PDA

View Full Version : Royce V Manos


LongDistanceFan
05-23-2002, 12:50 PM
does anybody have a prob with royce batting avg, even tho he has what 6 dingers?

what about jose play at third............. anything to write home about?

urbanhack
05-23-2002, 02:29 PM
Not at all. Royce is not here for his bat. He's probably going to hit between .250 and .260 for the year and he is solid in the field. He doesn't have the range of a Jeter or A-Rod, but he takes care of EVERYTHING that comes his way. I wouldn't mind seeing him take a few more walks.

LongDistanceFan
05-23-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by urbanhack
Not at all. Royce is not here for his bat. He's probably going to hit between .250 and .260 for the year and he is solid in the field. He doesn't have the range of a Jeter or A-Rod, but he takes care of EVERYTHING that comes his way. I wouldn't mind seeing him take a few more walks. ok... that is cool, i will accept your opinion, but i may not totally agree with it. what is missing is how he affects the clubhouse enviroment, which no-one is saying.

Iwritecode
05-23-2002, 02:52 PM
So far this year I can't complain quite as much as I did last year about Buddy Lee. His average still sucks and he's had a few errors that the official scorer was nice enough to count as hits but he has done a decent job so far from what I have seen of him. Jose has been pretty good at third. He's had one or two bad games over there but that's about it. I'd still like to see Crede get a shot at the hot corner but how to get him up is still the big debate...

MarkEdward
05-23-2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
ok... that is cool, i will accept your opinion, but i may not totally agree with it. what is missing is how he affects the clubhouse enviroment, which no-one is saying.


Nobody's talking about it because team chemistry has little to do with winning or losing. Ty Cobb wasn't very nice, but I'd still want him on my baseball team.

mack10zie
05-23-2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Nobody's talking about it because team chemistry has little to do with winning or losing. Ty Cobb wasn't very nice, but I'd still want him on my baseball team.

Being nice or not being nice does not really have all that much to do with team chemistry. A team can be full of pricks and still have great team chemistry. And yes, team chemistry is quite important to winning, far from the most important thing, but it does play a role over the course of a season.

LongDistanceFan
05-23-2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Nobody's talking about it because team chemistry has little to do with winning or losing. Ty Cobb wasn't very nice, but I'd still want him on my baseball team. you really don't know what you are talking about............... a rotten apple can tear a team apart, worst than having a prick on the team

Soxheads
05-23-2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Nobody's talking about it because team chemistry has little to do with winning or losing. Ty Cobb wasn't very nice, but I'd still want him on my baseball team.

But there's quite a difference between Ty Cobb and Royce Clayton.

MarkEdward
05-23-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
you really don't know what you are talking about............... a rotten apple can tear a team apart, worst than having a prick on the team


When, in the history of baseball, has a rotten apple torn a team apart, to the point where the team was losing games consistently because of that player? Team chemistry and "veteran leadership" are the two of the most overrated theories in all of sports.

LongDistanceFan
05-23-2002, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



When, in the history of baseball, has a rotten apple torn a team apart, to the point where the team was losing games consistently because of that player? Team chemistry and "veteran leadership" are the two of the most overrated theories in all of sports. jaime navarro(sp), albert belle, and i remember a couple of players from the flubs.

when you have a bad apple, players really don't want to go out and play esp if that person is a pit, in addition the team will tear itself apart internally.

i know its hard talking like this to a well informed 15 yo........... whew

WinningUgly!
05-23-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



When, in the history of baseball, has a rotten apple torn a team apart, to the point where the team was losing games consistently because of that player? Team chemistry and "veteran leadership" are the two of the most overrated theories in all of sports.

LDF named a few good examples, here's another...Ken Griffey Jr. Notice how the M's started winning once he left & now the same is happening to the Reds this season since he's been out injured?

Pukester
05-23-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



When, in the history of baseball, has a rotten apple torn a team apart, to the point where the team was losing games consistently because of that player? Team chemistry and "veteran leadership" are the two of the most overrated theories in all of sports.

Reggie Jackson comes to mind....

Nellie_Fox
05-24-2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by mack10zie
Being nice or not being nice does not really have all that much to do with team chemistry. A team can be full of pricks and still have great team chemistry. And yes, team chemistry is quite important to winning, far from the most important thing, but it does play a role over the course of a season.


Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
you really don't know what you are talking about............... a rotten apple can tear a team apart, worst than having a prick on the team The multi-time world champ A's teams of the 70's were reported to have absolutely toxic clubhouse chemistry. They were always at each other's throats. They just happened to be a very good baseball team.

LongDistanceFan
05-24-2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox



The multi-time world champ A's teams of the 70's were reported to have absolutely toxic clubhouse chemistry. They were always at each other's throats. They just happened to be a very good baseball team. i don't remember ever hearing that, but i will give you that............. but isn't that an exception.

Jerry_Manuel
05-24-2002, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
LDF named a few good examples, here's another...Ken Griffey Jr. Notice how the M's started winning once he left & now the same is happening to the Reds this season since he's been out injured?

True, but Griffey leaving Seattle, gave them more cash to get Ichiro, and some other guys. With the Reds, the teams has improved due to Austin Kearns coming up, due to Griffey's injury.

Paulwny
05-24-2002, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox

The multi-time world champ A's teams of the 70's were reported to have absolutely toxic clubhouse chemistry. They were always at each other's throats. They just happened to be a very good baseball team.

The "Battling" A's , not for their play on the field but, their antics in the clubhouse.
All teams who win are said to have good chemistry, all teams who lose are said to have bad chemistry.
If chemistry exists, it's on the playing field not in the clubhouse.

Tragg
05-24-2002, 09:19 AM
The bottom line is that we need a young shortstop who can field and at least handle the bat (take a walk, bunt, hit the ball to the correct side of the infield when asked).

voodoochile
05-24-2002, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i don't remember ever hearing that, but i will give you that............. but isn't that an exception.

The Yankees of the late 70's also were known for having a bunch of fights. Billy Martin got into it with some players from time to time...

I think it helps if your guys get along, but it is not a requirement...

hold2dibber
05-24-2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
ok... that is cool, i will accept your opinion, but i may not totally agree with it. what is missing is how he affects the clubhouse enviroment, which no-one is saying.

How do you know how (if) he has affected the clubhouse environment this year? I haven't heard any complaints. In fact, I've heard at least one starting pitcher giving Royce props for his defense (I think it was Wright) and saying how much of a pickup his glove can be.

Are you suggesting that the Sox have lost games because of Royce's affect on "team chemistry"? Do you have any "inside information" that leads you to believe that the team is not playing as well as it might have because of something Royce has done?

Look, Clayton is a decent shortstop. I am not at all convinced that they wouldn't be better off with Crede at third and Jose at SS, but for all we know, Crede might hit .200 just like Royce and we'd lose Royce's defense at SS (I know, I know, you can argue that Jose is just as good defensively as Royce, but let's please not go down that road again). But the Sox clearly are committed to Royce at SS this year and Jose at third, and overall, I think it is working out fairly well (and will work out even better when Royce starts hitting better, which he will do).

LongDistanceFan
05-24-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


read the statement and tell me where i said that he has affected the enviroment........ tell me where i said that i heard this or heard that......... tell me where i said i had inside info.......

last year rumors were abound of his problems and i just wanted to know if he has improved or is there anything being mention...... i missed baseball this year from almost the beginning and was trying to catch up........ do you understand what i am trying to say now......... DO NOT put word into my mouth that i didn't say.......... i have enough trouble not doing that myself......

hold2dibber
05-24-2002, 02:15 PM
Whoops! My bad - it seemed to me that you were implying that Clayton has had a negative impact on the clubhouse this year, and I wanted to know what made you jump to that conclusion. Now I understand the question -- and I haven't heard a thing about Royce being a bad apple this year. Like I said in my original post, Wright has even been complimentary of Royce in the press (and don't forget the fireworks commercial, where he seems all buddy-buddy (or should that be buddy lee-buddy lee) with CLee and Alomar!).

Zednem700
05-24-2002, 02:35 PM
Chemistry is meaningless. The As of the 70s hated each other, pretty much every team that had Billy Martin as a manager hadlarge levels of infighting, the 1908 Cubs had a dp combo you may have heard of, that hated each other so much that they sometimes wouldn't talk to each other ON THE FIELD! Really there are tons of examples of teams that had bad clubhouse chemistry.

As far as those specific examples of players who have hurt teams by their existence. reggie Jackson is known as Mr. October for a pretty specific reson, I find it hard to believe that his affect on chemistry can be positive enough to lead a team to a World Series win one year, and negative enough to destroy a team another year. Ken Griffey Junior never had chemistry problems when he was leading Seattle to the playoffs and almost single handedly beating the Yankees. Outside of some sort of Phineas Gage type incident I don't know how the man's personality could have turned him into a clubhouse cancer overnight. Chemistry makes the clubhouse a more enjoyable place to be, but has little impact on the field, talent intelligence and desire are far more important there.