PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie still doesn't understand that Wise is not good


kittle42
01-30-2009, 08:56 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1405116,CST-SPT-soxnt30.article

Well, guess we'll have the worst leadoff man in baseball against righties, regardless of which one wins.

"The guy who gets on base most." This is Wise's WORST attribute! What the hell, Ozzie? Do we watch the same games?

esbrechtel
01-30-2009, 09:10 AM
I really hope Lillibridge turns into a really good player....That can leadoff all the time...

California Sox
01-30-2009, 09:19 AM
I really hope anyone turns into a really good player....That can leadoff all the time...

I echo, but slightly adjust your sentiments.

doublem23
01-30-2009, 09:23 AM
It really is inexcusable that the Sox have not found even an average lead-off hitter this off-season, especially considering that would easily make them one of the better offenses in the American League.

/head shake

guillensdisciple
01-30-2009, 09:32 AM
Wise isn't a good hitter, he is a journey man. I am usually for anything Ozzie, but this is inexcusable. Anyone can tell that Wise's true role and only role is off the bench.

Still ,I believe that Wise will be coming off the bench and either Owens or Lillibridge will be leading off. Ozzie is a players coach, he is just instilling some sense of confidence in a player that hasn't really had much throughout his career. I think.

DirtySox
01-30-2009, 09:51 AM
On the brighter side, that article mentions Dayan has lost weight! :D:

Tragg
01-30-2009, 09:52 AM
Owens is better than Quentin and Missle
Uribe ahead of Missle
Erstad is a .400 hitter.

These are cases where Guillen wasn't in the right stratosphere in talent evaluation.
Guillen's talent evaluation skills on hitters are a problem. The only thing that saved us last year was injuries.

kittle42
01-30-2009, 10:09 AM
Owens is better than Quentin and Missle
Uribe ahead of Missle
Erstad is a .400 hitter.

These are cases where Guillen wasn't in the right stratosphere in talent evaluation.
Guillen's talent evaluation skills on hitters are a problem. The only thing that saved us last year was injuries.

Very true.

I love our manager and GM, but both have some serious flaws.

Thome25
01-30-2009, 10:10 AM
:puking::puking::puking:

:chunks

This pretty much sums up my feelings towards Ozzie's irrational love for all things Dewayne Wise. Someone needs to fire up Ozzie's email and talk some sense into the man.

esbrechtel
01-30-2009, 10:18 AM
I echo, but slightly adjust your sentiments.

I agree, that is what I should have said :redneck

munchman33
01-30-2009, 10:29 AM
Good leadoff hitters are very hard to come by, and severely undervalued by the people on this site in particular. Everytime someone doesn't think Brian Roberts has near marquee value, even on a one year deal, my head wants to explode. There aren't enough good leadoff hitters for every team in baseball.

TheVulture
01-30-2009, 11:11 AM
"Wise will have an opportunity to be on the ballclub." - Ozzie. That doesn't really sound like Wise is Ozzie's choice to be lead-off hitter if he isn't even a lock to make the team.

thedudeabides
01-30-2009, 11:13 AM
Wise isn't a good hitter, he is a journey man. I am usually for anything Ozzie, but this is inexcusable. Anyone can tell that Wise's true role and only role is off the bench.

Still ,I believe that Wise will be coming off the bench and either Owens or Lillibridge will be leading off. Ozzie is a players coach, he is just instilling some sense of confidence in a player that hasn't really had much throughout his career. I think.


I have to agree with you. At the end Ozzie says that Wise "will have an opportunity to be on the ballclub." It doesn't sound like he is even a sure thing to make the team, let alone be the starting CF and leadoff hittter.

Either way, I'm not going to freak out about it until he starts getting regular playing time.

NLaloosh
01-30-2009, 11:21 AM
Did you see all those offers from other teams that Wise had to turn down just for a shot at the Sox roster this season?

He must be good.

Lip Man 1
01-30-2009, 12:29 PM
But in the same story Ozzie clearly states that if the season opened today either Owens or Wise would leadoff vs. right handers.

That sounds pretty clear to me.

Lip

NLaloosh
01-30-2009, 01:10 PM
But in the same story Ozzie clearly states that if the season opened today either Owens or Wise would leadoff vs. right handers.

That sounds pretty clear to me.

Lip

Wow. That's a tough call between those two. It's kind of like when I had to choose between getting 4 wisdom teeth pulled or putting my dog to sleep.

PaleHoser
01-30-2009, 01:21 PM
Bring back Nick Swisher!

SoxSpeed22
01-30-2009, 02:20 PM
I like Wise, but only as a 4th or 5th outfielder who can pinch run in close games. He is 32 years old and has been a minor leaguer his entire career. If we catch lightning in a bottle with him, that would be great. I just don't see it. Unknowns will have a pretty big effect on our season.

LITTLE NELL
01-30-2009, 02:27 PM
I would feel a whole lot better about the 09 season if we had a true leadoff hitter who happens to play CF as well as Anderson.

whitesox901
01-30-2009, 02:35 PM
I never thought Wise was too bad...maybe its the Lake Erie water :redneck

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2009, 03:12 PM
I would feel a whole lot better about the 09 season if we had a true leadoff hitter who happens to play CF as well as Anderson.

Those kinds of guys don't grow on trees, unfortunately. :(:

LoveYourSuit
01-30-2009, 03:27 PM
The leadoff hitter situation is my biggest concern too.

Sadly, the Colon pick up has clamed me down about the 4th starter spot. And Colon is a huge risk to begin with.

russ99
01-30-2009, 04:29 PM
The leadoff hitter situation is my biggest concern too.

Sadly, the Colon pick up has clamed me down about the 4th starter spot. And Colon is a huge risk to begin with.

Leadoff's not a huge concern to me, since we didn't have a leadoff guy last year either. This year either Owens can do it, Lillibridge can do it, some non-speed guy gets on base enough to take the job or Kenny goes and gets someone else.

My issues are:

Having 3 established starting pitchers, 2 of which are young and are coming off the biggest workloads in their careers. Very worrysome... And Colon's going to miss half of ST, so who really knows when or if he'll be ready. And despite early encouraging reports, anything out of Contreras this year will be a bonus.

Then there's the other problem, where we're filling 3 starting spots in the lineup with unproven guys - and it doesn't count when you have 2 or 3 at each position, that doesn't add up to one solid player.

Also 2 of the 3 big sluggers have shown significant decline. Wondering if we'll score enough runs to overcome the holes in the starting staff is a valid question.

If the Sox pull it all together this year, that would be great, but the potential for the wheels to fall off is pretty large this season, as presently constituted. We'll probably end up somewhere in-between last year and 2007.

WhiteSox5187
01-30-2009, 05:01 PM
But in the same story Ozzie clearly states that if the season opened today either Owens or Wise would leadoff vs. right handers.

That sounds pretty clear to me.

Lip

Thank God the season doesn't start today!

I can't honestly believe that Ozzie has that much faith in Wise. He was a nice 4th OF last year, but that's about it. If he starts, oh oh...my head just exploded with the mere thought of Wise starting in center!

WHILEPITCH
01-30-2009, 05:18 PM
Leadoff's not a huge concern to me, since we didn't have a leadoff guy last year either. This year either Owens can do it, Lillibridge can do it, some non-speed guy gets on base enough to take the job or Kenny goes and gets someone else.


I think this really completely forgets the contributions of Orlando Cabrera at that spot.

Just b/c he's not a classic leadoff hitter doesnt mean that either of those two is going to automatically do as good a job of him at it.

It's Dankerific
01-30-2009, 05:40 PM
Wise is a good player who should start this year because dumb ass Ozzie started him in the 15 most important games of 2008. Great ****ing logic Ozzie.

JB98
01-30-2009, 06:16 PM
Guys, Ozzie just shoots off at the mouth. Why do we have to have a meltdown every time he says something? He doesn't always follow through on what he says.

Regardless, he's choosing from a host of bad options in CF.

Daver
01-30-2009, 06:18 PM
Regardless, he's choosing from a host of bad options in CF.

Regardless, the Sox are going to be woefully bad defensively, I pity the pitching staff.

JB98
01-30-2009, 06:21 PM
Regardless, the Sox are going to be woefully bad defensively, I pity the pitching staff.

Like somebody else mentioned, I'm more worried about the infield defense than the outfield defense.

Daver
01-30-2009, 06:34 PM
Like somebody else mentioned, I'm more worried about the infield defense than the outfield defense.

Don't worry, both will not be good.

WHILEPITCH
01-30-2009, 06:37 PM
Out of the available guys, Wise has done the best ML job recently at the plate. It's not that hard to envision why he's going to get a shot.

If we had some outstanding hitting talent at CF i'd see everyone's point.

It's Dankerific
01-30-2009, 06:45 PM
Out of the available guys, Wise has done the best ML job recently at the plate. It's not that hard to envision why he's going to get a shot.

If we had some outstanding hitting talent at CF i'd see everyone's point.

Ahh, the Offense only approach. You do know that the majority of the game is spent in the field, right?

sullythered
01-30-2009, 06:53 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread. Of the guys on the current roster, who should we be leading off. I'm not in love with Dewayne, but I'm not sure he isn't better than Owens. Who should Ozzie be saying he's gonna lead off at this point, Lillibridge? It's a long shot that he turns it around. TCM? I think he provides too much pop too sacrifice the RBI that he supplies later in the lineup.

What should Ozzie have said?

It's Dankerific
01-30-2009, 07:04 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread. Of the guys on the current roster, who should we be leading off. I'm not in love with Dewayne, but I'm not sure he isn't better than Owens. Who should Ozzie be saying he's gonna lead off at this point, Lillibridge? It's a long shot that he turns it around. TCM? I think he provides too much pop too sacrifice the RBI that he supplies later in the lineup.

What should Ozzie have said?

Whoever plays best in camp? That finding a leadoff hitter is only one part of making a roster/lineup decision?

Something with some semblence of common sense other than Wise is good because I played him last year.

Corlose 15
01-30-2009, 07:12 PM
Whoever plays best in camp? That finding a leadoff hitter is only one part of making a roster/lineup decision?

Something with some semblence of common sense other than Wise is good because I played him last year.

Dude, get a grip. He said that Wise "would have a chance to make the team" that's hardly inking him into the leadoff spot.

This place astounds me sometimes.

illini81887
01-30-2009, 07:15 PM
I never thought Wise was too bad...maybe its the Lake Erie water :redneck
I dont think he was bad either, played well in postseason

JB98
01-30-2009, 07:18 PM
I dont think he was bad either, played well in postseason

Yeah, Wise had a couple key hits in the playoffs. I think he's OK as a fifth outfielder/pinch-runner/lefty bat off the bench. Wouldn't want him playing everyday though.

It's Dankerific
01-30-2009, 07:18 PM
Dude, get a grip. He said that Wise "would have a chance to make the team" that's hardly inking him into the leadoff spot.

This place astounds me sometimes.

Learn how to read. He says he doesnt like all the talk about Owens and Anderson because Wise, a kid, started the 15 most important games of the year last year. he also says that "if the season started today, WISE or Owens would be be the starting CF against RH Pitcher"

sullythered
01-30-2009, 07:19 PM
Whoever plays best in camp? That finding a leadoff hitter is only one part of making a roster/lineup decision?

Something with some semblence of common sense other than Wise is good because I played him last year.
Well of course we'll go with who is playing best. We always do. Right now, Wise and Owens have a leg up in the leadoff department. If Anderson and Lillibridge light it up, I'm sure they will play.

Corlose 15
01-30-2009, 07:25 PM
Learn how to read. He says he doesnt like all the talk about Owens and Anderson because Wise, a kid, started the 15 most important games of the year last year. he also says that "if the season started today, WISE or Owens would be be the starting CF against RH Pitcher"

So, he's going to compete with Owens in ST, and has a chance to be on the club. What exactly is the problem here?

The season doesn't start today and they've got all of ST to find out who their best option is. It could just as well be Lillibridge leading off full time.

Lip Man 1
01-30-2009, 07:31 PM
Which could be almost as bad as Owens or Wise.

Lip

It's Dankerific
01-30-2009, 07:32 PM
Well of course we'll go with who is playing best. We always do. Right now, Wise and Owens have a leg up in the leadoff department. If Anderson and Lillibridge light it up, I'm sure they will play.

Based on what do you say that? Previous examples of there being an actual competition in ST? Crappy Veterans playing no matter what? Injuries being the only way the best player gets a chance??

Just sunshine and moonbeams there.


So, he's going to compete with Owens in ST, and has a chance to be on the club. What exactly is the problem here?

The season doesn't start today and they've got all of ST to find out who their best option is. It could just as well be Lillibridge leading off full time.

The fact that Wise could be our Starting CF is all the problem anyone should need.

And again, the white sox do not use ST to find out jack **** about who the best players at positions are.

Tragg
01-30-2009, 08:47 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread. Of the guys on the current roster, who should we be leading off. I'm not in love with Dewayne, but I'm not sure he isn't better than Owens.

What should Ozzie have said?
Wise had a .290 obp last year. (.250 for his career!!) Who wouldn't be better? (why did he get a contract?). Owens is a poor hitter himself.
Neither one of those 2 should be anywhere near the 1 hole (considering their defense is as bad as their offense, neither should be on this team for that matter)...I guess if you hack at it and have speed, it's leadoff time in Ozzie ball.
Welcome back, 2007.

rdivaldi
01-31-2009, 02:09 AM
Shouldn't we wait to see who actually leads off and plays CF before we start whining? Oh wait I forgot, this is WSI which actually stand for Whining Starts Immediately.

thedudeabides
01-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Shouldn't we wait to see who actually leads off and plays CF before we start whining? Oh wait I forgot, this is WSI which actually stand for Whining Starts Immediately.


Exactly. But, that's just the way it's going to be. If Ozzie mentions Wise, he's a moron. If he brings up Owens, he's a moron. If there's an article mentioning Anderson, there's a 20 page thread. These are the options for centerfield. None of them are complete players. Which to me, is on Kenny.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 10:36 AM
People here are hilarious. The organization didnt provide anything at CF, so it becomes high time for ripping Ozzie. Just when he's offhandedly mentioning something about Wise's important 15 games last year.

It's a comment. That's all it is and it wont be the reason he's in leadoff some this year.

If it happens it's because we're understaffed. The roster is the disease, Ozzie's comment is just a symptom.

Frontman
01-31-2009, 10:46 AM
People here are hilarious. The organization didnt provide anything at CF, so it becomes high time for ripping Ozzie. Just when he's offhandedly mentioning something about Wise's important 15 games last year.

It's a comment. That's all it is and it wont be the reason he's in leadoff some this year.

If it happens it's because we're understaffed. The roster is the disease, Ozzie's comment is just a symptom.

First, welcome to the site (saw the low count) and second, gosh that's logic.

What do people expect out of Ozzie, seriously?

"Yeah, you know what? We suck. Dis, dis will be 4 years since we lost the Legend of Aaron Rowand an' dey never gave me anyone to play dere. I mean, we tried Anderson, he was as bad at da plate as I was as a player. Dis Wise kid? He sucks. Owens? He sucks too. But what da hell am I supposed to put out dere?"

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 04:02 PM
Ahh, the Offense only approach. You do know that the majority of the game is spent in the field, right?

Time spent on the field is not a main determinant.

I prioritize defensive catching if my catcher is expected to bat eight or ninth.


If my CF is almost surely going to have to be a top of the order hitter, then i prioritize his offense, as long as his defense is not record-setting awful.



If the roster changes, I'm all for Wise being strictly a backup OF. If it doesnt, then yes, I look at what he did last year and say - he's possibly leading off against righties.

sox1970
01-31-2009, 04:45 PM
Wise will be lucky if he makes the team. I don't think he'll start with any regularity.

Assume Quentin, Dye, Fields, Ramirez, Konerko, Thome, Pierzynski, Betemit, and another Catcher make the team.

That leaves four spots for Wise, Owens, Anderson, Getz, Nix, and Lillibridge.

Wise and Nix seem likely to be gone right now, unless they trade someone else.

Daver
01-31-2009, 05:00 PM
Time spent on the field is not a main determinant.


That philosophy might win something every 88 years or so.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 05:06 PM
That philosophy might win something every 88 years or so.

Well the original point was that defense trumps all. That sweeps with such a broad brush to me.

Anderson is better for this team if the team's already stacked.

If the team has nothing at the top of the order, then Wise is better for the team.

Daver
01-31-2009, 05:11 PM
Well the original point was that defense trumps all. That sweeps with such a broad brush to me.

Anderson is better for this team if the team's already stacked.

If the team has nothing at the top of the order, then Wise is better for the team.

The White Sox agree, that is why they keep turning out offensive teams that have little defense and borderline pitching and winning absolutely nothing.

At least their formula is a proven one.

Tragg
01-31-2009, 06:09 PM
If the team has nothing at the top of the order, then Wise is better for the team.????
So we can have a .290 obp at leadoff? Ridiculous.
(and that .290 obp was a career year for him).

The Sox need the leadoff hitter to get on base. Stealing bases isn't that important with Quentin, Thome, Dye and Konerko coming up.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 06:12 PM
The White Sox agree, that is why they keep turning out offensive teams that have little defense and borderline pitching and winning absolutely nothing.

At least their formula is a proven one.

Well they hit 200 HRs one year, hit in situations... and won a championship. Our defense and pitching was solid, but I think it's safe to say that neither aspect was worldbeating - just solid.

A lot of the same defensive players failed to have the same championship type impact when the team stopped hitting in situations. Wise has gotten it done w/ situational hitting a little more than his competition at this point.

But it sounds like we agree on my larger point, that the organization is more at fault than Ozzie is for dealing us this hand at CF.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 06:14 PM
????
So we can have a .290 obp at leadoff? Ridiculous.
(and that .290 obp was a career year for him).


Well it again comes down to who is the better option? I'm all for giving Lillibridge a shot out of ST.

But there's nothing wrong with Ozzie saying Wise has done it recently and challenge the rest of the candidates to step up. Owens included.

Daver
01-31-2009, 06:16 PM
Well they hit 200 HRs one year, hit in situations... and won a championship.


Every once in a while the sun shines on a dogs ass too, in case you want to add that into your theory on how to build a team that can win it all every 90 years or so.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 06:25 PM
Every once in a while the sun shines on a dogs ass too, in case you want to add that into your theory on how to build a team that can win it all every 90 years or so.Why limit it to just this franchise?

Last year's champs hit 214 HRs.

The Boston team that won was decapitating people at the plate.

You have to hit. Not denying the importance of the game's other facets, but you dont decimate the top of your order for fielding.




Last year the Blue Jays were an example of a team that was very much elite in pitching and fielding but could not hit for any power.

Craig Grebeck
01-31-2009, 06:27 PM
Why limit it to just this franchise?

Last year's champs hit 214 HRs.

The Boston team that won was decapitating people at the plate.

You have to hit. Not denying the importance of the game's other facets, but you dont decimate the top of your order for fielding.
I don't think Daver is saying that HRs are harmful. You need to play defense, and you need to pitch.

The 2005 Chicago White Sox had amazing pitching and defense, and an all around average to below average offense.

Daver
01-31-2009, 06:34 PM
I don't think Daver is saying that HRs are harmful. You need to play defense, and you need to pitch.


The hell you say.

Pure heresy.

WHILEPITCH
01-31-2009, 06:38 PM
I think we'd all obviously agree that all facets are important. I know Daver wasnt saying that.

But in '05, power with timely hitting put us over the top of another great pitching/fielding team in LA Angels.


We scored 23 runs against them that series, scoring seven first inning runs combined.

I'm not diminishing our great pitching performance that series, but it's a lot easier to pitch when you have all that first inning run support.

In every game we won that series, we grabbed the lead very early.




And the World Series itself was a little more of a slugfest than that series was. At least it defintely was a slugfest in the very meaningful first three games.

Daver
01-31-2009, 07:08 PM
I think we'd all obviously agree that all facets are important.

Can we agree that the more runs against you prevent, the less number of runs you need to produce?

Madscout
01-31-2009, 07:15 PM
Can we agree that the more runs against you prevent, the less number of runs you need to produce?
Can anyone argue with that? Simple mathematics.

Tragg
01-31-2009, 07:26 PM
Well it again comes down to who is the better option? I'm all for giving Lillibridge a shot out of ST.

But there's nothing wrong with Ozzie saying Wise has done it recently and challenge the rest of the candidates to step up. Owens included.
Anderson is as good a hitter, if not better, than Wise. Start there. Given that, there's no reason for Wise to start (or be on the 40 man). Whoever of the CF play belongs in the 9 hole - leadoff is ludicrous for Owens, wise or Anderson. To me, they're all about the same offensively (not very good) but one brings plus defense.

We're not likely to have a great obp leadoff hitter - not many on the team and those that are, are power hitters. Ozzie likes "aggressive hitting".
So just put a good hitter at leadoff.

Frater Perdurabo
01-31-2009, 08:02 PM
Anderson is as good a hitter, if not better, than Wise. Start there. Given that, there's no reason for Wise to start (or be on the 40 man). Whoever of the CF play belongs in the 9 hole - leadoff is ludicrous for Owens, wise or Anderson. To me, they're all about the same offensively (not very good) but one brings plus defense.

Good points. It's an overused and unfortunate cliche, but at the plate right now BA is the "tallest midget." If you look at each player's potential, BA also has the highest "ceiling" of the three. Also, at every previous level at which he has played (minors, college, HS), BA has hit for decent average and power. Finally, he's the best fielder of the three. Therefore, among the players on the roster right now, BA should be the starting CF. Wise and Owens are fine for the bench.

jabrch
01-31-2009, 11:35 PM
Can we agree that the more runs against you prevent, the less number of runs you need to produce?

The same as we can agree that the more you produce, the more you can allow.

I don't care how we win - as long as we win.

Pitch well? Great!

Make all the plays on D? Super!

Knock the stitches out of the ball? Okie Dokie!

It's Dankerific
02-01-2009, 02:04 PM
The same as we can agree that the more you produce, the more you can allow.

I don't care how we win - as long as we win.

Pitch well? Great!

Make all the plays on D? Super!

Knock the stitches out of the ball? Okie Dokie!

All the teams who have the impressive strategy of slugging it out seem to win with SUCH regularity.

Craig Grebeck
02-01-2009, 02:07 PM
Pitching/defense and offense are not mutually exclusive.

It's Dankerific
02-01-2009, 02:13 PM
Pitching/defense and offense are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, with Wise or Owens it sure is.

Daver
02-01-2009, 10:00 PM
Knock the stitches out of the ball? Okie Dokie!

You mean like the 90's teams the Sox fielded, you know the teams that won more games in the decade than just about any other team, but didn't win a single playoff series?

Those days were great weren't they?

Save McCuddy's
02-01-2009, 10:25 PM
You mean like the 90's teams the Sox fielded, you know the teams that won more games in the decade than just about any other team, but didn't win a single playoff series?

Those days were great weren't they?

They were certainly better than the 80's.

Tragg
02-01-2009, 11:41 PM
You mean like the 90's teams the Sox fielded, you know the teams that won more games in the decade than just about any other team, but didn't win a single playoff series?

Those days were great weren't they?
Only played in 1.

rdivaldi
02-01-2009, 11:51 PM
All the teams who have the impressive strategy of slugging it out seem to win with SUCH regularity.

Can we rid ourselves of this myth that slugging teams don't win the World Series?

Since 2000 five of the teams that have won the World Series hit 200 or more home runs during the regular season. The 2002 Angels have the low water mark of 152 during that span, while the 2004 Red Sox hit 222.

I will whole-heartedly agree with all that say you need to be able to pitch (most important in my book) and field well, but hitting for power is also essential.

Frontman
02-02-2009, 05:57 AM
Can we rid ourselves of this myth that slugging teams don't win the World Series?

Since 2000 five of the teams that have won the World Series hit 200 or more home runs during the regular season. The 2002 Angels have the low water mark of 152 during that span, while the 2004 Red Sox hit 222.

I will whole-heartedly agree with all that say you need to be able to pitch (most important in my book) and field well, but hitting for power is also essential.

And the White Sox of 2005 were not a small ball team. They played it when they needed to, more more often than folks would care to admit, the ball was ticketed for home runs.

It's Dankerific
02-02-2009, 05:59 AM
Can we rid ourselves of this myth that slugging teams don't win the World Series?

Since 2000 five of the teams that have won the World Series hit 200 or more home runs during the regular season. The 2002 Angels have the low water mark of 152 during that span, while the 2004 Red Sox hit 222.

I will whole-heartedly agree with all that say you need to be able to pitch (most important in my book) and field well, but hitting for power is also essential.

Your points are not the same. I'm certainly not saying that I don't want my team to hit HRs. And just because you hit a lot of HRs doesn't make you a slugging team. Hitting 200 HRs but only scoring 600 runs =/= hitting 200 HRs and scoring 1000 runs.

I'm also saying that pitching and defense are more important.

In either case, Wise and Owens help with none of those options (pitching, defense, or hitting HRs).

jabrch
02-02-2009, 09:09 AM
You mean like the 90's teams the Sox fielded, you know the teams that won more games in the decade than just about any other team, but didn't win a single playoff series?

Those days were great weren't they?


There are lots of ways to win a ballgame Daver. Slugging is ONE of them. Any team that relies on just one way is likely to fall short.

And to your question, I enjoyed watching those teams play. I enjoy watching any Sox team play. The teams of the 00s are also high slg teams - and they have 3 post season trips so far, with a WS.

If you go back and review my post, and read it in its entirety, you will see that I said, "I don't care how we win - as long as we win." And slugging the stitches out of the ball is one way to do that. Score more runs than you allow...allow fewer runs than you score... tomayto - tomahto...

jabrch
02-02-2009, 09:10 AM
Can we rid ourselves of this myth that slugging teams don't win the World Series?

Since 2000 five of the teams that have won the World Series hit 200 or more home runs during the regular season. The 2002 Angels have the low water mark of 152 during that span, while the 2004 Red Sox hit 222.

I will whole-heartedly agree with all that say you need to be able to pitch (most important in my book) and field well, but hitting for power is also essential.


Well said Rdiv. Winning teams do a lot of things well. I don't care how we win - as long as we do so.

TornLabrum
02-02-2009, 05:44 PM
A baseball team is like a three-legged milking stool. The legs are pitching, defense, and offense. If any of these components are missing, it makes it damned hard to milk a cow or win a World Series.

DirtySox
02-04-2009, 04:10 PM
Wise Not Assured of Roster Spot (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090204&content_id=3799002&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)

LoveYourSuit
02-04-2009, 04:28 PM
Wise Not Assured of Roster Spot (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090204&content_id=3799002&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)

Reinsdorf sells the team before Ozzie cuts Wise.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 05:13 PM
Wise Not Assured of Roster Spot (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090204&content_id=3799002&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)


The funny part is that everyone gets all huffy over something KW or OG say... I don't believe a word any of them say to the media. They are generally manipulative and less than totally honest - and for good reason. I have faith that they will make logical decisions based on the club's situation - and then we will see how things play out. They have been right more than wrong - and I'm willing to trust their judgement.

To Wise or not to Wise... I don't give a ****. He's no more a lock to be any better or worse than Owens or BA. CF is going to be a crap shoot unless something changes drasticly. I'm fine with that. Won't impact my ability to enjoy a Sox game at all.

Frontman
02-04-2009, 05:41 PM
The funny part is that everyone gets all huffy over something KW or OG say... I don't believe a word any of them say to the media. They are generally manipulative and less than totally honest - and for good reason. I have faith that they will make logical decisions based on the club's situation - and then we will see how things play out. They have been right more than wrong - and I'm willing to trust their judgement.

To Wise or not to Wise... I don't give a ****. He's no more a lock to be any better or worse than Owens or BA. CF is going to be a crap shoot unless something changes drasticly. I'm fine with that. Won't impact my ability to enjoy a Sox game at all.

jabrch, thank you. Glad to see someone wanting just to enjoy some Sox baseball already. I'm with you. No team is perfect and I want to see the best the Sox can put out there; but even if CF isn't a "fixed" position come Opening Day, no worries as the Sox will take the field, the fireworks will go off, and we'll have baseball.

Craig Grebeck
02-04-2009, 05:51 PM
To Wise or not to Wise... I don't give a ****. He's no more a lock to be any better or worse than Owens or BA. CF is going to be a crap shoot unless something changes drasticly. I'm fine with that. Won't impact my ability to enjoy a Sox game at all.
It will, on the other hand, hamper the ability of the White Sox to win ballgames.

Lip Man 1
02-04-2009, 06:39 PM
What's interesting about that story is Scott Merkin's speculation that Wise could be the 'non-traditional' leadoff man that Kenny was talking about.

:o::o:

Lip

doublem23
02-04-2009, 06:52 PM
I assume in that instance "non-traditional" is synonymous with "terrible."

KenBerryGrab
02-04-2009, 08:48 PM
What's interesting about that story is Scott Merkin's speculation that Wise could be the 'non-traditional' leadoff man that Kenny was talking about.



http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.baseballtoaster.com/blogs/u/cardboardgods/2008/123/0001/Brian_Downing_78_1080.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cardboardgods.baseballtoaster.com/archives/899040.html&usg=__YuxrQhKnkgW_wdszEGq2nT7Uqq0=&h=698&w=492&sz=151&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=yGW84EcjuKCKBM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrian%2BDowning%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN

Lip Man 1
02-04-2009, 10:34 PM
Wise isn't even from the same planet as Downing regarding playing ability.

Lip

Tragg
02-04-2009, 10:37 PM
What's interesting about that story is Scott Merkin's speculation that Wise could be the 'non-traditional' leadoff man that Kenny was talking about.

:o::o:

Lip
"Non traditional" would probably be okay; terrible would not be.

champagne030
02-04-2009, 10:44 PM
"Non traditional" would probably be okay; terrible would not be.

In this case, "Non traditional" = sucks ass.

soxinem1
02-04-2009, 11:04 PM
I think we'd all obviously agree that all facets are important. I know Daver wasnt saying that.

But in '05, power with timely hitting put us over the top of another great pitching/fielding team in LA Angels.


We scored 23 runs against them that series, scoring seven first inning runs combined.

I'm not diminishing our great pitching performance that series, but it's a lot easier to pitch when you have all that first inning run support.

In every game we won that series, we grabbed the lead very early.


One of the keys to the 2005 season was the ability to score first, then hold the lead. That team drew first blood for a longer stretch of games to start the season than any team in history. Everything just clicked.

That team also had an unbelieveble record in close games, many of which were decided by sac flies, RBI ground-outs, and excellent defensive plays that were game winners.

That team did not have a prototypical lead-off man. Pods didn't have a great OBP, only drove in a couple dozen runs, and didn't even hit .300.

But one thing he did do for about 2/3 of the season was find a way to get on about 36% of the time, steal second or third, and then find a way to score.

So honestly, if someone steps up and does something like that, then it will be a big help.

WHILEPITCH
02-05-2009, 12:09 AM
Good points. It's an overused and unfortunate cliche, but at the plate right now BA is the "tallest midget." If you look at each player's potential, BA also has the highest "ceiling" of the three. Also, at every previous level at which he has played (minors, college, HS), BA has hit for decent average and power.

Brian is weeks away from being 27.

How old is he going to be when we stop talking about ceiling and potential and the minor league stats from long ago?

He hasnt done it at the major league level. Maybe when he reaches 30 he'll have the weird out-of-the-blue productive year at the plate that Wise already just had at that advanced age.

After being a backup since forever.



I envision one situation right now where I want BA playing, and it's if Lillibridge stars out of ST.

Konerko05
02-05-2009, 01:17 AM
Brian is weeks away from being 27.

How old is he going to be when we stop talking about ceiling and potential and the minor league stats from long ago?

He hasnt done it at the major league level. Maybe when he reaches 30 he'll have the weird out-of-the-blue productive year at the plate that Wise already just had at that advanced age.

After being a backup since forever.



I envision one situation right now where I want BA playing, and it's if Lillibridge stars out of ST.

It is not unreasonable for a 27 year old to come into his own in his second or third full season.

I'd rather play the 27 year old above average defender with offensive potential over the 31 year old journey man whose "weird out-of-the-blue productive year" consisted of a .248 AVG and .293 OBP.

In Anderson's awful rookie season at age 24, he posted a .290 OBP.

So tell me again why Wise is being considered to start in CF batting leadoff? I haven't even discussed his atrocious defense yet.

Owens and Wise are not good baseball players. I don't see the logic in forcing horrible players into the "important" lead off role.

Having a legitimate leadoff hitter would be great. Unfortunately no one on the White Sox fits that description. Put Ramirez, or possibly Getz as the leadoff hitter. Good hitters should be at the top of the lineup. The best nine players should be on the field. Wise and Owens are not on either list.

KenBerryGrab
02-05-2009, 09:13 AM
Wise isn't even from the same planet as Downing regarding playing ability.

Lip

I fully realize that. I couldn't put my link in teal.

tstrike2000
02-05-2009, 01:16 PM
Wise is just holding down that spot until Jerry Owens develops into that premier leadoff guy!

Tragg
02-05-2009, 03:46 PM
Brian is weeks away from being 27.

How old is he going to be when we stop talking about ceiling and potential and the minor league stats from long ago?

He hasnt done it at the major league level. Maybe when he reaches 30 he'll have the weird out-of-the-blue productive year at the plate that Wise already just had at that advanced age.

After being a backup since forever.


Still, Anderson, right now, is no worse a hitter than Owens or Wise. Defensively, he's in a different league.
Thus, even if you ignore that Guillen has platooned him to hit against lefties when he hits righties better and that he's never been in the lineup consistently, and completely discount any other notions or reasons that he could hit decently, there's little to suggest that Wise or Owens are any better offensively at all.
Wise has a .255 career OBP! Let's hope that's not what Ozzie means by "non traditional"