PDA

View Full Version : Willy Taveras


gr8mexico
11-03-2008, 09:40 AM
MOD EDIT: Copyrighted Text

EMachine10
11-03-2008, 09:42 AM
Yuck

Rockabilly
11-03-2008, 09:54 AM
he won't be a bad xtra OF but don't want him as a starter

BadBobbyJenks
11-03-2008, 09:54 AM
Brian Anderson > Willy Taveras

whitesox901
11-03-2008, 09:54 AM
pass

oeo
11-03-2008, 10:00 AM
Brian Anderson > Willy Taveras

Depends on what you're looking for. They're pretty much a wash defensively; both have good range, and good arms. Anderson will give you more pop, but will likely bat about .230. Taveras has shown the ability to hit for pretty good average (and not just in Coors), but has no power whatsoever. Neither are going to walk very much, Anderson is going to strike out a heck of a lot more, and Taveras is pretty much a lock to steal a bag.

If you want the power, Anderson...the speed and average, Taveras. I know Taveras is coming off a bad season which will always make WSI skeptical, but he's at least proven something in this league, unlike Mr. Anderson. He's definitely not our answer at leadoff, but I think he'd be a welcome addition at the bottom of the order or on the bench.

soltrain21
11-03-2008, 10:09 AM
Depends on what you're looking for. They're pretty much a wash defensively; both have good range, and good arms. Anderson will give you more pop, but will likely bat about .230. Taveras has shown the ability to hit for pretty good average (and not just in Coors), but has no power whatsoever. Neither are going to walk very much, Anderson is going to strike out a heck of a lot more, and Taveras is pretty much a lock to steal a bag.

If you want the power, Anderson...the speed and average, Taveras. I know Taveras is coming off a bad season which will always make WSI skeptical, but he's at least proven something in this league, unlike Mr. Anderson. He's definitely not our answer at leadoff, but I think he'd be a welcome addition at the bottom of the order or on the bench.


You Anderson haters are funny. .230? Really?

oeo
11-03-2008, 10:10 AM
You Anderson haters are funny. .230? Really?

Has he shown anything to make me think otherwise? And let's make this clear: I'm an Anderson-for-starter hater, not an Anderson hater.

Also, don't be surprised if this actually happens. Kenny almost acquired him in that Garland deal a couple years ago. And we all know about Kenny and getting his guy.

MisterB
11-03-2008, 10:13 AM
You Anderson haters are funny. .230? Really?

His career batting average to date is .221, so oeo is predicting an improvement. :thumbsup:

EMachine10
11-03-2008, 10:17 AM
In terms of range, yes, Taveras is faster than Anderson, but I'm not entirely convinced he has more range. A lot of what plays into the range is how well the fielder reads the ball off the bat and what kind of route he takes. I'm not taking anything away from Taveras, but rather adding a little more to the assessment of Anderson. I would say they at least have extremely similar range.

oeo
11-03-2008, 11:05 AM
In terms of range, yes, Taveras is faster than Anderson, but I'm not entirely convinced he has more range. A lot of what plays into the range is how well the fielder reads the ball off the bat and what kind of route he takes. I'm not taking anything away from Taveras, but rather adding a little more to the assessment of Anderson. I would say they at least have extremely similar range.

Isn't that what I said?

The whole point of my post was to point out their differences on offense. Neither of them are very scary offensively, and do nothing well (other than Taveras' ability on the basepaths). I was trying to prove that Anderson is not a better player than Taveras. In fact, unless Taveras showed up with another 2008 season, he'd be a better player than Anderson.

munchman33
11-03-2008, 11:23 AM
You Anderson haters are funny. .230? Really?

This comment confuses me.

johnnyg83
11-03-2008, 11:41 AM
Interesting ... on foxsports.com two separate items in the "rumor" section link us (among many other teams) to Taveras and Atkins ... could they qualify for the big deal that Steve Stone mentioned?

They also said the Rockies like our pitching depth. Hmm.

It "fills" two of our needs and gets us faster.

LoveYourSuit
11-03-2008, 11:46 AM
Interesting ... on foxsports.com two separate items in the "rumor" section link us (among many other teams) to Taveras and Atkins ... could they qualify for the big deal that Steve Stone mentioned?

They also said the Rockies like our pitching depth. Hmm.

It "fills" two of our needs and gets us faster.


Not sure what pitching they have been looking at other than what we already have here in the big league club....if that's the case, no thanks.

I'm sure Gavin or Danks is who they like :rolleyes:..... NEXT.

champagne030
11-03-2008, 11:50 AM
Not sure what pitching they have been looking at other than what we already have here in the big league club....if that's the case, no thanks.

I'm sure Gavin or Danks is who they like :rolleyes:..... NEXT.

I'm sure KW is constantly fielding calls from teams wanting Broadway. :wink:

johnnyg83
11-03-2008, 11:51 AM
Not sure what pitching they have been looking at other than what we already have here in the big league club....if that's the case, no thanks.

I'm sure Gavin or Danks is who they like :rolleyes:..... NEXT.

I can't see Danks or Floyd being traded ... unless it was for two great players ... at least one of which was a big time, affordable SP.

btrain929
11-03-2008, 01:14 PM
I'd personally like the idea of acquiring Taveras, and it fits a lot of things we're trying to do. He's only turning 27 in December. I don't get how people see him have a decent year in '06, a great season in '07, but determine that his poor season in 2008 is the true Willy Taveras. He actually does better on the road then at Coors (so don't try to use that as an argument), actually has a decent arm for a CF speedster, and would cost literally nothing to obtain.

I don't know how great he'd be in the leadoff spot with his poor OBP, but would it be the worst thing in the world to have him play CF and bat 9th? We get younger, quicker, and don't do it at the cost of downgrading in defense. Sounds like a typical buy-low move that KW likes to jump all over.

EMachine10
11-03-2008, 01:20 PM
Isn't that what I said?

The whole point of my post was to point out their differences on offense. Neither of them are very scary offensively, and do nothing well (other than Taveras' ability on the basepaths). I was trying to prove that Anderson is not a better player than Taveras. In fact, unless Taveras showed up with another 2008 season, he'd be a better player than Anderson.
:scratch: I don't know what I was reading. My bad. :redface:

oeo
11-03-2008, 02:53 PM
Not sure what pitching they have been looking at other than what we already have here in the big league club....if that's the case, no thanks.

I'm sure Gavin or Danks is who they like :rolleyes:..... NEXT.

Actually, the Rockies were interested in Poreda at the deadline.

Obviously they're out of their minds if they think they're going to get Danks or Floyd (especially Danks) for merely Atkins and Taveras. Center a deal around Poreda if he interests them. Also, I don't know what direction the Rockies plan on heading next year, if Javy would be of interest. Of course we would need to nab another starter first.

Although, honestly, I'd rather skip out on Atkins.

russ99
11-03-2008, 02:58 PM
In terms of range, yes, Taveras is faster than Anderson, but I'm not entirely convinced he has more range. A lot of what plays into the range is how well the fielder reads the ball off the bat and what kind of route he takes. I'm not taking anything away from Taveras, but rather adding a little more to the assessment of Anderson. I would say they at least have extremely similar range.

I watched Willy play for the Astros for 2 seasons. He has unbelievable range. Unfortunately he has awful defensive instincts, so many times he needs his speed/range just to make borderline routine plays.

As a hitter, he can barely get it out of the infield, with an occasional liner to the outfield, so most of his hits come from slap hits in the hole that he beats to first. As poorly as Michael Bourn has done with the Astros this year, he's more of a complete package than Tavarez.

I'd hope the Sox would get someone for leadoff that has a better average and can get on base more than Tavarez, who IMO seems like a speedier version of Jerry Owens.

turners56
11-03-2008, 03:24 PM
I'll take Taveras if we don't give up anything, but I think we can do better than Atkins if we're going to dish out some of our better players or prospects.

turners56
11-03-2008, 03:25 PM
I watched Willy play for the Astros for 2 seasons. He has unbelievable range. Unfortunately he has awful defensive instincts, so many times he needs his speed/range just to make borderline routine plays.

As a hitter, he can barely get it out of the infield, with an occasional liner to the outfield, so most of his hits come from slap hits in the hole that he beats to first. As poorly as Michael Bourn has done with the Astros this year, he's more of a complete package than Tavarez.

I'd hope the Sox would get someone for leadoff that has a better average and can get on base more than Tavarez, who IMO seems like a speedier version of Jerry Owens.

Unfortunately, that is exactly who he is.

Lillian
11-03-2008, 03:26 PM
This article explains what happened to Taveras the last month of the season:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080924&content_id=3542862&vkey=news_col&fext=.jsp&c_id=col

He played on a stress fracture for 3 weeks!!!
The rest of his year was OK., and he did have a very good 2007.
Look at his game log. Most of the season he was a 270 hitter.
He won't turn 27 until next month.
He doesn't strike out much. As long as he's making contact, he has a chance to get on because of his speed.
I like it.

turners56
11-03-2008, 03:30 PM
This article explains what happened to Taveras the last month of the season:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080924&content_id=3542862&vkey=news_col&fext=.jsp&c_id=col

He played on a stress fracture for 3 weeks!!!
The rest of his year was OK., and he did have a very good 2007.
Look at his game log. Most of the season he was a 270 hitter.
He won't turn 27 until next month.
He doesn't strike out much. As long as he's making contact, he has a chance to get on because of his speed.
I like it.

He was uncharacteristically bad last year. He's a career .283 hitter, that's decent. If we acquire him right now, we'd be buying very low. The thing is, he's never played ball in the AL before. He's been feeding off the NL his entire career. He kind of reminds me of Scott Podsednik in that he's a similar type of player and that he is coming off his worst season in his career.

Lukin13
11-03-2008, 04:43 PM
If KW can move one of the following: Konerko, Thome or Dye,

I like it.

If KW cannot move one of the following: Konerko, Thome or Dye,

I don't like it.


If Kenny revamps the lineup, adding a pure speedster is fine, but otherwise KW should target high on base guys as opposed to just plain speed. Especially if you add the possibility of Josh Fields at 3B to the mix, this team will once again be station to station and the addition of Taveras would be a waste. Does it matter if Willy is standing on first or second, when six consecutive hitters swing for the fences?

Another thing to consider is that while in Houston Taveras had above average defensive stats (THT and +/-), but these last two seasons in Colorado he has been abysmal. Now I am not up on defense enough to know if it is a Coors Field thing or what, but his '07 and '08 stats scare me enough to bring it up.

SoxNation05
11-03-2008, 04:49 PM
I'd personally like the idea of acquiring Taveras, and it fits a lot of things we're trying to do. He's only turning 27 in December. I don't get how people see him have a decent year in '06, a great season in '07, but determine that his poor season in 2008 is the true Willy Taveras. He actually does better on the road then at Coors (so don't try to use that as an argument), actually has a decent arm for a CF speedster, and would cost literally nothing to obtain.

I don't know how great he'd be in the leadoff spot with his poor OBP, but would it be the worst thing in the world to have him play CF and bat 9th? We get younger, quicker, and don't do it at the cost of downgrading in defense. Sounds like a typical buy-low move that KW likes to jump all over.
Very good post. I almost always agree with you btrain :thumbsup:

btrain929
11-03-2008, 05:36 PM
Very good post. I almost always agree with you btrain :thumbsup:

What the **** do you mean "almost always?" :D:

Thank ya, brother.

SoxNation05
11-03-2008, 05:56 PM
What the **** do you mean "almost always?" :D:

Thank ya, brother.
haha. No problem.

HBaines03
11-03-2008, 08:04 PM
I like the idea of Willy Taveras and here is my reasoning. Willy Taveras can play LF, BA in CF and Quentin in RF. Very solid OF defense with speed to cut gaps down. Willy Taveras is only 26 years old so there is plenty of time for him to improve on what he has already done. Allows us to trade our best asset to improve other areas of need (pitching depth, #2 hitter/infield help). We add speed to the lineup which helps. Please don't tell me we have a version of Willy in Jerry Owens. I look back to the beginning of 2006 when we just aquired Thome. Having Podsednik and Iguchi 1-2 ahead of Thome allowed Jim to have a great 1st half. How you ask......because the thought of the spped of these 2 guys made pitchers concentrate on the base paths and not Jim Thome. They threw more fastballs because they wanted to limit the chance of a stolen base which allowed Thome to hit very well. Speed does not have to translate into stolen bases per say but it does affect the pitcher and catcher's pattern and create more runs due to mistakes. Getting a good #2 hitter with speed can help this and situational hitting. We can than afford to lose Dye's HR numbers and still generate runs and we become a more balanced team. Remember not many people were keen on trading Carlos Lee (.300+ 30 100) for Scott Podesednik in 2005 but it produced a world championship.

russ99
11-03-2008, 09:21 PM
I like the idea of Willy Taveras and here is my reasoning. Willy Taveras can play LF, BA in CF and Quentin in RF. Very solid OF defense with speed to cut gaps down. Willy Taveras is only 26 years old so there is plenty of time for him to improve on what he has already done. Allows us to trade our best asset to improve other areas of need (pitching depth, #2 hitter/infield help). We add speed to the lineup which helps. Please don't tell me we have a version of Willy in Jerry Owens. I look back to the beginning of 2006 when we just aquired Thome. Having Podsednik and Iguchi 1-2 ahead of Thome allowed Jim to have a great 1st half. How you ask......because the thought of the spped of these 2 guys made pitchers concentrate on the base paths and not Jim Thome. They threw more fastballs because they wanted to limit the chance of a stolen base which allowed Thome to hit very well. Speed does not have to translate into stolen bases per say but it does affect the pitcher and catcher's pattern and create more runs due to mistakes. Getting a good #2 hitter with speed can help this and situational hitting. We can than afford to lose Dye's HR numbers and still generate runs and we become a more balanced team. Remember not many people were keen on trading Carlos Lee (.300+ 30 100) for Scott Podesednik in 2005 but it produced a world championship.

If we were to deal for Tavarez, BA would not start in center. Also, I wouldn't expect a drastic upturn in Tavarez' overall hitting, as a big reason Houston dealt him was because he wouldn't take pitches or show a real aptitude to learn. His game is his game, I wouldn't expect too much more other than a slight upswing with going to the AL.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. :D: Especially the #2 hitter part, but I'm hoping that's either Figgins or Hudson.

Eddo144
11-03-2008, 10:19 PM
I like the idea of Willy Taveras and here is my reasoning. Willy Taveras can play LF, BA in CF and Quentin in RF. Very solid OF defense with speed to cut gaps down. Willy Taveras is only 26 years old so there is plenty of time for him to improve on what he has already done. Allows us to trade our best asset to improve other areas of need (pitching depth, #2 hitter/infield help). We add speed to the lineup which helps. Please don't tell me we have a version of Willy in Jerry Owens. I look back to the beginning of 2006 when we just aquired Thome. Having Podsednik and Iguchi 1-2 ahead of Thome allowed Jim to have a great 1st half. How you ask......because the thought of the spped of these 2 guys made pitchers concentrate on the base paths and not Jim Thome. They threw more fastballs because they wanted to limit the chance of a stolen base which allowed Thome to hit very well. Speed does not have to translate into stolen bases per say but it does affect the pitcher and catcher's pattern and create more runs due to mistakes. Getting a good #2 hitter with speed can help this and situational hitting. We can than afford to lose Dye's HR numbers and still generate runs and we become a more balanced team. Remember not many people were keen on trading Carlos Lee (.300+ 30 100) for Scott Podesednik in 2005 but it produced a world championship.
Where to begin?

OK, you've just downgraded from Jermaine Dye, a solid, if unspectacular hitter,to Willy Taveras, a player whose only real offensive skill is speed.

Thome had an excellent first half (and you're probably underrating his second half) in 2007 because he was mashing the ball and getting on base at an incredible clip. Remember, he was scoring runs at a notable pace, not getting RBI. That had nothing to do with Podsednik hitting in front of him.

The 2005 offense, minus Carlos Lee, scored fewer runs than the 2004 offense with him. The reason the Sox won the World Series was because of pitching. How do people still not get this? They won in spite of a rather pedestrian offense!

LoveYourSuit
11-03-2008, 11:29 PM
If KW can move one of the following: Konerko, Thome or Dye,

I like it.

If KW cannot move one of the following: Konerko, Thome or Dye,

I don't like it.


If Kenny revamps the lineup, adding a pure speedster is fine, but otherwise KW should target high on base guys as opposed to just plain speed. Especially if you add the possibility of Josh Fields at 3B to the mix, this team will once again be station to station and the addition of Taveras would be a waste. Does it matter if Willy is standing on first or second, when six consecutive hitters swing for the fences?

Another thing to consider is that while in Houston Taveras had above average defensive stats (THT and +/-), but these last two seasons in Colorado he has been abysmal. Now I am not up on defense enough to know if it is a Coors Field thing or what, but his '07 and '08 stats scare me enough to bring it up.

Unfortunately of the big 3 there Dye will be the one moved. He is head and shoulders our best option right now to protect Quentin. Making things even worse is the fact that this will mean lots more Nick Swisher ..... that's the guy I don't want to see here anymore.

My choice (in order) of who to unload from all this clutter:

1. Swisher
2. Paulie
3. Thome
4. Dye


But that's wishful thinking.

munchman33
11-03-2008, 11:30 PM
The 2005 offense, minus Carlos Lee, scored fewer runs than the 2004 offense with him. The reason the Sox won the World Series was because of pitching. How do people still not get this? They won in spite of a rather pedestrian offense!

What stats guys neglect is how consistent that offense was. It didn't score tons of runs. But it didn't get shut down completely a lot. They won a lot of close, low scoring ball games. That team didn't win because of it's pitching. It won because of it's pitching, it's ability to push runs across in tight spots, and it's ability to take pressure off the pitchers because they consistently grabbed the lead in games.

btrain929
11-03-2008, 11:36 PM
My choice (in order) of who to unload from all this clutter:

1. Swisher
2. Paulie
3. Thome
4. Dye


But that's wishful thinking.

Yeah. Reality, the order of who will be most likely to be moved will be:
1. Dye
2. Paulie



99. Swisher
100. Thome

HBaines03
11-04-2008, 06:57 AM
Where to begin?

OK, you've just downgraded from Jermaine Dye, a solid, if unspectacular hitter,to Willy Taveras, a player whose only real offensive skill is speed.

Thome had an excellent first half (and you're probably underrating his second half) in 2007 because he was mashing the ball and getting on base at an incredible clip. Remember, he was scoring runs at a notable pace, not getting RBI. That had nothing to do with Podsednik hitting in front of him.

The 2005 offense, minus Carlos Lee, scored fewer runs than the 2004 offense with him. The reason the Sox won the World Series was because of pitching. How do people still not get this? They won in spite of a rather pedestrian offense!

I agree with you stating I downgraded from Dye to Taveras. Similar to 2005 with Podesednik and Lee but we need a leadoff hitter and speed and not more power. Thome's season I was discussing was 2006 and he saw better pitches due to speed or the thought of speed on the basepaths ahead of him. We won the 2005 World Championship on pitching and opportunistic offense. We lead the majors in sacrifice hits and sac flys in 2005. Our offense the past 2 years struggles mightily at that because we are slow and power oriented. A nine man lineup of bashing HR's won't be as successful as a balanced lineup with speed and power along with good situational hitting.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 07:43 AM
I agree with you stating I downgraded from Dye to Taveras. Similar to 2005 with Podesednik and Lee but we need a leadoff hitter and speed and not more power. Thome's season I was discussing was 2006 and he saw better pitches due to speed or the thought of speed on the basepaths ahead of him. We won the 2005 World Championship on pitching and opportunistic offense. We lead the majors in sacrifice hits and sac flys in 2005. Our offense the past 2 years struggles mightily at that because we are slow and power oriented. A nine man lineup of bashing HR's won't be as successful as a balanced lineup with speed and power along with good situational hitting.
Our struggling offense this year scored more runs than the 2005 team. The job of an offense is to score runs, it doesn't matter how. I know "smallball" runs look nicer and are more exciting, but that doesn't mean it's a better strategy.

The Sox won the pennant despite leading the league in sacrifice hits and sacrifice flies, not because of it.

For a small sample size example, both the Rays and Phillies abhor bunting, and they played each other in the World Series this year.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 07:53 AM
What stats guys neglect is how consistent that offense was. It didn't score tons of runs. But it didn't get shut down completely a lot. They won a lot of close, low scoring ball games. That team didn't win because of it's pitching. It won because of it's pitching, it's ability to push runs across in tight spots, and it's ability to take pressure off the pitchers because they consistently grabbed the lead in games.
In 2005, the Sox scored 4.57 runs per game, with a standard deviation of 2.88. That means, 65% of the time, they scored between 1.69 and 7.45 runs per game.

In 2008, the Sox scored 4.98 runs per game, with a standard deviation of 3.49. That means, 65% of the time, they scored between 1.49 and 8.46 runs per game.

So yeah, the 2005 team was more consistent, but it only means that they were likely to score .20 more runs in a bad game at the expense of scoring 1.01 fewer in a good game. Is that really a tradeoff you want to make?

Lip Man 1
11-04-2008, 11:29 AM
Eddo:

This is all you need to know about the 2008 offense:

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. You're not going to win a lot of games scoring two runs or less today are you?

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.

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?

What you’ve done by having better 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. 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.

Why is that so hard for some folks to get a grasp of?

BETTER BALANCE

Lip

NLaloosh
11-04-2008, 11:33 AM
Eddo:

This is all you need to know about the 2008 offense:

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. Thatís a total of 41 games scoring two runs or less. You're not going to win a lot of games scoring two runs or less today are you?

Some fans say, but we have to hit home runs in U.S. Cellular Field to win and thatís completely true. However when you canít or arenít, hitting home runs, you better have some other way to score. The Sox record in games this season when they didnít hit a home run was abysmal. And keep in mind, 81 games are played on the roadÖ some in pitcher friendly locations like Seattle, Oakland and Detroit. A one dimensional offense that isnít hitting three home runs a game in those locations is going to have trouble.

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?

What youíve done by having better balance, is to increase your chances of winning a game on a night in April when itís 40 degrees out, when you are playing in Oakland where the foul territory is almost as large as the playing field or when youíre facing an off speed pitcher and heís giving the sluggers fits. 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.

Why is that so hard for some folks to get a grasp of?

BETTER BALANCE

Lip


Lip, I'm sorry that you had to type all of that - yet again.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 12:05 PM
Eddo:

This is all you need to know about the 2008 offense:

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. You're not going to win a lot of games scoring two runs or less today are you?
Lip, Lip, Lip, we've been over this before, in this post (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2083077#post2083077) (linked):

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)
The 2005 team, full of balance, scored two or fewer runs more times than the one-dimensional 2008 team. Your point is, to be blunt, false.


To get back to the thread topic, adding Willy Taveras doesn't even achieve balance. Willy Taveras is a poor hitter, and adding a poor hitter can only hurt your offense.

Lip Man 1
11-04-2008, 03:46 PM
Eddo:

Yet they won a lot more games then the 2008 team did didn't they?

My overall point still stands...why are some people so opposed to getting ANYTHING resembling a little more balance in the team?

WHY is that an issue? Because some ****ed up computer doesn't agree with it?

Why do the Sox have to have eight or nine bashers (not Basher Tar! LOL) in the lineup? Won't five or six do just as well?

Not picking on you Eddo personally, I understand you worship stats and that's fine. I just don't agree with that but that's besides the point. I'm just asking overall what harm can be done by getting some speed, some contact hitters, some guys who can do the little things on this team.

Kenny himself said that was something he had to do a better job at when the season ended. Why do some people have a problem with that?

That's what I'd like to know.

Lip

btrain929
11-04-2008, 03:58 PM
Lip,

Since this is a Willy Taveras thread, would you support a move of the White Sox bringing him in to play CF if it hardly cost anything? He'd be a mediocre #1 hitter, but I think would be an excellent #9 hitter. Doesn't strike out much, so will make a lot of contact, etc.

What's you take on him?

munchman33
11-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Lip,

Since this is a Willy Taveras thread, would you support a move of the White Sox bringing him in to play CF if it hardly cost anything? He'd be a mediocre #1 hitter, but I think would be an excellent #9 hitter. Doesn't strike out much, so will make a lot of contact, etc.

What's you take on him?

Taveras is a much better player than people realize. He'd immediately be a fan favorite.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 05:14 PM
Eddo:

Yet they won a lot more games then the 2008 team did didn't they?
Yes, because of pitching.

My overall point still stands...why are some people so opposed to getting ANYTHING resembling a little more balance in the team?

WHY is that an issue? Because some ****ed up computer doesn't agree with it?

Why do the Sox have to have eight or nine bashers (not Basher Tar! LOL) in the lineup? Won't five or six do just as well?
In the thread I referenced, I said I'm not opposed to bringing in balance, as long as it improves the offense. Willy Taveras is not a good offensive player; he has one tool, speed. If he's not on base, his speed is useless offensively.

Not picking on you Eddo personally, I understand you worship stats and that's fine. I just don't agree with that but that's besides the point. I'm just asking overall what harm can be done by getting some speed, some contact hitters, some guys who can do the little things on this team.

Kenny himself said that was something he had to do a better job at when the season ended. Why do some people have a problem with that?

That's what I'd like to know.

Lip
I'm an advocate of stats, but I don't worship them. I don't particularly care for Baseball Prospectus. I have an open mind to learn which strategies work.

And remember, stats aren't telling us speed is unimportant or that walks are the greatest things ever. They tell us that certain players, like Willy Taveras, get overrated because they're fast, but don't really contribute anything else.

The problem is that people advocate bringing in bad players like Taveras and Pierre, giving "balance" as the reason. That's just wrong. A player like Hudson or Figgins? Perfect. They're fast, but they also are good hitters.

For the record, I'm particularly fond of the always-present Konerko-for-Figgins rumors. It adds balance (a good thing!) and solves our third base problem.

munchman33
11-04-2008, 06:25 PM
Eddo:

Stats rarely reflect situational hitting. Good offenses, those that are balanced, seem to score more runs when they need to. The sox won a lot of those games they didn't score many runs. Pitching was only a part of it. The flexibility of their offense allowed them to push across runs in tough spots, whereas a differently constructed offense probably would have faltered.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 06:48 PM
Eddo:

Stats rarely reflect situational hitting. Good offenses, those that are balanced, seem to score more runs when they need to. The sox won a lot of those games they didn't score many runs. Pitching was only a part of it. The flexibility of their offense allowed them to push across runs in tough spots, whereas a differently constructed offense probably would have faltered.
That may be, but I'm still looking for evidence. I've shown that the Sox scored two or fewer runs in 2005 than in 2008, which seems to contradict what you're saying (that the Sox were better at just getting enough runs).

btrain929
11-04-2008, 07:26 PM
Lip,

Since this is a Willy Taveras thread, would you support a move of the White Sox bringing him in to play CF if it hardly cost anything? He'd be a mediocre #1 hitter, but I think would be an excellent #9 hitter. Doesn't strike out much, so will make a lot of contact, etc.

What's you take on him?

Taveras is a much better player than people realize. He'd immediately be a fan favorite.

I'm sorry, is your name Lip?

:D:. But I agree, I'm a fan of his already and he's not even on the team. It helps that he won't cost that much to bring over as supposed to the Roberts and Figgins of the world.

munchman33
11-04-2008, 07:33 PM
That may be, but I'm still looking for evidence. I've shown that the Sox scored two or fewer runs in 2005 than in 2008, which seems to contradict what you're saying (that the Sox were better at just getting enough runs).

2005: 16 games over .500 in one run ball games and won 15 ball games scoring 2 or less runs. The team ERA was

2008: 5 games over .500 in one run ball games and won 5 ball games scoring 2 or less runs.

That could be circumstantial. But it probably isn't.

Eddo144
11-04-2008, 08:22 PM
2005: 16 games over .500 in one run ball games and won 15 ball games scoring 2 or less runs. The team ERA was

2008: 5 games over .500 in one run ball games and won 5 ball games scoring 2 or less runs.

That could be circumstantial. But it probably isn't.
How is that not a function of pitching?

I'm sorry, citing any games where two or fewer runs were scored is not relevant in proving which offense was better. In any game with two or fewer runs, the offense played poorly. Pitching then decides who wins.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2008, 11:49 AM
Btrain:

If the report is accurate that it would only take a pitcher of the ilk like Lance Broadway to get him, then you do it in a heartbeat.

That however doesn't end things....you still go out and get a Hudson, or a Figgins for more balance and for protection in case all Tavaras can do is be a good serviceable 4th outfielder.

One other thing to keep in mind. Tavareas has been one of Kenny's targets the past few years. History has shown that Kenny eventually gets the players he has his eye on.

Lip

btrain929
11-05-2008, 11:53 AM
Btrain:

If the report is accurate that it would only take a pitcher of the ilk like Lance Broadway to get him, then you do it in a heartbeat.

That however doesn't end things....you still go out and get a Hudson, or a Figgins for more balance and for protection in case all Tavaras can do is be a good serviceable 4th outfielder.

One other thing to keep in mind. Tavareas has been one of Kenny's targets the past few years. History has shown that Kenny eventually gets the players he has his eye on.

Lip

Bold 1: Duh.
Bold 2: I agree, because I wouldn't even want Taveras in the leadoff spot if we could avoid it. Getting one of those other guys (Figgins in particular) would let us put Taveras at #9. I'll take a .260/.320 with 50 sb's from the 9 hole guy. It'd be mediocre at the top, but a great contribution at the bottom.

munchman33
11-05-2008, 12:33 PM
How is that not a function of pitching?

I'm sorry, citing any games where two or fewer runs were scored is not relevant in proving which offense was better. In any game with two or fewer runs, the offense played poorly. Pitching then decides who wins.

And the 16 games over .500 in one run ballgames? Is that all pitching? Doubtful.

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 12:38 PM
And the 16 games over .500 in one run ballgames? Is that all pitching? Doubtful.
Yeah, probably. You're using extremely fluky and volatile statistics to prove your "point." That was one of the best bullpens in the last twenty years, so I don't see how it wasn't all pitching.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Because in the A.L. pitchers can't hit so obviously it was the "offense" that scored what proved to be the winning runs.

If you don't score, the best you can do is a tie right?

And has been noted in the past what "proves" things is the way the Sox scored the runs that won those one run games. Go back and look. It was a mixture.

They scored by hitting a home run, they scored by manufacturing a run, the scored a run via a stolen base, they scored the winning run on a bunt, they even scored what proved to be a winning run on an opponents error.

BALANCE.

It's not that hard of a concept. You don't need eight or nine guys in your starting lineup who can only bash 20 home runs a season.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 12:49 PM
Because in the A.L. pitchers can't hit so obviously it was the "offense" that scored what proved to be the winning runs.

If you don't score, the best you can do is a tie right?

And has been noted in the past what "proves" things is the way the Sox scored the runs that won those one run games. Go back and look. It was a mixture.

They scored by hitting a home run, they scored by manufacturing a run, the scored a run via a stolen base, they scored the winning run on a bunt, they even scored what proved to be a winning run on an opponents error.

BALANCE.

It's not that hard of a concept. You don't need eight or nine guys in your starting lineup who can only bash 20 home runs a season.

Lip
Lip, for ****'s sake, it's not that hard to see why we won so many close games. Our bullpen was historically ****ing dominant.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2008, 01:26 PM
Craig:

Last I looked you still have to score runs to win games and the best pitching on the planet can't do that because they don't bat.

We're actually arguing over semantics because like I said you need a balanced offense and certainly you need a balanced team with good hitting, pitching and fielding to win a title.

I don't have any issues with that. I do have an issue with anyone who categorically states "it was the pitching, absolutely, positively and only...." basically saying hitting has absolutely nothing to do with winning close games.

That's a complete crock as well and you know that too.

There were games in 2005 where the bullpen blew games only to have the hitters come back late to win it. I can give you the specifics if you force me to.

That puts to rest any talk of "it's ONLY pitching that wins you one run games."

Lip

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 02:31 PM
Craig:

Last I looked you still have to score runs to win games and the best pitching on the planet can't do that because they don't bat.

We're actually arguing over semantics because like I said you need a balanced offense and certainly you need a balanced team with good hitting, pitching and fielding to win a title.

I don't have any issues with that. I do have an issue with anyone who categorically states "it was the pitching, absolutely, positively and only...." basically saying hitting has absolutely nothing to do with winning close games.

That's a complete crock as well and you know that too.

There were games in 2005 where the bullpen blew games only to have the hitters come back late to win it. I can give you the specifics if you force me to.

That puts to rest any talk of "it's ONLY pitching that wins you one run games."

Lip
Here I am, forcing you to.

LoveYourSuit
11-05-2008, 02:53 PM
For the options we have in-house and some of the other proposals.....I would welcome Taveras here in a heart beat.

Put to rest the BA, Wise, Owens nonesense.

Demps2
11-05-2008, 03:16 PM
I wouldn't mind Taveras. However, I can see why Broadway's name is being mentioned. If it's true that Poreda has passed him on the depth chart (I'm not sure if he has) I'm not sure where he would fit in here. And don't forget that even though last year Taveras were bad, he is around a .280 career wise, and he isn't all that old. This could be a Podsednik like move, buying low except we won't be giving up a 40+ HR guy. Also, Taveras hit .320 in 2007, so if he comes let's hope he reverts to that player. The main reason KW wants him is b/c he is a good CF with good speed and a CANNON arm. Just my two cents.

KenBerryGrab
11-05-2008, 03:51 PM
I think Kenny's infatuation with Tavares springs from the memory of the two doubles and one triple he hit against the Sox in the World Series.

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 04:00 PM
I wouldn't mind Taveras. However, I can see why Broadway's name is being mentioned. If it's true that Poreda has passed him on the depth chart (I'm not sure if he has) I'm not sure where he would fit in here. And don't forget that even though last year Taveras were bad, he is around a .280 career wise, and he isn't all that old. This could be a Podsednik like move, buying low except we won't be giving up a 40+ HR guy. Also, Taveras hit .320 in 2007, so if he comes let's hope he reverts to that player. The main reason KW wants him is b/c he is a good CF with good speed and a CANNON arm. Just my two cents.
Is water wet?

champagne030
11-05-2008, 04:10 PM
Here I am, forcing you to.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA200504230.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA200504240.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200505300.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200505310.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200506200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET200506290.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200508040.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200508250.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA200508260.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200509200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE200509300.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200510230.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU200510250.shtml

PorkChopExpress
11-05-2008, 04:10 PM
I think Kenny's infatuation with Tavares springs from the memory of the two doubles and one triple he hit against the Sox in the World Series.

Or the five bases he stole in one game against us last year (never reaching home, though).

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 04:12 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA200504230.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA200504240.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200505300.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200505310.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200506200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET200506290.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200508040.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200508250.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA200508260.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200509200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE200509300.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200510230.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU200510250.shtml
Again, historically good bullpen. Mediocre offense. What did that team have? Way more mediocre ballplayers than this year's offense, and a way better relief corps.

champagne030
11-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Again, historically good bullpen. Mediocre offense. What did that team have? Way more mediocre ballplayers than this year's offense, and a way better relief corps.

The bullpen had 13 blown saves, in which the Sox came back and won the game. It. was. not. all. pitching.

Craig Grebeck
11-05-2008, 04:16 PM
The bullpen had 13 blown saves, in which the Sox came back and won the game. It. was. not. all. pitching.
Of course there were games the bullpen blew, and the offense came back to win them. The point was that offense was mediocre as hell, and the relief corps was quite good. I'm not going to give the offense credit for grinding out nine singles and 3 runs. Give us the same offense with the same pitching we got in 2006, and we might not have won 80 games.

jcw218
11-05-2008, 05:46 PM
Craig,

2005 was the perfect storm. Everything came together at the same time. The Sox had very good pitching, an offence that was adept at scoring just enough runs and good defence. The 2005 team was good at manufacturing runs when they needed to. As a team, they still hit over 200 homeruns on the season.

I do not think that anyone is stating that the Sox should dump all their power hitters and go with the dink and dump hitters. What we would like to see is the ability to manufacture runs when the home run hitters are not getting the home runs.

Eddo144
11-05-2008, 05:55 PM
Craig,

2005 was the perfect storm. Everything came together at the same time. The Sox had very good pitching, an offence that was adept at scoring just enough runs and good defence. The 2005 team was good at manufacturing runs when they needed to. As a team, they still hit over 200 homeruns on the season.

I do not think that anyone is stating that the Sox should dump all their power hitters and go with the dink and dump hitters. What we would like to see is the ability to manufacture runs when the home run hitters are not getting the home runs.
No, no one's suggesting that. But people are advocating bringing in Willy Taveras, a below-average hitter, as a solution to what ails our offense. Adding speed alone does not bring balance.

oeo
11-05-2008, 06:28 PM
No, no one's suggesting that. But people are advocating bringing in Willy Taveras, a below-average hitter, as a solution to what ails our offense. Adding speed alone does not bring balance.

Actually, no one said they wanted Taveras as the solution. I think most people would want him slotted in the #9 spot. Brings good defense and some speed to the bottom of the lineup (sorely needed). Over the past three years, we've lived with Anderson and Uribe at the bottom of the lineup (and sometimes together). If you don't think Taveras can improve our lineup, you're crazy. And that's even if he brings his worst major league season here, which he's shown the ability to hit at least 25 points higher than he did in 2008.

I just look at the way Wise was able to start some rallies for us at the end of the year, on speed alone, and I want that. ALDS Game 3...Wise was a huge factor in that game. Same with the make-up game against the Tigers...steals second, gets to third and reaches home on wild pitches. Or how Podsednik was able to give us early leads with speed, which seemed like every night.

With our park, we should always be a power hitting team. You build your team around your ballpark. We should hit homeruns, and we shouldn't have fly ball pitchers. I really would like to add another facet to our game, though. Taveras may not be the answer, but he's part of the equation.

SoxNation05
11-05-2008, 07:40 PM
I personally think Taveras is a great fit. I know all of you would say, Oh BA is better. But he's not. He is not a .285 career hitter and he is not fast as hell. Fielding BA may be slightly better but still not worth the loss on offence.

1. Figgins
2. Hudson
3. Quentin
4. Dye
5. Thome
6. PK
7. TCM
8. AJ
9. Taveras

I don't know what to give up for Figgins but Taveras can be had for virtually nothing and Hudson is a FA.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2008, 07:46 PM
OEO:

Well stated.

Champaign:

Thanks for taking the time. Some folks are just set in their ways and beliefs and nothing you can do or say will change their opinion. That's OK, none of those folks are in a position to make any impact on the 2009 Sox lineup so it's not really a major issue.

For what it's worth, Greg Walker thinks some balance is needed and has a Christmas list:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081105&content_id=3664722&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

So that's Waker, Williams and Guillen all on the record as saying they want balance.

That's good enough for me. That tends to outweigh what the computers say.

Lip

SoxNation05
11-05-2008, 07:49 PM
OEO:

Well stated.

Champaign:

Thanks for taking the time. Some folks are just set in their ways and beliefs and nothing you can do or say will change their opinion. That's OK, none of those folks are in a position to make any impact on the 2009 Sox lineup so it's not really a major issue.

For what it's worth, Greg Walker thinks some balance is needed and has a Christmas list:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081105&content_id=3664722&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

So that's Waker, Williams and Guillen all on the record as saying they want balance.

That's good enough for me. That tends to outweigh what the computers say.

Lip
Greg Walker's X-Mas list should include keeping his job.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2008, 08:22 PM
Ozzie has already said he wants his entire staff back and Kenny said those decisions belong completely to him (i.e. Ozzie.)

Lip

oeo
11-06-2008, 08:49 AM
Ozzie has already said he wants his entire staff back and Kenny said those decisions belong completely to him (i.e. Ozzie.)

Lip

I'm hoping one of these days Walker does something to completely piss Ozzie off, because that seems like the only way he will be fired.