PDA

View Full Version : Inconsistent hitting


Frater Perdurabo
05-25-2008, 08:22 AM
In 2005, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 4 times.

In 2006, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 5 times.

in 2007, the Sox scored 1 run 18 times and were shut out 9 times.

In 2008, the Sox have scored 1 run 5 times and have been shut out 5 times. The season is 30% complete. The Sox are on pace to score just one run 17 times and get shut out 17 more times. If these trends hold up, this team will get shut out almost twice as often as the abysmal 2007 team.

The 2005 Sox did not have the most explosive offense. But in tight, low scoring games, when the homers weren't flying, they manufactured runs to win close games. This team lacks that ability. How do they get it back?

Discuss.

FarWestChicago
05-25-2008, 08:29 AM
Lip is better at inventing doomsday stats than you are. :smile:

cws05champ
05-25-2008, 08:30 AM
In 2005, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 4 times.

In 2006, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 5 times.

in 2007, the Sox scored 1 run 18 times and were shut out 9 times.

In 2008, the Sox have scored 1 run 5 times and have been shut out 5 times. The season is 30% complete. The Sox are on pace to score just one run 17 times and get shut out 17 more times. If these trends hold up, this team will get shut out almost twice as often as the abysmal 2007 team.

The 2005 Sox did not have the most explosive offense. But in tight, low scoring games, when the homers weren't flying, they manufactured runs to win close games. This team lacks that ability. How do they get it back?

Discuss.
Although the season is only 30% complete, it is generally the portion of the season where the least runs are scored because of the cold weather throughout the nation. So to exprapolate the first 48 games and say it will be the same for the remaining 114 is not accurate. I'm not saying they don't have problems...they do.
I'm not sure how they get out of the offensive mode they are in with the players they have. Everyone's solution is to have a speedy leadoff hitter, but it won't make a difference if guys behind him don't executre good baseball to move him over and get him in early in the game.

The only hope is that guys that are under performing (Thome, Swisher, OC, Konerko)start to turn it on and get warm with the weather.

Cuck the Fubs
05-25-2008, 08:49 AM
The 2005 Sox did not have the most explosive offense. But in tight, low scoring games, when the homers weren't flying, they manufactured runs to win close games. This team lacks that ability. How do they get it back?

Discuss.

Despite the legend of "Ozzie Ball" the 05' White Sox thrived on the long ball as they hit over 200 home runs.

Nothing has changed save for the slumping players.

We hit long ones we win, we don't hit long ones we lose.

LITTLE NELL
05-25-2008, 08:51 AM
We need some guys like Pods and Iguchi or Aparicio and Fox at the top of the order. I amazed at how many guys on this team refuse to work the count. There should be an automatic fine for anyone that swings at the 1st pitch.

Madscout
05-25-2008, 09:03 AM
We need some guys like Pods and Iguchi or Aparicio and Fox at the top of the order. I amazed at how many guys on this team refuse to work the count. There should be an automatic fine for anyone that swings at the 1st pitch.
*cough* Thome *cough*

Didn't see yesterday's game, but Thome came up in two key run scoring opportunities, and pissed them away in Friday's game. I am ****ing tired of him coming up with one or two outs, with men on 2nd and 3rd and grounding the first pitch to the waiting second baseman.

MISoxfan
05-25-2008, 09:07 AM
Good thing we didn't get shut out on opening day, we would have had 162 games with 0 runs to look forward too.

ondafarm
05-25-2008, 09:56 AM
We need some guys like Pods and Iguchi or Aparicio and Fox at the top of the order. I amazed at how many guys on this team refuse to work the count. There should be an automatic fine for anyone that swings at the 1st pitch.

There are some batters who never swing at the first pitch. The philosophy is to make the guy get a strike before you start swinging. PK and ARow both frequently do this. Unfortunately, it means you start down in the count almost all the time. That assumes the pitcher and catcher have a nickels worth of brains and figure this out so they lob the first pitch down the center of the plate.

I always found you needed to swing at the first pitch once in awhile to keep this from happening.

itsnotrequired
05-25-2008, 10:03 AM
Lip is better at inventing doomsday stats than you are. :smile:

I vote for Homefish.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/winfieldscott/AJ.jpg

jabrch
05-25-2008, 11:20 AM
In 2005, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 4 times.

In 2006, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 5 times.

in 2007, the Sox scored 1 run 18 times and were shut out 9 times.

In 2008, the Sox have scored 1 run 5 times and have been shut out 5 times. The season is 30% complete. The Sox are on pace to score just one run 17 times and get shut out 17 more times. If these trends hold up, this team will get shut out almost twice as often as the abysmal 2007 team.

The 2005 Sox did not have the most explosive offense. But in tight, low scoring games, when the homers weren't flying, they manufactured runs to win close games. This team lacks that ability. How do they get it back?

Discuss.

I'd be curious to see how the same numbers break out though June 1 in the past seasons, as well as to see how our splits are home/road.

That said, as long as we pitch like this, we will win a lot of games.

LITTLE NELL
05-25-2008, 11:23 AM
There are some batters who never swing at the first pitch. The philosophy is to make the guy get a strike before you start swinging. PK and ARow both frequently do this. Unfortunately, it means you start down in the count almost all the time. That assumes the pitcher and catcher have a nickels worth of brains and figure this out so they lob the first pitch down the center of the plate.

I always found you needed to swing at the first pitch once in awhile to keep this from happening.
Actually I agree with you, what I posted was out of frustration
when we go into these hitting funks. It seems like nothing good ever happens when we swing at the 1st pitch

jabrch
05-25-2008, 11:32 AM
There are some batters who never swing at the first pitch. The philosophy is to make the guy get a strike before you start swinging. PK and ARow both frequently do this. Unfortunately, it means you start down in the count almost all the time. That assumes the pitcher and catcher have a nickels worth of brains and figure this out so they lob the first pitch down the center of the plate.

I always found you needed to swing at the first pitch once in awhile to keep this from happening.

I brought this point up a few weeks ago - I have seen more 0-1, 1-2, 0-2 counts this season than ever before. Our guys are "patient" (Swisher in particular) to the point where they make it hard on themselves. Hitters have a much higher batting average on the first pitch than they do when they are down in the count. We need to stop trying to be patient and start hitting again. Walks are nice - but they are absolutely no substitute for stepping into the box and hitting.

TomBradley72
05-25-2008, 11:43 AM
In 2005, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 4 times.

In 2006, the Sox scored 1 run 12 times and were shut out 5 times.

in 2007, the Sox scored 1 run 18 times and were shut out 9 times.

In 2008, the Sox have scored 1 run 5 times and have been shut out 5 times. The season is 30% complete. The Sox are on pace to score just one run 17 times and get shut out 17 more times. If these trends hold up, this team will get shut out almost twice as often as the abysmal 2007 team.

The 2005 Sox did not have the most explosive offense. But in tight, low scoring games, when the homers weren't flying, they manufactured runs to win close games. This team lacks that ability. How do they get it back?

Discuss.

They have to change the make up of the roster a little. Ozzie/KW have said the organiation is set up to go to more of a smallball game internally. I assume they mean adding Richar and Owens to the mix (probably at the expense of Richar and ???). That might work, but I don't think it will be enough.

They need to make a move that will be analagous to bringing Julio Cruz to the team in 1983. I'd like them to be VERY aggressive in looking at this. Great starting pitching, great bullpen, pretty good defense, a good overall ability to score runs, a weakened division...they have a great opportunity this year. They should go for it.

Tragg
05-25-2008, 11:44 AM
We need some guys like Pods and Iguchi or Aparicio and Fox at the top of the order. I amazed at how many guys on this team refuse to work the count. There should be an automatic fine for anyone that swings at the 1st pitch.
Iguchi was demoted last year to the bottom of the order in favor of hitters who were far less adept at working the count. Jerry Owens, unskilled at working counts, was circled as the leadoff hitter for this year. The current leadoff hitter hasn't been working a whole lot of counts (or do much else offensively), but he isn't going anywhere. This isn't a work the count coaching staff.

Yet, Williams has been getting some obp players, and the coaches at least are talking obp, and there were improvements early, although it's dropping...so we'll see.

TomBradley72
05-25-2008, 11:45 AM
Despite the legend of "Ozzie Ball" the 05' White Sox thrived on the long ball as they hit over 200 home runs.

Nothing has changed save for the slumping players.

We hit long ones we win, we don't hit long ones we lose.

True enough. But their offense "hummed" when Pods was healthy, stalled when he was injured, then hummed again when he was healthy. They need a speed/manufacturing element to win the low scoring games. They've hit 200+ home runs several times. They've only had the speed element one year-2005-that's the year they won it.

TomBradley72
05-25-2008, 11:47 AM
Everyone's solution is to have a speedy leadoff hitter, but it won't make a difference if guys behind him don't executre good baseball to move him over and get him in early in the game.

The only hope is that guys that are under performing (Thome, Swisher, OC, Konerko)start to turn it on and get warm with the weather.

But speedy guys on base cause the defense to position themselves differently, change the pitcher's approach (more fastballs), lead to more hit and run opportunities (infielders in motion)...which creates opportunities for the #2-#4 hitters. It's all connected.

Hitmen77
05-25-2008, 11:54 AM
Although the season is only 30% complete, it is generally the portion of the season where the least runs are scored because of the cold weather throughout the nation. So to exprapolate the first 48 games and say it will be the same for the remaining 114 is not accurate. I'm not saying they don't have problems...they do.
I'm not sure how they get out of the offensive mode they are in with the players they have. Everyone's solution is to have a speedy leadoff hitter, but it won't make a difference if guys behind him don't executre good baseball to move him over and get him in early in the game.

The only hope is that guys that are under performing (Thome, Swisher, OC, Konerko)start to turn it on and get warm with the weather.

If these 4 guys can perform to their career averages, we should be able to win alot of games. Hard to score runs when 1/2 your lineup seems like an automatic out.

I'm still optimistic that these guys will come around....it's not even Memorial Day yet. Of course, the flip side of that is that I hope our pitching keeps performing well once other teams' hitters "warm up". Again, I'm optimistic because I think all 5 of our starters have the talent to do it.

SoxGirl4Life
05-25-2008, 12:18 PM
If these 4 guys can perform to their career averages, we should be able to win alot of games. Hard to score runs when 1/2 your lineup seems like an automatic out.

I'm still optimistic that these guys will come around....it's not even Memorial Day yet. Of course, the flip side of that is that I hope our pitching keeps performing well once other teams' hitters "warm up". Again, I'm optimistic because I think all 5 of our starters have the talent to do it.


Sox are 2nd in MLB in team ERA at 3.42. That's pretty impressive.

ode to veeck
05-25-2008, 12:43 PM
True enough. But their offense "hummed" when Pods was healthy, stalled when he was injured, then hummed again when he was healthy. They need a speed/manufacturing element to win the low scoring games. They've hit 200+ home runs several times. They've only had the speed element one year-2005-that's the year they won it.

There was also a spurt the year they had a temporarily healthy Kenny Lofton to start the season, when they were in 1st place and lead in almost all offensive categories, until he was playing hurt and then sucked offensively much of the rest of that season.

A good lead off man transforms the Sox's fastball, HR hitting lineup into an awsome machine, but it's been rare and far between for recent Sox teams to posess a bona fide leadoff hitter.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 12:45 PM
They have to change the make up of the roster a little. Ozzie/KW have said the organiation is set up to go to more of a smallball game internally. I assume they mean adding Richar and Owens to the mix (probably at the expense of Richar and ???). That might work, but I don't think it will be enough.

They need to make a move that will be analagous to bringing Julio Cruz to the team in 1983. I'd like them to be VERY aggressive in looking at this. Great starting pitching, great bullpen, pretty good defense, a good overall ability to score runs, a weakened division...they have a great opportunity this year. They should go for it.
Why on earth would anyone add Owens? He deserves to be released rather than recalled.

Julio Cruz put up a line of .251/.311/.311 for the Sox in 1983. Why should KW be aggressive in adding that?
True enough. But their offense "hummed" when Pods was healthy, stalled when he was injured, then hummed again when he was healthy. They need a speed/manufacturing element to win the low scoring games. They've hit 200+ home runs several times. They've only had the speed element one year-2005-that's the year they won it.
For the umpteenth time, speed did not make the SP/RP have great seasons. That pitching coupled with the 2004 and 2006 teams would have won it all too.

Lip Man 1
05-25-2008, 12:50 PM
Cuck:

Your comment about home runs in 2005 being the reason the Sox won is wrong in my opinion.

Yes the Sox were in the top quarter of the league in home runs....and they were also in the top quarter in the league in stolen bases (six guys with ten or more...), sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

They had BALANCE.

They had more then one way to win a game.

They have for some strange and bizarre reason, even though 2005 showed that balance and a lights-out pitching staff can win you a title, gone completely away from that "philosophy."

Lip

ode to veeck
05-25-2008, 12:52 PM
Cuck:

Your comment about home runs in 2005 being the reason the Sox won is wrong in my opinion.

Yes the Sox were in the top quarter of the league in home runs....and they were also in the top quarter in the league in stolen bases (six guys with ten or more...), sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

They had BALANCE.

They had more then one way to win a game.

They have for some strange and bizarre reason, even though 2005 showed that balance and a lights-out pitching staff can win you a title, gone completely away from that "philosophy."

Lip

The '05 team won a phenomenal % of one run games

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 12:55 PM
Cuck:

Your comment about home runs in 2005 being the reason the Sox won is wrong in my opinion.

Yes the Sox were in the top quarter of the league in home runs....and they were also in the top quarter in the league in stolen bases (six guys with ten or more...), sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

They had BALANCE.

They had more then one way to win a game.

They have for some strange and bizarre reason, even though 2005 showed that balance and a lights-out pitching staff can win you a title, gone completely away from that "philosophy."

Lip
Lights-out pitching will win a title with a sufficient offense. That staff was historically lights out (for the time period). I don't see how being in the top quarter of the league in infield hits is necessarily a part of a balanced offense. A good offense is an offense that scores lots of runs.

Really though this link does a much better job arguing my point. (http://itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com/2008/05/power-speed-and-defense.html)

Cuck the Fubs
05-25-2008, 01:29 PM
Lip,

I will agree with you that they did have balance, but they still seemed to be a touch dependant on the long ball.

Almost of the 05' postseason were also littered with key long balls as well.

ondafarm
05-25-2008, 01:41 PM
Lights-out pitching will win a title with a sufficient offense. That staff was historically lights out (for the time period). I don't see how being in the top quarter of the league in infield hits is necessarily a part of a balanced offense. A good offense is an offense that scores lots of runs.

Really though this link does a much better job arguing my point. (http://itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com/2008/05/power-speed-and-defense.html)

CG, I've talked with a variety of experts about this topic. And they always bring up this negative correlation between stolen bases and winning. Not to sound like a total flat earther but many experts, including the author of that article have it wrong.

One shouldn't look at total number of homers and total number of stolen bases because both of these offensive categories cluster. As in, if a pitcher is victimized for a homer by one guy, then probably other guys that night will find him easy to hit homers off of. If there is a defect against defending against SBs in one game, then the opposition will probably try to exploit that often.

A good offense is one that is difficult to shut down. The last two Sox games (Fri-Sat) are perfect examples. It seemed everybody sat around waiting for a homer or two. Well, that can be shut down by good pitching. A more balanced offense can manufacture runs. That may mean stolen bases and bunting and things you find boring, but it also leads to more wins.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 01:44 PM
CG, I've talked with a variety of experts about this topic. And they always bring up this negative correlation between stolen bases and winning. Not to sound like a total flat earther but many experts, including the author of that article have it wrong.

One shouldn't look at total number of homers and total number of stolen bases because both of these offensive categories cluster. As in, if a pitcher is victimized for a homer by one guy, then probably other guys that night will find him easy to hit homers off of. If there is a defect against defending against SBs in one game, then the opposition will probably try to exploit that often.

A good offense is one that is difficult to shut down. The last two Sox games (Fri-Sat) are perfect examples. It seemed everybody sat around waiting for a homer or two. Well, that can be shut down by good pitching. A more balanced offense can manufacture runs. That may mean stolen bases and bunting and things you find boring, but it also leads to more wins.
I don't see how bunting or stealing bases would have benefited them last night. This club is designed to bash the **** out of the ball. If everyone performed at their three year averages we'd be the best team in baseball.

itsnotrequired
05-25-2008, 01:51 PM
CG, I've talked with a variety of experts about this topic. And they always bring up this negative correlation between stolen bases and winning. Not to sound like a total flat earther but many experts, including the author of that article have it wrong.

How are they "wrong"? The article demonstrates that there is not a great correlation between stolen bases and winning. He isn't saying stolen bases aren't important but rather they are somewhat overrated. Sort of like how a lot of people think a HR is a "rally killer".

JB98
05-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Sox record when they hit a home run: 23-10
Sox record when they do not homer: 3-12

The three "homerless" victories all occurred during the eight-game winning streak, during which the Sox got phenomenal pitching in all except one game (13-8 slugfest in San Francisco).

These guys are what they are. Let's hope somebody knocks one out of the yard tonight.

ondafarm
05-25-2008, 02:04 PM
How are they "wrong"? The article demonstrates that there is not a great correlation between stolen bases and winning. He isn't saying stolen bases aren't important but rather they are somewhat overrated. Sort of like how a lot of people think a HR is a "rally killer".

No. The article demonstrates that there isn't a great correlation between total stolen bases and season record. It says nothing about correlating stolen bases with winning individual games.

itsnotrequired
05-25-2008, 02:07 PM
No. The article demonstrates that there isn't a great correlation between total stolen bases and season record. It says nothing about correlating stolen bases with winning individual games.

At the end of the day, what's the difference? Winning some additional games during the season because of stolen bases means nothing if the team ends up with a losing record at the end of the season.

TDog
05-25-2008, 02:11 PM
... It seems like nothing good ever happens when we swing at the 1st pitch

Konerko's grand slam in 2005 World Series Game 2 was hit on the first pitch from a new pitcher, but I know it doesn't feel like the Sox do as well swinging at the first pitch as the opponents do. When Thornton came in last Sunday in the seventh, Durham hit a single on his first pitch and Molina tied the game with a double on the next pitch. Aggressive hitting is like aggressive baserunning. Fans are going to complain loudly when it doesn't work, but baseball never looks better than when it does. If the pitch isn't there, you don't swing at it, just as you don't try to take the extra base when there is no chance to reach it.

I am not as concerned about the inconsistent offense as others are. The way the Sox have lost to the Angels this weekend is the way the Indians lost to the Sox this week. The Tigers have been shut out 6 times already and have scored just one run in 6 games. The Tigers have twice scored 19 runs in games won by 16-run margins. It isn't like the Tigers just started hitting. One of those 19-run games came in April and the most recent shutout came a week ago. The Indians are more consistent. They have only been shutout 3 times and been held to just 1 run 4 times and, like the White Sox, haven't won any games by 16-run margins.

The White Sox scored in only 2 of their last 18 innings of 2005. And they only scored 3 runs in that span. It was a feeble offense. There was the solo home run that so upsets everyone, a bases-loaded walk and a two-out single to bring home the last run of the season. The thing is, that the team the Sox were playing scored only 1 run in their last 18 innings and were shut out for their last 15 innings.

It's all abut pitching. When I was in college, I was thrilled to watch the 1977 White Sox hammer their way into first place in July and whither in the heat of August (particularly a tough four-game series in Arilington, Texas, after which things weren't the same). I returned to Midwest in time to enjoy watching the 2000 White Sox club teams into submiss kn only to see all those pop outs and strikeouts when scoring chances arose in October.

Superior hitting might be fun to watch, but superior pitching wins.

Lip Man 1
05-25-2008, 02:11 PM
Onda:

Your comment "a good offense is one that is hard to shut down." Is EXACTLY on point.

It doesn't matter if you win games with an eight run home run, a stolen base, a successful hit and run or by aggressively running the bases forcing your opponent to throw a ball into the stands.

The point is that you have MULTIPLE ways to win a game, not relying just on having to hit a home run or steal a base but an ability to do both if you have to, to win.

That's a valid point. The Sox don't appear to have that ability anymore (to win games in numerous ways) and it limits their chances because if the home run isn't working it's not like they can do a lot of other things.

Lip

delben91
05-25-2008, 02:35 PM
That's a valid point. The Sox don't appear to have that ability anymore (to win games in numerous ways) and it limits their chances because if the home run isn't working it's not like they can do a lot of other things.

Lip

Lip,

It's a fair point you're making, but I wonder just how many teams have that ability consistently (and that's the key word) in MLB today. Maybe the Diamondbacks, possibly Boston and Anaheim, Cleveland if they're on...

I guess my point is, not a lot of teams have that ability, at least in my laymans opinion. That's not to say the Sox don't have plenty of room to improve, or that they shouldn't have more options to score runs, just an observation.

Jerome
05-25-2008, 02:42 PM
If everyone performed at their three year averages we'd be the best team in baseball.

You are so right. That's why it's so frustrating not to have a ten game lead right now. KW must be going insane - the much maligned starting pitching has performed far far beyond expectations and his high priced veteran power hitters are sucking it up.

Lip Man 1
05-25-2008, 02:51 PM
Delben:

You are probably right but the point is we're talking about the White Sox, not what other teams can or can not do.

I would assume if the Sox could put together a type of team that can win in different ways it would dramatically increase their chances in the long run wouldn't you say? (Based on the assumption that not a lot of other clubs can do that...)

So to me, that's all the more reason to try to shoot for balance.

And regarding the "three year averages." Jim Thome for example is two years older now then he was back in 2005. That appears to me to be a BIG difference and I don't know how relevant what he did in 05 is to the here and now. And I just use Jim as an example, you could say the same thing for Dye, Konerko, A.J. and so forth.

To me the biggest shocks have been Cabrerra and Swisher. Those guys have always hit...yet they come to the Sox and suddenly "catch" the "illness" (for want of a better word) of not being able to hit.

Lip

delben91
05-25-2008, 03:16 PM
Delben:

You are probably right but the point is we're talking about the White Sox, not what other teams can or can not do.

I would assume if the Sox could put together a type of team that can win in different ways it would dramatically increase their chances in the long run wouldn't you say? (Based on the assumption that not a lot of other clubs can do that...)

So to me, that's all the more reason to try to shoot for balance.

And regarding the "three year averages." Jim Thome for example is two years older now then he was back in 2005. That appears to me to be a BIG difference and I don't know how relevant what he did in 05 is to the here and now. And I just use Jim as an example, you could say the same thing for Dye, Konerko, A.J. and so forth.

To me the biggest shocks have been Cabrerra and Swisher. Those guys have always hit...yet they come to the Sox and suddenly "catch" the "illness" (for want of a better word) of not being able to hit.

Lip

Lip,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing that the Sox shouldn't be actively trying to achieve such a balance. My point was just that it's easier said than done, even with a good plan. As you said, you'd think Cabrera and Swisher would've gotten us closer to that sort of team, and yet they're both playing way, way below their typical levels. Could be new situations, new pressures, adjusting to this longer spell of colder weather starting the season...

I know we all said this last year, but these are different players (OC and Swisher), and the odds of them maintaining this far below average level of play all year seems unlikely. I'd be interested to see the shape the offense takes when (if) they get turned around. Hopefully it'll be in the next 6-8 weeks giving the Sox a better picture at the trade deadline of what they still need (replacing Swisher and OC) or augmenting the lineup with them in it.

jenn2080
05-25-2008, 04:53 PM
I hope Cleveland was able to FedEx our offense in time for tonights game.

TDog
05-25-2008, 05:04 PM
What do you call a team that scores 19 runs to win by 16 one day and loses the next day with all of its offense coming on a lone solo home run?

Some of you would call that the White Sox. But it was the Tigers this weekend who sandwiched losses around a 19-3 win.

The Twins in Chicago recently were nearly no-hit one night, scored 13 runs the next and lost 6-2 the next day. A lot of teams lack a consistent offense. But by its nature, offense will always be more inconsistent than pitching and defense.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to improve the White Sox offense. I think Konerko will come around. I hope Thome does, but I don't know if his career has reached its expiration date. I think Swisher is a bigger problem because not only do I question whether he will ever hit, but because he I think there is an upgrade on defense available on the team. For the life of me I don't understand the loyalty so many Sox fans had for Swisher before he even played a game for their team. Did they actually watch him play for the A's?

I like Cabrera leading off, though. Dye has responded to the cleanup spot and Quentin has been a good No. 3 hitter. I don't think there is a crisis in the offense.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 05:17 PM
What do you call a team that scores 19 runs to win by 16 one day and loses the next day with all of its offense coming on a lone solo home run?

Some of you would call that the White Sox. But it was the Tigers this weekend who sandwiched losses around a 19-3 win.

The Twins in Chicago recently were nearly no-hit one night, scored 13 runs the next and lost 6-2 the next day. A lot of teams lack a consistent offense. But by its nature, offense will always be more inconsistent than pitching and defense.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to improve the White Sox offense. I think Konerko will come around. I hope Thome does, but I don't know if his career has reached its expiration date. I think Swisher is a bigger problem because not only do I question whether he will ever hit, but because he I think there is an upgrade on defense available on the team. For the life of me I don't understand the loyalty so many Sox fans had for Swisher before he even played a game for their team. Did they actually watch him play for the A's?

I like Cabrera leading off, though. Dye has responded to the cleanup spot and Quentin has been a good No. 3 hitter. I don't think there is a crisis in the offense.

I'd say people are loyal to Swisher because he's mashed the **** out of the ball the last two years.

TDog
05-25-2008, 05:34 PM
I'd say people are loyal to Swisher because he's mashed the **** out of the ball the last two years.

I spent last summer in Northern California and watched a lot of A's baseball, and I didn't see him mash the ball last year, not with any consistency anyway. When I heard the Sox had traded for him, it was as if I could hear Ron Santo screaming "Oh no!"

Nick Swisher's strength is putting up numbers just good enough to make people who primarily look at numbers trigger the language filter to describe the way he mashes the ball.

I expected a .240 hitter with lots of strike outs, lots of walks and occasional power, like putting a glove on Jim Thome, although Swisher has more defensive skills. Swisher has disappointed me this year, as Sox players do when they struggle, but it's not like I didn't expect it.

The funny thing is, people are quick to turn on hitters who have done well for the Sox in the past and yet the hold on to the never fulfilled promise of Nick Swisher in a White Sox uniform.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 05:42 PM
I spent last summer in Northern California and watched a lot of A's baseball, and I didn't see him mash the ball last year, not with any consistency anyway. When I heard the Sox had traded for him, it was as if I could hear Ron Santo screaming "Oh no!"

Nick Swisher's strength is putting up numbers just good enough to make people who primarily look at numbers trigger the language filter to describe the way he mashes the ball.

I expected a .240 hitter with lots of strike outs, lots of walks and occasional power, like putting a glove on Jim Thome, although Swisher has more defensive skills. Swisher has disappointed me this year, as Sox players do when they struggle, but it's not like I didn't expect it.

The funny thing is, people are quick to turn on hitters who have done well for the Sox in the past and yet the hold on to the never fulfilled promise of Nick Swisher in a White Sox uniform.

He had one month with a sub .800 OPS last year.

TDog
05-25-2008, 05:56 PM
He had one month with a sub .800 OPS last year.

And that wasn't the only month that he couldn't hit the ball.

Spend more time watching baseball and less time looking at numbers.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 06:22 PM
And that wasn't the only month that he couldn't hit the ball.

Spend more time watching baseball and less time looking at numbers.
That has nothing to do with what you're arguing. You said he didn't mash the ball with any consistency. I post that he had one month with a sub .800 OPS. You tell me to start watching the games. Ok? I don't see how me watching the games would have changed the fact that he was indeed quite consistent last season -- so much so that he had one month with a sub .800 OPS.

You talk about him like he's 2004 Juan Uribe or something -- one good month and the rest dog****.

WhiteSox5187
05-25-2008, 06:26 PM
And that wasn't the only month that he couldn't hit the ball.

Spend more time watching baseball and less time looking at numbers.
Psssh, what's the fun in that??


Here are my thoughts, what drives me mad is that this team is going to be go through phases where they hit everything in sight and phases where they can't buy a hit. When you get a team full of power hitters, that's just the way it goes seemingly.

What was great about '05 was we had guys who could do the little things (Pods gets on, bugs the pitcher who is worried about him stealing a base so he throws a fastball to Iguchi who takes it the other way we now have runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out, so even if Paulie hits one of those warning track flyballs, it still brings in a run!!) and then our 3-4-5 guys (Paulie, JD, and Everett) could just mash the hell out of the ball. In the first half of '06 we did that too. Problem was in the second half Pods started breaking down and stopped getting on base and we were once again a homerun oriented team. I know that Craig Grebeck hates to hear this but it really is true, it all starts with a good leadoff man. Look at the years we made the playoffs (with the exception of 2000 which was a fluke by all concerns) we had a guy at the top with great speed AND got on consistently, then we had guys who could just pound the ball. The key isn't JUST speed, but speed and the ability to get on. You can have a guy like Swisher who gets on at a .400 clip leading off, but no pitcher is going to change his game plan because he gets on because he's not worried that Swish will steal second.

Hopefully we'll get the offense going tonight. At least we've been in these games, there isn't the feeling of hopelessness when we give up a run.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 06:29 PM
Psssh, what's the fun in that??


Here are my thoughts, what drives me mad is that this team is going to be go through phases where they hit everything in sight and phases where they can't buy a hit. When you get a team full of power hitters, that's just the way it goes seemingly.

What was great about '05 was we had guys who could do the little things (Pods gets on, bugs the pitcher who is worried about him stealing a base so he throws a fastball to Iguchi who takes it the other way we now have runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out, so even if Paulie hits one of those warning track flyballs, it still brings in a run!!) and then our 3-4-5 guys (Paulie, JD, and Everett) could just mash the hell out of the ball. In the first half of '06 we did that too. Problem was in the second half Pods started breaking down and stopped getting on base and we were once again a homerun oriented team. I know that Craig Grebeck hates to hear this but it really is true, it all starts with a good leadoff man. Look at the years we made the playoffs (with the exception of 2000 which was a fluke by all concerns) we had a guy at the top with great speed AND got on consistently, then we had guys who could just pound the ball. The key isn't JUST speed, but speed and the ability to get on. You can have a guy like Swisher who gets on at a .400 clip leading off, but no pitcher is going to change his game plan because he gets on because he's not worried that Swish will steal second.

Hopefully we'll get the offense going tonight. At least we've been in these games, there isn't the feeling of hopelessness when we give up a run.
You could say that the correlation of having a fast guy at the top and us winning in 2005 was directly related to said fast guy -- but I'll stick to my guns and say it was the absurdly successful pitching staff.

TDog
05-25-2008, 07:55 PM
That has nothing to do with what you're arguing. You said he didn't mash the ball with any consistency. I post that he had one month with a sub .800 OPS. You tell me to start watching the games. Ok? I don't see how me watching the games would have changed the fact that he was indeed quite consistent last season -- so much so that he had one month with a sub .800 OPS.

You talk about him like he's 2004 Juan Uribe or something -- one good month and the rest dog****.

OPS has nothing to do with mashing the ball.

LITTLE NELL
05-25-2008, 07:56 PM
Konerko's grand slam in 2005 World Series Game 2 was hit on the first pitch from a new pitcher, but I know it doesn't feel like the Sox do as well swinging at the first pitch as the opponents do. When Thornton came in last Sunday in the seventh, Durham hit a single on his first pitch and Molina tied the game with a double on the next pitch. Aggressive hitting is like aggressive baserunning. Fans are going to complain loudly when it doesn't work, but baseball never looks better than when it does. If the pitch isn't there, you don't swing at it, just as you don't try to take the extra base when there is no chance to reach it.

I am not as concerned about the inconsistent offense as others are. The way the Sox have lost to the Angels this weekend is the way the Indians lost to the Sox this week. The Tigers have been shut out 6 times already and have scored just one run in 6 games. The Tigers have twice scored 19 runs in games won by 16-run margins. It isn't like the Tigers just started hitting. One of those 19-run games came in April and the most recent shutout came a week ago. The Indians are more consistent. They have only been shutout 3 times and been held to just 1 run 4 times and, like the White Sox, haven't won any games by 16-run margins.

The White Sox scored in only 2 of their last 18 innings of 2005. And they only scored 3 runs in that span. It was a feeble offense. There was the solo home run that so upsets everyone, a bases-loaded walk and a two-out single to bring home the last run of the season. The thing is, that the team the Sox were playing scored only 1 run in their last 18 innings and were shut out for their last 15 innings.

It's all abut pitching. When I was in college, I was thrilled to watch the 1977 White Sox hammer their way into first place in July and whither in the heat of August (particularly a tough four-game series in Arilington, Texas, after which things weren't the same). I returned to Midwest in time to enjoy watching the 2000 White Sox club teams into submiss kn only to see all those pop outs and strikeouts when scoring chances arose in October.

Superior hitting might be fun to watch, but superior pitching wins.
The 67 White Sox had superior pitching (1st in AL with 2.45 ERA) but the hitting was pathetic and they faded and lost the pennant in the last week. Point is you at least need some timely hitting along with excellent pitching to make it to the post season. I wonder how many more games we could have won this year with timely hitting.

TDog
05-25-2008, 08:10 PM
The 67 White Sox had superior pitching (1st in AL with 2.45 ERA) but the hitting was pathetic and they faded and lost the pennant in the last week. Point is you at least need some timely hitting along with excellent pitching to make it to the post season. I wonder how many more games we could have won this year with timely hitting.

The 1906 White Sox had superior pitching and so little hitting that they were labeled hitless. They won the World Series against a 70-games-above-.500 team that led to major leagues in runs scored. And of course, the 2000 White Sox mashed the ball all season (I don't know what their OPS was, but I actually saw them mash the ball). They didn't hit at all when they had the home field advantage against a wild card team in the ALDS.

The point is, the 1967 White Sox got a lot closer to the World Series than the 1977 White Sox, probably which had plenty of hitting by little pitching.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2008, 08:12 PM
The 1906 White Sox had superior pitching and so little hitting that they were labeled hitless. They won the World Series against a 70-games-above-.500 team that led to major leagues in runs scored. And of course, the 2000 White Sox mashed the ball all season (I don't know what their OPS was, but I actually saw them mash the ball). They didn't hit at all when they had the home field advantage against a wild card team in the ALDS.

The point is, the 1967 White Sox got a lot closer to the World Series than the 1977 White Sox, probably which had plenty of hitting by little pitching.
lolz

edit: why even have statistics?

TDog
05-25-2008, 08:35 PM
lolz

edit: why even have statistics?

If you read "mashing the ball" into a statistic that includes a hitter's walks and times being hit by pitches, the problem isn't with the statistic.

Daver
05-25-2008, 08:47 PM
If you read "mashing the ball" into a statistic that includes a hitter's walks and times being hit by pitches, the problem isn't with the statistic.

This is another reason why all numbers lie.

Frater Perdurabo
05-25-2008, 10:14 PM
You could say that the correlation of having a fast guy at the top and us winning in 2005 was directly related to said fast guy -- but I'll stick to my guns and say it was the absurdly successful pitching staff.

I've never taken credit away from the 2005 pitching staff.

I agree with Lip; the 2005 offense had balance. They could score with the homer (and often did), but they also could manufacture runs. I'm not saying Pods and Iguchi alone got the Sox to win the World Series. But I am saying that if the Sox had Harris and Uribe at the top of the order instead of Pods and Iguchi, they would not have won the World Series.

You can't win a game 0-0.

Edit: I love ironic endings. Just as I posted this, Quentin hit the walkoff homer.

palehozenychicty
05-25-2008, 10:52 PM
Delben:

You are probably right but the point is we're talking about the White Sox, not what other teams can or can not do.

I would assume if the Sox could put together a type of team that can win in different ways it would dramatically increase their chances in the long run wouldn't you say? (Based on the assumption that not a lot of other clubs can do that...)

So to me, that's all the more reason to try to shoot for balance.

And regarding the "three year averages." Jim Thome for example is two years older now then he was back in 2005. That appears to me to be a BIG difference and I don't know how relevant what he did in 05 is to the here and now. And I just use Jim as an example, you could say the same thing for Dye, Konerko, A.J. and so forth.

To me the biggest shocks have been Cabrerra and Swisher. Those guys have always hit...yet they come to the Sox and suddenly "catch" the "illness" (for want of a better word) of not being able to hit.

Lip


Well, I think that you need to bring in the way that other teams attack on offense because you need a frame of reference to assess strengths and weaknesses. It is obvious that the Sox are not a good offensive team. We keep waiting for them to "explode" but they've been this way for many years aside from 2005. They are a slow, unathletic, impatient team that needs homers to win. It's been that way for years and isn't changing anytime soon.

Yes, we discuss the White Sox, but to say that other teams philosophies and rosters are irrelevant is not only myopic, it's unintelligent.

They can't play themselves. Unless they get cloned. :D:

MeanFish
05-25-2008, 11:15 PM
Well, I think that you need to bring in the way that other teams attack on offense because you need a frame of reference to assess strengths and weaknesses. It is obvious that the Sox are not a good offensive team. We keep waiting for them to "explode" but they've been this way for many years aside from 2005. They are a slow, unathletic, impatient team that needs homers to win. It's been that way for years and isn't changing anytime soon.

Yes, we discuss the White Sox, but to say that other teams philosophies and rosters are irrelevant is not only myopic, it's unintelligent.

They can't play themselves. Unless they get cloned. :D:

I think what people are starting to discover is that station-to-station, OBP-centric baseball isn't the panacea that it's cracked up to be.

It seems like we made the mistake of working the count too much, which led to falling behind in a lot of counts to eventually wind up walking or striking out or hitting the ball weakly while trying to protect against a K. Because the focus didn't remotely include things like "hitting the bejeezus out of the ball" you saw a lot of stranded runners.

Lately, you see them jumping on first pitch fastballs but letting pitchers pitches go for strikes -- not a bad strategy at all. We ended up on the wrong end good pitching performances in this Angels series, but there's no reason to think that we'll stay down. That Angels rotation really is just very good, and up until this series were were making demonstrable progress offensively.

palehozenychicty
05-25-2008, 11:21 PM
I think what people are starting to discover is that station-to-station, OBP-centric baseball isn't the panacea that it's cracked up to be.

It seems like we made the mistake of working the count too much, which led to falling behind in a lot of counts to eventually wind up walking or striking out or hitting the ball weakly while trying to protect against a K. Because the focus didn't remotely include things like "hitting the bejeezus out of the ball" you saw a lot of stranded runners.

Lately, you see them jumping on first pitch fastballs but letting pitchers pitches go for strikes -- not a bad strategy at all. We ended up on the wrong end good pitching performances in this Angels series, but there's no reason to think that we'll stay down. That Angels rotation really is just very good, and up until this series were were making demonstrable progress offensively.


I don't want to take anything away from the Angels, as they're a fundamentally sound team throughout the roster. It's just that the Sox seem to make very very few adjustments at the plate, and that fuels some frustration on here.

MeanFish
05-25-2008, 11:35 PM
I don't want to take anything away from the Angels, as they're a fundamentally sound team throughout the roster. It's just that the Sox seem to make very very few adjustments at the plate, and that fuels some frustration on here.

No, what bothers people is that the Sox aren't getting five runs a game like would be ideal. As long as they aren't doing that day in and day out, there will be comments about their inability to "make adjustments" as if there's some easy thing they can do to somehow not keep weakly hitting the ball to infielders when they make contact, particularly with men on base.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to hit better. I'm simply saying that their approach hasn't been all that bad -- they've forced opposing pitchers to give them the hittable pitches, they just haven't actually hit them. We really haven't seen anyone other than Juan Uribe go up there and just start swinging out of their shoes at pitchers pitches for no good reason at all.

palehozenychicty
05-25-2008, 11:42 PM
No, what bothers people is that the Sox aren't getting five runs a game like would be ideal. As long as they aren't doing that day in and day out, there will be comments about their inability to "make adjustments" as if there's some easy thing they can do to somehow not keep weakly hitting the ball to infielders when they make contact, particularly with men on base.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to hit better. I'm simply saying that their approach hasn't been all that bad -- they've forced opposing pitchers to give them the hittable pitches, they just haven't actually hit them. We really haven't seen anyone other than Juan Uribe go up there and just start swinging out of their shoes at pitchers pitches for no good reason at all.


I just think that a new change in hitting philosophy will be needed at season's end, at least it has to be thoroughly evaluated. This approach has not been consistently good for the last few years, and I know that the personnel has changed a lot. At the beginning of the year, they were much more patient, but still hitting poorly. Last year was ugly. The end of '06 was not good. Hopefully, we get some of these guys going, but I doubt that they'll all reach their career norms. The lack of amphetamines and steroids has really taken a toll on power throughout the league as well, so a lot of things need to be assessed. Time will tell.

Lip Man 1
05-25-2008, 11:45 PM
Pale:

You are correct and my comment to Delben was because he pointed out that very few teams in MLB have "balance" (for want of a better word) hence my reply. All the more reason to be one of the few who actually does, increasing your chances of winning.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
05-26-2008, 01:12 AM
You could say that the correlation of having a fast guy at the top and us winning in 2005 was directly related to said fast guy -- but I'll stick to my guns and say it was the absurdly successful pitching staff.
No one can deny the role of the pitching staff in the '05 WS, but do you honestly think that the '04 team featuring Harris and Uribe leading off would have won the world series with the same pitching staff? As Frater noted by the way.


And Daver, Twain said it best about stats, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

IlliniSox4Life
05-26-2008, 04:08 AM
Guys who steal 50 bases and get on fairly consistantly don't exactly grow on trees. If Pods had stayed healthy and kept producing he would still be our lead off hitter. I'm sure KW has been trying to find a guy like that (Jerry Owens), but there aren't a lot of teams willing to deal that guy unless you give a lot in return.

I am hoping to god that the warm weather will help heat up OC and one of either Thome and Konerko. We could live with OC as a lead off guy as long as he is around his career averages. We need Thome or Konerko to start producing. I am quite amazed we are in first place with how poorly they have played.

Lillian
05-26-2008, 08:43 AM
What this team needs is...............................

NELLIE FOX

MeanFish
05-26-2008, 09:01 AM
No one can deny the role of the pitching staff in the '05 WS, but do you honestly think that the '04 team featuring Harris and Uribe leading off would have won the world series with the same pitching staff? As Frater noted by the way.


And Daver, Twain said it best about stats, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Injuries killed the 2004 White Sox, not a lack of talent. Not many teams can lose their 3 and 4 hitters in addition to a productive starter (many forget that Schoeneweis was actually doing very well until he got hurt) and expect to come out on top of the heap. Similarly, the 2005 team wouldn't have been successful if they hadn't been able to stay healthy.

jabrch
05-26-2008, 12:26 PM
This is another reason why all numbers lie.

Daver - Numbers don't lie. It's the mother****ers who interpret them who lie through their teeth...

This goes for baseball, politics, business, etc. Numbers can't lie. People can't stop lying.

TomBradley72
05-26-2008, 12:35 PM
We could live with OC as a lead off guy as long as he is around his career averages. We need Thome or Konerko to start producing. I am quite amazed we are in first place with how poorly they have played.

Good point. We're getting almost zero production from DH, 1B and CF....especially for a team with boat loads of DH/1B's...

Lip Man 1
05-26-2008, 12:49 PM
Tom:

Pitching wins pennants. Right now the Sox are getting it, but this lack of offense is really putting the pressure on the staff.

It would be nice if these guys didn't have to be so letter perfect, if they had a little room for error.

Lip

jabrch
05-26-2008, 12:57 PM
And Daver, Twain said it best about stats, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Not exactly...there is a subtle difference...What Twain said was, "There are three kinds of liars - liars, damn liars and statisticians"

It's not the statistics that lie. It's the people who interpret them for their own agenda with their own bias. That statistician lies - the statistic is the ultimate truth.