, who's to say they're even good enough hitters to even have a second option?

I don't mean to get on you, though. Uribe probably would be better served with a more controlled approach. I've always felt that Crede could, too. But again, I'm no expert in the physicality of a player's swing.

turners56
05-22-2008, 04:12 PM
The White Sox are #1 in the AL with the most homers with men in scoring position. They only trail the Phillies. They are 4th in the MLB in solo shots (#1 in AL).


What they suck at is hitting with 2 outs and men on base (Worst in AL).

The Sox have 38 solo shots compared to 19 with men on base. So they have double the amount of solo shots compared to homers with men on base. When you're atop the MLB with home runs you should be leading in homers with men on base. Now, let's look at the Minnesota Twins, who are one of the worst power hitting teams. They have 13 homers with men on base, while 12 solo home runs. So a team with 25 homers is only 12 in runs scored behind the powerful White Sox? :scratch: If we have so many more home runs and so much better pitching, why are we 25-20? While the Twins who have only 25 team home runs and inferior pitcheing compared to us are only 2.5 games back and are 4-3 against us? It's as simple as getting men on base and hitting consistently. Many power-based teams seem to struggle with consistency, we've seen this with the White Sox as recently as 3 weeks ago and is a huge area of concern with this team. Part of it is probably because Cabrera has a .282 OBP and gives Quentin no more than 1 RBI every time he hits one out. I don't care how many home runs we hit (isn't that the whole basis of the thread?), but if we continue to hit solo dingers compared to dingers with men on base at a 2:1 ratio, the total amount of our home runs is OVER-RATED. Simply because we're not getting a good amount of runs from them. 38 HRs and only 38 runs while doing it? That's a waste. Maybe we shouldn't worry about the incredible amount of home runs this team will hit and focus on how many they will score.

turners56
05-22-2008, 04:14 PM
Aren't they mutually exclusive events?

I mean since the number of HR hit has nothing to do with the team ERA, what point is made with your statement?

Pitching is more important than how many home runs a team hits. Hence discussing the incredible amount of solo homers the White Sox will hit this year is silly.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 04:40 PM
Pitching is more important than how many home runs a team hits. Hence discussing the incredible amount of solo homers the White Sox will hit this year is silly.

And again, the two have nothing to do with each other. Zippo, nada, bupkiss...

Hitting a HR is never a waste. Ideally, more batters will reach base as the season progresses. Guys like Caberra, Swish, Konerko and Thome will return to career averages for avg and OBP and then the number of solo HR will decline as a percentage of HR's over all.

Still, I repeat, there is nothing ever wrong with hitting a HR so long as it isn't all a team/player is trying to do.

turners56
05-22-2008, 04:48 PM
And again, the two have nothing to do with each other. Zippo, nada, bupkiss...

Hitting a HR is never a waste. Ideally, more batters will reach base as the season progresses. Guys like Caberra, Swish, Konerko and Thome will return to career averages for avg and OBP and then the number of solo HR will decline as a percentage of HR's over all.

Still, I repeat, there is nothing ever wrong with hitting a HR so long as it isn't all a team/player is trying to do.

They don't have anything to do with each other, but if you were to pick as to which aspect is more important to a team, would you pick pitching or power? That was my point.

Jerome
05-22-2008, 04:48 PM
this thread is making me think about what that 04 team was doing before Frank and Maggs went down and out :o:

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 04:56 PM
They don't have anything to do with each other, but if you were to pick as to which aspect is more important to a team, would you pick pitching or power? That was my point.

Quality pitching is always the single most important aspect of winning a championship. Nothing else comes close.

ondafarm
05-22-2008, 05:05 PM
Quality pitching is always the single most important aspect of winning a championship. Nothing else comes close.

Absolutely. If they can't score against you, they can't beat you.

TDog
05-22-2008, 05:23 PM
Without a fifth starter? I don't know man...

So, if the 2004 Sox had a five good starters, and Ordonez and Thomas weren't hurt, and they would have hit more than 242 home runs because Ordonez and Thomas weren't hurt, so they would have led the league outright instead of tying with the Yankees for the league lead, would the Sox have been doomed because they led the league in home runs?

turners56
05-22-2008, 05:31 PM
So, if the 2004 Sox had a five good starters, and Ordonez and Thomas weren't hurt, and they would have hit more than 242 home runs because Ordonez and Thomas weren't hurt, so they would have led the league outright instead of tying with the Yankees for the league lead, would the Sox have been doomed because they led the league in home runs?

If they had 5 good starters, they wouldn't of needed Mags or Frank. You can't help injuries, but you can help getting better quality players, especially better starters. The only starter who really performed well that year was Buehrle, everybody else meh. Freddy did pitch well once he got here, Contreras was pitching with a 5 ERA (the whole Loaiza trade was a equal trade for both teams until 2005), Garland didn't go into his zone yet, and Schoenweiss was bad. Give them this year's pitching staff or 05's pitching staff and they would of made the playoffs. Losing Frank and Mags was huge, but the fact that the team hit 215 (242 minus the 27 that Mags and Frank combined for) homers without them and scored a bunch of runs, yet only finished 83-79 is a sign that the pitching was not up to par.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 05:34 PM
I understand that we're all worried about this team's poor batting average.
I also agree that the Sox do have too many guys who seem to swing for the fences. And everyone can see they could really use some more team speed. That said, this team could set a record for home runs. It may not be enough to get to the World Series, unless the pitching staff can keep up this fantastic performance. However, those who continue to criticize, fret, and complain over what they perceive as an inept offense should reconsider.
There has been so much angst over a potential repeat of last year, that I'm afraid many can't see what is developing here. This is not the 2007 White Sox, and it may be more potent than the 2006 team.
I've hesitated to say this until there was enough of a sign of life to be able to state it without total incredulity, and it may sound like I've been drinking the Cool Aid, but I'll say it now.
When the weather heats up, this team is going to simply crush the ball. They have a chance to break the franchise record for homeruns.

We aren't the same team as last year because we didn't have Crede, Swisher, Cabrera or Quentin.
Oh I know, Cabrera hasn't hit yet, and I don't like his whole approach. He should just be trying to make contact, and spray the ball around, especially on this team, which hardly needs another slugger.That said, he will hit.

And yes, Swisher has not found his stroke yet either. But just remember, this guy hit 35 homers in 2006 at age 25 playing in Oakland, which is not a hitter friendly park. He also played on a team without much protection in the lineup.

That brings up another important point. This Sox lineup has the potential to be so powerful all up and down the lineup that there will be no place for opposing pitcher to hide.
Here is a realistic prediction of what this lineup could produce in homers:

Cabrera 10
A. J. 15
Quentin 35
Thome 35
Dye 40
Konerko 35
Crede 30
Swisher 30
Uribe 20

Maybe we Sox fans can't see it because we're too close to it, and we have our tradition of perennial angst, but I'll bet the rest of the League is shuttering at the thought of having to face this lineup.

Not realistic, more like best case scenario.
Quentin, 35 = no. I predict 29
Thome, 35 = no. I predict 28
Dye, 40 = no. I predict 32
Konerko, 35 = no. I predict 27
Crede, 30 = laughable no. I predict 22
Swisher, 30 = no. I predict 21

Those are pretty big differences, and I think my predictions are a little more realistic then your helium-filled HR totals.

turners56
05-22-2008, 05:35 PM
Not realistic, more like best case scenario.
Quentin, 35 = no. I predict 29
Thome, 35 = no. I predict 28
Dye, 40 = no. I predict 32
Konerko, 35 = no. I predict 27
Crede, 30 = laughable no. I predict 22
Swisher, 30 = no. I predict 21

Those are pretty big differences, and I think my predictions are a little more realistic then your helium-filled HR totals.

Crede is leading all AL 3rd basemen with 8 homers. How is him hitting 30 laughable?
Quentin can hit 35, he's more than a 1/3 of the way there.
Thome's 35 is possible, he's got 9 right now. Let's hope he can build on his game last night.
Konerko at 35 is possible, even though he only has 5, I'd say 31 right now
Dye at 32? Don't tell me you're saying that because he hit two last night?
Swisher isn't going to hit 30, at least that's what I think.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 05:40 PM
Crede is leading all AL 3rd basemen with 8 homers. How is him hitting 30 laughable?
Quentin can hit 35, he's more than a 1/3 of the way there.
Thome's 35 is possible, he's got 9 right now. Let's hope he can build on his game last night.
Konerko at 35 is possible, even though he only has 5, I'd say 31 right now
Dye at 32? Don't tell me you're saying that because he hit two last night?
Swisher isn't going to hit 30, at least that's what I think.

So with ARod hurt he's been the tallest midget at 3b, cool. 8 hr's thru 2 months of baseball puts him at 24 for the year. In Crede's career year, he put up 30 HR's. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this year won't be better than his career year. Let's just say if the over/under was at 26, I'd take the under.

Quentin is in his first full year in the bigs, I'm not going to expect the world from him. He will eventually cool off.

You're saying I said 32 for Dye cuz of last night? Well would about the thread starter who had him at 40????

turners56
05-22-2008, 05:45 PM
So with ARod hurt he's been the tallest midget at 3b, cool. 8 hr's thru 2 months of baseball puts him at 24 for the year. In Crede's career year, he put up 30 HR's. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this year won't be better than his career year. Let's just say if the over/under was at 26, I'd take the under.

You're saying I said 32 for Dye cuz of last night? Well would about the thread starter who had him at 40????

It's been a month and a bit over a half. Don't act like Crede's never hit 30 homers, he did it in 2006. And in 06, Crede had 8 homers on May 15th, he didn't hit his 9th until June 4th. So he's on schedule.

I think the TC did go-overboard on JD, 06 was magical for him, I doubt it will happen again.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 05:46 PM
It's been a month and a bit over a half. Don't act like Crede's never hit 30 homers, he did it in 2006. And in 06, Crede had 8 homers on May 15th, he didn't hit his 9th until June 4th. So he's on schedule.

I think the TC did go-overboard on JD, 06 was magical for him, I doubt it will happen again.

LOL and I can point to several other seasons where he DIDN'T hit 30 HR's. 25-26 max. What I WILL hope for is when the weather warms up for Swisher to start tearing it up and get close to this 25-30 HR range.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 05:49 PM
Crede has 8 through 45 games. That's on pace for 29. In addition, he only recently hit #8 after putting up 7 in the first 3 weeks. He seems to be heating up again after going through a bit of a slump when everyone did, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question for him to have 17 by the end of June.

30 is definitely a doable number.

turners56
05-22-2008, 05:53 PM
Crede has 8 through 45 games. That's on pace for 29. In addition, he only recently hit #8 after putting up 7 in the first 3 weeks. He seems to be getting heating up again after going through a bit of a slump when everyone did, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question for him to have 17 by the end of June.

30 is definitely a doable number.

Crede tends to get hot in June and July, then he gets cool in August. So yes, 30 is doable.

balke
05-22-2008, 06:08 PM
Not realistic, more like best case scenario.
Quentin, 35 = no. I predict 29
Thome, 35 = no. I predict 28
Dye, 40 = no. I predict 32
Konerko, 35 = no. I predict 27
Crede, 30 = laughable no. I predict 22
Swisher, 30 = no. I predict 21

Those are pretty big differences, and I think my predictions are a little more realistic then your helium-filled HR totals.


Your predictions are dumb. I don't even really need to explain why.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 06:11 PM
Your predictions are dumb. I don't even really need to explain why.

So you honestly think our lineup will have 6 players with 30+ hrs in it? There was only 6 players with 30+ HR's in the entire AL last year!!!!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Daver
05-22-2008, 06:13 PM
Your predictions are dumb. I don't even really need to explain why.

Now that is some intelligent debate.

balke
05-22-2008, 06:15 PM
If they had 5 good starters, they wouldn't of needed Mags or Frank. You can't help injuries, but you can help getting better quality players, especially better starters. The only starter who really performed well that year was Buehrle, everybody else meh. Freddy did pitch well once he got here, Contreras was pitching with a 5 ERA (the whole Loaiza trade was a equal trade for both teams until 2005), Garland didn't go into his zone yet, and Schoenweiss was bad. Give them this year's pitching staff or 05's pitching staff and they would of made the playoffs. Losing Frank and Mags was huge, but the fact that the team hit 215 (242 minus the 27 that Mags and Frank combined for) homers without them and scored a bunch of runs, yet only finished 83-79 is a sign that the pitching was not up to par.


Frank Thomas and Magglio went on the DL. That means for half a season this team saw Willie Harris Joe Borchard and Ross Gload instead of Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez.

That's much like replacing Jim Thome Erstad Crede Pods etc. with Andy Gonzalez Terrero etc. last season. One of the worst White Sox teams in ages. Having 5 good starters didn't seem to help them too much there.

Bottom line is balance won in 2005. That was a good overall team. No aces according to many, no all-star hitter. A lot of good players who played D, hit above average, and pitched above average. Just enough depth on the bench and overachieving bullpen help to win it all.

All they really needed was Garcia that season to win. Schoenweis was doing good enough to help them get to the playoffs, once they got there, they wouldn't have needed a 5th starter.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 06:19 PM
Frank Thomas and Magglio went on the DL. That means for half a season this team saw Willie Harris Joe Borchard and Ross Gload instead of Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez.

That's much like replacing Jim Thome Erstad Crede Pods etc. with Andy Gonzalez Terrero etc. last season. One of the worst White Sox teams in ages. Having 5 good starters didn't seem to help them too much there.

Bottom line is balance won in 2005. That was a good overall team. No aces according to many, no all-star hitter. A lot of good players who played D, hit above average, and pitched above average. Just enough depth on the bench and overachieving bullpen help to win it all.

All they really needed was Garcia that season to win. Schoenweis was doing good enough to help them get to the playoffs, once they got there, they wouldn't have needed a 5th starter.

Your analysis is dumb. I don't even really need to explain why.

voodoochile
05-22-2008, 06:25 PM
Frank Thomas and Magglio went on the DL. That means for half a season this team saw Willie Harris Joe Borchard and Ross Gload instead of Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez.

That's much like replacing Jim Thome Erstad Crede Pods etc. with Andy Gonzalez Terrero etc. last season. One of the worst White Sox teams in ages. Having 5 good starters didn't seem to help them too much there.

Bottom line is balance won in 2005. That was a good overall team. No aces according to many, no all-star hitter. A lot of good players who played D, hit above average, and pitched above average. Just enough depth on the bench and overachieving bullpen help to win it all.

All they really needed was Garcia that season to win. Schoenweis was doing good enough to help them get to the playoffs, once they got there, they wouldn't have needed a 5th starter.

The Sox didn't have 5 "good starters" last year. Danks was a 22 YO rookie who showed good stuff, but struggled, got no support and ultimately ran out of gas. Contreras simply had a bad year probably for personal reasons and the bullpen flat out sucked.

TDog
05-22-2008, 06:27 PM
If they had 5 good starters, they wouldn't of needed Mags or Frank. You can't help injuries, but you can help getting better quality players, especially better starters. The only starter who really performed well that year was Buehrle, everybody else meh. Freddy did pitch well once he got here, Contreras was pitching with a 5 ERA (the whole Loaiza trade was a equal trade for both teams until 2005), Garland didn't go into his zone yet, and Schoenweiss was bad. Give them this year's pitching staff or 05's pitching staff and they would of made the playoffs. Losing Frank and Mags was huge, but the fact that the team hit 215 (242 minus the 27 that Mags and Frank combined for) homers without them and scored a bunch of runs, yet only finished 83-79 is a sign that the pitching was not up to par.

Seeing that this season the White Sox appear to have five good starters, they might then be able to overcome the handicap of leading the league in home runs.

My point is that leading the league in home runs wasn't the problem in 2004. It was an aspect to the season that iddn't make up for the lack of pitching.

balke
05-22-2008, 06:27 PM
So you honestly think our lineup will have 6 players with 30+ hrs in it? There was only 6 players with 30+ HR's in the entire AL last year!!!!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Okay, just explain how Thome and Konerko (Guys who have had at least 35 hr's the past 5 years) are all of a sudden going to fail to get 30?

How does a guy who has 12 HR's in a hair over 25% of the season end up with under 30? And Swisher hits 21 HR's when he's never hit fewer than that, and now he's playing in Coors Field East.

JB98
05-22-2008, 06:30 PM
Frank Thomas and Magglio went on the DL. That means for half a season this team saw Willie Harris Joe Borchard and Ross Gload instead of Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez.

That's much like replacing Jim Thome Erstad Crede Pods etc. with Andy Gonzalez Terrero etc. last season. One of the worst White Sox teams in ages. Having 5 good starters didn't seem to help them too much there.

Bottom line is balance won in 2005. That was a good overall team. No aces according to many, no all-star hitter. A lot of good players who played D, hit above average, and pitched above average. Just enough depth on the bench and overachieving bullpen help to win it all.

All they really needed was Garcia that season to win. Schoenweis was doing good enough to help them get to the playoffs, once they got there, they wouldn't have needed a 5th starter.

Your recollection of Schoenweis is different than mine. He started hot, got hurt and went in the tank. He was a non-factor the last four months of 2004.

I do agree that the injuries to Ordonez and Thomas were the main factor in the demise of the 2004 Sox.

Frankly, the 2007 Sox had only three good starters. Contreras had a career-worst year and briefly lost his spot in the rotation. Danks really crapped out in the second half too.

balke
05-22-2008, 06:36 PM
Your recollection of Schoenweis is different than mine. He started hot, got hurt and went in the tank. He was a non-factor the last four months of 2004.

I do agree that the injuries to Ordonez and Thomas were the main factor in the demise of the 2004 Sox.

Frankly, the 2007 Sox had only three good starters. Contreras had a career-worst year and briefly lost his spot in the rotation. Danks really crapped out in the second half too.

IMO Contreras was an acquisition aimed at making a better future. That season was finished at the trade deadline. Had they been healthy, I think the Sox would've traded CLee for a pitcher.

btrain929
05-22-2008, 06:50 PM
Okay, just explain how Thome and Konerko (Guys who have had at least 35 hr's the past 5 years) are all of a sudden going to fail to get 30?

How does a guy who has 12 HR's in a hair over 25% of the season end up with under 30? And Swisher hits 21 HR's when he's never hit fewer than that, and now he's playing in Coors Field East.

Cuz Thome and Konerko (Paulie didn't hit 35 hrs last yr, so nice inaccurate stat-dropping there) are both on the downslope of their careers offensively, and I'd love to read/hear an argument defending otherwise. The past 5 years doesn't equate to jack as far as what they'll do this year anyways. Quentin I hope hits 50, but I'm being realistic, and as a player in his 1st full year, he will eventually hit stumbles. Anyone who expects him to keep up this incredible hulk pace is ridiculous. Swisher is just in a 2 month slump, and has a lot of making up to do.

balke
05-22-2008, 06:58 PM
Cuz Thome and Konerko (Paulie didn't hit 35 hrs last yr, so nice inaccurate stat-dropping there) are both on the downslope of their careers offensively, and I'd love to read/hear an argument defending otherwise. The past 5 years doesn't equate to jack as far as what they'll do this year anyways. Quentin I hope hits 50, but I'm being realistic, and as a player in his 1st full year, he will eventually hit stumbles. Anyone who expects him to keep up this incredible hulk pace is ridiculous. Swisher is just in a 2 month slump, and has a lot of making up to do.\


I'll take 5 years of recent history over 2 early months of baseball. Both Konerko and Thome will be over 30 HR's if healthy. Quentin most likely will if he's already on this pace, and Swisher I think will get to 25 if not more.

I think you're right about Dye (He might even get less), but I think Crede hits over 25.

Save McCuddy's
05-24-2008, 12:36 PM
What have you seen from Swisher this year that makes you think 25 is possible?

Believe me, I looked at his past history and figured that coming to the cell was only going to mean more HR's -- so much so that I have him in a Home Run pool. But, let's face it, he does not look much like a power hitter and he's currently on pace for less than 12.