PDA

View Full Version : Angry Ozzie wants Changes II


voodoochile
06-03-2008, 02:57 PM
Continued...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=101858

downstairs
06-03-2008, 03:32 PM
So, ummmmm, its Tuesday. Any big changes made?

Ozzie, shaaaatup and manage the team.

MCHSoxFan
06-03-2008, 03:35 PM
So, ummmmm, its Tuesday. Any big changes made?

Ozzie, shaaaatup and manage the team.

I am sooo excited to go to the game today! Last night I talked to one of my friends, who is a batboy, and he does NOT expect anything to change. We both agreed it was just a way to light a fire under the players.

WE SHALL SEE!!! :smile:

sox1970
06-03-2008, 03:38 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:



Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b

soltrain21
06-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:



Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b

Now that is a shake up...

Mr.1Dog
06-03-2008, 03:43 PM
Well... My mind is blown I guess.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 03:43 PM
I like it.

MCHSoxFan
06-03-2008, 03:43 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:



Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b


I knew it! Just lighting a fire!

Huisj
06-03-2008, 03:44 PM
hahahaha, somehow this is hilarious. The shakeup makes the lineup more similar to the normal lineup at the beginning of the season by putting Konerko back up to #4. Go figure. Sillyness.

MushMouth
06-03-2008, 03:44 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:



Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b:lol::rolling:

oeo
06-03-2008, 03:45 PM
There was nothing Ozzie could do, he was just yapping.

That said, what did Konerko do to get his spot in the lineup back? :?:

MCHSoxFan
06-03-2008, 03:47 PM
There was nothing Ozzie could do, he was just yapping.

That said, what did Konerko do to get his spot in the lineup back? :?:

Paul: Okay Oz, O will do sooo good. All you have to do is just put me back in the 4 spot.

Oz-You got it Paulie!

Paul- That's it?

Oz-Yep. You know over the weekend I was just playin' around...right?!?!

Paul- Yep.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 03:51 PM
That's pathetic. Get some balls and make some changes.
I don't expecting waiting it out to solve anything. Konerko and/or Thome need to be taken out of the lineup.

turners56
06-03-2008, 03:51 PM
Paul: Okay Oz, O will do sooo good. All you have to do is just put me back in the 4 spot.

Oz-You got it Paulie!

Paul- That's it?

Oz-Yep. You know over the weekend I was just playin' around...right?!?!

Paul- Yep.

Thome must of said something wrong to land in the 5th spot, along with Dye.

turners56
06-03-2008, 03:52 PM
That's pathetic. Get some balls and make some changes.
I don't expecting waiting it out to solve anything. Konerko and/or Thome need to be taken out of the lineup.

He did make changes, they just don't seem real good.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-03-2008, 03:54 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:

Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b

I like Ramirez and Cabrera hitting back to back, but I think Alexei should be at the top to get that extra at bat. I don't like Konerko hitting 4th or Swisher playing CF, or the fact that all three of our Mendoza line candidates are in the same lineup. At least one of them should sit.

I'd been looking forward to Ozzie's shake up, but now I just have a bad feeling.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 03:57 PM
I'd been looking forward to Ozzie's shake up, but now I just have a bad feeling.
Exactly. This looks like he's just talking out of his ass, just like how they say every year that they're going to focus on bunting, fundamental hitting and the small things. Bull****!

This is the same kind of White Sox philosophy where Danny Wright "won" his job back every spring and Billy Koch kept "earning" another shot at closing.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 03:59 PM
That's pathetic. Get some balls and make some changes.
I don't expecting waiting it out to solve anything. Konerko and/or Thome need to be taken out of the lineup.
Do you honestly think any of the bench options are more feasible? Do you want to see Ozuna at DH? They have been great players and deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 04:00 PM
Do you honestly think any of the bench options are more feasible? Do you want to see Ozuna at DH? They have been great players and deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I see 3 hitters at .200 as detrimental to the team.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:00 PM
I see 3 hitter at .200 as detrimental to the team.
I see Brian Anderson/Toby Hall/Pablo Ozuna as offensively detrimental to the team.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 04:01 PM
I see Brian Anderson/Toby Hall/Pablo Ozuna as offensively detrimental to the team.
Well then, they have no chance at winning.

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:02 PM
Exactly. This looks like he's just talking out of his ass, just like how they say every year that they're going to focus on bunting, fundamental hitting and the small things. Bull****!

You need the right team in order to do that. And really, they said they were going to focus on that stuff this year, and they did. The baserunning has been great this year because they spent a lot of time on that this spring. The bunting is still ****ty, but that comes down to execution.

All the 'make Tuesday's lineup' stuff was dumb. As the team now stands, there's nothing that can be done. You could make all the crazy changes WSI wanted, but realistically, Anderson in CF, calling up mediocrity from AAA, etc. is not going to have a big impact. We just have to hope and pray that these guys turn it around.

turners56
06-03-2008, 04:02 PM
Exactly. This looks like he's just talking out of his ass, just like how they say every year that they're going to focus on bunting, fundamental hitting and the small things. Bull****!

This is the same kind of White Sox philosophy where Danny Wright "won" his job back every spring and Billy Koch kept "earning" another shot at closing.

It's Kenny's fault. He makes the moves for those bad players, and makes them play over and over again to save his ego. Besides 2005, he prohibited players from working on fundamentals by distracting Ozzie during all practice sessions during the season and spring training. Forget Carlos Quentin, Gavin Floyd, John Danks, and a bunch of other good players he's brought in, Kenny is a tool! He didn't do anything in 05 either, it's all Kenny's fault!

cws05champ
06-03-2008, 04:04 PM
Per Mark Gonzalez:



Here's the White Sox's lineup for Tuesday night's game with Kansas City:
Cabrera ss
Pierzynski c
Quentin lf
Konerko 1b
Thome dh
Dye rf
Swisher cf
Crede 3b
Ramirez 2b
I think everyone of the 1st 8 hitters should put down a bunt their 1st time up. :smile: That would confuse the Royals to no end!! I just hope we don't hear this alot:

Dagummit!!
This Royals team has a lot of good young talent.
You just have to tip your cap to the pitcher there.
That's another 1-2-3 inning for Greinke.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 04:05 PM
You need the right team in order to do that. And really, they said they were going to focus on that stuff this year, and they did. The baserunning has been great this year because they spent a lot of time on that this spring. The bunting is still ****ty, but that comes down to execution.

All the 'make Tuesday's lineup' stuff was dumb. As the team now stands, there's nothing that can be done. We just have to hope and pray that these guys turn it around.
Oh that make the line up thing was just for us. That didn't come out of nowhere though. Ozzie said something like, "I expect KW to make changes by Tuesday or the lineup is going to look very different." It doesn't look different.

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:08 PM
Oh that make the line up thing was just for us. That didn't come out of nowhere though. Ozzie said something like, "I expect KW to make changes by Tuesday or the lineup is going to look very different." It doesn't look different.

I know what he said. Some others and I also said right after word came out about his comments that there was nothing Ozzie could really change. Kenny said it also when he mentioned he would be interested to see those lineup changes. There are not really many options when there are a ton of guys struggling. Of course there are some, but like I said, they're not going to have a big impact. Brian Anderson isn't going to turn around the offense with his bat. Neither is calling up Eldred, or whatever other crap we have in Charlotte.

Again, hope and pray that Paulie/Thome/Swisher start hitting.

areilly
06-03-2008, 04:09 PM
The 2008 Chicago White Sox: Scarface of the American League.

"Me? I always win. Even when I lose, I win. You want the lineup changed? Okay, **** you, how about that?"

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:09 PM
Well then, they have no chance at winning.
Not really. The fact that Thome/Konerko/Swisher have performed poorly up to now doesn't mean they can't turn it around.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:10 PM
That's ****in' sad. No doubt Kenny got to Ozzie and coaxed him to continue to accept his flawed style of offensive thinking.

If we weren't playing KC, I'd say we'd probably fall out of first by the end of this series. But since we are, I'll say the Twins pass us on Friday and never look back.

And screw the dark cloud chants I'm going to get for saying that. This isn't about one series, but a trend that's more endemic of a larger problem, an all or nothing organizational offensive philosophy that can never win. Our kind of offense only ever beats **** pitchers, scoring tons of runs against them and then none against good pitching.

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:12 PM
Our kind of offense only ever beats **** pitchers, scoring tons of runs against them and then none against good pitching.

This isn't true at all. It depends on the type of pitcher. If it's hard stuff all the time, they will crush him (see: Verlander, Justin). If it's soft-tossing crap, they will be lucky to get 3 hits.

Anyways, good pitching always beats good hitting (or in our case "hitting"), so your point isn't going anywhere.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-03-2008, 04:13 PM
All the 'make Tuesday's lineup' stuff was dumb. As the team now stands, there's nothing that can be done. You could make all the crazy changes WSI wanted, but realistically, Anderson in CF, calling up mediocrity from AAA, etc. is not going to have a big impact. We just have to hope and pray that these guys turn it around.

Why is it ridiculous to try BA in center? Because you don't think he's any good? He had a horrible start to his rookie year before hitting over .300 in July and August. Since then, he hasn't had a chance to play consistently. Sure, there are some guys like Ryan Braun who come out of the gate swinging a hot bat, and are superstars from day 1. But most major league players have trouble at the beginning, or when they spend most of the time on the bench. I've seen enough from BA in spring training and the early part of this season to think he deserves at least a chance. Heck, he went 2-for-4 with a double and run scored on Sunday, that seems to merit another shot.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:14 PM
That's ****in' sad. No doubt Kenny got to Ozzie and coaxed him to continue to accept his flawed style of offensive thinking.

If we weren't playing KC, I'd say we'd probably fall out of first by the end of this series. But since we are, I'll say the Twins pass us on Friday and never look back.

And screw the dark cloud chants I'm going to get for saying that. This isn't about one series, but a trend that's more endemic of a larger problem, an all or nothing organizational offensive philosophy that can never win. Our kind of offense only ever beats **** pitchers, scoring tons of runs against them and then none against good pitching.

What do you want him to do? Their best option is to stay the course with what they have; there's no one in the organization better than the options they have right now. Quit bitching.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Why is it ridiculous to try BA in center? Because you don't think he's any good? He had a horrible start to his rookie year before hitting over .300 in July and August. Since then, he hasn't had a chance to play consistently. Sure, there are some guys like Ryan Braun who come out of the gate swinging a hot bat, and are superstars from day 1. But most major league players have trouble at the beginning, or when they spend most of the time on the bench. I've seen enough from BA in spring training and the early part of this season to think he deserves at least a chance. Heck, he went 2-for-4 with a double and run scored on Sunday, that seems to merit another shot.
He's a great defensive player but his offensive skill leaves a lot to be desired.

spawn
06-03-2008, 04:15 PM
What do you want him to do? Their best option is to stay the course with what they have; there's no one in the organization better than the options they have right now. Quit bitching.
He wants DLS back. He is a Hall of Famer after all. :D:

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:16 PM
Why is it ridiculous to try BA in center? Because you don't think he's any good? He had a horrible start to his rookie year before hitting over .300 in July and August. Since then, he hasn't had a chance to play consistently. Sure, there are some guys like Ryan Braun who come out of the gate swinging a hot bat, and are superstars from day 1. But most major league players have trouble at the beginning, or when they spend most of the time on the bench. I've seen enough from BA in spring training and the early part of this season to think he deserves at least a chance. Heck, he went 2-for-4 with a double and run scored on Sunday, that seems to merit another shot.

I must have missed when I said it was 'ridiculous.'

I said it wouldn't have a big impact on the team. Anderson won't turn the team around. Go ahead and try him, it's not going to change much from the team's perspective. What we really need is the big impact guys (Thome/Konerko/Swisher) to get going.

Why is it that anytime someone says something about Anderson, people start to **** their pants thinking he's getting ripped on. Stop feeling sorry for him, the act is old.

Crede24Thome25
06-03-2008, 04:20 PM
http://www.chicagowhitesoxnews.com/kennbryant

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:21 PM
http://www.chicagowhitesoxnews.com/kennbryant

I got to the part about Brad Eldred being called up, and closed it.

Jerko
06-03-2008, 04:24 PM
I would have settled for Swisher being benched for a while. Guy looks scared ****less out there.

Crede24Thome25
06-03-2008, 04:24 PM
keep reading I never laughed so hard in my life.

ND_Sox_Fan
06-03-2008, 04:24 PM
This lineup is Ozzie saying to KW: "Okay, here's your team. If they continue to play the way they have, it is your job that is on the line. I wanted to make changes, and you didn't. You are the boss, so here you go - throw yourself 'under the bus'."

Madvora
06-03-2008, 04:24 PM
So what are people arguing here that no changes are necessary or no changes are possible?

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Anyways, good pitching always beats good hitting (or in our case "hitting"), so your point isn't going anywhere.

That's not true at all.

When we play games, BOTH teams are getting good pitching. That's just the way the American League is today. Pitching heavy. Lots of pitching duels. And we aren't winning many of them.

We are not the kind of offense that wins a pitching duel. We can't execute. We can't run. We can't do the little things it takes to put even a few runs on the board in a close one. And THAT'S why we're going to fail without change. Kenny doesn't get that. Or at least he does, but he can't do anything about it because he built the team wrong. I thought at least Ozzie finally got it. Now I'm pissed because he's just going to keep spewing the company line instead of forcing the issue.

turners56
06-03-2008, 04:25 PM
http://www.chicagowhitesoxnews.com/kennbryant

I wonder if he knows how bad some of the guys he mentioned are playing in AAA. Plus, he needs to learn some correct grammar. "Worser" LMAO.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 04:26 PM
I got to the part about Brad Eldred being called up, and closed it.

You got that far?

spawn
06-03-2008, 04:27 PM
http://www.chicagowhitesoxnews.com/kennbryant
Wow. According to him, Jerry Owens can "still" bases and should be brought up. Getz should replace Ramiriez at second and Cabrera needs to get traded. I think Mariotti needs to worry about his job.

turners56
06-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Wow. According to him, Jerry Owens can "still" bases and should be brought up. Getz should replace Ramiriez at second and Cabrera needs to get traded. I think Mariotti needs to worry about his job.

Well at least he didn't say fire Ozzie.

cws05champ
06-03-2008, 04:28 PM
http://www.chicagowhitesoxnews.com/kennbryant

Now I know why Tigers eat their young....

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:28 PM
That's not true at all.

When we play games, BOTH teams are getting good pitching. That's just the way the American League is today. Pitching heavy. Lots of pitching duels. And we aren't winning many of them.

We are not the kind of offense that wins a pitching duel. We can't execute. We can't run. We can't do the little things it takes to put even a few runs on the board in a close one. And THAT'S why we're going to fail without change. Kenny doesn't get that. Or at least he does, but he can't do anything about it because he built the team wrong. I thought at least Ozzie finally got it. Now I'm pissed because he's just going to keep spewing the company line instead of forcing the issue.

What would you do?

Madvora,

Changes are neither necessary nor possible. Trades that completely change lineups are not common this time of year, and the farm sucks at the higher levels. The best option is to ride the storm and hope everyone wakes up.

In Swish's case, his peripherals say he should be hitting better but is getting screwed luck-wise.

oeo
06-03-2008, 04:29 PM
So what are people arguing here that no changes are necessary or no changes are possible?

They're not possible. Take a look at what we've got.

If Thome/Konerko/Swisher turn it around, they won't be necessary, either. I don't think there will be many people complaining this summer if we're blasting out a couple of homeruns a night. All the other crap will be forgotten if we're scoring enough runs to win ballgames.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 04:29 PM
I guess moving Dye down in the linuep is supposed to give Thome and Konerko some protection in an effort to heat them up a bit.

Other than that, about what I expected.

voodoochile
06-03-2008, 04:30 PM
What would you do?

Madvora,

Changes are neither necessary nor possible. Trades that completely change lineups are not common this time of year, and the farm sucks at the higher levels. The best option is to ride the storm and hope everyone wakes up.

In Swish's case, his peripherals say he should be hitting better but is getting screwed luck-wise.


Good news is Owens and Fields seem to be showing signs of life, so if the stagnation continues, there might be a bat or two they could try to light a fire with. Oh and Richar is just starting Spring Training for all intents and purposes, so eventually he may be ready too.

spawn
06-03-2008, 04:31 PM
Well at least he didn't say fire Ozzie.
No...he just wants MLB to adopt a policy that would allow you to trade your manager and GM. He hasn't outright said it, but he's pretty close.

spawn
06-03-2008, 04:32 PM
I don't think there will be many people complaining this summer if we're blasting out a couple of homeruns a night. All the other crap will be forgotten if we're scoring enough runs to win ballgames.
No, but they will find something to bitch about. :cool:

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:39 PM
What would you do?



Bitch at Kenny Williams some more? :cool:

Something.

Release Uribe and bring up Richar.

D.L. Konerko...not because of injury...but to tell him to figure things out in the cages. Bring up Josh Fields and let DH and play a little first. Make Swisher sit most days and play first when Fields DH's. Use Thome sparingly. If he doesn't show signs of coming out of it, release him outright.

Play Cabrera, Richar, and Brian Anderson up the middle, with Ramirez filling in for one of them every day.

Honestly, it's not like any of these moves could possibly make the offense worse.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Bitch at Kenny Williams some more? :cool:

Something.

Release Uribe and bring up Richar.

D.L. Konerko...not because of injury...but to tell him to figure things out in the cages. Bring up Josh Fields and let DH and play a little first. Make Swisher sit most days and play first when Fields DH's. Use Thome sparingly. If he doesn't show signs of coming out of it, release him outright.

Play Cabrera, Richar, and Brian Anderson up the middle, with Ramirez filling in for one of them every day.

Honestly, it's not like any of these moves could possibly make the offense worse.
I don't think any of them could possibly make the offense better -- so why bother? I've posted this over and over again yet you won't respond: Take a look at Nick Swisher's peripherals and tell me again that he's not unlucky.

Paulwny
06-03-2008, 04:42 PM
hahahaha, somehow this is hilarious. The shakeup makes the lineup more similar to the normal lineup at the beginning of the season by putting Konerko back up to #4. Go figure. Sillyness.

Yep, and the players now look at Ozzie as all mouth.

Frater Perdurabo
06-03-2008, 04:42 PM
I guess moving Dye down in the linuep is supposed to give Thome and Konerko some protection in an effort to heat them up a bit.

Other than that, about what I expected.

That's exactly what I was wondering. Dropping Dye puzzles me; he's actually hitting. I'd rather see Ramirez up higher, perhaps at #2 since at least he can bunt. I'd rather see BA than Swisher in CF because BA is the better hitter right now. I'd rather have Thome, Paulie and Swisher platoon among 1B and DH; at least it would get one of the "Mendoza Brothers" out of the lineup.

I guess I should have expected more of the same crap from Ozzie; this proves once and for all that he's all talk and no action.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 04:43 PM
Changes are neither necessary nor possible. Trades that completely change lineups are not common this time of year, and the farm sucks at the higher levels. The best option is to ride the storm and hope everyone wakes up.


They're not possible. Take a look at what we've got.

If Thome/Konerko/Swisher turn it around, they won't be necessary, either. I don't think there will be many people complaining this summer if we're blasting out a couple of homeruns a night. All the other crap will be forgotten if we're scoring enough runs to win ballgames.

At this point of the season, yes, trading is not an option. I'm fully aware of that. However, I'm not expecting that type of change, that truly is not possible.
I was expecting at least something small like Ramirez to lead off and Anderson to take Swisher's place... or Ramirez to CF while Ozuna (or even Getz) at 2B for a little while. Just get one of those 3 guys (Swisher/Thome/Konerko) out of the lineup.

As for necessity, I really do think it's necessary. We're very lucky that our division has faltered so far. We're in a position to win this division and we recognize problems with our team. The necessity is there.


I'm pissed about the fact that we were just told that changes were coming and nothing happened.

turners56
06-03-2008, 04:43 PM
No...he just wants MLB to adopt a policy that would allow you to trade your manager and GM. He hasn't outright said it, but he's pretty close.

I just read that, I was laughing pretty hard. Thing is, does the GM trade himself? I guess the owners have to do it xD.

whitesox901
06-03-2008, 04:45 PM
Im with the group of people who say, theres not alot Oz could do exept for the DH of Fields idea.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:47 PM
I don't think any of them could possibly make the offense better -- so why bother? I've posted this over and over again yet you won't respond: Take a look at Nick Swisher's peripherals and tell me again that he's not unlucky.

He's not unlucky.

I like how the article you posted points to

1.) his line drives
2.) his deep fly balls

1. If you were watching the games, you'd know that a TON of Swisher's "line drives" are in fact "flares" because he's getting sawed off.

2. I don't see how saying his deep fly balls in previous years went out and this year they don't someone means he's unlucky. That's a huge stretch. It's not like he's missing by inches a ton or anything like that. If anything, it means he simply can't hit the ball as far.

As for my changes...the team is a lot faster. That's something, right?

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 04:49 PM
He's not unlucky.

I like how the article you posted points to

1.) his line drives
2.) his deep fly balls

1. If you were watching the games, you'd know that a TON of Swisher's "line drives" are in fact "flares" because he's getting sawed off.

2. I don't see how saying his deep fly balls in previous years went out and this year they don't someone means he's unlucky. That's a huge stretch. It's not like he's missing by inches a ton or anything like that. If anything, it means he simply can't hit the ball as far.

As for my changes...the team is a lot faster. That's something, right?
Line drives are not necessarily the hardest hit balls, but they do fall for a hit around 75% of the time.
His line drives are not even coming close to that.

spawn
06-03-2008, 04:51 PM
I just read that, I was laughing pretty hard. Thing is, does the GM trade himself? I guess the owners have to do it xD.
He says the owner should have the ability. I'm sure he was being facetious, but you never know.:redneck

kobo
06-03-2008, 04:53 PM
Bitch at Kenny Williams some more? :cool:

Something.

Release Uribe and bring up Richar.

D.L. Konerko...not because of injury...but to tell him to figure things out in the cages. Bring up Josh Fields and let DH and play a little first. Make Swisher sit most days and play first when Fields DH's. Use Thome sparingly. If he doesn't show signs of coming out of it, release him outright.

Play Cabrera, Richar, and Brian Anderson up the middle, with Ramirez filling in for one of them every day.

Honestly, it's not like any of these moves could possibly make the offense worse.
The bold part is the only part I do not agree with, and that's because Richar needs time at AAA to get at-bats and get back into the groove of playing everyday. Once he is healthy and good to go Uribe should be waived.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else, which is odd because usually I don't agree with much of what you post.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:56 PM
Otherwise, I agree with everything else, which is odd because usually I don't agree with much of what you post.

Desperation does that to a man...

munchman33
06-03-2008, 04:57 PM
His line drives are not even coming close to that.

Like I said, if there's anything out of the ordinary about Swisher, it's how many of his line drives are actually flares. He's getting sawed off at least once a game.

Paulwny
06-03-2008, 05:00 PM
. He's getting sawed off at least once a game.

He leads MLB in shattered bats.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 05:01 PM
He leads MLB in shattered bats.

Thank you. I didn't think records were kept on stuff like that.

TDog
06-03-2008, 05:02 PM
That's not true at all.

When we play games, BOTH teams are getting good pitching. That's just the way the American League is today. Pitching heavy. Lots of pitching duels. And we aren't winning many of them.

We are not the kind of offense that wins a pitching duel. We can't execute. We can't run. We can't do the little things it takes to put even a few runs on the board in a close one. And THAT'S why we're going to fail without change. Kenny doesn't get that. Or at least he does, but he can't do anything about it because he built the team wrong. I thought at least Ozzie finally got it. Now I'm pissed because he's just going to keep spewing the company line instead of forcing the issue.

Tonight the Royals starter has an ERA about a third of a run less than the Sox starter. On the recent roadtrip the Sox faced two of the teams in the top five in ERA. ERA doesn't tell you much about a pitcher, of course, but Greinke has been giving up earned runs at a lower rate than Floyd has. Really averages and past performance only mean so much anyway. The White Sox went into the weekend with a bullpen that had given up fewer home runs than any team in the majors and they twice lost on game-ending home runs off of relievers.

Really, I didn't expect a big change in the lineup. I think the media made a lot more of the things Guillen said than was appropriate. And, really, it won't take much for the Sox to become a team that will win the pitching duels. A lot of it has to do with players' approaches at the plate, especially in run-scoring situations.

Cabrera, Pierzynski, Quentin, Dye and Ramirez are not the problem. In fact, Quentin and Ramirez have shown signs that they could have what it takes to become franchise stars. Crede might look like a problem, but he isn't doing so badly. The problem has been Thome, Konerko and Swisher. I am most surprised that Swisher is back in the lineup, but maybe he's been working on his hitting.

TDog
06-03-2008, 05:07 PM
Thank you. I didn't think records were kept on stuff like that.

They don't.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 05:09 PM
They don't.

They do for pitchers. It would reason to believe that someone keeps track of who those hitters are...

Anyway, that's irrelevant. The point is that Swisher has single-handedly deforested several nations this year.

kobo
06-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Desperation does that to a man...
:rolling: Desperation, or just pure lunacy.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 05:10 PM
:rolling: Desperation, or just pure lunacy.

Can't it be both? :dunno:

gr8mexico
06-03-2008, 05:21 PM
I'm not sure the Sox can do much with one move. But "IF" the Sox can dump Konerko and Thome I'm sure things can work out. Thome would have to go to a contender for that to happend. Swisher goes to 1st Brian Anderson goes to
CF. Then the SOX can make a very good offer for Matt Holiday to DH. But all these things might not happend until the season is over.

Craig Grebeck
06-03-2008, 05:27 PM
I'm not sure the Sox can do much with one move. But "IF" the Sox can dump Konerko and Thome I'm sure things can work out. Thome would have to go to a contender for that to happend. Swisher goes to 1st Brian Anderson goes to
CF. Then the SOX can make a very good offer for Matt Holiday to DH. But all these things might not happen until Kenny can drug the Rockies GM or acquire a kind of decent farm system.
fixed

TDog
06-03-2008, 05:31 PM
They do for pitchers. It would reason to believe that someone keeps track of who those hitters are...

Anyway, that's irrelevant. The point is that Swisher has single-handedly deforested several nations this year.

There is no official record kept on broken bats, even if there are people who keep track of them. When you have people keeping track of unofficial things, you often have discrepancies, as you no doubt do with broken bats. The way bats are breaking and exploding these days, you have people getting more broken-bat hits than ever before.

About 10 years ago, I saw Frank Thomas hit a home run while breaking his bat. At the time it was testament to his strength. I've seen some very well hit balls this year on broken bats, but it isn't the strength of the hitter that impresses me anymore as much as the weakness of the bat.

Scottiehaswheels
06-03-2008, 05:39 PM
Speaking of drastic changes... Maybe OG is forcing every single player to use ash bats instead of the stupid maple ones?

soltrain21
06-03-2008, 05:44 PM
Who cares whether or not Swisher is lucky or unlucky. He is hitting .201, which means a decent amount of suckage goes into it as well.

JB98
06-03-2008, 06:06 PM
There was nothing Ozzie could do, he was just yapping.

That said, what did Konerko do to get his spot in the lineup back? :?:

Ozzie is not protecting Konerko anymore. :dunno:

peeonwrigley
06-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Who cares whether or not Swisher is lucky or unlucky. He is hitting .201, which means a decent amount of suckage goes into it as well.

Truth.

munchman33
06-03-2008, 06:10 PM
There is no official record kept on broken bats, even if there are people who keep track of them. When you have people keeping track of unofficial things, you often have discrepancies, as you no doubt do with broken bats. The way bats are breaking and exploding these days, you have people getting more broken-bat hits than ever before.

About 10 years ago, I saw Frank Thomas hit a home run while breaking his bat. At the time it was testament to his strength. I've seen some very well hit balls this year on broken bats, but it isn't the strength of the hitter that impresses me anymore as much as the weakness of the bat.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean Swisher isn't getting sawed off at an incredible rate, broken bat or not. Like I said, it happens like once a game. Watch tonight. I bet you see him do it at least once.

southsideirish71
06-03-2008, 06:14 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

right afterwords they asked Greg about his comments about Ozzie.

Greg Walker "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment"

MetroPD
06-03-2008, 06:22 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

right afterwords they asked Greg about his comments about Ozzie.

Greg Walker "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment"
YEAH!!!! From the Yard ARM!!! Hang Walker from the YARD ARM!!!

Scottiehaswheels
06-03-2008, 06:23 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

right afterwords they asked Greg about his comments about Ozzie.

Greg Walker "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment"I don't even understand what this all means?

kobo
06-03-2008, 06:24 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

right afterwords they asked Greg about his comments about Ozzie.

Greg Walker "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment"
What? This makes no sense. Who said what about whom?

turners56
06-03-2008, 06:24 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

right afterwords they asked Greg about his comments about Ozzie.

Greg Walker "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment"

I don't think whether or not Greg Walker is effective is the real issue anymore. I think they just need to do something drastic to put an alarm in the players' heads. I think it was somebody on here that said Cleveland fired their hitting coach in 05 and immediately turned it around (we know all about that don't we?). Maybe it can provide similar results for this bunch.

Jerome
06-03-2008, 06:26 PM
I'd rather have Thome, Paulie and Swisher platoon among 1B and DH; at least it would get one of the "Mendoza Brothers" out of the lineup.

I guess I should have expected more of the same crap from Ozzie; this proves once and for all that he's all talk and no action.

LOL could someone do a photoshop of Thome and Konerko together as the 'Mendoza' brothers a la Big Mac and Canseco?

southsideirish71
06-03-2008, 06:29 PM
What? This makes no sense. Who said what about whom?


They interviewed Ozzie for a half an hour. During his interview, he says that when a part of the team is no performing, that coach and he are the ones to blame. That if he has to be called out, so does the coach.

Then like good little reporters, they rushed over to Greg and asked him about Ozzie's comments about him.

Then Greg said "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment" They asked Greg if that was on the record, and he said "Yes that is on the record"

Scottiehaswheels
06-03-2008, 06:31 PM
They interviewed Ozzie for a half an hour. During his interview, he says that when a part of the team is no performing, that coach and he are the ones to blame. That if he has to be called out, so does the coach.

Then like good little reporters, they rushed over to Greg and asked him about Ozzie's comments about him.

Then Greg said "Out of respect for the owner, I have no comment" They asked Greg if that was on the record, and he said "Yes that is on the record"What comment could he possibly make that would piss off JR? He doesn't get the video he needs? His playing cards are all ratty on the corners and Jerry won't buy him new ones?

KingXerxes
06-03-2008, 06:31 PM
Its not over kids, buckle up.


On the Score "Ozzie stated that he protected Greg Walker, and that if my name is going on be out there so is his."

I didn't hear the above referenced conversation, but, if true, it is a pathetic comment.

Daver
06-03-2008, 06:34 PM
I didn't hear the above referenced conversation, but, if true, it is a pathetic comment.

Consider the source.

southsideirish71
06-03-2008, 06:35 PM
I didn't hear the above referenced conversation, but, if true, it is a pathetic comment.


It was during the segment on Boers and Berstein. Jessie Rodgers is the one who reported it. I am sure that if Cowley heard it, it will be a huge article playing one against the other.

KingXerxes
06-03-2008, 06:47 PM
It was during the segment on Boers and Berstein. Jessie Rodgers is the one who reported it. I am sure that if Cowley heard it, it will be a huge article playing one against the other.

If Guillen really did say this, do you even need an article pitting one against the other?

I did find it odd that Guillen brought up Walker's name in his Sunday tirade, so this does kind of fit - but, if true, Guillen's comment is outlandishly childish.

Frankfan4life
06-03-2008, 06:51 PM
They're not possible. Take a look at what we've got.

If Thome/Konerko/Swisher turn it around, they won't be necessary, either. I don't think there will be many people complaining this summer if we're blasting out a couple of homeruns a night. All the other crap will be forgotten if we're scoring enough runs to win ballgames.I'm in your camp on this one. These guys are capable of turning things around. However, they need to do it now before it's too late. Our pitchers have got to be getting disheartened about the lack of run support. It won't be long before they start struggling and then we'll be losing 10-9 slugfests.

RockJock07
06-03-2008, 06:52 PM
It was during the segment on Boers and Berstein. Jessie Rodgers is the one who reported it. I am sure that if Cowley heard it, it will be a huge article playing one against the other.

I like Rodgers, he's usually spot on. He was the one who asked Lou about defensive subs and then was yelled at by that loon on the north side. Boers and Berstein are puds but I really like Jessie's reporting, so if he reporting it, it's probably worth our while.

As far as this situation goes, this just keeps getting better and better. We have a manager who just says any damn thing and then a hitting coach that won't say anything because......? :scratch:

BadBobbyJenks
06-03-2008, 07:05 PM
The Sox need Thome, Konerko and Swisher to hit simple as that. No crazy mix up in the lineup is going to change that. These guys start producing and we are going to have a really good team if not we are going to be average.

The only move that I would endorse would be rotating Swisher around to give more at bats to BA in center.

DickAllen72
06-03-2008, 07:42 PM
I didn't hear the above referenced conversation, but, if true, it is a pathetic comment.
That's not exactly what he said. I heard the comment. I don't have the quote exactly, but he said something like "I mentioned Walker's name because my name was in there (his Sunday comments) too."

He went on to say that if it was the pitching that was the problem he would have mentioned Cooper too. If it was the fielding he would have included Cora. If it's the whole team he (Ozzie) would take all the blame.

I took it as him trying to soften things by saying yes he did mention Walker but only after he mentioned himself first, and Walker only because the hitting is the issue.

Anyway, why was the big change tonight putting Dye, who has been half decent so far, down behind two of the guys (Thome, Konerko) who have been struggling most? :?:

Frontman
06-03-2008, 07:52 PM
That's not exactly what he said. I heard the comment. I don't have the quote exactly, but he said something like "I mentioned Walker's name because my name was in there (his Sunday comments) too."

He went on to say that if it was the pitching that was the problem he would have mentioned Cooper too. If it was the fielding he would have included Cora. If it's the whole team he (Ozzie) wouldl take all the blame.

I took it as him trying to soften things by saying yes he did mention Walker but only after he mentioned himself first, and Walker only because the hitting is the issue.

Anyway, why was the big change tonight putting Dye, who has been half decent so far down behind two of the guys (Thome, Konerko) who have been struggling most? :?:

You're bringing logic back into this conversation. Stop that, as we want to be pissed at Ozzie and Walker. :D:

The Immigrant
06-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Anyway, why was the big change tonight putting Dye, who has been half decent so far down behind two of the guys (Thome, Konerko) who have been struggling most? :?:

Dye has 8 hits and only 2 RBI in his last 39 at bats, going back to May 23rd, with 10 strikeouts. That's horrible. Thome and Konerko have equally miserable numbers over that stretch, so this really amounts to a shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.

JB98
06-03-2008, 07:58 PM
Dye has 8 hits and only 2 RBI in his last 39 at bats, going back to May 23rd, with 10 strikeouts. That's horrible. Thome and Konerko have equally miserable numbers over that stretch, so this really amounts to a shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yeah, believe it or not, Dye actually has fewer RBIs than both Thome and Konerko.

Dye's batting average is fine, but we need more clutch hitting from our RF.

SoxyStu
06-03-2008, 08:04 PM
That's pathetic. Get some balls and make some changes.
I don't expecting waiting it out to solve anything. Konerko and/or Thome need to be taken out of the lineup.

Maybe Ozzie was trying to get himself fired?

cws05champ
06-03-2008, 08:58 PM
If Guillen really did say this, do you even need an article pitting one against the other?

I did find it odd that Guillen brought up Walker's name in his Sunday tirade, so this does kind of fit - but, if true, Guillen's comment is outlandishly childish.
Look...you either fire the guy or you don't. Don't just speculate and throw his name out there in the media. Take care of business internally and move on.

dickallen15
06-03-2008, 10:44 PM
9 runs tonight. Great game from Greg Walker. If your going to blame him when they can't score, you better give him all the credit when they do.

Frontman
06-03-2008, 10:55 PM
9 runs tonight. Great game from Greg Walker. If your going to blame him when they can't score, you better give him all the credit when they do.

Exactly. Although the top two culprits didn't do much this game, the rest of the roster responded well. I just wish Thome and Konerko would start at least hitting the ball where defenders aren't and finally get on base.

Madvora
06-03-2008, 11:09 PM
9 runs tonight. Great game from Greg Walker. If your going to blame him when they can't score, you better give him all the credit when they do.
Walker is blamed for the team being at the bottom of the AL in hitting for two years, not for performances in any individual game picked at random.

DickAllen72
06-03-2008, 11:24 PM
9 runs tonight. Great game from Greg Walker. If your going to blame him when they can't score, you better give him all the credit when they do.
Well, if you want to play that game, I guess judging by the past two years he's on the negative side of the ledger.

AZChiSoxFan
06-03-2008, 11:27 PM
I'm not going to read 600 plus posts to see WSI's collective take on this but my guess is that most here are defending OG. Correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I've grown tired of his act. My other guess is that a lot of the players simply tuned the guy out a long time ago. Chris Singleton said as much on BBTN. Love how he blames KW but stands by his guy Walker.

southsideirish71
06-04-2008, 01:44 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080603-greg-walker-ozzie-guillen-white-sox,1,4739057.story

jabrch
06-04-2008, 08:21 AM
Well, if you want to play that game, I guess judging by the past two years he's on the negative side of the ledger.

If you want to do that - then he is so far on the positive side of the ledger because of the WS we won in 2005...

I think that's a horrible way to evaluate a hitting coach. I don't think fans have the capacity to do so since we largely don't see what he is doing on a day to day basis.

I blame hitters for their results. I blame coaches for their inputs.

The Immigrant
06-04-2008, 08:50 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080603-greg-walker-ozzie-guillen-white-sox,1,4739057.story

:violin:

Walker should be eternally grateful to Ozzie that he still has a job. On the other hand, it's good to hear that he's finally feeling some heat.

I_Liked_Manuel
06-04-2008, 10:10 AM
6 of the 9 runs last night came off the long ball. this will be our game this series that the long ball clicks - we'll proceed to get held to 2 or 3 runs for the next few. nothing new here.

palehozenychicty
06-04-2008, 10:16 AM
Yeah, believe it or not, Dye actually has fewer RBIs than both Thome and Konerko.

Dye's batting average is fine, but we need more clutch hitting from our RF.

His performance is relatively odd, in that he's getting singles, but rarely is he getting XBHits or a factor in the box score. If Kenny can get anyone to take him before the deadline, by all means.

palehozenychicty
06-04-2008, 10:18 AM
I'm not going to read 600 plus posts to see WSI's collective take on this but my guess is that most here are defending OG. Correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I've grown tired of his act. My other guess is that a lot of the players simply tuned the guy out a long time ago. Chris Singleton said as much on BBTN. Love how he blames KW but stands by his guy Walker.


You realize that he "said as much" on that show, right? You realized that he was hypnotized to say that by Mickey Mouse, right? :D:

Craig Grebeck
06-04-2008, 10:24 AM
6 of the 9 runs last night came off the long ball. this will be our game this series that the long ball clicks - we'll proceed to get held to 2 or 3 runs for the next few. nothing new here.
Wow. Home runs = bad!

Only White Sox fans.

I_Liked_Manuel
06-04-2008, 10:27 AM
Wow. Home runs = bad!

Only White Sox fans.

if you can't see that our offensive problem - and lack of consistency over the last 5 or 6 years has been our undying focus on hitting home runs (save a good first half from pods/iguchi in '05) - there's not much i can say.

Craig Grebeck
06-04-2008, 10:34 AM
if you can't see that our offensive problem - and lack of consistency over the last 5 or 6 years has been our undying focus on hitting home runs (save a good first half from pods/iguchi in '05) - there's not much i can say.
Ok.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-04-2008, 11:20 AM
Wow. Home runs = bad!

Only White Sox fans.

They are bad.

Let me rephrase that: they are bad when a team depends on them to win ballgames. Although home runs change the score in a hurry, they are still by far the rarest type of offensive statistic (except for triples). So if you are going to rely on home runs for your scoring, you're going to spend a lot of time waiting around and not getting any runs, and then suddenly get a bunch all at once.

Hmm, where have we seen this? Let's see, in the last four games we have one run, zero runs, three runs, and then nine runs. Well, we're averaging 3.25 runs/game, so our offense must be OK, right? My whole point in all this is that you need a consistent offense to be really successful, and a consistent offense doesn't rely on home runs or swing for the fences all the time.

munchman33
06-04-2008, 03:05 PM
They are bad.

Let me rephrase that: they are bad when a team depends on them to win ballgames. Although home runs change the score in a hurry, they are still by far the rarest type of offensive statistic (except for triples). So if you are going to rely on home runs for your scoring, you're going to spend a lot of time waiting around and not getting any runs, and then suddenly get a bunch all at once.

Hmm, where have we seen this? Let's see, in the last four games we have one run, zero runs, three runs, and then nine runs. Well, we're averaging 3.25 runs/game, so our offense must be OK, right? My whole point in all this is that you need a consistent offense to be really successful, and a consistent offense doesn't rely on home runs or swing for the fences all the time.

This is a really good post.

BadBobbyJenks
06-04-2008, 05:07 PM
You realize that he "said as much" on that show, right? You realized that he was hypnotized to say that by Mickey Mouse, right? :D:

Actually they let him do a good couple minute piece on the Sox rotation the other day.

DickAllen72
06-04-2008, 05:37 PM
:violin:

Walker should be eternally grateful to Ozzie that he still has a job. On the other hand, it's good to hear that he's finally feeling some heat.
Walker seems to feel that he is above any public criticism.

Ozzie gets ripped all the time. So does KW and JR. Every major league coach/manager/executive gets criticized whether fairly or unfairly when their players aren't doing well.

Ozzie has never made any negative statements about Walker before, nor has KW or anyone else in the Sox' organization. Even though the hitters that are his responsibility have been performing well under expectations for two years now, he has received nothing but public praise and support by his bosses. Even Sunday, Ozzie didn't really say anything negative about Walker. All he did was mentioned his name along with the players after he mentioned himself in saying that something must be changed because the performance of the offense has been unacceptable. Big deal.

Ozzie is Walker's boss. KW is Walker's boss's boss. Instead of sitting down and clearing the air with Ozzie, he not only goes over his boss's head but also over KW's head all the way to the owner. Then he publicly states that he's doing his job for JR, completely subverting the authority of his boss and the GM. I don't like employees that do that. He's using his friendship with the owner to circumvent his proper relationship to his immediate supervisor.

If Walker can't understand why he should be held accountable for the lack of results from his hitters and thinks he should be above any hint of criticism or accountability then he is not cut out to be a coach in MLB. And if his feelings get so hurt just because his frustrated manager mentions his name along with his own during a post-game interview then he is too thin skinned to be in his profession. Boo-hoo. You would think he's the first hitting coach to be held accountable for the failures of the players he coaches.

TDog
06-04-2008, 06:14 PM
... My whole point in all this is that you need a consistent offense to be really successful, and a consistent offense doesn't rely on home runs or swing for the fences all the time.

Your premise is flawed. You say the White Sox are always swinging for the fences because they seem to score so many runs on home runs. Cabrera obviously wasn't swinging for the fences Tuesday night when he bounced a ball through a drawn-in infield to score two runs on a play where he could have been excused for swinging for the fences as a deep fly out would have scored a run. Pierzynski regularly hits opposite-field line drive singles. Swisher can't be swinging for the fences all the time. If he were, he would be swinging at more good pitches.

Konerko, in fact, has more RBIs on non-home-run plays than on home runs, and he has a grand slam to his credit. White Sox hitters are often hitting the ball into the defense.

I admit to believing for a time that a fair ball hit out of play should be a foul ball, a proposition that was considered loony even in its day. I also believe that a game-ending sacrifice fly is more exciting than a game-ending home run because there is a play at the plate. And I think the A's (unfortunately) have a better offense this year with fewer home runs and more solid situational hitting. I don't know if they will keep it up, but they are winning more games. They have scored 10 runs so far today against the Tigers and the only home run led off an inning after the Tigers pulled to within a run at 3-2. I would have loved to have seen then inning in the 1950s when the White Sox scored 11 runs on only one hit.

And while I'm typing, I would like to say I wish the Rays had bunted for hits in leading off game-ending innings against the White Sox this weekend instead of swinging for the fences.

The problem isn't the home runs.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-04-2008, 07:08 PM
Then what is the problem? The Sox rank second in the league in home runs but ninth in runs scored. Their OBP ranks eighth, which isn't great, but even still, you'd think they'd have more runs scored based on the home run total. The problem is that guys are taking home run cuts too often, and either popping up or rolling over ground balls. If they would take a little off the swing, and focus on squaring the ball up and hitting the opposite way, there would be more hits. This doesn't apply to everyone; guys like Pierzynski and Cabrera have never been home run hitters, and don't seem to swing as hard. But Konerko, Thome, Swisher (when he swings), Uribe, even Dye sometimes, waste too many at bats trying to hit it out.

Frontman
06-04-2008, 07:25 PM
After reading the story at ESPN about Greg Walker and his "feelings" and "respect for the owner, I have no comment" routine, I think the man has to grow up a bit. I didn't see Cooper running into Jerry's office last season when Ozzie raged about the bullpen.

Greg Walker, be a man and do your job. If through your actions the team doesn't perform, then go bye bye. Otherwise, do what everyone has told Ozzie to do,

Shut up already and do your job.

DickAllen72
06-04-2008, 07:27 PM
After reading the story at ESPN about Greg Walker and his "feelings" and "respect for the owner, I have no comment" routine, I think the man has to grow up a bit. I didn't see Cooper running into Jerry's office last season when Ozzie raged about the bullpen.

Greg Walker, be a man and do your job. If through your actions the team doesn't perform, then go bye bye. Otherwise, do what everyone has told Ozzie to do,

Shut up already and do your job.
Exactly!

Eddo144
06-04-2008, 07:35 PM
Then what is the problem? The Sox rank second in the league in home runs but ninth in runs scored. Their OBP ranks eighth, which isn't great, but even still, you'd think they'd have more runs scored based on the home run total. The problem is that guys are taking home run cuts too often, and either popping up or rolling over ground balls. If they would take a little off the swing, and focus on squaring the ball up and hitting the opposite way, there would be more hits. This doesn't apply to everyone; guys like Pierzynski and Cabrera have never been home run hitters, and don't seem to swing as hard. But Konerko, Thome, Swisher (when he swings), Uribe, even Dye sometimes, waste too many at bats trying to hit it out.
But if they're second in HR, then they are still having more success "taking home run cuts" than twelve other teams! The offense isn't doing well, but HR are not the problem. HR always lead to runs! Always! The fact that the Sox are second in HR and ninth in runs scored means the other parts of a good offense are missing: namely OBP, which you site.

And while I'm typing, I would like to say I wish the Rays had bunted for hits in leading off game-ending innings against the White Sox this weekend instead of swinging for the fences.
TDog, I know we've disagreed on some things here, but you're so correct here. I also love that Phil Garner gave away one of the Astros' last three outs of the 2005 season with a sacrifice. :D:

The Immigrant
06-04-2008, 07:55 PM
And while I'm typing, I would like to say I wish the Rays had bunted for hits in leading off game-ending innings against the White Sox this weekend instead of swinging for the fences.

:thumbsup:

Excellent point.

Frater Perdurabo
06-04-2008, 07:57 PM
I also love that Phil Garner gave away one of the Astros' last three outs of the 2005 season with a sacrifice. :D:

I also love that two sacrifices helped move along the runner who ultimately scored the final run of the 2005 season. :D:

W Harris Single to LF
S Podsednik Bunt Groundout: P-2B/Sacrifice; Harris to 2B
C Everett Groundout: 2B-1B; Harris to 3B
J Dye Single to CF; Harris Scores
P Konerko Strikeout Swinging
1 run, 2 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. White Sox 1, Astros 0.

Craig Grebeck
06-04-2008, 08:04 PM
I also love that two sacrifices helped move along the runner who ultimately scored the final run of the 2005 season. :D:

W Harris Single to LF
S Podsednik Bunt Groundout: P-2B/Sacrifice; Harris to 2B
C Everett Groundout: 2B-1B; Harris to 3B
J Dye Single to CF; Harris Scores
P Konerko Strikeout Swinging
1 run, 2 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. White Sox 1, Astros 0.

Obviously, a HR would have killed that rally.

Frater Perdurabo
06-04-2008, 08:15 PM
Obviously, a HR would have killed that rally.

I didn't say or imply that, and you know it.

That 2005 team was able to execute even when homers didn't fly; they plated a run with two singles and two sacrifices. The 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 teams would not be able to do that.

Yes, the pitching was incredibly important and absolutely necessary.

But when was the last time a team won a game 0-0? :scratch:

TDog
06-04-2008, 08:26 PM
I also love that two sacrifices helped move along the runner who ultimately scored the final run of the 2005 season. :D:

W Harris Single to LF
S Podsednik Bunt Groundout: P-2B/Sacrifice; Harris to 2B
C Everett Groundout: 2B-1B; Harris to 3B
J Dye Single to CF; Harris Scores
P Konerko Strikeout Swinging
1 run, 2 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. White Sox 1, Astros 0.

Everett's groundout wasn't a sacrifice, and the runner was already in scoring position. I don't even believe there would have been a realistic play at the plate with Harris running.

And, of course, there is a difference between sacrificing in the eighth inning of a scoreless game and sacrificing one of your final three outs when you are facing the end of your season. On one hand, the worst you can do is be tied. On the other, you are leaving it up to two hitters to tie the game with a hit or your season is over.

Frankly, when the Astros bunted in the ninth, I was incredulous. Then I was grateful.

Craig Grebeck
06-04-2008, 08:27 PM
I didn't say or imply that, and you know it.

That 2005 team was able to execute even when homers didn't fly; they plated a run with two singles and two sacrifices. The 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 teams would not be able to do that.

Yes, the pitching was incredibly important and absolutely necessary.

But when was the last time a team won a game 0-0? :scratch:
I never know what you mean by this -- especially considering the 2005 team was shutout 7 times, the 2006 team was shutout 6 times, and the 2004 team was shutout 8 times.

Frater Perdurabo
06-04-2008, 08:51 PM
I never know what you mean by this -- especially considering the 2005 team was shutout 7 times, the 2006 team was shutout 6 times, and the 2004 team was shutout 8 times.

The 2008 offense already has been shut out six times. Not good.

Just like Lip, I've said it countless times that a lineup needs balance.

Home runs are great. They are wonderful. I love home runs. But hitters don't always hit homers. Sometimes - often - good pitchers just don't give up homers.

When the homers aren't flying, you need your offense to be able to manufacture a run.

The 2005 offense hit a lot of homers. But they also had the ability to manufacture a run when necessary.

So the real question is not what I have against home runs; I just said above that I love home runs.

The real question is, what do you have against the ability to manufacture runs? What do you have against offensive balance?

Frater Perdurabo
06-04-2008, 08:54 PM
Everett's groundout wasn't a sacrifice, and the runner was already in scoring position. I don't even believe there would have been a realistic play at the plate with Harris running.

And, of course, there is a difference between sacrificing in the eighth inning of a scoreless game and sacrificing one of your final three outs when you are facing the end of your season. On one hand, the worst you can do is be tied. On the other, you are leaving it up to two hitters to tie the game with a hit or your season is over.

Frankly, when the Astros bunted in the ninth, I was incredulous. Then I was grateful.

Everett's groundout wasn't recorded as a sacrifice, but it was a productive out because it advanced the runner. It was more productive than striking out, popping up or lining out. The fact that Dye singled in the run doesn't negate the fact that Everett made a productive out.

I agree that a sacrifice isn't always appropriate. Many times it isn't. But having the ability to manufacture runs is a good thing, isn't it?

Eddo144
06-05-2008, 11:33 AM
The real question is, what do you have against the ability to manufacture runs? What do you have against offensive balance?
Nothing specifically; manufacturing runs can be useful, but only in limited scenarios. The bigger problem is when some people (not necessarily you, Frater), lobby for replacing someone like Thome, who despite an inability to manufacture runs, is still valuable because he hits for power and gets on base, with someone like, say, Erstad, who can bunt and groundout to the right side with the best of them.

The problem is that some people have trouble separating specific situations where productive outs have helped a team from the big picture, where home runs help multiple times per week. And remember, a HR always results in at least one run being scored, so it's a good thing (I know you don't dispute this). However, the pro-manufacturing-runs crowd seems to have this idea that no matter what, when you bunt a guy over he's going to score. That's simply not the case. For every game-four-top-of-the-eighth, where the run scores, there's a game-four-bottom-of-the-ninth, where the run doesn't score.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-06-2008, 11:53 AM
But if they're second in HR, then they are still having more success "taking home run cuts" than twelve other teams! The offense isn't doing well, but HR are not the problem. HR always lead to runs! Always! The fact that the Sox are second in HR and ninth in runs scored means the other parts of a good offense are missing: namely OBP, which you site.


Home runs only lead to runs when they actually go out. But if you go up there swinging for the fences ten times, and get one home run to go along with nine fly outs, you've only succeeded once. My point is that, while home runs are guaranteed to score runs when you hit them, the approach of always trying to hit homers will give you less success in the long run.

The reason I quoted OBP is that the Sox aren't that bad at getting on base. If a team ranks eighth in OBP and second in HRs, you would expect them to be better than ninth in runs. But when they do hit their homers, it is too frequently with the bases empty, in part because pitchers are more willing to challenge the hitter with nobody on. When runners are on, the pitcher is more careful, but Sox hitters are still swinging for the fences rather than trying to hit a line drive to the outfield. The result: too many pop ups, grounders, and strikeouts.

Eddo144
06-06-2008, 12:18 PM
Home runs only lead to runs when they actually go out. But if you go up there swinging for the fences ten times, and get one home run to go along with nine fly outs, you've only succeeded once. My point is that, while home runs are guaranteed to score runs when you hit them, the approach of always trying to hit homers will give you less success in the long run.
Yes, but let me expand. I'll use fairly conservative figures here.

Swinging for the Fences:
Success Rate: .100 (only HR, we're not even dealing with the times you hit the ball really hard and it's only a single or double)
Runs per success: 1.250 (I think I'm underestimating here, but let's say only one of out every four HR is non-solo)
Expected runs per AB: .125

Contact Hitting:Success Rate: .350 (that seems high, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)
Runs per success: .333 (again, a crude estimate, but let's say you score a run every three hits you get)
Expected runs per AB: .117

Now, those are two extremes: only swinging for the fences and never swinging for the fences. Obviously, you want some sort of balance.

Of course, this doesn't even touch the fact that the hitters might not actually be swinging for the fences every time. No one can really say, except the players themselves.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Yes, but let me expand. I'll use fairly conservative figures here.

Swinging for the Fences:
Success Rate: .100 (only HR, we're not even dealing with the times you hit the ball really hard and it's only a single or double)
Runs per success: 1.250 (I think I'm underestimating here, but let's say only one of out every four HR is non-solo)
Expected runs per AB: .125

Contact Hitting:Success Rate: .350 (that seems high, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)
Runs per success: .333 (again, a crude estimate, but let's say you score a run every three hits you get)
Expected runs per AB: .117

Now, those are two extremes: only swinging for the fences and never swinging for the fences. Obviously, you want some sort of balance.

Of course, this doesn't even touch the fact that the hitters might not actually be swinging for the fences every time. No one can really say, except the players themselves.

I agree that you want some sort of balance. That's what I think we need the most. But we don't have it.

Back to your argument. I don't know how you came up with those numbers, but the success rate for homers is more like 0.035 (1 HR in 28 ABs, the current Sox average). I don't really know how one would go about creating statistical predictions of runs scored for contact hitting and power hitting, but I think it is clear that we need both.

TDog
06-06-2008, 01:44 PM
I understand fan frustration with the offense, but I think the premise that the White Sox are swinging for the fences because they hit a lot of home runs is flawed. Over the years, many players have said they don't hit home runs when they are trying to hit home runs and hit home runs when they are trying to "hit the ball hard somewhere."It isn't just stuff players say because they are often candid about saying whether they are swinging for the fences. Ron Kittle said that in the eighth inning of the 1983 All-Star Game, he was trying to hit the ball over the roof at Old Comiskey hen Lee Smith struck him out.

Bill Melton, who led the American League in home runs, said during his league-leading season that only once did he hit a home run when he was trying to hit a home run. Carlos Quentin, after his home run that beat the Angels this year, said he was trying to put the ball in play hard somewhere. And there wasn't much difference between Joe Crede's approach at the plate Wednesday night in the at bat where he doubled into the leftfield corner and when he lined a home run over the leftfield bullpen.

Jim Thome might be someone who is always trying to hit a home run, but his home runs often go to the opposite field, so that he is swinging for home runs when he isn't hitting into the extreme shift. Some players who strike out a lot may be swinging for the fences and not shortening their swing to make contact with two strikes, as Ted Williams did. If you're going by statistics alone, consider that Josh Fields may be such a player, and he might be a much better hitter if he hit fewer home runs and made more contact. But Nick Swisher strikes out a lot, and I don't know that he is swinging for the fences.

People at WSI seem to love Curtis Granderson of the Tigers, but he is a leadoff hitter who strikes out a lot and is hitting under .250 after getting off to a great start when he came back from his spring training injury. Because he was hurt for the 2-10 start, he isn't totally to blame for the Tigers (who were supposed to score 1,000 runs this year) being shut out nine times so far. For that matter, people at WSI love Grady Sizemore who has struck out more than 150 times in each of the last two seasons and is hitting under .260 leading off for the Indians. (I thought Sox fans would love Nick Swisher as a striking-out-a-lot leading-off centerfielder, but I digress).

Cabrera, Pierzynski, Quentin and Ramirez may be trying to put the ball hard in play, but you can't say they are always swinging for the fences. I don't know that you can say that for Dye or even Crede or Swisher. Certainly Toby Hall or Pablo Ozuna aren't swinging for the fences all the time. You could make an argument for Konerko and a stronger argument for Thome, but it's no different from the argument you could make for Frank Thomas late in his career.

The White Sox have great pitching. Maybe it's not as great as the pitching on the 1967 White Sox that fell short in the last week of the season. I haven't looked it up, but I don't believe that team had many back-to-back four-home run games. The 1967 White Sox hit only 89 home runs for the season while giving up 87. In early June, the 2008 White Sox have already hit 72 homers while giving up only 38. And I think you will see the 2008 White Sox manufacture more runs, as they did last night, as they tried to do the night before when Brian Anderson saw what he thought was an opening to get to third with one out or when Konerko was thrown out going into third or when Anderson failed on what would have been a game-winning suicide squeeze that people would have been talking about for years for all the right reasons. Offensively, the team seems to be coming together with Cabrera, Ramirez and Quentin as players who can make things happen offensively.

What happens in June and July could decide if the Sox are playing in October where pitching usually trumps hitting.

Eddo144
06-06-2008, 01:49 PM
I agree that you want some sort of balance. That's what I think we need the most. But we don't have it.

Back to your argument. I don't know how you came up with those numbers, but the success rate for homers is more like 0.035 (1 HR in 28 ABs, the current Sox average). I don't really know how one would go about creating statistical predictions of runs scored for contact hitting and power hitting, but I think it is clear that we need both.
Yeah, I pulled those numbers out of my ass. I'm not very proud of my post. :redface:

Eddo144
06-06-2008, 02:11 PM
Jim Thome might be someone who is always trying to hit a home run, but his home runs often go to the opposite field, so that he is swinging for home runs when he isn't hitting into the extreme shift. Some players who strike out a lot may be swinging for the fences and not shortening their swing to make contact with two strikes, as Ted Williams did. If you're going by statistics alone, consider that Josh Fields may be such a player, and he might be a much better hitter if he hit fewer home runs and made more contact. But Nick Swisher strikes out a lot, and I don't know that he is swinging for the fences.
Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rowand-loses-contact-increases-production)an interesting take on whether or not more contact yields better results, and it features our old friend, Mr. Rowand.

Basically, it shows that Rowand's contact percentage has been decreasing (and his strikeout rate increasing) the last few seasons, while his overall productivity has been increasing.