PDA

View Full Version : How can we fix the "Homerun or nothing" philosophy next year?


Whitesoxfan23
10-04-2008, 04:03 AM
What does Kenny have to work with? Thome, Konerko, and Dye will all be back next year, and all of them are getting older, so finding teams that want them will be challenging. I'm not saying we get rid of all of them. But, I wouldn't mind seeing Paulie and Thome go, and having Dye DH or something like that.

This team needs to develop a new mindset. They either look unstoppable, or just frustratingly bad at times. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I want to see more manufacturing runs, and less homerun swings. The problem is, with the guys that we have in our lineup, that is going to be a difficult thing to do. Does anybody have any ideas?

EuroSox35
10-04-2008, 04:17 AM
All this had to be done last offseason, now you're stuck with all 3. Doesn't mean you can't work around them but yeah...(this is why I wanted Thome traded last offseason, the reaction at the time was that people wanted me shot)

chisoxfanatic
10-04-2008, 04:20 AM
Konerko's a 10/5 guy with a fat contract. He is going nowhere.
Thome's option must be picked up, with a fat contract. He is going nowhere.

The heart of our lineup will continue to be Dye-Konerko-Thome. They can be great for us next year; but, they just need to work on their hitting over the offseason and look like they actually care at all times instead of frequently half-assing it.

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2008, 06:12 AM
One of the main things we have been missing all year is a solid #2 guy in the batting order. OC was suppose to be that guy but the Sox put him as the lead off man, since we did"nt have one of those either.
With TQC hopefully coming back strong next year along with Paulie, Thome, and Dye its imperative that KW fills our needs at leadoff and a #2 guy.
I really miss the Pods and Iguchi of 2005.

Madvora
10-04-2008, 08:47 AM
All of this talk has been made about putting together a quick team with speed at the top of the lineup and guys who can do the little things since Guillen has been here. He coached on the 2003 Marlins team and he's in love with everything the Twins do. He preaches bunting and fundamentals every spring training, yet in his 5th year with this team we are slower than ever, and the worst at fundamentals we have ever been.

We will hear all of this talk again in the off-season, but nothing will ever happen. It needs to, but it won't. We'll come back with the same pathetic team next year. There's some sort of disconnect between what's being said and what's being done. I don't know if that's Ozzie just talking ****, or if KW and Ozzie aren't on the same page.

Craig Grebeck
10-04-2008, 09:00 AM
Well, for one thing I wouldn't be too shocked if Thome retired. I'd say there's a 25% chance, but I think that HR against the Twins was a moment he might want to go out on (we can all pretend we never had to play TBR). But, don't plan on it.

Sign Furcal. Keep Ramirez at 2nd. Put BA in CF. I would trade Dye to the Braves for Phil Stockman, Jeff Locke, and maybe another lower level prospect. Sign Will Ohman to be a lefty out of the pen. Trade Broadway for Ryan Rohlinger (possible 3b in the future). Finally, make some move that gets Figgins. I'd imagine it won't take much considering the Angels are dead-set on signing Crede (if you believe Lip).

Furcal
Figgins
Quentin
Thome
Konerko
Ramirez
Swisher
AJ
BA

Bench: Random backup C?, Getz, Uribe, Owens

Buehrle
Floyd
Danks
Vazquez
Richard

Ohman
Logan
Stockman
Thornton
Dotel
Linebrink
Jenks

btrain929
10-04-2008, 09:13 AM
All of this talk has been made about putting together a quick team with speed at the top of the lineup and guys who can do the little things since Guillen has been here. He coached on the 2003 Marlins team and he's in love with everything the Twins do. He preaches bunting and fundamentals every spring training, yet in his 5th year with this team we are slower than ever, and the worst at fundamentals we have ever been.

We will hear all of this talk again in the off-season, but nothing will ever happen. It needs to, but it won't. We'll come back with the same pathetic team next year. There's some sort of disconnect between what's being said and what's being done. I don't know if that's Ozzie just talking ****, or if KW and Ozzie aren't on the same page.

Or a 3rd option, it's just really really hard to pry away fast, quality leadoff hitters from other teams. We have fast guys (Owens, Wise), they just aren't quality hitters/leadoff guys. Even Pods only filled that role 1 out of 3 years, and we gave up a ****load just to get him.

People need to realize we took a huge step this year with infusing TCQ and Alexei into the lineup. They are young, above avg for speed, and really good. They replaced a bad Pods and a bad Iguchi from the '07 squad. That's a step in the right direction. Now, hopefully he can do the same with 2 of, if not all 3, of the 3B/2B/CF positions to continue to balance out this offense.

Me personally, I think 1 of Dye/Konerko will be traded to fill at least 1 of those holes. Dye has way more value, but Konerko is almost a must-move if we don't want Swisher in the OF. Dye had a NTC in '08, but not this year, so he's free game. But then again, I don't know how many more chances we can give Paulie to get his **** together (bad '07, injured and bad '08).

Madvora
10-04-2008, 09:15 AM
But having KW signing a guy like Griffey really makes me think that he doesn't have the same thing in mind.

btrain929
10-04-2008, 09:21 AM
But having KW signing a guy like Griffey really makes me think that he doesn't have the same thing in mind.

KW didn't sign Griffey, he traded for him. We gave up absolutely nothing to get him. He tried to get pitchers, but other teams were asking the moon for them. So it was either get Griffey to add depth to our team, or do nothing. People would bitch whichever way it went down.

oeo
10-04-2008, 09:48 AM
All this had to be done last offseason, now you're stuck with all 3. Doesn't mean you can't work around them but yeah...(this is why I wanted Thome traded last offseason, the reaction at the time was that people wanted me shot)

They couldn't do it last offseason either. Look, Kenny went for all the all the marbles again after 2005. We're still paying for that disappointing 2006 team.

Again, though, I think our best bet is to trade Dye. He's had a pretty good year, and we can not only deal him, but actualy get something worthwhile. It opens up another outfield spot, which is sorely needed with both Swisher and Konerko, and we can get a little younger/faster out there. We're not going to be a drastically different team next year, it will be at least another year before we can see big changes.

btrain929
10-04-2008, 09:56 AM
They couldn't do it last offseason either. Look, Kenny went for all the all the marbles again after 2005. We're still paying for that disappointing 2006 team.

Again, though, I think our best bet is to trade Dye. He's had a pretty good year, and we can not only deal him, but actualy get something worthwhile. It opens up another outfield spot, which is sorely needed with both Swisher and Konerko, and we can get a little younger/faster out there. We're not going to be a drastically different team next year, it will be at least another year before we can see big changes.

Agree with all of that. Contracts will be up on Dye, Thome, and Contreras after '09. That will free up a lot of cash ($30 million +). I also agree that Dye might be our best trading chip, almost similar to Crede after his '06 season.

oeo
10-04-2008, 10:00 AM
Agree with all of that. Contracts will be up on Dye, Thome, and Contreras after '09. That will free up a lot of cash ($30 million +). I also agree that Dye might be our best trading chip, almost similar to Crede after his '06 season.

As for the Dye situation, I don't think things went as planned for Kenny. The plan was to move Dye to DH after this year, hoping Thome didn't get his option guaranteed. And the way Thome has not been able to stay on the field in his time here, I think that was a risk he could take.

Now with Thome back, things change. Trade Dye, and move Konerko to DH after this year.

Madvora
10-04-2008, 10:20 AM
KW didn't sign Griffey, he traded for him. We gave up absolutely nothing to get him. He tried to get pitchers, but other teams were asking the moon for them. So it was either get Griffey to add depth to our team, or do nothing. People would bitch whichever way it went down.
Right. I know that they traded for him, I just picked the wrong words.
What I meant was that Griffey was the kind of guy KW was out there looking for. And I know this wasn't a long term thing, but that's not the direction this team should be going in.

btrain929
10-04-2008, 10:26 AM
Right. I know that they traded for him, I just picked the wrong words.
What I meant was that Griffey was the kind of guy KW was out there looking for. And I know this wasn't a long term thing, but that's not the direction this team should be going in.

You just answered you're own problem. It was only short term (2 months), so obviously that's not a direction we're going in. Now if KW came out and said he's seriously considering exercising Griffey's '09 option for 16 million or whatever it is, THEN I'd be concerned...

kevingrt
10-04-2008, 10:44 AM
All this had to be done last offseason, now you're stuck with all 3. Doesn't mean you can't work around them but yeah...(this is why I wanted Thome traded last offseason, the reaction at the time was that people wanted me shot)

How were you going to trade Thome and his contract?

And how could you have expressed wanting to trade Thome over the offseason if you joined this board on May 30, 2008? I don't think people would get all over you especially if you were not even posting on this board. Maybe to your friends but not people here.

dwalteroo
10-04-2008, 10:53 AM
Players and next year aside...

I don't know how we can move to a small ball game in our park. I don't know how KW can go out and truly try to make a Minnesota-like team with our outfield walls so close.

You can say we played small ball in 2005, but we really didn't.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2008, 11:40 AM
Walter:

NO ONE is saying turn the Sox into the Twins, what they are saying is some balance is needed. Two guys who can run, steal bases, advance guys, create holes in the defense, force pitchers to throw more fastballs.

If the Sox can get Figgins and Hudson (or players like them) you still have more then enough power in the lineup with as assortment of players like Quentin, Dye, Konerko, Swisher, Fields, Pierzynski, Thome, Ramirez and possibly Griffey. I mean how much power do you need?

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-04-2008, 11:43 AM
Remember gang (this is hard to believe) SIX times in Game #2 the Sox had a hit with a guy on base and each time they only advanced one base.

SIX TIMES.

That's incredible and a serious indictment of things.

Lip

dwalteroo
10-04-2008, 11:46 AM
Walter:

NO ONE is saying turn the Sox into the Twins what they are saying is some balance is needed. Two guys who can run, steal bases, advance guys, create holes in the defense, force pitchers to throw more fastballs.

If the Sox can get Figgins and Hudson (or players like them) you still have more then enough power in the lineup with as assortment of players like Quentin, Dye, Konerko, Swisher, Fields, Pierzynski, Thome, Ramirez and possibly Griffey. I mean how much power do you need?

Lip

I'll agree to that, we definitely need some balance. I'd love to see Figgins on the team.

TDog
10-04-2008, 01:07 PM
Remember gang (this is hard to believe) SIX times in Game #2 the Sox had a hit with a guy on base and each time they only advanced one base.

SIX TIMES.

That's incredible and a serious indictment of things.

Lip

If you're looking at the box score. If you're looking at where the balls were placed, you wouldn't have expected runners to advance more than one base, with the exception of the first hit with men on base when Cabrera was held at third on a single with none out. In another of those hits with men on base, Cabrera was running with the pitch but could only get to second because Crawford fielded the ball so quickly. Cabrera isn't even part of the problem. Not the speed problem anyway.

Certainly the Sox need more speed. The Sox have been playing Wise as much as they have because they needed his speed in the lineup. Ramirez, unfortunately, is not a leadoff man, although he would be better leading off than hitting No. 2. The big problem last offseason is that the Sox acquired Nick Swisher to play center. Center is a position where the Sox needed speed because they weren't going to get it out of first, DH, catcher or right. On opening day, Swisher was in left and Ramirez in center. It took a few games for Quentin to go to left and Swisher to center.

With the Sox parting with Crede, they have an opportunity to pick up speed at third. Josh Fields has some speed, especially compared with Joe Crede, but the Sox won't go to him. The Sox will have to replace Cabrera with speed. Really, the Sox should move Swisher and replace him with speed. I don't think Swisher was ever a good fit for this White Sox team.

Dye, Konerko and Thome aren't going anywhere. Hopefully Quentin isn't going anywhere. Last offseason, the Sox were in the market for a centerfielder, shortstop and leftfielder. This season they will be looking for new players at third, second/short and center. Three of those positions are position Ramirez plays and the other is a position Ramirez has played a couple of innings at this season. Of course, Ramirez can only play one position and the people who live for on-base-percentage would oppose cloning Ramirez, but filling those positions with speed will be essential.

With Quentin in left, let alone Dye in right, the Sox won't become a domeball team, but they have the opportunity to bring in more speed.
The Sox also will be looking for at least one starting pitcher. Shoring up the bullpen is something every team needs to do every year becasue bullpens are so fragile.

Railsplitter
10-04-2008, 01:50 PM
Get somebody who can pull the ball down the lines or into the gaps.

ms620
10-04-2008, 02:14 PM
While I have no clue if this is possible, in terms of money, this is the lineup that I think can improve the Sox. However, i will preface this by saying that there is no way KW will do this, or all the players involved would be on the sox. This is just my opinion:

1. Figgins 3B
2. O Cabrera SS
3. TCQ LF
4. Dye RF
5. Thome DH
6. Konerko 1B
7. Ramirez CF
8. AJ C
9. Hudson/Getz 2B

I actually want to keep Cabrera. I think he has played well overall this year. I like his fire. Assuming Crede is gone, the Sox finally get Figgins to lead off and play 3rd. We move Alexei to CF. Obviously this is risky. But from what I understand, he was better in CF than 2B to start the year. An entire offseason training him for this and maybe he can be a good defensive CF. We sign Hudson for 2B, or give Getz a shot.

However, the more realistic option might be this:

1. Figgins CF
2. Hudson/Getz 2B
3. TCQ LF
4. Dye RF
5. Thome DH
6. Konerko 1B
7. Alexei SS
8. AJ C
9. Uribe 3B

TomBradley72
10-04-2008, 02:25 PM
We'll have three slots in the line up to work with: 2nd Base (assuming Alexei moves to SS), CF, and 3rd base. That should give KW some room to retool despite having PK, Dye and Thome locked in.

tstrike2000
10-04-2008, 02:59 PM
Walter:

NO ONE is saying turn the Sox into the Twins, what they are saying is some balance is needed. Two guys who can run, steal bases, advance guys, create holes in the defense, force pitchers to throw more fastballs.

If the Sox can get Figgins and Hudson (or players like them) you still have more then enough power in the lineup with as assortment of players like Quentin, Dye, Konerko, Swisher, Fields, Pierzynski, Thome, Ramirez and possibly Griffey. I mean how much power do you need?

Lip

Pitching is king in the playoffs, but you're definitely spot on especially when comparing our lineup to all the playoff teams: pitching, defense, speed, contact hitters, with the mix of power.

turners56
10-04-2008, 03:21 PM
Get somebody who can pull the ball down the lines or into the gaps.

Our entire team consists of players like that.

Alexei4president
10-04-2008, 10:16 PM
Well, for one thing I wouldn't be too shocked if Thome retired. I'd say there's a 25% chance, but I think that HR against the Twins was a moment he might want to go out on (we can all pretend we never had to play TBR). But, don't plan on it.

Sign Furcal. Keep Ramirez at 2nd. Put BA in CF. I would trade Dye to the Braves for Phil Stockman, Jeff Locke, and maybe another lower level prospect. Sign Will Ohman to be a lefty out of the pen. Trade Broadway for Ryan Rohlinger (possible 3b in the future). Finally, make some move that gets Figgins. I'd imagine it won't take much considering the Angels are dead-set on signing Crede (if you believe Lip).

Furcal
Figgins
Quentin
Thome
Konerko
Ramirez
Swisher
AJ
BA

Bench: Random backup C?, Getz, Uribe, Owens

Buehrle
Floyd
Danks
Vazquez
Richard

Ohman
Logan
Stockman
Thornton
Dotel
Linebrink
Jenks


looks nice but i think the sox really want alexei at short next year to take full advantage of his fielding abilities......oh ya and lose dotel

gregory18n
10-04-2008, 10:51 PM
aside from quentin; the other 2 big surprises for me have been ramirez and dewayne wise. i feel not finding a spot for wise would be a huge mistake. also danks and floyd have been unexpected surprises. those 5 helped get us into the playoffs, something i didn't think we had a shot at before thseason.

doublem23
10-05-2008, 01:06 AM
This is all just a bunch of whining... Look, the Sox didn't hit the ball well yesterday. 12 hits, none for extra bases; I don't care if you're a bunch of speedy little bastards or slow plodding old dudes, if you never drive the ball, you're not going to score many runs, anyways.

The Sox had 1,458 hits in 2008, 546 of them went for extra bases (37.4%); had 4-5 of the Sox's hits yesterday been fro XB instead of 1, we'd be having a much different discussion.

thomas35forever
10-05-2008, 01:18 AM
How do we fix it? The answer is simple: make turners56 GM next year and he'll fix all our problems.:cool:

kitekrazy
10-05-2008, 01:33 AM
I think what would really help is not having the slow lumber swinging back to back to back.

wassagstdu
10-05-2008, 09:13 AM
I don't know how we can move to a small ball game in our park. I don't know how KW can go out and truly try to make a Minnesota-like team with our outfield walls so close.
The Earl Weaver philosophy* is deep in the DNA of the organization, and will be as long as they play in the current park. I would do two things. Move the plate back as far as possible. And get a Colorado-type humidor to deaden he balls a bit in the summer. Of course, it would make no sense to do that with the current team, so the first step is to add some speed and contact hitting. But the organization will not change without a change in the home field.

* Of course the other side of the EW approach (and really the point of it) is great pitching. Obviously, this team scores enough runs to win if they had that. That is the fatal flaw in the Weaver approach: great pitching and power hitting are the two most expensive talents. To succeed you have to be the Yankees or have the greatest minor league scouting and talent development.

ZombieRob
10-05-2008, 09:36 AM
The Earl Weaver philosophy* is deep in the DNA of the organization, and will be as long as they play in the current park. I would do two things. Move the plate back as far as possible. And get a Colorado-type humidor to deaden he balls a bit in the summer. Of course, it would make no sense to do that with the current team, so the first step is to add some speed and contact hitting. But the organization will not change without a change in the home field.

* Of course the other side of the EW approach (and really the point of it) is great pitching. Obviously, this team scores enough runs to win if they had that. That is the fatal flaw in the Weaver approach: great pitching and power hitting are the two most expensive talents. To succeed you have to be the Yankees or have the greatest minor league scouting and talent development.
Didn't they move he fences in after the 1st or 2nd year?

NewYawk718
10-05-2008, 09:39 AM
Acquisitions:
Sign SS Rafael Furcal to a 3 yr 39 million deal
either sign Jon Garland to a cheap 3 year deal or sign Brad Penny to a cheap 2 year incentive laced deal.
Sign CF/LF/RF Milton Bradley (has an attitude but Ozzie could handle his personality and would keep him fresh) to a 3 year 45 mil deal
Sign CF/LF/RF Rocco Baldelli to an incentive laden deal either for 1 year or 2 years
Sign Pablo Ozuna again
Package Paul Konerko, Clayton Richard and Brian Anderson for a good pitching prospect or low level positional players

The New line up ideally would then be

1. Furcal SS
2. Milton Bradley Cf
3. Carlos Quentin Lf
4. Jim Thome DH
5. Jermaine Dye Rf
6. Nick Swisher 1b
7. Alexis Ramirez 2b
8. A.J. Pierzysnki
9. Juan Uribe 3b

Rotation 1. Buerhle 2. Floyd 3. Danks 4. Penny 5. Vazquez

bullpen : Contreras, thornton, LineBrink, Dotel, Jenks, Adam Russel, and Poreda ( bring him up mid-season and have him be a reliever in 2009..start in 2010)

a bench of
Baldelli
Ozuna
Wise
Hall

Zisk77
10-05-2008, 09:53 AM
Acquisitions:
Sign SS Rafael Furcal to a 3 yr 39 million deal
either sign Jon Garland to a cheap 3 year deal or sign Brad Penny to a cheap 2 year incentive laced deal.
Sign CF/LF/RF Milton Bradley (has an attitude but Ozzie could handle his personality and would keep him fresh) to a 3 year 45 mil deal
Sign CF/LF/RF Rocco Baldelli to an incentive laden deal either for 1 year or 2 years
Sign Pablo Ozuna again
Package Paul Konerko, Clayton Richard and Brian Anderson for a good pitching prospect or low level positional players

The New line up ideally would then be

1. Furcal SS
2. Milton Bradley Cf
3. Carlos Quentin Lf
4. Jim Thome DH
5. Jermaine Dye Rf
6. Nick Swisher 1b
7. Alexis Ramirez 2b
8. A.J. Pierzysnki
9. Juan Uribe 3b

Rotation 1. Buerhle 2. Floyd 3. Danks 4. Penny 5. Vazquez

bullpen : Contreras, thornton, LineBrink, Dotel, Jenks, Adam Russel, and Poreda ( bring him up mid-season and have him be a reliever in 2009..start in 2010)

a bench of
Baldelli
Ozuna
Wise
Hall


If You Want Furacl (coming of back surgery and a dui history) it would probably make more sense to move him to the position he broke into MLB with...2b

Jon Garland is not coming cheap.
Milton Bradley...u sunk my battleship!...pass
Rocco Baldelli has that strange mitochondrial disorder that ofetn prevents him from playing back to back does and has already blown out both acl (playing wiffle ball no less). :o:
Ozuna...why?
Konerko would have to waive his no trade clause...maybe he'd do this if it was anaheim for Figgins?
Why trade a good pitching prospect in Richard for a low level one?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-05-2008, 10:53 AM
This is all just a bunch of whining... Look, the Sox didn't hit the ball well yesterday. 12 hits, none for extra bases; I don't care if you're a bunch of speedy little bastards or slow plodding old dudes, if you never drive the ball, you're not going to score many runs, anyways.

The Sox had 1,458 hits in 2008, 546 of them went for extra bases (37.4%); had 4-5 of the Sox's hits yesterday been fro XB instead of 1, we'd be having a much different discussion.

Exactly. I didn't see or hear anyone complaining last Tuesday night about those G.D. Sox home run hitters after Thome launched that 461-foot bomb onto the Fan Deck. It's always "what have you done for me lately" that shapes shallow opinions...

This Sox team has weaknesses in several areas, but the notion that hitting too many home runs is one of them is utterly stupid.

soxrme
10-05-2008, 11:18 AM
There is nothing wrong with the home run way if Konerko, Swisher, Thome and Dye hit. Paulie and Swish were awful all year. KW's failure to get a center fielder and another pitcher instead of Griffey also did not help. We are not strong up the middle and it shows. Cabrera is a limited range ss and with Uribe at 3rd the left side of the infield is bad. We cannot have Uribe as the reg 3rd baseman.

Lip Man 1
10-05-2008, 12:34 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with hitting home runs, never was...never will be.

The problem is thats all they can do.

Everything appears to be pointing towards Kenny correcting this flaw in the off season.

We'll see.

Lip

EndemicSox
10-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Go all and sign Mr. Figgins, do not lose him regardless of price.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/figgich01.shtml

Sign two reclamation project SP's...Kenny and company seem to fair well in this department.

Watch the young guns step up and lead the way to 90 wins!

Sox4ever77
10-05-2008, 01:31 PM
If You Want Furacl (coming of back surgery and a dui history) it would probably make more sense to move him to the position he broke into MLB with...2b

Jon Garland is not coming cheap.
Milton Bradley...u sunk my battleship!...pass
Rocco Baldelli has that strange mitochondrial disorder that ofetn prevents him from playing back to back does and has already blown out both acl (playing wiffle ball no less). :o:
Ozuna...why?
Konerko would have to waive his no trade clause...maybe he'd do this if it was anaheim for Figgins?
Why trade a good pitching prospect in Richard for a low level one?


So what Furcal got one DUI. It seems he learned from that and has been out of trouble since. I'm not excusing DUI, it's a stupid thing to do.

And one of the least talked about things of the Dodgers sweep is how valuable Furcal was. All this from a guy who barely played in Sept.

He still has one of the strongest arms for a SS, you don't want to waste that arm at 2nd.

I think he'll resign with the Dodgers, but if he's out there he would be a good player to sign.

wassagstdu
10-05-2008, 04:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with the home run way if Konerko, Swisher, Thome and Dye hit. Paulie and Swish were awful all year. KW's failure to get a center fielder and another pitcher instead of Griffey also did not help. We are not strong up the middle and it shows. Cabrera is a limited range ss and with Uribe at 3rd the left side of the infield is bad. We cannot have Uribe as the reg 3rd baseman.

It is too easy to shut down the Sox one-dimensional offense completely.

And Uribe looked pretty darn good at 3B to me. Cabrera at short, not so much.

gregory18n
10-05-2008, 05:56 PM
cabrera is gone. i'de like us to take another shot at brian roberts 2b batting 2nd following cf dewayne wise. then quentin, thome, ramirez ss, crede (yes), konerko, dye & aj. swisher, anderson, uribe & hall? on the bench. pitchings ok when healthy & on.

doublem23
10-05-2008, 06:10 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with hitting home runs, never was...never will be.

The problem is thats all they can do.

Everything appears to be pointing towards Kenny correcting this flaw in the off season.

We'll see.

Lip

I totally agree with you, Lip, and this point is 100% valid; the Sox are not a very balanced offensive team right now.

But low and behold, so far today they've hit the ball well, they've driven it and gotten some timely hits and they're winning! The Sox lost 2 games in Tampa not because of the HR or nothing philosophy the Sox seem to employ, it's just because they didn't hit the ball well at all.

doublem23
10-05-2008, 06:10 PM
cabrera is gone. i'de like us to take another shot at brian roberts 2b batting 2nd following cf dewayne wise. then quentin, thome, ramirez ss, crede (yes), konerko, dye & aj. swisher, anderson, uribe & hall? on the bench. pitchings ok when healthy & on.

Dewayne Wise starting in CF and leading off?

:puking:

kitekrazy
10-05-2008, 08:58 PM
I think batting Alexi later in the order is a waste. He's a good contact hitter and he won't drive in many runs when the slow guys are on base.

Batting lead off or 2nd would be another waste.

I'd like to see some speed mixed in the heart of the order.

When Thome or PK aren't hitting they should be batting 7th.

Whne you have PK and Thome on base, you just keep the ball in the park.

Zisk77
10-05-2008, 09:17 PM
So what Furcal got one DUI. It seems he learned from that and has been out of trouble since. I'm not excusing DUI, it's a stupid thing to do.

And one of the least talked about things of the Dodgers sweep is how valuable Furcal was. All this from a guy who barely played in Sept.

He still has one of the strongest arms for a SS, you don't want to waste that arm at 2nd.

I think he'll resign with the Dodgers, but if he's out there he would be a good player to sign.

1? No try 3 while in Atlanta. Hey, I hear ya, I have always liked him as a player. But there are some red flags with him.

gregory18n
10-05-2008, 11:03 PM
DeWayne Wise, leading off & playing center field? YES!
nobody here saw him coming, nor it seems did anyone other than the sox management. he looks great to me. yes, give him the chance to earn it in the spring. i'de put my money on him. and by golly, he has speed.
i didn't realize how far away crede has gotten, so i'll revise my squad to add figgins at 3rd. if wise isn't ready after 1000 minor league seasons, we can shift figgins to cf and lead off and uribe at 3rd.

1 DeWayne Wise CF
2 Brian Roberts 2B
3 Carlos Quentin LF
4 Jim Thome DH
5 Alexi Ramirez SS
6 AJ Pierzinski C
7 Jermaine Dye RF
8 Paul Konerko 1B
9 Chone Figgins 3B

Craig Grebeck
10-05-2008, 11:09 PM
DeWayne Wise, leading off & playing center field? YES!
nobody here saw him coming, nor it seems did anyone other than the sox management. he looks great to me. yes, give him the chance to earn it in the spring. i'de put my money on him. and by golly, he has speed.
i didn't realize how far away crede has gotten, so i'll revise my squad to add figgins at 3rd. if wise isn't ready after 1000 minor league seasons, we can shift figgins to cf and lead off and uribe at 3rd.

1 DeWayne Wise CF
2 Brian Roberts 2B
3 Carlos Quentin LF
4 Jim Thome DH
5 Alexi Ramirez SS
6 AJ Pierzinski C
7 Jermaine Dye RF
8 Paul Konerko 1B
9 Chone Figgins 3B
I will give you all my money if DeWayne Wise is starting at CF and leading off in 2009.

$10,000 bonus if we go after Brian Roberts.

gregory18n
10-06-2008, 12:00 AM
ok, tell me why this board doesn't like wise while i'm actually watching him play very well for the real club; nobody had him on their fantasy teams?

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2008, 12:29 AM
ok, tell me why this board doesn't like wise while i'm actually watching him play very well for the real club; nobody had him on their fantasy teams?
Because he's not very good. He's an okay 4th or 5th OF. We have parts of 12 seasons of minor league ball to tell that he's not very good. Career minor league line? .262/.314/.429/.743

Not really a guy we should count on for anything but bench work.

soxfanreggie
10-06-2008, 12:34 AM
Chone Figgins and Brian Roberts. Keep Wise as the 4th OF. Keep Juan as a back-up for the 2B, SS, and 3B positions. Give PK, Dye, and Thome more rest time during the year by having Swish fill in some in RF and 1B.

jabrch
10-06-2008, 12:38 AM
We are a baseball team built to win in our home park. We do a nice job of that.

If CQ and Jose didn't get injured, we'd be in a damn good spot right now. I don't think we need to do something stupid and overreact and get rid of too many players. A tweak is all that is needed to be even better than we were this year.

jabrch
10-06-2008, 12:39 AM
Chone Figgins and Brian Roberts. Keep Wise as the 4th OF. Keep Juan as a back-up for the 2B, SS, and 3B positions. Give PK, Dye, and Thome more rest time during the year by having Swish fill in some in RF and 1B.

Yuck to Figgins. And I wouldn't pay Peter Angelos' price for Roberts.

gregory18n
10-06-2008, 01:04 AM
i won't back off regarding wise. he is showing he's ready now.

gregory18n
10-06-2008, 01:08 AM
Roberts is a long shot, but we've all seen weirder things happen.
We need speed and d at 2nd or ss, we have Alexi for the other spot. i'll trust Willians to find the right guy. with wise and figgins we'de have 4 speed guys and tons of power. i'de be happy with that.

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2008, 01:21 AM
i won't back off regarding wise. he is showing he's ready now.
Sample size! Has he suddenly learned how to be a good baseball player after sucking for the last twelve years?

gregory18n
10-06-2008, 02:16 AM
in a word, YES!
open your eyes, ur simply wrong

Nellie_Fox
10-06-2008, 02:32 AM
in a word, YES!
open your eyes, ur simply wrongTyping the "y" and the "o" would have been too much work for you?

Pike
10-06-2008, 06:28 AM
I love homeruns, but I also know its fickle. The disappear as fast as they come. Our team in 2005 won the WS through timely hitting and great pitching. The team won in a variety of ways that year; long ball (200+ HRs), small ball, lights out pitching, etc,... This being said, I would want to radically change a team that won the division and 88 games. A little tweek here and there would be nice. I would like to see more speed and more manufacured runs, BUT not at the expense of the homerun either.

Sports is all about balance and the teams with the best often win in the end.

doublem23
10-06-2008, 08:23 AM
in a word, YES!
open your eyes, ur simply wrong

:rolleyes:

Wise has played well this series. He might be an OK option for a 4th or 5th outfielder, but even in this, his career best year (at 30), his line was .245/.293/.450. Anointing him an everyday player for '09 based on the past 3 games... Ridiculous.

jabrch
10-06-2008, 08:41 AM
Can anyone prove this is their "philosophy"? I just can't.

palehozenychicty
10-06-2008, 11:31 AM
They don't need to move everyone, but they'll have to at least consider breaking up the big three in order to get more balanced players. We'll see what happens. It's harder to win when you need four singles to score a run. Alexei got the sac fly yesterday, but with a more athletic team, the game could have been finished right then as Garza simply lost it in that inning.

RockJock07
10-06-2008, 11:59 AM
They don't need to move everyone, but they'll have to at least consider breaking up the big three in order to get more balanced players. We'll see what happens. It's harder to win when you need four singles to score a run. Alexei got the sac fly yesterday, but with a more athletic team, the game could have been finished right then as Garza simply lost it in that inning.

Speed created the 1st run yesterday, there will still be power with this team but put me on the trading Dye train, he's the best chip that Kenny has. However i'd really like to keep Dye and Thome and move Konerko. I think Konerko would waive his NTC to go to Anaheim.

in terms of pitching I was wondering If Ben Sheets would take a 1 year deal to prove he can stay healthy. I think 2010 is when Poreda will be in the rotation. I'm just not sure what Jose has left in the tank, maybe it's best to move him to the pen. Whatever happens with that, Middle relief is a problem and must be addressed.

I would be excited about Hudson and Figgens, this line-up becomes very balenced and we don't see games like we have seen the last 2+ seasons.

whitesox901
10-06-2008, 12:14 PM
besides the fact that we wont be able to move Thome, Konerko or Dye. Im not really all that upset by it. Its better than some lame-duck offense, where our best hitter is .270 with 20 HR or something. And if our pitching is as good or better next year, I say hope you like fireworks from Homers and post game victories, because your gonna see alot of em', as Veeck said "Power plus pitching eaqual pennants".

jabrch
10-06-2008, 12:15 PM
we don't see games like we have seen the last 2+ seasons.

If you trade Dye and replace him with Chone Figgins the games you won't see like you saw this year are PLAYOFF games.

RockJock07
10-06-2008, 12:30 PM
If you trade Dye and replace him with Chone Figgins the games you won't see like you saw this year are PLAYOFF games.

Not true, Dye has had a great run in Chicago but was not the reason the Sox are in the playoffs right now and his production dropped off when Carlos wasn't there to protect him. Also I'm saying Figgens at 3B not in the OF. Figgens is underrated as a fielder.

I want to keep Dye and trade Konerko. I want Dye and Figgens on the same team.

TornLabrum
10-06-2008, 10:15 PM
Typing the "y" and the "o" would have been too much work for you?

It would also need an apostrophe an r and an e.

Nellie_Fox
10-07-2008, 12:45 AM
It would also need an apostrophe an r and an e.
Good point. That probably would have been too much effort.

MHOUSE
10-09-2008, 10:32 PM
We're pretty well stuck with our big boppers, but I think Ozzie could balance the lineup a little better with the right mix of players at other positions. I would try to move Alexei up in the order, maybe to 5th. He can at least go first to third between the cleanup hitter and 6th-7th spots. I wouldn't mind signing a Mark Grudzielanek-type hitter who can put a ball in the gap from time to time and keep a rally going ahead of Quentin and everyone else. We need to get younger and less station-to-station. That will only happen after 2009 when Thome, Konerko, Dye, etc. will come off the books if not traded beforehand.

I like Wise a lot, I'd like to see him to be on the bench next year. That said, if he's given a starting job out of spring training without some massive wave of injuries, I'm going to be very worried. His 5 RBI against Tampa were nice, but he's 30 and nothing more than a decent 26th man. Pass whatever you're smoking if you think otherwise.

TheVulture
10-12-2008, 05:15 PM
* Of course the other side of the EW approach (and really the point of it) is great pitching. Obviously, this team scores enough runs to win if they had that. That is the fatal flaw in the Weaver approach: great pitching and power hitting are the two most expensive talents. To succeed you have to be the Yankees or have the greatest minor league scouting and talent development.

I thought the Earl Weaver philosophy was to fill your lineup with the best defensive players possible and then the bench with hitters. Davey Johnson, Brooks Robinson and Mark Belanger didn't exactly constitute the greatest hitting infield by any stretch. Paul Blair and Don Buford were known more for their defense in the OF as well. They had Boog and Frank in the middle, but the rest of the lineup was what today we(or at least KW)might refer to as "grinders".

RedPinStripes
10-13-2008, 12:04 AM
I don't know what KW will do , but I'm confident. I know he's sick of hearing about the Sunday softball team lineup. He'll find a way to move one of the big 3 and replace it with speed.

I was pissed with the Griffy move. It made a little sense when Carlos went down, but I think BA could have done what Jr did with better defense and more speed on the bases.

:KW

"Quite honestly, this is starting to piss me off"

Sox4ever77
10-13-2008, 01:09 AM
The Earl Weaver philosophy* is deep in the DNA of the organization, and will be as long as they play in the current park. I would do two things. Move the plate back as far as possible. And get a Colorado-type humidor to deaden he balls a bit in the summer. Of course, it would make no sense to do that with the current team, so the first step is to add some speed and contact hitting. But the organization will not change without a change in the home field.

* Of course the other side of the EW approach (and really the point of it) is great pitching. Obviously, this team scores enough runs to win if they had that. That is the fatal flaw in the Weaver approach: great pitching and power hitting are the two most expensive talents. To succeed you have to be the Yankees or have the greatest minor league scouting and talent development.

Do you have any idea when Weaver managed? The Orioles did have a great minor league system and developed talent like crazy. Or they traded some of that talent for needs. Baylor and Mike Torrez for Reggie.

Free agency was just starting and when Weaver retired in 82, baseball was just getting used to million dollar a year players.

wassagstdu
10-13-2008, 07:28 AM
Do you have any idea when Weaver managed? The Orioles did have a great minor league system and developed talent like crazy. Or they traded some of that talent for needs. Baylor and Mike Torrez for Reggie.

Free agency was just starting and when Weaver retired in 82, baseball was just getting used to million dollar a year players.

Of course, the expensiveness of pitching wasn't a fatal flaw in Weaver's time before free agency. Duh. It is a "fatal" flaw (in the EW approach, by which I mean devalue the running game and build the offense around the 3-run homer) for the Sox organization today, with a weak minor league system.

Law11
10-13-2008, 08:53 AM
People need to realize where we play. The long ball is still going to be a huge factor. We will always have thumpers 3-6 in the lineup. The key will be to get some guys who can produce at the other spots with some speed and capability of getting on base. Speed is pointless if you cant hit over .240

MISoxfan
10-13-2008, 01:33 PM
I think I'll stick with the same core thats won 88 games on average and 2 division titles and a world series over the last 4 years. A better bullpen and and 1 or 2 small pieces and we're still set for next season.

jabrch
10-13-2008, 02:42 PM
It is too easy to shut down the Sox one-dimensional offense completely.

Really? Cuz I saw the Sox make the playoffs. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have made the post season.

Lip Man 1
10-13-2008, 05:29 PM
Jab:

Well this complicated matters didn't it?

* In addition to the 15 games the White Sox lost while allowing three runs or less, they were shut out 11 times. They scored one run in a game 16 times, two runs in a game 14 times. That’s a total of 41 games scoring two runs or less.

41 games is about 25% of the games for the year. That seems high to me. You aren't going to win a lot of games scoring two runs or less. This points out the "feast or famine" nature of the Sox offensive philosophy.

Balance is the key word and the key need in 2009.

Lip

Eddo144
10-13-2008, 06:03 PM
Jab:

Well this complicated matters didn't it?

* In addition to the 15 games the White Sox lost while allowing three runs or less, they were shut out 11 times. They scored one run in a game 16 times, two runs in a game 14 times. That’s a total of 41 games scoring two runs or less.

41 games is about 25% of the games for the year. That seems high to me. You aren't going to win a lot of games scoring two runs or less. This points out the "feast or famine" nature of the Sox offensive philosophy.

Balance is the key word and the key need in 2009.

Lip
It may seem high, but in 2005, the Sox scored 2 runs or less in 49 games. I believe they did pretty well that year, though.

I re-ran your numbers, and they scored 2 runs or less in 45 games this year*.

The pitching wasn't much different in this area either. In 2005, they gave up 2 runs or less in 56 games, as opposed to 55 this year*.

(*: 2008 figures omit the 163rd game)

MISoxfan
10-13-2008, 06:56 PM
i'm sure that little 49 games stat in 2005 will be promptly ignored.

Lip Man 1
10-13-2008, 11:50 PM
The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2008 was:

5-41

The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2005 was:

15-34

No one is ignoring anything MI, once again.....in 2005 the Sox had BALANCE... the ability to win games in different ways....a stolen base...a three run home run...a sacrifice fly.

Big BIG difference from 2008. This is what Kenny desperately needs to correct for 2009.

Lip

SoxSpeed22
10-14-2008, 12:03 AM
Lip, as much as that stat has a point, I think it reflects more on the kind of pitching that the Sox got in 2005. They won 15 games scoring two runs or less, that means that the starters and the bullpen held the opposition to one run or less in those wins.
I'm sure that you can find this, but I am more interested in the records when the Sox did not hit a home run, compared to when they did between 2008 and 2005.

Daver
10-14-2008, 12:07 AM
How can we fix the "Homerun or nothing" philosophy next year?

Get rid of all the power hitters in the line-up.

MISoxfan
10-14-2008, 01:15 AM
The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2008 was:

5-41

The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2005 was:

15-34

No one is ignoring anything MI, once again.....in 2005 the Sox had BALANCE... the ability to win games in different ways....a stolen base...a three run home run...a sacrifice fly.

Big BIG difference from 2008. This is what Kenny desperately needs to correct for 2009.

Lip


If you're only going to score 2 runs who cares how they cross the plate? The only difference between scoring 2 runs and winning and scoring 2 runs and losing is the number of runs your pitching and defense allow.

I'll take the offense that only scores 2 runs or less 46 times than the one that does it 49 times.

Does anyone question that the overall pitching staff was better in 2005 than in 2008? The difference in pitching is more than enough to account for a 5 game swing.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 07:32 AM
The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2008 was:

5-41

The Sox record in games when they scored two runs or less in 2005 was:

15-34

No one is ignoring anything MI, once again.....in 2005 the Sox had BALANCE... the ability to win games in different ways....a stolen base...a three run home run...a sacrifice fly.

Big BIG difference from 2008. This is what Kenny desperately needs to correct for 2009.

Lip

So? That record's not the offense's fault. We've already established they were scoring the same amount of runs in those games.

In 2005, low-run-scoring games happened to coincide with good pitching games. This year, not so much.

Lip Man 1
10-14-2008, 12:41 PM
Sox Speed:

You certainly have a point about the pitching but in fact looking at those 15 wins in 2005 the Sox scored the runs in different ways. Some on a home run, some on manufacturing a run, a few due to an error by the opponent.

Again BALANCE.

Regarding the W-L record with / without a home run. The last number I saw for 2008 as printed in the newspaper was 9-30.

--------------------

Quote of the day:

“It’s amazing how bad we are without home runs.” -- Ozzie Guillen to David Just from White Sox.com.

--------------------

Read it and weep "all or nothing", "feast or famine", friends of "beer league softball style play"...Kenny apparently sees the issues clearly:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081011&content_id=3611372&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

I absolutely understand and agree that you need power to win when you play half your games at U.S. Cellular Field. If the Sox can get Figgins and Hudson or whomever to add a little balance and speed you still have more then enough power in the lineup with guys like Konerko, Dye, Quentin, Swisher, Fields, Pierzynski, Ramirez and possibly Griffey on the team and in the lineup 3 through 7 or 8.

I mean how much power do some of you want? 10 spots in the lineup???

Lip

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 12:58 PM
The question is whether scoring and preventing runs are completely independent. If they are, then the important measure of an offense's quality is the average number of runs per game. If, however, there is some correlation between the two, things get complicated. It is easy to see that run prevention is dependent on the current score: if you are up by two runs late in the game, you will use different relievers than you would if the score were reversed. On offense, it is a little more difficult to see, because there aren't that many things you would do differently. However, it is reasonable to think that a "small ball" team, or at least one that is capable of playing "small ball", might play differently by trying to score only one or two runs at a time, rather than many runs with one swing. It is true, as some stat people like to point out, that you give up outs by doing things like sacrifice, steal bases, hit and run, etc. However, while the chances that you will score lots of runs in one inning decrease, the chance that you will score one run increases. You can't "manufacture" a run in the sense that it is guaranteed, but you can significantly increase your chances of scoring a single run.

I think this was a trademark of the 2005 team, and a factor in why they won so many close and low-scoring games. While they had power in the lineup, they could also do "small ball" things to increase their chances of scoring when the game was close. They didn't have to wait for the three-run homer, which changes the score in a hurry but has a smaller probability of occurring.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 12:59 PM
Sox Speed:

You certainly have a point about the pitching but in fact looking at those 15 wins in 2005 the Sox scored the runs in different ways. Some on a home run, some on manufacturing a run, a few due to an error by the opponent.

Again BALANCE.

Regarding the W-L record with / without a home run. The last number I saw for 2008 as printed in the newspaper was 9-30.
...

The Sox were 9-31, by my count. The Twins were 34-46 in games they didn't hit a HR.

The Sox lost 31 games in which they did not hit a HR. In every other game they either hit a HR or won, or both. The Twins lost 46 such games.

How about this: the Sox were 80-43, for a .650 winning percentage, when the did hit a HR. The Twins were 54-29, which also is a .650 winning percentage.

So if two teams both win 65% of their games with a HR, then the team that hits HR in more games is at an advantage. If only the Twins had hit more HR, they would have easily beaten the Sox.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 01:07 PM
The Sox were 9-31, by my count. The Twins were 34-46 in games they didn't hit a HR.

The Sox lost 31 games in which they did not hit a HR. In every other game they either hit a HR or won, or both. The Twins lost 46 such games.

How about this: the Sox were 80-43, for a .650 winning percentage, when the did hit a HR. The Twins were 54-29, which also is a .650 winning percentage.

So if two teams both win 65% of their games with a HR, then the team that hits HR in more games is at an advantage. If only the Twins had hit more HR, they would have easily beaten the Sox.

Not really, because the Sox were so dependent on home runs that they were .225 when they didn't get one. So the fact that the Sox hit more didn't really matter, because after 162 games they were tied with the team that hit less than half as many. I guess by your argument, if the Twins had hit more homers it would have had a greater effect than if the Sox had hit more homers.

All those numbers show is how reliant the Sox were on home runs.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 01:22 PM
Not really, because the Sox were so dependent on home runs that they were .225 when they didn't get one. So the fact that the Sox hit more didn't really matter, because after 162 games they were tied with the team that hit less than half as many. I guess by your argument, if the Twins had hit more homers it would have had a greater effect than if the Sox had hit more homers.

All those numbers show is how reliant the Sox were on home runs.
Yes and no. The purpose of my post was to show you can't really draw any conclusions from won-loss record, I apologize if that wasn't clear enough (I thought I took a lighthearted-enough tone).

Won-loss record is a terrible way to judge an offense, because it relies on pitching and defense. A better method would be to judge the offenses by number of runs scored and consistency of runs scored. Unfortunately, that's a little more time-consuming for me to compute here at work.

Ultimately, the 2008 Sox' "home run or bust" offense scored more runs than the 2008 Twins' and 2005 Sox' "balanced" offenses. And yet the offense is the problem? Color me confused.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 01:37 PM
Yes and no. The purpose of my post was to show you can't really draw any conclusions from won-loss record, I apologize if that wasn't clear enough (I thought I took a lighthearted-enough tone).

Won-loss record is a terrible way to judge an offense, because it relies on pitching and defense. A better method would be to judge the offenses by number of runs scored and consistency of runs scored. Unfortunately, that's a little more time-consuming for me to compute here at work.

Ultimately, the 2008 Sox' "home run or bust" offense scored more runs than the 2008 Twins' and 2005 Sox' "balanced" offenses. And yet the offense is the problem? Color me confused.

I see what you mean about pitching and defense being part of the equation. In fact, that's part of what makes it challenging to evaluate a sport like baseball where two teams are competing head-to-head: is the offense good, or is the other team's pitching bad?

Anyway, I agree that consistency is important, and that is why I think the "home run or nothing" offense needs to go. Yes, if you have enough offense -- say, a team full of All-Stars that scores 1000+ runs -- you could bludgeon your way to a victory. However, nobody but the Yankees can afford that, and even they haven't won since 2000 when they had fewer big names. My opinion is that you need to focus on resource allocation: rather than spend all your money on a bunch of expensive sluggers, get some less expensive guys that can do a better job of "manufacturing" runs consistently, and spend your money on the best pitching you can get. A hitter typically gets around 600 plate appearances a season, while a starter pitcher faces around 900 batters in a season. Put another way, a starter is one fifth of the rotation, while a hitter is only one ninth of the lineup.

jabrch
10-14-2008, 02:07 PM
I still haven't seen proof either that we have a "homerun or nothing philosophy" or that we score runs significantly different than any other team who scores as many or more runs than we do.

DSpivack
10-14-2008, 02:27 PM
I still haven't seen proof either that we have a "homerun or nothing philosophy" or that we score runs significantly different than any other team who scores as many or more runs than we do.

What I'd be interested is comparing different run-scoring averages amongst teams. That is, the mean, the mode the median; as well as the variation thereof. You're a lot better off scoring 5 runs consistently then 10 one day and 0 the next.

jabrch
10-14-2008, 02:32 PM
What I'd be interested is comparing different run-scoring averages amongst teams. That is, the mean, the mode the median; as well as the variation thereof. You're a lot better off scoring 5 runs consistently then 10 one day and 0 the next.

That's absolutely true - nobody would deny that. But is that the option? What I mean by that is, what if you choice is an average of 4 runs a game, or 5 runs today and 3 runs tomorrow? What if it is even different - what if your choice is an average of 3.5 runs per game, or 5 today and 3 tomorrow?

I am not convinced that this team is significantly worse than the overwhelming majority of the AL teams who score 800+ runs. Minny is a bad example - since they are a uniquely constructed team, built for their home park. If they had to play in USCF, with that roster/lineup, I speculate that they'd have been a long way behind at the end of the year.

DSpivack
10-14-2008, 02:50 PM
That's absolutely true - nobody would deny that. But is that the option? What I mean by that is, what if you choice is an average of 4 runs a game, or 5 runs today and 3 runs tomorrow? What if it is even different - what if your choice is an average of 3.5 runs per game, or 5 today and 3 tomorrow?

I am not convinced that this team is significantly worse than the overwhelming majority of the AL teams who score 800+ runs. Minny is a bad example - since they are a uniquely constructed team, built for their home park. If they had to play in USCF, with that roster/lineup, I speculate that they'd have been a long way behind at the end of the year.

Whether to be more consistent with the runs we score or to score more runs in general, either way we need to improve this offseason.

ChiSoxFan81
10-14-2008, 02:52 PM
Get rid of the nothing??

jabrch
10-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Whether to be more consistent with the runs we score or to score more runs in general, either way we need to improve this offseason.

Or allow fewer runs. We scored the 6th most runs in all of baseball.

DSpivack
10-14-2008, 02:57 PM
Or allow fewer runs. We scored the 6th most runs in all of baseball.

That, too!

Whichever gives us more than our opponents.

jabrch
10-14-2008, 02:58 PM
That, too!

Whichever gives us more than our opponents.

Agreed - something we were pretty damn good at in 2008.

I really don't believe this team requires too much fixing.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 03:42 PM
What I'd be interested is comparing different run-scoring averages amongst teams. That is, the mean, the mode the median; as well as the variation thereof. You're a lot better off scoring 5 runs consistently then 10 one day and 0 the next.

Retrosheet.org creates play-by-play files and game logs for every game. I have used these to create run distributions for the purpose of predicting winning percentage. It is interesting to look at the distributions and compare different styles of play, and winning vs. losing teams. The data for 2008 is not out yet, though.

Lip Man 1
10-14-2008, 04:25 PM
Eddo:

You say that the Sox "home run or nothing" offense outscored the Twins this season.

That's incorrect.

Minnesota scored 829 runs...the Sox 811. Minnesota was 4th in the league in team batting at .279, the Sox were 11th at .263. (Source is White Sox.com)

Improve those numbers just a tad, get a little more balance in the lineup and next season perhaps they don't have to go down to the wire to win it and then maybe can have time to set up their postseason rotation.

Again I'm not saying get rid of all the power hitters...I'm saying you don't need guys who can bang 20 home runs each hitting in the #1, #2 and #9 spots. How many power hitters do some of you folks want?

Lip

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 04:37 PM
I agree with Lip. We don't need to eliminate power altogether, but add balance. The 2005 team is the standard that everyone compares to, and I think they had a good balance. They used power when they could, but they could resort to creating runs one at a time when they had to.

I think part of the problem is that home runs are dominant in the psyche of the team. It seems that each player is trying to hit the homer and be the hero. Nobody wants to shorten their swing and hit to the opposite field for their teammates to knock them in. Even Alexei seemed to be swinging for the fences at the end.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 04:43 PM
That's absolutely true - nobody would deny that. But is that the option? What I mean by that is, what if you choice is an average of 4 runs a game, or 5 runs today and 3 runs tomorrow? What if it is even different - what if your choice is an average of 3.5 runs per game, or 5 today and 3 tomorrow?
This is huge.

Here is a typical ten-game run-scoring sequence for the 2008 White Sox:
6-8-0-1-2-7-6-8-1-6 = 45 runs per ten games

Jettisoning some power to promote "balance" may yield:
4-4-5-4-4-3-5-3-4-4 = 45 runs per ten games, which would be better - same total runs, but also more consistent, but it could also yield:
3-3-4-3-3-2-4-2-3-3 = 35 runs per ten games, which is more consistent, but also much worse.

There's no proof that balance gets you as many runs in total; in fact, examples like the 2005 Sox suggest that balance leads to fewer total runs.

If balance means less runs, then promoting a balanced offense is not an improvement.


I am not convinced that this team is significantly worse than the overwhelming majority of the AL teams who score 800+ runs. Minny is a bad example - since they are a uniquely constructed team, built for their home park. If they had to play in USCF, with that roster/lineup, I speculate that they'd have been a long way behind at the end of the year.
And the Sox are built for USCF, which has been the top HR park in baseball over the last few years. The Sox organization is very much like the Twins organization in this regard.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 04:58 PM
Eddo:

You say that the Sox "home run or nothing" offense outscored the Twins this season.

That's incorrect.

Minnesota scored 829 runs...the Sox 811. Minnesota was 4th in the league in team batting at .279, the Sox were 11th at .263. (Source is White Sox.com)

Improve those numbers just a tad, get a little more balance in the lineup and next season perhaps they don't have to go down to the wire to win it and then maybe can have time to set up their postseason rotation.

Again I'm not saying get rid of all the power hitters...I'm saying you don't need guys who can bang 20 home runs each hitting in the #1, #2 and #9 spots. How many power hitters do some of you folks want?

Lip
My bad on the Twins, who are actually a bad example due to their average with runners in scoring position, which was the second highest among all teams in the last 25 years. Therefore, you can't expect a team with their makeup to score 829 runs again.

I'm not advocating having 20+ HR power in every lineup spot. All I'm saying is that you (and I) have no idea if "balance" will actually lead to more runs. If balance means replacing the rather powerful Alexei Ramirez with slap hitter Ryan Theriot, it's not helping.

Rather than looking at lineup spots (which are not set in stone), look at positions.

Catcher: generally a non-offense position, especially power-wise. AJ is not a power hitter. Don't need balance here.
First Base: generally a power position. Most first baseman are like Konerko. Could he work on hitting more line drives? Yes. If you can upgrade Konerko, do it, but it's not likely.
Second Base: generally not a power position, but Ramirez hit 20 HR. He's also fairly adept at hitting the ball to all fields, though he could stand to walk more. Don't need more balance here.
Shortstop: generally not a power position. Cabrera was no exception. The only way to change this position would be to add more power.
Third Base: generally a power position, though not quite as much as 1B, LF, or RF. Crede provides OK power, but not much else. Uribe is just a bad hitter. Getting more consistecy from the third base position needs to be a priority for the Sox, so this could be an area where balance will help. But you still would like a hitter with power (cough, not Chone Figgins, cough) playing third.
Leftfield: generally a power position. Quetin is a prototypical LF. No more balance needed here (though Quentin is actually more HR-or-nothing that many here realize).
Centerfield: generally not a power position. Acquiring Griffey was unnecessary and added to the HR-or-nothing-ness, but he'll be gone next year anyway. More balance is inevitable here.
Rightfield: generally a power position (Ichiro is so far from typical it's not funny). Dye is less HR-or-nothing than Quentin (fewer HR but more total bases, in fact).
Designated Hitter: generally the most powerful position. Thome is pretty much the poster boy for HR-or-nothing, but he's not the problem with this offense.

Again, balance is a good thing, as long as we don't sacrifice overall production. Getting a guy who is fast and nothing else doesn't help. Sure, Juan Pierre-types add "balance" to a lineup with their speed, but they get on base so rarely (and when they do, it's only to first base), that they hurt the offense.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-14-2008, 05:19 PM
Again, balance is a good thing, as long as we don't sacrifice overall production. Getting a guy who is fast and nothing else doesn't help. Sure, Juan Pierre-types add "balance" to a lineup with their speed, but they get on base so rarely (and when they do, it's only to first base), that they hurt the offense.

I don't know about that. In 2005, Podsednik had a .351 OBP, better than everyone but Thome and Quentin on this year's team. In 2007, Willy Taveras had a .367 OBP. Pierre has been around .330 for the last four years, which is not good but is better than or similar to most of the Sox hitters this year. In 2004, his OBP was .374. Also, these guys are on second base much more often than Swisher types, and can score from first on a double as well. And the thing with those guys is that, even against a very good pitcher, you can still score runs. You don't have to wait for him to hang a pitch over the plate. Sometimes you need that when you're down by a run in the eighth or ninth inning.

I'm not suggesting we go and trade for Pierre. I'm just saying that the skills they bring to the team are valuable and can give an offense more quality, even if they don't hit lots of homers.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 05:31 PM
I don't know about that. In 2005, Podsednik had a .351 OBP, better than everyone but Thome and Quentin on this year's team. In 2007, Willy Taveras had a .367 OBP. Pierre has been around .330 for the last four years, which is not good but is better than or similar to most of the Sox hitters this year. In 2004, his OBP was .374. Also, these guys are on second base much more often than Swisher types, and can score from first on a double as well. And the thing with those guys is that, even against a very good pitcher, you can still score runs. You don't have to wait for him to hang a pitch over the plate. Sometimes you need that when you're down by a run in the eighth or ninth inning.

I'm not suggesting we go and trade for Pierre. I'm just saying that the skills they bring to the team are valuable and can give an offense more quality, even if they don't hit lots of homers.
Juan Pierre's OBP this year was lower than Swisher's (.327 vs .332). His sluggling was laughably lower (.328 vs .410). His 2004 numbers, when he was 26 (not 30 and past his prime) are irrelevant.

And no one denies you need that when you're down a run in the eighth inning. The problem is that HR are much more valuable in almost every other game situation. Two-run game in the fourth? I'll take the HR. Up by five in the seventh? HR, please. Leading off the game? HR > 1B + SB.

SoxSpeed22
10-14-2008, 06:09 PM
I think that the most practical way to fix it is to have more speed guys at the top and bottom of the order. When base-stealing threats are on, the power bats will get more fastballs and hit them hard. Lightning at the top and bottom, thunder in the middle.
They are going to be a home run hitting team with the stadium that they play in. They had a great home record this year, but winning on the road was a problem.

Paulwny
10-14-2008, 06:28 PM
They are going to be a home run hitting team with the stadium that they play in. They had a great home record this year, but winning on the road was a problem.


Exactly, to win on the road you must have a more balanced team.

MISoxfan
10-14-2008, 06:30 PM
Eddo:

You say that the Sox "home run or nothing" offense outscored the Twins this season.

That's incorrect.

Minnesota scored 829 runs...the Sox 811. Minnesota was 4th in the league in team batting at .279, the Sox were 11th at .263. (Source is White Sox.com)

Improve those numbers just a tad, get a little more balance in the lineup and next season perhaps they don't have to go down to the wire to win it and then maybe can have time to set up their postseason rotation.

Again I'm not saying get rid of all the power hitters...I'm saying you don't need guys who can bang 20 home runs each hitting in the #1, #2 and #9 spots. How many power hitters do some of you folks want?

Lip

There is plenty of room for improvement there is NO ONE arguing that we can't do better at 1, 2, and 9. The problem is that a lot of people in this thread are talking about getting rid of Konerko, Dye, or Thome, and that would be a huge mistake unless you can replace them with an even better hitter. If we trade Dye for a player like Pierre that would cost us so many runs.

I'm curious as to how many more wins you think the 2005 team would have had with this years pitching.

Also the Twins didn't score more runs than us because they run faster and slug less, they scored more than us because they had a ridiculous batting average with runners in scoring position.

jabrch
10-14-2008, 06:36 PM
I agree with Lip. We don't need to eliminate power altogether, but add balance. The 2005 team is the standard that everyone compares to, and I think they had a good balance. They used power when they could, but they could resort to creating runs one at a time when they had to.

The 2005 team had amazing pitching. That team's "balance" resulted in 741 runs scored. The unbalanced 2008 team scored 811 runs. Don't tell me you want to have 741 runs, even if they are perfectly distributed for 4.57 runs per game vs about .5 runs per game more even if not distributed evenly. Please...don't tell me you want the 2005 offense over the 2008 offense. Now give me the 2005 pitchers that allowed 645 runs vs the 2008 ones that allowed 729 runs, and I don't really care much how the distribution is. That's .5 runs per game on that end too.

We glamourize the 2005 team for a good reason. But lets not try to benchmark against their offensive balance. It was less efficient at scoring runs than this team.


Jettisoning some power to promote "balance" may yield:
4-4-5-4-4-3-5-3-4-4 = 45 runs per ten games, which would be better - same total runs, but also more consistent, but it could also yield:
3-3-4-3-3-2-4-2-3-3 = 35 runs per ten games, which is more consistent, but also much worse.

There's no proof that balance gets you as many runs in total; in fact, examples like the 2005 Sox suggest that balance leads to fewer total runs.

If balance means less runs, then promoting a balanced offense is not an improvement.


And that's the real question right there. Can we get "balance" and by balance, I am referring to a few guys who also bring speed, contact, walks, etc. to the table without sacrificing what we have. I'm not interested in seeing Paul Konerko traded to make a spot for Chone Figgins. I'd be OK with Furcal added at SS and either Uribe or Crede's carcass removed. I'm not interested in losing JD to replace him with Orlando Hudson for the same money. But I'd be fine going out and acquiring Brian Roberts if we could do so with prospects.

You build a team for your park. Right now we are only a tweak or two away. If we trade a major piece just to open up a spot, we become a tweak and a major piece away.

jabrch
10-14-2008, 06:42 PM
Exactly, to win on the road you must have a more balanced team.

Can you prove that? either statistically or anecdotally?

Find the teams with a greater delta of W% on the road vs W% at home. tell me they are "more balanced" and by that I guess we mean fewere HRs and more speed? I'm just not buying it Paul.

I'm not saying it isn't true - but I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

It isn't about runs. It isn't about the distribution of your runs. It's about outscoring your opponent as much as possible. There are many ways to skin that cat. I'm a fan of great pitching. My favorite regular season (non-elimination) game was the 1-0 win vs STL a few years ago when Thome hit a HR, and Reyes lost a 1 hitter. Now I know 1-0 isn't a sustainable way to win games. But I'm fine with this team making a minor tweak or two, replacing 3B, SS or CF with someone who runs - but even if we don't, if we come back with the same type of club we had this year, we will still be a contender from day one, and still have a pretty damn good chance of being a contender all season.

This is a good club. If it had a bit more luck with two key injuries, who knows what would have happened.

Lip Man 1
10-14-2008, 08:07 PM
Some fans say, but we have to hit home runs in U.S. Cellular Field to win and that’s completely true. However when you can’t or aren’t, hitting home runs, you better have some other way to score.

The Sox record in games this season when they didn’t hit a home run was abysmal. And keep in mind, 81 games are played on the road… some in pitcher friendly locations like Seattle, Oakland and Detroit. A one dimensional offense that isn’t hitting three home runs a game in those locations is going to have trouble.

What you’ve done by having balance, is to increase your chances of winning a game on a night in April when it’s 40 degrees out, when you are playing in Oakland where the foul territory is almost as large as the playing field or when you’re facing an off speed pitcher and he’s giving the sluggers fits. How many more double A junkballing pitchers do you need to see make the Sox look foolish before you understand the point?

A game here, a game there, could make all the difference in the world between playing the first week in October or making golf reservations. The Sox know that fact multiple times this decade.

In 2005 the Sox had balance and we saw what happened. We've also seen what's happened every other year this decade. Hitting 200, 215, 230 home runs, but nothing else, got the Sox exactly that...nothing.

Lip

Paulwny
10-14-2008, 08:13 PM
Can you prove that? either statistically or anecdotally?

Find the teams with a greater delta of W% on the road vs W% at home. tell me they are "more balanced" and by that I guess we mean fewere HRs and more speed? I'm just not buying it Paul.

I'm not saying it isn't true - but I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

It isn't about runs. It isn't about the distribution of your runs. It's about outscoring your opponent as much as possible. There are many ways to skin that cat. I'm a fan of great pitching. My favorite regular season (non-elimination) game was the 1-0 win vs STL a few years ago when Thome hit a HR, and Reyes lost a 1 hitter. Now I know 1-0 isn't a sustainable way to win games. But I'm fine with this team making a minor tweak or two, replacing 3B, SS or CF with someone who runs - but even if we don't, if we come back with the same type of club we had this year, we will still be a contender from day one, and still have a pretty damn good chance of being a contender all season.

This is a good club. If it had a bit more luck with two key injuries, who knows what would have happened.



The Angels come to mind, but no statistical proof.
I'm not advocating elimination of HR hitters. The Sox need a ss and a cf with speed, one of them who is capable of being a good lead off hitter. The dynamics of a team change when the rbi guys come to the plate with runners on with speed . The pitcher has to have some concern about the runner and not concentrate totally on the batter.
The sox need a few guys (ss,cf) who can score from second on a hit and be able to go the 3rd on a hit to rf.
This team is built for the cell as the twins are built for their dome.
The sox need a good lead off man with speed.

Against above average pitching hr numbers drop, scoring against these pitchers becomes a premium. You need a more balanced attack against these type of pitchers.

Eddo144
10-14-2008, 08:34 PM
The Sox record in games this season when they didn’t hit a home run was abysmal.

...

Lip
This is the big difference between the two of us. You see that figure and say, "We need to get guys good at things other than home runs, that way we improve the winning percentage in games without home runs." I see the figure and say, "We need to hit home runs in more games so that we have more wins."

Neither of us is right or wrong. Balance is a good thing, in theory. However, fast guys who can also be productive at the plate aren't easy to come by. In practice, bringing in balance (like in 2005) actually hurt the offensive production of the team; that doesn't mean it can't help the team next year, but it needs to be done smartly - no bringing in Willie Tavares just because he's fast or David Eckstein just because he can "handle a bat", despite being below-average offensive players.

MISoxfan
10-14-2008, 09:30 PM
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]In 2005 the Sox had balance and we saw what happened. We've also seen what's happened every other year this decade. Hitting 200, 215, 230 home runs, but nothing else, got the Sox exactly that...nothing.

Lip

In 2005 the Sox had a team ERA of 3.61

2006 4.61
2007 4.77
2008 4.06

This is why the 2005 team is the best team of the decade. Put the 2008 bullpen on the 2005 Sox and that team wins about 81 games.

Madscout
10-14-2008, 09:51 PM
I just want to remind everyone that we didn't have TCQ for the last part of the season. We are a different team without him. I don't know too many teams where you take away the leader in HR's and RBI's and a guy who is up there in batting average, and they still compete as well.

I am all for getting more speed, and more balance. I'd like to see us not compromise on defense in CF and 3b (not to mention whatever we do with the middle infield). But remember what Carlos meant to this lineup and how everyone sees different pitches with him in it and how the lineup itself is different.

Lip Man 1
10-14-2008, 10:11 PM
Eddo:

I agree which is why I'm advocating the names of Figgins and Hudson.

It's not easy to hit home runs at least not as easy as you seem to think. That's part of the reason why every no-name, mediocre, garbage, junkballing pitcher gives the Sox fits....because they are trying to hit eight run, 900 foot bombs at the expense of just making contract, going the other way or hitting the ball up the middle.

The greatest hitter in White Sox history, Frank Thomas seemed to have no problems doing this and he still hit a ton of home runs....maybe some of these guys should take a lesson from him.

Like I've said in the past to those who seem to advocate more not less power. Guarantee me the Sox will hit two or three home runs with men on base every single game of the season and I'll happily come over to your side.

Until you can do that though, you damn well better find some other way to score runs because they aren't going to hit two or three home runs every single game with men on base every game of the season.

"Speed never goes into a slump..." -- Ozzie Guillen.

MI:

As stated earlier pitching was a large part of things. But the Sox didn't win all those one run games just by hitting a home run. Look it up...I did. They won games via the home run...they won games because the winning run was set up by an opponents error, they won games with slap hits, they won games with speed, they won games where the winning run scored on a sacrifice fly (heaven forbid!!).

Regardless of what the staff's ERA was, a run is scored because of hitting and executing by the offense...the pitching had nothing to do with that aspect of things. Their role comes in making it stand up but that's not what is being discussed right now...it's how your offense scores those runs. If your offense can't score other then the home run, the greatest staff in the world can't win squat can they? As shown by the 15 games lost this year where the Sox staff held opponents to three runs or less.

I think we are talking cross purposes on this point.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-14-2008, 11:01 PM
Eddo:

I agree which is why I'm advocating the names of Figgins and Hudson.

It's not easy to hit home runs at least not as easy as you seem to think. That's part of the reason why every no-name, mediocre, garbage, junkballing pitcher gives the Sox fits....because they are trying to hit eight run, 900 foot bombs at the expense of just making contract, going the other way or hitting the ball up the middle.

The greatest hitter in White Sox history, Frank Thomas seemed to have no problems doing this and he still hit a ton of home runs....maybe some of these guys should take a lesson from him.

Like I've said in the past to those who seem to advocate more not less power. Guarantee me the Sox will hit two or three home runs with men on base every single game of the season and I'll happily come over to your side.

Until you can do that though, you damn well better find some other way to score runs because they aren't going to hit two or three home runs every single game with men on base every game of the season.

"Speed never goes into a slump..." -- Ozzie Guillen.

MI:

As stated earlier pitching was a large part of things. But the Sox didn't win all those one run games just by hitting a home run. Look it up...I did. They won games via the home run...they won games because the winning run was set up by an opponents error, they won games with slap hits, they won games with speed, they won games where the winning run scored on a sacrifice fly (heaven forbid!!).

Regardless of what the staff's ERA was, a run is scored because of hitting and executing by the offense...the pitching had nothing to do with that aspect of things. Their role comes in making it stand up but that's not what is being discussed right now...it's how your offense scores those runs. If your offense can't score other then the home run, the greatest staff in the world can't win squat can they? As shown by the 15 games lost this year where the Sox staff held opponents to three runs or less.

I think we are talking cross purposes on this point.

Lip
1. Speed does slump. Hitters who can run are valuable, runners who can't hit aren't. I'd love to have more speed, just make sure they can hit and get on base.
2. Hudson is not the best idea. We've got Getz and I'd much rather us sign a one year stopgap than go 3-4 on Hudson. Hudson's injury prone (though I've advocated for him before, I've given it some more thought and research...) and will not do well in USCF. Chase has spacious alleys and inflates triples and doubles, while USCF will deflate them. I'd much rather go the route of Loretta/Grudzielanek and give the majority of the ABs to Getz.

MISoxfan
10-15-2008, 12:31 AM
I don't want to argue ad naseum, but I do think that the team we put out there this season would have won the world series if they had the greatest staff in the world.

I will never for a second argue with picking up a good leadoff hitter and number 2 hitter for this team, I just don't want to do it at expense of one of our power hitters. Kenny needs to do something creative to get one or find another diamond in the rough.

I also won't ever argue with you about vintage Frank Thomas being able to do things that Konerko, Dye, and Thome can't do. I'd replace any of them with a hitter like that in a heartbeat, but I don't even think there is anyone in the league right now that can do what he could do.

Lip Man 1
10-15-2008, 02:02 AM
MI:

Just to make sure I'm not necessarily advocating trading all of them either but in order to get more balance you could see one get dealt.

Craig:

For what it's worth I've heard from folks in the organization who are telling me the only way Getz starts at second next season is if Kenny can't get anybody else. That's not necessarily a knock on Getz...it's more along the lines of Kenny wanting a veteran up the middle to take charge especially with Ramirez moving to another position.

I think in the future you are going to see Getz, Beckham and John Shelby Jr. make real contributions with this team

Lip

Eddo144
10-15-2008, 02:24 AM
Eddo:

I agree which is why I'm advocating the names of Figgins and Hudson.
They are both above-average choices. Figgins gets on base at a good clip, but only gets to first when he does so. I, like Craig, was higher on Hudson until I did some research. A 30-year-old, injury-prone 2B may not be the best addition to the Sox.

It's not easy to hit home runs at least not as easy as you seem to think. That's part of the reason why every no-name, mediocre, garbage, junkballing pitcher gives the Sox fits....because they are trying to hit eight run, 900 foot bombs at the expense of just making contract, going the other way or hitting the ball up the middle.
True, but this is an execution problem, not a team-building problem. Guys like Uribe, Swisher, and Pierzysnski, and to a lesser extent, Quentin and Ramirez, should not be swinging for the fences as much as they do - shorter swings could be a big help.

The greatest hitter in White Sox history, Frank Thomas seemed to have no problems doing this and he still hit a ton of home runs....maybe some of these guys should take a lesson from him.
I'd take 1990-2000 Frank Thomas back in a second. Unfortunately, hitters of his caliber, while existent (Pujols, Manny Ramirez, A-Rod), are not exactly available.

Like I've said in the past to those who seem to advocate more not less power. Guarantee me the Sox will hit two or three home runs with men on base every single game of the season and I'll happily come over to your side.
This is actually spot-on. Given the choice between a one-dimensional OBP-guy and a one-dimensional HR-guy, I'll take the former. But don't confuse speed with on-base ability.

Craig Grebeck
10-15-2008, 10:05 AM
MI:

Just to make sure I'm not necessarily advocating trading all of them either but in order to get more balance you could see one get dealt.

Craig:

For what it's worth I've heard from folks in the organization who are telling me the only way Getz starts at second next season is if Kenny can't get anybody else. That's not necessarily a knock on Getz...it's more along the lines of Kenny wanting a veteran up the middle to take charge especially with Ramirez moving to another position.

I think in the future you are going to see Getz, Beckham and John Shelby Jr. make real contributions with this team

Lip
You're probably going to see Shelby in the OF. He's been moved there because of poor defense at 2B. Now, I understand Kenny wants a veteran up the middle, but that doesn't mean it has to be Hudson. He wants a lot of money and is not a good fit for USCF. I think it'd be similar to what we saw out of Cabrera, with more pop. Signing Grudzielanek/Loretta to a one year deal would be preferable to Hudson, in my opinion.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-15-2008, 11:45 AM
And no one denies you need that when you're down a run in the eighth inning. The problem is that HR are much more valuable in almost every other game situation. Two-run game in the fourth? I'll take the HR. Up by five in the seventh? HR, please. Leading off the game? HR > 1B + SB.

Sure they are more valuable, but they are also much less dependable. Even the Sox, who led the majors in homers by a large margin, hit about four times as many singles as homers. The MLB average is more like six singles for every homer. And here's another thing: the best pitchers don't allow very many home runs. So a one-dimensional home run oriented offense might be able to pile up runs against the crappy pitchers and teams, but against the good teams they will struggle (sound familiar?). It might work in the regular season when you get to play KC and Detroit frequently, but in the playoffs this type of offense gets shut down, as we saw. If you're only concerned with winning the Central, fine, keep all your sluggers. But if you want to win in October, you need balance.

Eddo144
10-15-2008, 12:34 PM
Sure they are more valuable, but they are also much less dependable. Even the Sox, who led the majors in homers by a large margin, hit about four times as many singles as homers. The MLB average is more like six singles for every homer.
Yeah, but a single HR scores a run. You need at least three singles in an inning to do so (if we're being simple and saying you only get singles).

A team that hits home runs in the 2nd and 7th innings and nothing else will score two runs. A team that hits two singles every single inning and nothing else will score zero runs. Yet the ratio of singles to home runs is nine to one!

Now, this is an extreme example, of course, but it illustrates the fact that it's much more complicated than "home runs = unreliable". Consecutive singles are also unreliable.

And here's another thing: the best pitchers don't allow very many home runs. So a one-dimensional home run oriented offense might be able to pile up runs against the crappy pitchers and teams, but against the good teams they will struggle (sound familiar?). It might work in the regular season when you get to play KC and Detroit frequently, but in the playoffs this type of offense gets shut down, as we saw. If you're only concerned with winning the Central, fine, keep all your sluggers. But if you want to win in October, you need balance.
Yep, that's a problem. But the best pitchers also give up fewer hits, so any offense will struggle against them.

Look, I'm not saying that adding "balance" will hurt the Sox. I'm just looking for some evidence that it will help them before I advocate dropping sluggers from the team.

btrain929
10-15-2008, 12:35 PM
For the record, I'd like to see David Dejesus playing CF and batting 2nd for us. He always sports a good avg/OBP, can cover more ground in CF then Swisher, and is under a very cheap contract ala Swisher for the forseeable future. I don't know if the Royals would consider moving him, but we have a history with them of trading, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

MISoxfan
10-15-2008, 08:55 PM
Everyone struggles against good pitching, even slap hitters. Its harder to hit singles against good pitching.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-16-2008, 11:42 AM
Everyone struggles against good pitching, even slap hitters. Its harder to hit singles against good pitching.

Fine. But if you know that the pitcher isn't going to make many mistakes, and you're still swinging as hard as you can at every pitch, it will be harder to adjust to the breaking pitch, so you'll strike out more often. And even if you do get fewer singles, if you have some balance in the lineup you can turn those singles into runs with stolen bases, sacrifice hits, and sacrifice flies. You might not get many runs this way, but at least you have a better chance than sitting and waiting for a mistake that probably won't come. Your own pitchers will have to do well to win, but that is the case either way. At least with the ability to "manufacture" runs, you still have some options when the opposing pitcher is very good.

oeo
10-16-2008, 11:48 AM
For the record, I'd like to see David Dejesus playing CF and batting 2nd for us. He always sports a good avg/OBP, can cover more ground in CF then Swisher, and is under a very cheap contract ala Swisher for the forseeable future. I don't know if the Royals would consider moving him, but we have a history with them of trading, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Even if they were, who would we give up? It doesn't seem like a good match.

Besides, I don't like the idea of trading with the Royals. They're shaping up to be the next Tampa Bay Rays.

jabrch
10-16-2008, 12:23 PM
And here's another thing: the best pitchers don't allow very many home runs.

or walks...or hits...so what?

So a one-dimensional home run oriented offense might be able to pile up runs against the crappy pitchers and teams, but against the good teams they will struggle (sound familiar?).


Not really - I have seen this team play fairly ok against good teams at home, and less good on the road, and then struggle against crappy pitchers we have never seen before. Seems the opposite of your hypothesis.

btrain929
10-16-2008, 12:44 PM
Even if they were, who would we give up? It doesn't seem like a good match.

Besides, I don't like the idea of trading with the Royals. They're shaping up to be the next Tampa Bay Rays.

Grudz is out the door, do they have a good 2B? Aviles is their SS. Maybe they'd be interested in Getz and Shelby/Allen/pitching prospect not named Poreda. We're known for trading prospects for proven players, and he's one I'd like the Sox to get their hands on.

HomeFish
10-20-2008, 09:26 PM
The Sox were not that good of an offensive team in 2005. Only Podsednik hit more than .290 and nobody hit more than .300. For all the talk about Podsednik, a statistical analysis will reveal that the team was about as dependent on the home run as most other Sox teams of this decade. Watching that team has convinced me that good pitching is the secret to higher-level success in baseball.

For all the complaining about our HR-or-nothing offense, we won the division on a solo home run backed by a lights-out pitching performance. And I'd say we lost the ALDS because of pitching miscues.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-21-2008, 12:20 PM
The Sox were not that good of an offensive team in 2005. Only Podsednik hit more than .290 and nobody hit more than .300. For all the talk about Podsednik, a statistical analysis will reveal that the team was about as dependent on the home run as most other Sox teams of this decade. Watching that team has convinced me that good pitching is the secret to higher-level success in baseball.

I'll bet that the Sox scored the majority of their runs via long balls, but that doesn't mean that Podsednik's speed didn't produce runs that were the difference between winning and losing. I'm not arguing that we don't need power at all, but that we need a little speed and balance.

I also agree that pitching is the secret. So if you have a $100MM payroll (for the sake of discussion), you should allocate more of your resources to pitching, and construct an offense that is decent, but not overly expensive. Part of the problem with sluggers is that they have big contracts. You need a few of those guys, but if you spend all your money of offense, you won't have any left for pitching.

or walks...or hits...so what?

Yes, but mistakes are hit for home runs more often than pitchers' pitches, and good pitchers are less likely to make mistakes. It is still possible, though more difficult, to hit a good pitch for a single. Sure, you'll see Manny Ramirez or Vladimir Guerrero golf a slider in the dirt occasionally, but homers are more likely to come on curve balls or fastballs up. Guys like Lincecum and Halladay don't make as many mistakes.

Not really - I have seen this team play fairly ok against good teams at home, and less good on the road, and then struggle against crappy pitchers we have never seen before. Seems the opposite of your hypothesis.

The Sox were 24-37 against teams above .500, and 64-37 against the rest. So unless they only played the good teams on the road (they didn't), your argument is garbage.

Tragg
10-21-2008, 12:23 PM
The Sox were not that good of an offensive team in 2005. Only Podsednik hit more than .290 and nobody hit more than .300. For all the talk about Podsednik, a statistical analysis will reveal that the team was about as dependent on the home run as most other Sox teams of this decade. Watching that team has convinced me that good pitching is the secret to higher-level success in baseball.

For all the complaining about our HR-or-nothing offense, we won the division on a solo home run backed by a lights-out pitching performance. And I'd say we lost the ALDS because of pitching miscues.
Podsednik got on base at a 35% clip; while not great, that's good, and a lot better than we've seen since.
Also, our #2 hitter got on 34% of the time...pretty good, too.

WHILEPITCH
10-21-2008, 12:41 PM
To 'get rid' of the philosophy you have to rip up the team.

I'm more in favor of getting 1&2 hitters, only by trading (at the max) one power hitter... and then giving this thing one more year with the core relatively the same.


Lets not forget, this team hit a crapload of HRs.... there just wasnt anyone on base.

And there was no CQ for a huge chunk of games. His absence actually hurt a lot due to unexpected things: his replacement lacking speed and a comparable ability to walk.

Lip Man 1
10-21-2008, 03:30 PM
Rocky Mtn:

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season with a “winning” record (at least 82 wins) was: 29-41 .414

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season with a “losing” record (less then 80 wins) was: 49-26 .653

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season exactly at .500 (81 wins) was: 11-7 .611

Lip

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-22-2008, 02:14 PM
Rocky Mtn:

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season with a “winning” record (at least 82 wins) was: 29-41 .414

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season with a “losing” record (less then 80 wins) was: 49-26 .653

* The White Sox 2008 regular season record versus teams that finished the season exactly at .500 (81 wins) was: 11-7 .611

Lip


Thanks, Lip. I got the record against winning teams in the AL only by looking at the team vs. team standings, and then subtracted from their final record. I forgot to include the interleague results.

MISoxfan
10-23-2008, 07:52 PM
Yes, but mistakes are hit for home runs more often than pitchers' pitches, and good pitchers are less likely to make mistakes. It is still possible, though more difficult, to hit a good pitch for a single. Sure, you'll see Manny Ramirez or Vladimir Guerrero golf a slider in the dirt occasionally, but homers are more likely to come on curve balls or fastballs up. Guys like Lincecum and Halladay don't make as many mistakes.

Yes, but mistakes are hit for singles more often than pitchers' pitches, and good pitchers are less likely to make mistakes. It is still possible, though more difficult, to hit a good pitch for a home run. Sure, you'll see Ichiro or Pedroia golf a slider in the dirt occasionally, but singles are more likely to come on curve balls or fastballs up. Guys like Lincecum and Halladay don't make as many mistakes.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-24-2008, 10:09 AM
Yes, but mistakes are hit for singles more often than pitchers' pitches, and good pitchers are less likely to make mistakes. It is still possible, though more difficult, to hit a good pitch for a home run. Sure, you'll see Ichiro or Pedroia golf a slider in the dirt occasionally, but singles are more likely to come on curve balls or fastballs up. Guys like Lincecum and Halladay don't make as many mistakes.

If you really think hitting a single is the same thing as hitting a home run, there is no way to have this discussion with you.

russ99
10-24-2008, 11:50 AM
If you really think hitting a single is the same thing as hitting a home run, there is no way to have this discussion with you.

I don't think anyone is discounting the home run, and regardless of what Kenny does this offseason (and any other offseason) we'll always have power hitting as a big part of this team.

I think we just need to do two things to be more successful on offense:

First, bring in some new players for the top of the order who are excellent baserunners (not necessarily base stealers) who also can get on base often (even though OC and AJ did a pretty good job with that this year) and bring in a special consultant into spring training that spends time with each player going over situational hitting.

In a perfect world, that would be the job of our new hitting coach, but a much-needed change there looks like it's not going to happen.

MISoxfan
10-25-2008, 01:59 PM
If you really think hitting a single is the same thing as hitting a home run, there is no way to have this discussion with you.

Is there anything in my post that you would disagree with? There is also nothing in your original post that I could disagree with. Neither of them prove anything at all.

The only way to prove what you're trying to argue is to find out if the ratio of runs scored on good pitchers by home run is different than the ratio of runs scored on bad pitchers by home run. You haven't even tried to do anything like that, you just keep blathering about how home runs are harder to hit on good pitchers and then concluded by trying to insult me.