PDA

View Full Version : *Official* We'll Take It! 6-11 Postgame Thread


thomas35forever
06-11-2009, 07:38 PM
Our offense said "**** you, Granderson."

soltrain21
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
I hate Hawk. Settle the hell down, sir.

october23sp
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Pods for PTC and a "won the damn game" being the reason.:bandance:

BadBobbyJenks
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Thank the lord, we won is all I have to say.

SoxFan1979
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Woooooo that was close. :bandance:

mccoydp
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
**** yes!!

Pods is teh man!

:winner

guillensdisciple
06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Prove me some more and I will start believing. For now, I am watching this because I love my White Sox, not because I think we can win.

Whitesoxfan23
06-11-2009, 07:40 PM
prove me some more and i will start believing. For now, i am watching this because i love my white sox, not because i think we can win.

qft.

GoGoCrede
06-11-2009, 07:40 PM
What a relief. Take the momentum into this weekend.

Gavin should have gotten the win, but he'll get a steak dinner on Bobby instead. I'm excited to see my favorite player turn it around.

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:40 PM
Any win we can take.

Still have my confidence level very low with Jenks. I'd take a trade right now.

SoxSpeed22
06-11-2009, 07:41 PM
Even though it stunk to watch Jenks give up the lead, we got it back. Anderson, Getz, Fields and Pods all came through in the 9th. Getz needs to use that bunt more. Fields had a good at-bat. Good catch by the fan helps Pods get the game winning hit.

pilotsox
06-11-2009, 07:41 PM
I've never been this unexcited by a walkoff, but I'll damn sure take it. I'll take any win right now.

What I am really excited about is that we did this off Zumaya, and on top of that, we did it before the prick could get so much as an out. **** that douchebag.

october23sp
06-11-2009, 07:42 PM
Thank the lord, we won is all I have to say.

BAD Bobby Jenks is right.

Marqhead
06-11-2009, 07:42 PM
Walked in to see that Jenks had blown it, and then the sweet relief of a Pods walkoff.

Great game for Gavin apparently, hopefully they can carry this into the weekend.

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:43 PM
I've never been this unexcited by a walkoff, but I'll damn sure take it. I'll take any win right now.

What I am really excited about is that we did this off Zumaya, and on top of that, we did it before the prick could get so much as an out. **** that douchebag.


:o: what did he do, murder your dog?


I can name 100 other players in baseball ahead of him who are douchebags.

WhiteSoxOnly
06-11-2009, 07:43 PM
The homestand from hell is over...3-5,or 3-6,whatever the hell
it was felt a lot worse.Way to pick up Jenks.Gavin ,hell of a job.

pilotsox
06-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Even though it stunk to watch Jenks give up the lead, we got it back. Anderson, Getz, Fields and Pods all came through in the 9th. Getz needs to use that bunt more. Fields had a good at-bat. Good catch by the fan helps Pods get the game winning hit.

I'm not sure. I think if the dork in the stands had stood down, the Sox would have won right then and there. Anderson might have a good arm, but BA has decent speed and I think he would have gotten in. I don't think the Tigers would have gotten two miracle throws in three days to stop two different walkoffs.

In short, I think Anderson would have been really foolish to catch that ball. Fatass saved the Tigers' asses for a few moments, not ours.

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Gavin's ERA below 5.00 now !!!

That was quick.

voodoochile
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
We take dat one...

Floyd is really kicking as recently...

:soxwin:

:)

DumpJerry
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Any win we can take.

Still have my confidence level very low with Jenks. I'd take a trade right now.
I'm sorry, but you're nuts to say you would trade Bobby. He is still one of the top tier closers in MLB. They don't grow on trees, you know.

WhiteSoxOnly
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
:o: what did he do, murder your dog?


I can name 100 other players in baseball ahead of him who are douchebags.

Start with 5 or 6 please...

hi im skot
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
What was the "on-field delay" I saw on Gameday?

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Winning ugly.

I DO hope we are actively looking at what we can get for Jenks, because his declining periphs are proving to be true.

WhiteSox1989
06-11-2009, 07:46 PM
Bobby doesn't even deserve the win.

Floyd was on tonight. Looks like him and Danks are starting to come around.


Lets take every series this week!:bandance:

thomas35forever
06-11-2009, 07:46 PM
We take dat one...

Floyd is really kicking as recently...

:soxwin:

:)
As recently as when?:redneck

Gavin
06-11-2009, 07:46 PM
I'm not sure. I think if the dork in the stands had stood down, the Sox would have won right then and there. Anderson might have a good arm, but BA has decent speed and I think he would have gotten in. I don't think the Tigers would have gotten two miracle throws in three days to stop two different walkoffs.

In short, I think Anderson would have been really foolish to catch that ball. Fatass saved the Tigers' asses for a few moments, not ours.

Hmm... yeah, the day I calmly contemplate the situation and then turn to my buddy (with a foul ball flying toward us) to say "don't make a fool's errand--let him catch it!" will be the day I should stop going to baseball games altogether. Or maybe I should advise those in the vicinity ahead of such a play?

TheAnswer32
06-11-2009, 07:46 PM
What was the "on-field delay" I saw on Gameday?

Leyland complaining about potential fan interference.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 07:46 PM
I'm sorry, but you're nuts to say you would trade Bobby. He is still one of the top tier closers in MLB. They don't grow on trees, you know.

No he's not.

veeter
06-11-2009, 07:47 PM
Another stupid pitch call to Granderson. Scotty Pods is the Sox MVP, without question.

DirtySox
06-11-2009, 07:48 PM
No he's not.

Agreed. Bobby is solid, but not top tier. I really think he will be traded if things don't turn around. I'm high on Link though, so I'm not too concerned about it.

Whitesoxfan23
06-11-2009, 07:49 PM
I haven't ever felt this low about a walkoff.

TheAnswer32
06-11-2009, 07:49 PM
i haven't ever felt this low about a walkoff.

qft!

pilotsox
06-11-2009, 07:50 PM
:o: what did he do, murder your dog?


I can name 100 other players in baseball ahead of him who are douchebags.

If he murdered my dog he wouldn't be pitching at all 'cause I woulda shot his funky ass.

He's the Tigers' version of Carlos Zambrano. An obnoxious, sky-pointing ********. And he was supposed to be their savior, at least that's what it seemed like a while back (him and Miner, ROTFL), and he pretty much sucks.

But none of that matters. The killing factor for Zoom is that he pitches for the Tigers. As far I'm concerned, that's all I need to call someone a douche.

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:53 PM
I'm sorry, but you're nuts to say you would trade Bobby. He is still one of the top tier closers in MLB. They don't grow on trees, you know.


Over value of your players is the reason teams get into trouble.

Bobby is a very tradeable commodity which can bring a few pieces that can make us better in the future.

To say Bobby is un-tradeable is "nuts" from your part.

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:55 PM
No he's not.


But in 2005 he.....

ramblinsoxfan11
06-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Bobby owes a big "I'm sorry" to Floyd and a big "thank you" to Pods

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 07:56 PM
That AJ HR was huge for us there in the 8th.


I hope going on the road starts great things for this team. We will be way short handed with bats, but it's not like a stacked line up has been beating up the world anyway.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 07:58 PM
Over value of your players is the reason teams get into trouble.

Bobby is a very tradeable commodity which can bring a few pieces that can make us better in the future.

To say Bobby is un-tradeable is "nuts" from your part.

$

TDog
06-11-2009, 07:58 PM
Our offense said "**** you, Granderson."

Not to mention that the White Sox hit for a batting average of .400 with runners in scoring position and in that more important (some say) category of on-base percentage, the White Sox were .625 with runners in scoring position.

And they finally got a win for Bobby Jenks.

What the White Sox did in the ninth today is what the Tigers did to the Sox in the 10th two nights ago. Except that the Tigers did it with a home run, and there wasn't any safe-or-out-at-home controvsey. Today the White Sox answered the tying home run by manufacturing a run, in one of the few instances I would bunt, the Sox executed well enough to miss giving up an out and putting the winning run on third.

Cynics will say the Tigers were so surprised at the bunt getting down, they totally lost control. But I'm proud to be a White Sox fan, win or lose.

This series has brought out a lot of anger at WSI. The Sox ended up with three sparkling starting pitching performances and only won two of the five games. They could have, really, should have won the games they lost.

Monday Fields didn't have a good afternoon game. Today Pierzynski and Jenks didn't have good games. They have a sixth-place hitter hitting under .100, and in Milwaukee he may be hitting fifth. But I think today would have been a fun day to be at the Cell.

russ99
06-11-2009, 08:00 PM
What a relief. Take the momentum into this weekend.

Gavin should have gotten the win, but he'll get a steak dinner on Bobby instead. I'm excited to see my favorite player turn it around.

As am I.

Thank you Scotty Pods. You've proved your many doubters wrong. :D:

LoveYourSuit
06-11-2009, 08:02 PM
As am I.

Thank you Scotty Pods. You've proved your many doubters wrong. :D:


Pods is the only thing in our offense that has kept us in it the last few weeks. Let's hope he stays healthy long enough to help us climb back into this.

TheAnswer32
06-11-2009, 08:02 PM
It's also nice to see we got some umpiring breaks for a change.

WhiteSox5187
06-11-2009, 08:04 PM
An ugly win thus concludes an ugly homestand.

Woofer
06-11-2009, 08:09 PM
An ugly win thus concludes an ugly homestand.

I'll take an ugly win over what would have been a very ugly loss. I am pretty sure that my neighbors heard me screaming (cursing) when Granderson hit that game tying home run.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 08:13 PM
Not to mention that the White Sox hit for a batting average of .400 with runners in scoring position and in that more important (some say) category of on-base percentage, the White Sox were .625 with runners in scoring position.


Is this a joke?

You can't expect people to take batting average and OBP with RISP serious INSIDE OF A SINGLE GAME, can you?

That is totally misleading. In fact, I've never seen anyone look at OBP in RISP situations on the offensive side.

TDog
06-11-2009, 08:13 PM
An ugly win thus concludes an ugly homestand.

Point No. 1: There is no such thing as an ugly White Sox win.

Point No. 2: If there were, a forfeit that involved bloodshed and widespread public mayhem would qualify.

Point No. 3: You might say that about a 13-8 White Sox win, but I remember seeing the 1970 White Sox beat the Red Sox 22-13, and I didn't think it was ugly.

Point No. 4: Any time a White Sox team plays errorless ball and gets a hit to win 4-3 in the bottom of the ninth, ugly shouldn't be in any White Sox fan's thoughts.


This is baseball. Baseball, especially tightly played always-in-doubt, won-on-the-game's-last pitch baseball on a sunkissed afternoon (at least where I am) isn't ugly.

johnnyg83
06-11-2009, 08:18 PM
If he murdered my dog he wouldn't be pitching at all 'cause I woulda shot his funky ass.

He's the Tigers' version of Carlos Zambrano. An obnoxious, sky-pointing ********. And he was supposed to be their savior, at least that's what it seemed like a while back (him and Miner, ROTFL), and he pretty much sucks.

But none of that matters. The killing factor for Zoom is that he pitches for the Tigers. As far I'm concerned, that's all I need to call someone a douche.

I second this. He's the guy I hate most in the AL Central since Pudge left.

guillensdisciple
06-11-2009, 08:20 PM
qft!

What does that mean?

DSpivack
06-11-2009, 08:21 PM
I second this. He's the guy I hate most in the AL Central since Pudge left.

As long Nick ****ing Punto is still around, he'll be #1 to me.

DirtySox
06-11-2009, 08:24 PM
What does that mean?

quoted for truth

johnnyg83
06-11-2009, 08:24 PM
I don't like Punto either. But Zumaya is Jose Lima-lite.

TDog
06-11-2009, 08:27 PM
Is this a joke?

You can't expect people to take batting average and OBP with RISP serious INSIDE OF A SINGLE GAME, can you?

That is totally misleading. In fact, I've never seen anyone look at OBP in RISP situations on the offensive side.

Yes, it is totally misleading. People praising the Nick Swisher trade while I was holding his head screaming even mentioned OBP in RISP situations as a reason he would be a great addition to the team. The fact is, OBP often, more often than batting average, is a misleading stat.

The thing is, people are obsessed with batting averages with runners in scoring position when it doesn't tell you much. It isn't a predictive statistic.

Whether you believe he was safe or out two nights ago, Wise nearly won the game for the Sox on a night when Paul Konerko got a hit with runners in scoring position, it could have been enough to win the game. Instead the Tigers won the game going 2-for-11 with runners in scoring position, inspiring people to praise them for how well they hit when it counts while the Sox don't.

The fact is, it is more important to put runners in scoring position at a high number than it is to drive them in at a high rate.

It's silly that people are so obsessed with the RISP BA. If Adam Everett was intrinsically a better hitter with runners in scoring position than Jermaine Dye, Adam Everett would be wearing a ring and Jermaine Dye wouldn't have that cool trophy to reflect the glare off of his.

chisoxfanatic
06-11-2009, 08:30 PM
After spending six hours at the ballpark, I am completely stiff, and my ears hurt (it was chilly...is this REALLY mid-June?); but, I'll take the win, although I wasn't keen on Bobby's blown save. Gavin pitched so well. He deserved the win.

Hopefully Paulie isn't out too long, because now we have nine games in NL ballparks, and we can't afford to be "down" an extra batter.

pilotsox
06-11-2009, 08:33 PM
As long Nick ****ing Punto is still around, he'll be #1 to me.

I just looked at the stats to get a grasp on why you hate him so much. I didn't come up with any meaningful reason you'd hate a guy who's hitting .248 for his career and once spent an entire season below the Mendoza line, but I did come to the conclusion that Nick Punto is Chris Getz.

Both are bad sequels to David Eckstein.

guillensdisciple
06-11-2009, 08:40 PM
I just looked at the stats to get a grasp on why you hate him so much. I didn't come up with any meaningful reason you'd hate a guy who's hitting .248 for his career and once spent an entire season below the Mendoza line, but I did come to the conclusion that Nick Punto is Chris Getz.

Both are bad sequels to David Eckstein.


Chris Getz will be a solid second basemen in the major leagues. I think we forget that this is his first year of service. I am rather pleased with what he has done, and believe that he could be a valuable piece to the White Sox in the future.

Also, I can't wait to see Beckham come around. I believe it will come soon, because he seems like he is making contact a lot more, but only time will tell.

wassagstdu
06-11-2009, 08:40 PM
Ugly? I liked everything I saw in the bottom of the ninth. I predicted 3 Ks, but Anderson proved me wrong by shortening his swing. Getz put down a perfect bunt, Fields worked a clutch walk, then the man I wanted most to see up in that position, most likely to make contact, Pods did the job. Nice.

Tragg
06-11-2009, 08:41 PM
Prove me some more and I will start believing. For now, I am watching this because I love my White Sox, not because I think we can win.
That's what it's all about anyway.
Still, we should have won 4/5

ms620
06-11-2009, 08:43 PM
Yes, it is totally misleading. People praising the Nick Swisher trade while I was holding his head screaming even mentioned OBP in RISP situations as a reason he would be a great addition to the team. The fact is, OBP often, more often than batting average, is a misleading stat.

The thing is, people are obsessed with batting averages with runners in scoring position when it doesn't tell you much. It isn't a predictive statistic.

Whether you believe he was safe or out two nights ago, Wise nearly won the game for the Sox on a night when Paul Konerko got a hit with runners in scoring position, it could have been enough to win the game. Instead the Tigers won the game going 2-for-11 with runners in scoring position, inspiring people to praise them for how well they hit when it counts while the Sox don't.

The fact is, it is more important to put runners in scoring position at a high number than it is to drive them in at a high rate.

It's silly that people are so obsessed with the RISP BA. If Adam Everett was intrinsically a better hitter with runners in scoring position than Jermaine Dye, Adam Everett would be wearing a ring and Jermaine Dye wouldn't have that cool trophy to reflect the glare off of his.

Why should you only focus on predictive stats? The Sox have struggled with RISP. Does that mean that they will struggle for the rest of the season? Of course not. But it can shed some insight as to what the root of their offensive struggles are right now. The sox have had almost the same exact amount of runners in scoring position as the Tigers. Yet the Tigers have scored more runs. The Tigers are batting about 40 points higher in that category. The fact that people look at AJ's BA and think he is having a good offensive season is ridiculous. He is hitting .291 overall so on the surface it looks very good. However, he is hitting .182 w RISP. This is not a predictive stat, but what it tells you is that he is a huge reason that the sox have struggled scoring runs. He has had 33 ABs with runners in scoring position, and he only has 10 RBI. 4 of them came on a grand slam, so out of the other 32 ABs w RISP he has had 6 RBI. If you cannot see how this is a problem than I really do not know what to say. And I will say this again since you clearly have a hard time comprehending what I write, I AM NOT SAYING THAT HIS CURRENT BA WITH RISP MEANS HE WILL STRUGGLE FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON. All it says is that over 2 months, he has struggled mightily.

chisoxfanatic
06-11-2009, 08:47 PM
Ugly? I liked everything I saw in the bottom of the ninth. I predicted 3 Ks, but Anderson proved me wrong by shortening his swing. Getz put down a perfect bunt, Fields worked a clutch walk, then the man I wanted most to see up in that position, most likely to make contact, Pods did the job. Nice.
You're not the only one who thought we'd see 3 K's. I thought that, since the bottom of the order was coming up, we'd be in extras for sure. Fortunately, that wasn't the case.

Carolina Kenny
06-11-2009, 08:47 PM
Point No. 1: There is no such thing as an ugly White Sox win.

Point No. 2: If there were, a forfeit that involved bloodshed and widespread public mayhem would qualify.

Point No. 3: You might say that about a 13-8 White Sox win, but I remember seeing the 1970 White Sox beat the Red Sox 22-13, and I didn't think it was ugly.

Point No. 4: Any time a White Sox team plays errorless ball and gets a hit to win 4-3 in the bottom of the ninth, ugly shouldn't be in any White Sox fan's thoughts.


This is baseball. Baseball, especially tightly played always-in-doubt, won-on-the-game's-last pitch baseball on a sunkissed afternoon (at least where I am) isn't ugly.

Point No. 5: Fields went around and the ump blew the call. We could still be playing extras now.

Jim Shorts
06-11-2009, 08:53 PM
The hate for Bobby Jenks is astounding, really. He's blown two this year...two.

He's been lights out for us since he put on our pinstripes.

Yes he blew today's game and yes he has trade value. But this board thinks he was done last year and if we don't move him now, we're going to get robbed.

That's an incorrect opinion...

Iron Dragon2
06-11-2009, 08:58 PM
Thank God for Scotty Pods.

I really, really like what he brings to the team on the offensive side. Good contact hitter, sac bunts, moves runners, hustles down the basepaths. He plays the right way.

I was happy when KW re-signed him this season, but where would the Sox be now without him?

1989
06-11-2009, 09:06 PM
As long Nick ****ing Punto is still around, he'll be #1 to me.

this

whitesoxfan
06-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Thank God for Scotty Pods.

I really, really like what he brings to the team on the offensive side. Good contact hitter, sac bunts, moves runners, hustles down the basepaths. He plays the right way.

I was happy when KW re-signed him this season, but where would the Sox be now without him?

I don't want to know where we'd be without him right now. That'd be scary.

chisox77
06-11-2009, 09:09 PM
A White Sox winner, finally - number 4 for a 12-game homestand - not too good, but a start.

Frater Perdurabo
06-11-2009, 09:12 PM
No, Jenks should not be traded. But Farmer did wonder aloud if he's got some sort of undiagnosed injury, as one of his "fastballs" was only clocked at 87 MPH. Also, it would be nice if the official scorer has the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blows the save, only to have his team bail him out in the bottom of the ninth.

TDog
06-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Why should you only focus on predictive stats? The Sox have struggled with RISP.
...

If stats aren't predictive, they don't mean anything for the future. They tell you what the team has done, not what the team will do tomorrow. You're just complaining that things didn't go right in the past. The fact that they struggled while winning today doesn't mean they will struggle tomorrow and won't win. The Tigers struggled all week with runners in scoring position and took three out of five.

Hitters might work on bunting. They might work on driving the ball the other way with a runner on second or shooting the ball through the vacated hole on the hit-and-run. They might work on elevating to hit sacrifice flies with a runner on third and less than two out, and the Sox have been hitting some sacrifice flies. But you can't work on hitting with runners in scoring position, especially when some of the failures that people complain about were well-hit balls hit at people or great defensive plays that look like weak ground outs in the box score.

And if you pull out averages to support how badly the White Sox hit with runners in scoring position, you have to exclude today because the stats say they hit .400.

I don't understand the obsession.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 09:22 PM
No, Jenks should not be traded. But Farmer did wonder aloud if he's got some sort of undiagnosed injury, as one of his "fastballs" was only clocked at 87 MPH. Also, it would be nice if the official scorer has the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blows the save, only to have his team bail him out in the bottom of the ninth.

That's not up to the scorer. Them's the rules.

And exploring Jenks for trade pieces is not hate. I haven't read that anyone expressed hate. He is in decline while his service time calls for more $. This while this team needs pieces while his role is replaceable.

He is NOT Mariano Rivera and never will be so there is nothing wrong (nor should there be) discussing options he can bring in trade.

veeter
06-11-2009, 09:23 PM
The hate for Bobby Jenks is astounding, really. He's blown two this year...two.

He's been lights out for us since he put on our pinstripes.

Yes he blew today's game and yes he has trade value. But this board thinks he was done last year and if we don't move him now, we're going to get robbed.

That's an incorrect opinion...I blame the pitch call. Ozzie or Joey wanted a fastball on the inner half. As soon as AJ moved over I had a bad feeling. Granderson has power, but it's pull power. He can't take you out to left. Why they'd even mess with the inner half is ridiculous. Bobby made a poor pitch, but he should have been dotting the outside corner instead.

PhillipsBubba
06-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Kudos to the Sox for pulling out the victory, but it changes nothing. KW must do something big to improve the team or "white flag" it all together.

I AM very encouraged by the pitching of Danks and Floyd. I like those guys and hope they can be consistent the remainder of the year.

veeter
06-11-2009, 09:28 PM
How about Cox. On the Thome bleeder single that deflected off Inge's glove, Scotty should have scored. Farmer said Cox and Scotty got their signals crossed. I'm questioning the whole coaching staff more than ever.

Frater Perdurabo
06-11-2009, 09:28 PM
That's not up to the scorer. Them's the rules.

And exploring Jenks for trade pieces is not hate. I haven't read that anyone expressed hate. He is in decline while his service time calls for more $. This while this team needs pieces while his role is replaceable.

He is NOT Mariano Rivera and never will be so there is nothing wrong (nor should there be) discussing options he can bring in trade.

I guess we just disagree. I think it would be foolish to trade Jenks at this point, and I think MLB should change the rules to give the official scorer the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blew the save.

voodoochile
06-11-2009, 09:29 PM
If stats aren't predictive, they don't mean anything for the future. They tell you what the team has done, not what the team will do tomorrow. You're just complaining that things didn't go right in the past. The fact that they struggled while winning today doesn't mean they will struggle tomorrow and won't win. The Tigers struggled all week with runners in scoring position and took three out of five.

Hitters might work on bunting. They might work on driving the ball the other way with a runner on second or shooting the ball through the vacated hole on the hit-and-run. They might work on elevating to hit sacrifice flies with a runner on third and less than two out, and the Sox have been hitting some sacrifice flies. But you can't work on hitting with runners in scoring position, especially when some of the failures that people complain about were well-hit balls hit at people or great defensive plays that look like weak ground outs in the box score.

And if you pull out averages to support how badly the White Sox hit with runners in scoring position, you have to exclude today because the stats say they hit .400.

I don't understand the obsession.

Speaking of predictive stats, I'd like to point out that the Sox probably won 4 games from a pythagorean perspective this series. 3 would be the minium, so we got that going for us at the end of the year...:D:

TDog
06-11-2009, 09:30 PM
I guess we just disagree. I think it would be foolish to trade Jenks at this point, and I think MLB should change the rules to give the official scorer the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blew the save.

That won't happen until Joe Nathan raises a fuss about the scoring rule.

veeter
06-11-2009, 09:30 PM
I guess we just disagree. I think it would be foolish to trade Jenks at this point, and I think MLB should change the rules to give the official scorer the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blew the save.As always who do we replace him with? Jon Link? Give me a break. Noone is Mariano Rivera. But Bobby is as solid as they come. Propose a suitable replacement, and then consider a trade.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 09:30 PM
I guess we just disagree. I think it would be foolish to trade Jenks at this point, and I think MLB should change the rules to give the official scorer the discretion not to award the win to the closer who blew the save.


Only on the first part. On the second, I'm right with 'ya.

voodoochile
06-11-2009, 09:31 PM
That's not up to the scorer. Them's the rules.

And exploring Jenks for trade pieces is not hate. I haven't read that anyone expressed hate. He is in decline while his service time calls for more $. This while this team needs pieces while his role is replaceable.

He is NOT Mariano Rivera and never will be so there is nothing wrong (nor should there be) discussing options he can bring in trade.

Read the rules again. The scorer can award the win to any qualifying pitcher. They are not bound to give the win to the last guy on the mound at the time the team seizes control. That has become the convention because player's salaries are based on stats for the most part, but it's not actually part of the rule book.

johnnyg83
06-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Floyd's gotten his ERA down almost 3 runs since May 17 .... 7.71 to 4.94


Since Toronto start -- 37.2 IP =6 earned runs.

TDog
06-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Speaking of predictive stats, I'd like to point out that the Sox probably won 4 games from a pythagorean perspective this series. 3 would be the minium, so we got that going for us at the end of the year...:D:

I know. Even predictive stats aren't terribly predictive.

gobears1987
06-11-2009, 09:33 PM
Tell me if you heard this one before. Bobby Jenks blows a 2 run lead in the top of the 9th and Scott Podsednik come through with the game winning hit to bail him out in the bottom of the inning. Why does that sound very familiar? Help me out with this one please, I'm drawing a blank. I think the Tigers Adam Everett might have a better memory of such an occurrence than I do. BTW, 3 hour rain delays aren't too bad, we got to see the Brewers and highlights from the 2005 World Series

veeter
06-11-2009, 09:34 PM
Tell me if you heard this one before. Bobby Jenks blows a 2 run lead in the top of the 9th and Scott Podsednik come through with the game winning hit to bail him out in the bottom of the inning. Why does that sound very familiar? Help me out with this one please, I'm drawing a blank. I think the Tigers Adam Everett might have a better memory of such an occurrence than I do. BTW, 3 hour rain delays aren't too bad, we got to see the Brewers and highlights from the 2005 World SeriesI like it.

TDog
06-11-2009, 09:36 PM
Tell me if you heard this one before. Bobby Jenks blows a 2 run lead in the top of the 9th and Scott Podsednik come through with the game winning hit to bail him out in the bottom of the inning. Why does that sound very familiar? Help me out with this one please, I'm drawing a blank. I think the Tigers Adam Everett might have a better memory of such an occurrence than I do. BTW, 3 hour rain delays aren't too bad, we got to see the Brewers and highlights from the 2005 World Series

Good catch.

And Jenks came back and pitched in the next two games. Of course, Uribe owned the last inning he pitched in 2005.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 09:38 PM
Read the rules again. The scorer can award the win to any qualifying pitcher. They are not bound to give the win to the last guy on the mound at the time the team seizes control. That has become the convention because player's salaries are based on stats for the most part, but it's not actually part of the rule book.

The rule should be that 8 completed innings go to the SP if he leaves the game at this point with a lead and the team wins. It should NOT be up for any interpretation.

Hell, many would argue that 7 is good enough.

DSpivack
06-11-2009, 10:11 PM
The rule should be that 8 completed innings go to the SP if he leaves the game at this point with a lead and the team wins. It should NOT be up for any interpretation.

Hell, many would argue that 7 is good enough.

I don't see why that should be the case. What if it's 8-8?

Brian26
06-11-2009, 10:12 PM
The hate for Bobby Jenks is astounding, really. He's blown two this year...two.

He's been lights out for us since he put on our pinstripes.

Yes he blew today's game and yes he has trade value. But this board thinks he was done last year and if we don't move him now, we're going to get robbed.

That's an incorrect opinion...

Maybe not. Farmer on the radio in the 9th was questioning if something was wrong with Bobby. He's looked far from unstoppable on the mound this year, and the Sox probably missed their opportunity to cash in when Bobby's value was at its highest.

Brian26
06-11-2009, 10:13 PM
I don't see why that should be the case. What if it's 8-8?

Good point, but how many starting pitchers are still going to be in the game after giving up eight runs?

DSpivack
06-11-2009, 10:14 PM
Good point, but how many starting pitchers are still going to be in the game after giving up eight runs?

True, I think my overall point is that hard and fast rules with something like that are hard to write well.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 10:15 PM
Good point, but how many starting pitchers are still going to be in the game after giving up eight runs?

:rolleyes:.. exactly. He's just trying to be a PIA.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
True, I think my overall point is that hard and fast rules with something like that are hard to write well.

No, they aren't. Bobby Jenks being credited a win is a travesty and even you have to admit that.

Brian26
06-11-2009, 10:20 PM
No, they aren't. Bobby Jenks being credited a win is a travesty and even you have to admit that.

I like Bobby, but this is the ONE case where you could absolutely justify without question the decision to award the win to the starting pitcher.

Whitesoxfan23
06-11-2009, 10:22 PM
I like Bobby, but this is the ONE case where you could absolutely justify without question the decision to award the win to the starting pitcher.

Yeah Bobby getting the win is indeed a joke.

JB98
06-11-2009, 10:30 PM
This was the longest day I've spent at the ballpark since the 19-inning game in July 2006. At least the Sox scored more runs than the other team.

The bottom of the order got it done against a tough reliever. Great bunt by Getz. We'll need those guys to step up in the NL parks with Thome out of the lineup.

Floyd was great. Jenks' stuff looked flat. Is he 100 percent? His 0-2 offspeed pitch to Raburn was terrible.

Glad to finally see a win. I hadn't seen the Sox win in person since May 9.

Frater Perdurabo
06-11-2009, 10:34 PM
I like Bobby, but this is the ONE case where you could absolutely justify without question the decision to award the win to the starting pitcher.

I agree completely with this statement. Well said.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 10:34 PM
I like Bobby, but this is the ONE case where you could absolutely justify without question the decision to award the win to the starting pitcher.

With all due respect Brian, it's not even close to the ONE case, there's many more. This is why the SABR group exists. Traditional stats/rules have flaws; lots of them. If we were going to trade away talent to get someone like Gavin, we'd might not even notice how good he can be otherwise.

OTOH, most of his metric figures are bad and he's been defying them so...

DSpivack
06-11-2009, 10:36 PM
With all due respect Brian, it's not even close to the ONE case, there's many more. This is why the SABR group exists. Traditional stats/rules have flaws; lots of them.

And SABR stats don't?

Tragg
06-11-2009, 10:53 PM
Floyd owns Detroit.
In 2007, he started pulling things together against the Tigers, with a couple of good late-season outings.
He kicked them early last year too

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 10:54 PM
And SABR stats don't?

Lie, no. But did you read the rest of the post? Here, I'll help you:

OTOH, most of his metric figures are bad and he's been defying them so...

No smoke/mirrors or panaceas.

TDog
06-11-2009, 11:21 PM
With all due respect Brian, it's not even close to the ONE case ...

It happens a lot. It's how Baldwin got the win in the 2000 All-Star Game.

Relief wins don't mean very much, of course, not the way pitchers are used today. Of course, Floyd could have won the game if he had pitched nine. Pitchers used to pitch complete games, so this wasn't an issue as often.

Verlander got the win last night because Zumaya didn't come in and give up a run (as he did in two of his relief appearances in this series.

Jenks doesn't deserve the win, but Floyd not getting it rates little more than being unfortunate.

This sort of thing happens a lot. To a lesser degree, it happened to Lyon two nights ago. He allowed the big hit to Konerko and ended up with both a blown save and win. When you see W next to a closer's name in the box score, more often than not you'll see he had a blown save as well.

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 11:27 PM
It happens a lot. It's how Baldwin got the win in the 2000 All-Star Game.

Relief wins don't mean very much, of course, not the way pitchers are used today. Of course, Floyd could have won the game if he had pitched nine. Pitchers used to pitch complete games, so this wasn't an issue as often.

Verlander got the win last night because Zumaya didn't come in and give up a run (as he did in two of his relief appearances in this series.

Jenks doesn't deserve the win, but Floyd not getting it rates little more than being unfortunate.

This sort of thing happens a lot. To a lesser degree, it happened to Lyon two nights ago. He allowed the big hit to Konerko and ended up with both a blown save and win. When you see W next to a closer's name in the box score, more often than not you'll see he had a blown save as well.

Ok, so.... well, you've got nothing to add I guess.

The question was - If an SP goes 8 IP complete, hands over the game to the bullpen, team wins....what say you? Should that W go to a BP appearance? Most of us (I think), would say no, and that's a bad rule or option for ruling....

TDog
06-11-2009, 11:51 PM
Ok, so.... well, you've got nothing to add I guess.

The question was - If an SP goes 8 IP complete, hands over the game to the bullpen, team wins....what say you? Should that W go to a BP appearance? Most of us (I think), would say no, and that's a bad rule or option for ruling....

Let me make it easier for you to understand.

Pitchers get wins they don't deserve all the time, if they play for a team that wins.

If a pitcher wins a complete game, he deserves the win.

If he only goes eight and the other team ties it in the ninth, I don't think he deserves the win.

When Cy Young was pitching, he won 511 games. The winning pitcher was decided by the official scorer. Many of Cy Young's wins were complete games, of course, but some were not. I don't know how many of those wins he got because he was Cy Young, but I have read that there were some. The existing criteria exists as an objective standard to make starting pitchers wins mean more.

People are acting like Floyd got screwed almost as much as the country alleged the Twins did when they had to play game 163 in Chicago. This sort of thing happens all the time, and it's been happening for years. Decades in fact.

This wouldn't have happened to Tom Seaver. He would have pitched the ninth, pitch count be damned. It didn't happen to Verlander last night.

chisoxfanatic
06-11-2009, 11:53 PM
People are acting like Floyd got screwed almost as much as the country alleged the Twins did when they had to play game 163 in Chicago.
I think there's only one individual who actually believes that. :tongue:

drewcifer
06-11-2009, 11:53 PM
Let me make it easier for you to understand.

Pitchers get wins they don't deserve all the time, if they play for a team that wins.

If a pitcher wins a complete game, he deserves the win.

If he only goes eight and the other team ties it in the ninth, I don't think he deserves the win.

When Cy Young was pitching, he won 511 games. The winning pitcher was decided by the official scorer. Many of Cy Young's wins were complete games, of course, but some were not. I don't know how many of those wins he got because he was Cy Young, but I have read that there were some. The existing criteria exists as an objective standard to make starting pitchers wins mean more.

People are acting like Floyd got screwed almost as much as the country alleged the Twins did when they had to play game 163 in Chicago. This sort of thing happens all the time, and it's been happening for years. Decades in fact.

This wouldn't have happened to Tom Seaver. He would have pitched the ninth, pitch count be damned. It didn't happen to Verlander last night.

Uggh...look up how many INCOMPLETE game wins Cy Young had before you post. What a waste.

Your only redeeming points are about Seaver and Verlander.

But they didn't have Ozzie as their manager either, did they?

soxnut1018
06-12-2009, 12:13 AM
I know Bobby Jenks didn't deserve the win, but does anybody care what a closer's record is? All that matters is ERA and Save %.

slavko
06-12-2009, 12:22 AM
I know Bobby Jenks didn't deserve the win, but does anybody care what a closer's record is? All that matters is ERA and Save %.

He seems to be easier to get a HR off of than in the past, without looking up stats. That tells me something is different with him. He's trade bait, IMO, if the opportunity arises. He is NOT a franchise closer, probably never was.

gobears1987
06-12-2009, 12:29 AM
Relief pitchers get wins they don't deserve all the time. Why do you think so many have picked up the nickname "vulture" at one point or another?

Bobby Jenks is still the best closer the Sox have had since Thigpen. Heck he may be better. You can try to trade him, but I bet none of the arms in our pen can step up and close. They are very good, but there is a mental aspect to closing that they just don't have.

JB98
06-12-2009, 12:34 AM
Relief pitchers get wins they don't deserve all the time. Why do you think so many have picked up the nickname "vulture" at one point or another?

Bobby Jenks is still the best closer the Sox have had since Thigpen. Heck he may be better. You can try to trade him, but I bet none of the arms in our pen can step up and close. They are very good, but there is a mental aspect to closing that they just don't have.

I think Thornton can do it. Linebrink, not so much. He melts down in ninth innings.

If the Sox are indeed sellers in July, I think KW has to look into what he can get for Jenks. Bobby is still good, cheap and not eligible for free agency anytime soon. For those reasons, contenders would want him. And the Sox might be able to get two or three players for him. He's arguably our best trading chip.

I'm not against trading Jenks, as long as we're getting a good haul in return.

ChiSoxGirl
06-12-2009, 12:38 AM
I <3 Podsednik. :smile: That is all.

fox23
06-12-2009, 10:11 AM
My bus will be rolling in for Saturday! I just hope it doesn't rain during our tailgate now.

WhiteSoxFTW
06-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Pods is the only thing in our offense that has kept us in it the last few weeks. Let's hope he stays healthy long enough to help us climb back into this.


Who would've ever thought anyone would be saying this (2005 nostalgia, aside)

PalehosePlanet
06-12-2009, 10:21 AM
Who would've ever thought anyone would be saying this (2005 nostalgia, aside)

I know, isn't that something?

I for one was bithching and moaning a month ago about Pods and how much I wanted him off the team. My apologies for that, I'm elated that he's proven me wrong.

The funny thing is about yesterday is that he was the one I wanted up in the late inning, bases loaded situation. After his great 9th inning at-bats against Juan Cruz in K.C. I was totally confident that he could come through.

I love the fact that he's actually turning on fastballs niddle-in and pulling the ball into RF with authority. Back in '06 and '07 those were soft, shallow flairs to LF.

WhiteSoxFTW
06-12-2009, 10:28 AM
I know, isn't that something?

I for one was bithching and moaning a month ago about Pods and how much I wanted him off the team. My apologies for that, I'm elated that he's proven me wrong.

The funny thing is about yesterday is that he was the one I wanted up in the late inning, bases loaded situation. After his great 9th inning at-bats against Juan Cruz in K.C. I was totally confident that he could come through.

I love the fact that he's actually turning on fastballs niddle-in and pulling the ball into RF with authority. Back in '06 and '07 those were soft, shallow flairs to LF.

I was never bitching and moaning, but I did scratch my head a little. Then, I thought that Pods is better than Owens, at least. He has proved that he can still play. Boy, have we needed him.

thedudeabides
06-12-2009, 10:54 AM
He seems to be easier to get a HR off of than in the past, without looking up stats. That tells me something is different with him. He's trade bait, IMO, if the opportunity arises. He is NOT a franchise closer, probably never was.

Then who do you think is a franchise closer? He has been a premier closer for four years now. The only closers in the American league I would take over him are Rivera, Papelbon, and Nathan.

He had a bad blown save yesterday, but the Sox managed to win the game. The overreaction around here about Jenks is ****ing crazy. I guess some of the people calling for him to be shipped haven't seen how devastating it is to a team to have games blown over and over again, by a ****ty closer or closer by committee.

veeter
06-12-2009, 11:45 AM
He seems to be easier to get a HR off of than in the past, without looking up stats. That tells me something is different with him. He's trade bait, IMO, if the opportunity arises. He is NOT a franchise closer, probably never was.Everyone's reactionary thought to trade Bobby makes no sense. He's not a franchise closer, he's losing it, his peripherals suck....and on and on. We ought to be able to get what, a reserve infielder for him. I mean he's not that good right?

jdm2662
06-12-2009, 12:21 PM
Does anyone remember in 2007 when Bobby had a bad two week stretch, and some even hinted David fricking Weathers was a better closer? Bobby responded by tying a MLB record of retiring 41 straight batters. He gave up only 2 hrs all last year, and has blown only two saves this year.

That said, I'm not against trading him if the price is right.

JB98
06-12-2009, 01:29 PM
Everyone's reactionary thought to trade Bobby makes no sense. He's not a franchise closer, he's losing it, his peripherals suck....and on and on. We ought to be able to get what, a reserve infielder for him. I mean he's not that good right?

In my case, I don't think the thought to trade Jenks is reactionary at all. I was posting Wednesday night about how I'd consider trading Jenks, because he's a good relief pitcher who could bring us two or three good players in return. I still feel the same way after Thursday's blown save. And I'll feel the same way if Bobby strikes out the side and nails down a save this evening in Milwaukee.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Bobby's peripherals. Closing is a bottom line business: Did you get the three outs or did you not? I don't care about WHIP or Ks per 9 inn. or any of that other ****. Save percentage is the only thing that counts in evaluating Bobby Jenks. Long-term, he's been very, very good.

I have no desire to trade him for a reserve infielder. I would trade him if we can get multiple players to plug the various other holes we have, because I happen to believe Thornton can close.

palehozenychicty
06-12-2009, 01:57 PM
In my case, I don't think the thought to trade Jenks is reactionary at all. I was posting Wednesday night about how I'd consider trading Jenks, because he's a good relief pitcher who could bring us two or three good players in return. I still feel the same way after Thursday's blown save. And I'll feel the same way if Bobby strikes out the side and nails down a save this evening in Milwaukee.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Bobby's peripherals. Closing is a bottom line business: Did you get the three outs or did you not? I don't care about WHIP or Ks per 9 inn. or any of that other ****. Save percentage is the only thing that counts in evaluating Bobby Jenks. Long-term, he's been very, very good.

I have no desire to trade him for a reserve infielder. I would trade him if we can get multiple players to plug the various other holes we have, because I happen to believe Thornton can close.


Exactly. Bobby has done very, very well for us. That being said, he isn't Mariano Rivera. If somebody offers a package that addresses our needs, you have to consider it.

ShoelessJoeS
06-12-2009, 02:12 PM
I know, isn't that something?

I for one was bithching and moaning a month ago about Pods and how much I wanted him off the team. My apologies for that, I'm elated that he's proven me wrong.

The funny thing is about yesterday is that he was the one I wanted up in the late inning, bases loaded situation. After his great 9th inning at-bats against Juan Cruz in K.C. I was totally confident that he could come through.

I love the fact that he's actually turning on fastballs niddle-in and pulling the ball into RF with authority. Back in '06 and '07 those were soft, shallow flairs to LF."If there's anyone I want batting right now, it's Scott Podsednik."

I was thinking the exact same thing.

TDog
06-12-2009, 04:00 PM
Uggh...look up how many INCOMPLETE game wins Cy Young had before you post. What a waste.

Your only redeeming points are about Seaver and Verlander.

But they didn't have Ozzie as their manager either, did they?

I didn't need to look up the number of incomplete games Cy Young pitched because I know Cy Young had more complete games than wins by a margin that isn't close. But old baseball people have told me the Cy Young win total is inflated a little bit, and I have no way of knowing if that is anything but possible. But the number of wins he would have under today's scoring rules is irrelevant to the point that there is reason to have objective standards to award a pitcher a win. It isn't about who the official scorer (or in most cases anyone with eyes) judges to have pitched the best game.

If yesterday Floyd had given up no runs in eight, left with the score tied and a reliever gave up a run in the ninth, a two-run rally by the White Sox would give the reliever the win. If the reliever had pitched a scoreless ninth and the White Sox had scored in the bottom of the inning to win 1-0, the reliever would get the win. In both cases. In both cases, Floyd would have pitched a better game than the reliever, and there is no question the reliever should get the win, whether he deserves it or not.

One reason John Danks didn't get more wins last year was that he didn't pitch deep enough into games. I was pulling for Floyd to go the distance yesterday. But he didn't, and he didn't get the win.

Tragg
06-12-2009, 08:41 PM
Frankly, I don't give a damn about Bobby's peripherals. Closing is a bottom line business: Did you get the three outs or did you not? I don't care about WHIP or Ks per 9 inn. or any of that other ****. Save percentage is the only thing that counts in evaluating Bobby Jenks. Long-term, he's been very, very good.

I have no desire to trade him for a reserve infielder. I would trade him if we can get multiple players to plug the various other holes we have, because I happen to believe Thornton can close.
But because of those peripherals, he's likely to bring far less than he's worth.
That's why I'd dangle Thornton (whom I agree can close).