PDA

View Full Version : Swisher...


NLaloosh
08-22-2009, 09:27 AM
http://6pound8ouncebabyjoba.com/?p=327

You may not want to hear it but Yankee fans are really happy. I know Kenny can't win them all but this was a bad one and I still believe the Sox would have more wins today if they never made this trade.

WizardsofOzzie
08-22-2009, 09:58 AM
If we had kept Swisher, we probably wouldn't have felt the need to sign Pods. Who would you rather have right now?

tsoxman
08-22-2009, 10:17 AM
If we had kept Swisher, we probably wouldn't have felt the need to sign Pods. Who would you rather have right now?

I agree, but perhaps the poster was referring to the original trade witgh the A's? That trade was brutal.

munchman33
08-22-2009, 10:55 AM
He's hitting .240 again. He's exactly the same player. Maybe the Yankees will settle for that, but we expect results here.

GoGoCrede
08-22-2009, 11:02 AM
Whatever, we have Rios and Pods now.

cards press box
08-22-2009, 11:06 AM
I read the article on Nick Swisher and some of the comments. In those comments, some Yankee fans criticized the Sox for having Alex Rios on the roster instead of Swisher. I don't understand that view at all. Rios is the better offensive player in terms of power, speed and average and is the far superior defensive player. Rios plays CF very well. Swisher's best position is 1B. Aaron Rowand played well in CF for the Sox but Rios is probably the best defensive CF the Sox have had since Mike Cameron. Why any of these Yankee fans would argue that the Sox would be better off with Swisher on the roster as opposed to Rios is beyond me.

Hitmen77
08-22-2009, 11:07 AM
He's hitting .240 again. He's exactly the same player. Maybe the Yankees will settle for that, but we expect results here.

Exactly. He hasn't been that great. I think his average has been lower than .240 most of the season.

Great clubhouse guy? GMAB. He was awful here. When he flopped as a player and got benched, he pouted. Is it the Sox fault that he's now suddenly a "great clubhouse guy" when he's surrounded by a bunch of high priced all-stars who can carry the team for him? Must be nice to be on a team with a $300 million payroll so that you can hit .240 and play the happy-go-lucky class clown.

I agree that the Swisher trade with the A's was awful. The one with the Yankees was mostly a salary dump for a guy with no place to play on the Sox and numbers that are generally trending downward.

Red Barchetta
08-22-2009, 12:54 PM
He's hitting .240 again. He's exactly the same player. Maybe the Yankees will settle for that, but we expect results here.

I agree. I think Swisher is a "good guy" when it comes to fans, passion, etc., however seriously, he's a .240 career hitter who IMO took way too many fastballs down the middle. I would much rather have Pods, Rios, Dye and Quentin splitting time in the OF than Swisher, Anderson, Dye and Quentin.

LoveYourSuit
08-22-2009, 01:43 PM
If we had kept Swisher, we probably wouldn't have felt the need to sign Pods. Who would you rather have right now?


I didn't want Swisher back.

But you had to have had a better back up plan than Pods/Wise/Anderson.

Pods is not a good baseball player. There is not one single aspect of baseball he does good.

SI1020
08-22-2009, 02:08 PM
I read the article on Nick Swisher and some of the comments. In those comments, some Yankee fans criticized the Sox for having Alex Rios on the roster instead of Swisher. I don't understand that view at all. Rios is the better offensive player in terms of power, speed and average and is the far superior defensive player. Rios plays CF very well. Swisher's best position is 1B. Aaron Rowand played well in CF for the Sox but Rios is probably the best defensive CF the Sox have had since Mike Cameron. Why any of these Yankee fans would argue that the Sox would be better off with Swisher on the roster as opposed to Rios is beyond me. Is there any more contentious issue in baseball than arguing over who is and who isn't a good fielder? I come away less than impressed with the outfield play of Alex Rios. If you're into stats his metrics aren't all that hot either. He still has lots of good years left, so there is plenty of time for him to change my mind, but as of now I certainly don't rate him that highly in the field.

TheOldRoman
08-22-2009, 02:29 PM
He's hitting .240 again. He's exactly the same player. Maybe the Yankees will settle for that, but we expect results here.If that were true, Greg Walker would have been fired several years ago. We expect underachieving and streakiness here. Swisher was a perfect fit if not for his mouth.

That being said, I am glad he is gone.

JB98
08-22-2009, 02:37 PM
**** Nick Swisher. Let me say that again for emphasis: **** Nick Swisher.

I'm glad that guy is gone. Shame on you people who long for the return of a .240-hitting strikeout machine.

TheOldRoman
08-22-2009, 02:38 PM
Exactly. He hasn't been that great. I think his average has been lower than .240 most of the season.

Great clubhouse guy? GMAB. He was awful here. When he flopped as a player and got benched, he pouted. Is it the Sox fault that he's now suddenly a "great clubhouse guy" when he's surrounded by a bunch of high priced all-stars who can carry the team for him? Must be nice to be on a team with a $300 million payroll so that you can hit .240 and play the happy-go-lucky class clown.

I agree that the Swisher trade with the A's was awful. The one with the Yankees was mostly a salary dump for a guy with no place to play on the Sox and numbers that are generally trending downward.I don't know the deal with Swisher supposedly being a bad clubhouse guy. I know that Ozzie was upset at him for moping at the end of the season, and I heard anonymous some player said nobody was sad to see him go. That is the extent of what I heard, but maybe I am missing something. He may not have been well liked, but I don't think he was a clubhouse cancer.

However, why did we have problems with him and Cabrera? I think the current clubhouse atmosphere is too ingrained into these players. The underachieving, "10 runs one night - 1 the next, no big deal if you lose, can't win in Minnesota, any dome, or on the west coast, and that is okay" vibe has been around for a long time. It starts with our veterans and coaches. Cabrera was a total piece of crap, but I know that he was upset about the state of the team last year. My biggest beef with him is that he didn't call out the team until the last week of the season. The leadership on this team is non-existent. It pains me to say it, but Carl Everett was right about that. No leadership since 2005. Cabrera, and Swisher especially, underperformed last year, but maybe we need more of those type of players. What I am saying is, I don't think the fact that they pissed off the clubhouse is a bad thing.

WhiteSox1989
08-22-2009, 02:40 PM
**** Nick Swisher. Let me say that again for emphasis: **** Nick Swisher.

I'm glad that guy is gone. Shame on you people who long for the return of a .240-hitting strikeout machine.
For extra emphasis.

chunk
08-22-2009, 02:45 PM
To say he's the same hitter as he was last year, even though he has an OPS of .851 compared to last year's .743, is either dishonest or ignorant.


OPS+ 92 compared to OPS+ of 121. That's a huge reversal.

LITTLE NELL
08-22-2009, 03:08 PM
Don't miss Swisher and his goofy looking into outer space before every pitch.

samurai_sox
08-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Don't miss Swisher and his goofy looking into outer space before every pitch.

You do know he does that for his deceased grandmother right?

kittle42
08-22-2009, 03:16 PM
You do know he does that for his deceased grandmother right?

Well, she's not there.

thomas35forever
08-22-2009, 03:19 PM
I don't miss Swisher, his strikeouts, or his attitude down the stretch last season. I'm glad Wise got the nod over him during that time. The Yankees can have him. Let's see how he does in the playoffs.

JB98
08-22-2009, 03:21 PM
I don't know the deal with Swisher supposedly being a bad clubhouse guy. I know that Ozzie was upset at him for moping at the end of the season, and I heard anonymous some player said nobody was sad to see him go. That is the extent of what I heard, but maybe I am missing something. He may not have been well liked, but I don't think he was a clubhouse cancer.

However, why did we have problems with him and Cabrera? I think the current clubhouse atmosphere is too ingrained into these players. The underachieving, "10 runs one night - 1 the next, no big deal if you lose, can't win in Minnesota, any dome, or on the west coast, and that is okay" vibe has been around for a long time. It starts with our veterans and coaches. Cabrera was a total piece of crap, but I know that he was upset about the state of the team last year. My biggest beef with him is that he didn't call out the team until the last week of the season. The leadership on this team is non-existent. It pains me to say it, but Carl Everett was right about that. No leadership since 2005. Cabrera, and Swisher especially, underperformed last year, but maybe we need more of those type of players. What I am saying is, I don't think the fact that they pissed off the clubhouse is a bad thing.

You forgot to mention the "just win series" mantra that exists in the clubhouse. I throw up everytime I hear the veterans and the coaches spewing that garbage, and they spew it often. Why do you think they always lose the third game after taking the first two in a three-game set? Because "winning series" is all that matters. The final game of a series doesn't count in the White Sox world.

I don't think Cabrera was a leader. I know Swisher wasn't. But they do need somebody to remind them that every game counts in the standings, even the last game of the series when you've taken the first two.

Ron Karkovice
08-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Well, she's not there.

:D::tongue:

Red Barchetta
08-22-2009, 03:44 PM
You forgot to mention the "just win series" mantra that exists in the clubhouse. I throw up everytime I hear the veterans and the coaches spewing that garbage, and they spew it often. Why do you think they always lose the third game after taking the first two in a three-game set? Because "winning series" is all that matters. The final game of a series doesn't count in the White Sox world.

I don't think Cabrera was a leader. I know Swisher wasn't. But they do need somebody to remind them that every game counts in the standings, even the last game of the series when you've taken the first two.

I hate that attitude as well and it seems like we have been playing by that mantra for too long. Perhaps that's why we float around .500 and play to the level of our competition.

It usually goes down to the wire every season, so why players aren't more upset about not sweeping teams when they have the chance is beyond me. I guess it's hard to have a killer instinct when you make all that $$$ win or lose.

Frater Perdurabo
08-22-2009, 03:53 PM
The Sox lost both Swisher trades. Both rank down there among KW's worst.

JB98
08-22-2009, 03:57 PM
I hate that attitude as well and it seems like we have been playing by that mantra for too long. Perhaps that's why we float around .500 and play to the level of our competition.

It usually goes down to the wire every season, so why players aren't more upset about not sweeping teams when they have the chance is beyond me. I guess it's hard to have a killer instinct when you make all that $$$ win or lose.

They should be better than 2-9 when going for sweeps just on accident. There are a few facts the Sox don't seem to understand:

1) The teams that win the most games go to the playoffs, not the team that wins the most series.
2) 3-0 is a better record than 2-1. That adds up over a long season.
3) You aren't going to win every series. It's just not realistic.
4) You can make up for the fact that you're not going to win every series by sweeping somebody every now and then.

The last road trip was a case in point. Danks pitched a great game on Sunday in Oakland. Everybody else laid down like dogs. "Oh, well. We won the series. Nevermind that we lost the series in Seattle, but could have still had a winning road trip if we had played well the last game in Oakland. Mediocrity is OK. Get 'em tomorrow, boys."

whitesoxfan
08-22-2009, 04:12 PM
The Sox lost both Swisher trades. Both rank down there among KW's worst.

Yes we did, but neither of the trades were very crippling. At best, Gio Gonzalez is going to be a back of the rotation guy. Ryan Sweeney can't do anything besides hit singles and Aaron Cunningham sucks.

The Yankees trade, as mentioned earlier, was a salary dump. We got absolute crap in return but it's not like Swisher's better than anything we currently have. So yes, I do agree we lost both of those trades. But again, neither of them really hurt us too bad.

DumpJerry
08-22-2009, 04:13 PM
http://6pound8ouncebabyjoba.com/?p=327

You may not want to hear it but Yankee fans are really happy. I know Kenny can't win them all but this was a bad one and I still believe the Sox would have more wins today if they never made this trade.
No. Your memory is very short, I see.

Tragg
08-22-2009, 04:14 PM
They were both terrible trades.
Williams gave up legitimate prospects for Swisher, and took fading fringe prospects and a utility infielder in return.

Boondock Saint
08-22-2009, 04:14 PM
**** Nick Swisher. Let me say that again for emphasis: **** Nick Swisher.

I'm glad that guy is gone. Shame on you people who long for the return of a .240-hitting strikeout machine.

Thank you for "getting it". Swisher was awful while he was here. The reason we got such a terrible return for him is because he wasn't worth anything. Most teams won't give up a top prospect for a barely average hitting corner outfielder that stares at strike three seemingly every game.

ChiSoxGirl
08-22-2009, 04:22 PM
If we had kept Swisher, we probably wouldn't have felt the need to sign Pods. Who would you rather have right now?

Do you REALLY want me to answer that question? :wink: Heck, do I even NEED to?!

Ron Karkovice
08-22-2009, 04:27 PM
Do you REALLY want me to answer that question? :wink: Heck, do I even NEED to?!

Watch your language.

TheOldRoman
08-22-2009, 04:30 PM
You forgot to mention the "just win series" mantra that exists in the clubhouse. I throw up everytime I hear the veterans and the coaches spewing that garbage, and they spew it often. Why do you think they always lose the third game after taking the first two in a three-game set? Because "winning series" is all that matters. The final game of a series doesn't count in the White Sox world.

I don't think Cabrera was a leader. I know Swisher wasn't. But they do need somebody to remind them that every game counts in the standings, even the last game of the series when you've taken the first two.
Yes. I don't believe all the crap that Toronto players threw at Rios as he left, but he has the reputation of taking plays off. He has come to a team where that is accepted. There is no accountability. Ramirez can botch a play because his head was up his ass, Dye can job after a double down the line and turn it into a triple, and they know they will be pencilled in the next day. I really hope it was just that Rios hated Toronto and will be rejuvenated after leaving.

We need leadership on this team next year, and we need either one of Dye or Konerko shipped out. I think Beckham will be a leader for this team longterm, but he is too young right now. Plus, I am dreading the inevitable quote in spring training from Walker, "Gordon had a really good year, but we found a few flaws in his swing", followed by him hitting .265 with 25 homers next year.

chisoxfanatic
08-22-2009, 04:31 PM
The last road trip was a case in point. Danks pitched a great game on Sunday in Oakland. Everybody else laid down like dogs. "Oh, well. We won the series. Nevermind that we lost the series in Seattle, but could have still had a winning road trip if we had played well the last game in Oakland. Mediocrity is OK. Get 'em tomorrow, boys."
We would've won BOTH series in that road trip had Pods not been caught doing his best Harold Baines impersonation at 3rd base! :angry:

I'd say the Sox have pissed away at least 10 games this year that were easy paths to victories. If it's not Jenks or Linebrink, it's some base running or hitting blunder. It's quite maddening!

thomas35forever
08-22-2009, 04:38 PM
Well, she's not there.
Not where?

Ron Karkovice
08-22-2009, 04:41 PM
Not where?

I think he was claiming that his grand mama is in hell

Boondock Saint
08-22-2009, 04:43 PM
I think he was claiming that his grand mama is in hell

I think he was claiming that his grandmother isn't in outer space. Reread the posts.

edit: Also, he looks up to the sky to clear his head between pitches. Not as a tribute.

Ron Karkovice
08-22-2009, 04:44 PM
I think he was claiming that his grandmother isn't in outer space. Reread the posts.

I'll reread them if you reread them

Craig Grebeck
08-22-2009, 04:47 PM
Yes we did, but neither of the trades were very crippling. At best, Gio Gonzalez is going to be a back of the rotation guy. Ryan Sweeney can't do anything besides hit singles and Aaron Cunningham sucks.

The Yankees trade, as mentioned earlier, was a salary dump. We got absolute crap in return but it's not like Swisher's better than anything we currently have. So yes, I do agree we lost both of those trades. But again, neither of them really hurt us too bad.
1) Cunningham wasn't in the deal.
2) Gio has made some strong improvements and is still only 23 years old. That's a pretty bold statement for a pitcher of his caliber.

chunk
08-22-2009, 04:48 PM
Yes we did, but neither of the trades were very crippling. At best, Gio Gonzalez is going to be a back of the rotation guy. Ryan Sweeney can't do anything besides hit singles and Aaron Cunningham sucks.

The Yankees trade, as mentioned earlier, was a salary dump. We got absolute crap in return but it's not like Swisher's better than anything we currently have. So yes, I do agree we lost both of those trades. But again, neither of them really hurt us too bad.

Swisher has a higher OPS than any Ofer we have or have used this season.

slavko
08-22-2009, 05:12 PM
I think he was claiming that his grandmother isn't in outer space. Reread the posts.

edit: Also, he looks up to the sky to clear his head between pitches. Not as a tribute.

That's the way I read it. That is all the people need to know.

ChiSoxGirl
08-22-2009, 05:17 PM
Watch your language.

:?:

FielderJones
08-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Swisher has a higher OPS than any Ofer we have or have used this season.

Last year I loved how he took strike 3 on 3-2 pitches with runners in scoring position and two outs just to try and keep that OBP up. :rolleyes:

This year, Pods leads the team in two out RBI. Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it.

Craig Grebeck
08-22-2009, 06:12 PM
Last year I loved how he took strike 3 on 3-2 pitches with runners in scoring position and two outs just to try and keep that OBP up. :rolleyes:

This year, Pods leads the team in two out RBI. Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it.
Nick Swisher's late and close slash stats in 2009:

.340 .470 .566 1.036

Edit: Pods' are:

.322 .349 .356 .705

Of course, I think it's stupid to base a player's worth on such a small sample size, but whatever.

kittle42
08-22-2009, 06:14 PM
I think he was claiming that his grand mama is in hell

No. That's ridiculous. She's not in the ether or in the sky or whatever the hell it is, though.

kittle42
08-22-2009, 06:15 PM
That's the way I read it. That is all the people need to know.

Excellent job, Baron!

Bill Naharodny
08-22-2009, 06:37 PM
I don't know the deal with Swisher supposedly being a bad clubhouse guy. I know that Ozzie was upset at him for moping at the end of the season, and I heard anonymous some player said nobody was sad to see him go. That is the extent of what I heard, but maybe I am missing something. He may not have been well liked, but I don't think he was a clubhouse cancer.

However, why did we have problems with him and Cabrera? I think the current clubhouse atmosphere is too ingrained into these players. The underachieving, "10 runs one night - 1 the next, no big deal if you lose, can't win in Minnesota, any dome, or on the west coast, and that is okay" vibe has been around for a long time. It starts with our veterans and coaches. Cabrera was a total piece of crap, but I know that he was upset about the state of the team last year. My biggest beef with him is that he didn't call out the team until the last week of the season. The leadership on this team is non-existent. It pains me to say it, but Carl Everett was right about that. No leadership since 2005. Cabrera, and Swisher especially, underperformed last year, but maybe we need more of those type of players. What I am saying is, I don't think the fact that they pissed off the clubhouse is a bad thing.

One of the best posts that I've seen in awhile. I couldn't stand Swisher as a player or as a fake/annoying supposedly funny guy. Total act -- compounded by his walking example for why relying only on statistical analysis (OPS in particular) can be just as misleading as making judgments by only watching the games. BUT . . .

the problems that Cabrera had with that clubhouse weren't all about Cabrera. There's a complacency in that group -- been there for years now -- that manifests in the exact ways described above. It's symbolized by the dinosaur middle of the order, which physically mirrors the mental torpor with which these guys approach too many games. Too many times, they are DOA, and their effort reflects it.

illini81887
08-22-2009, 06:44 PM
http://6pound8ouncebabyjoba.com/?p=327

You may not want to hear it but Yankee fans are really happy. I know Kenny can't win them all but this was a bad one and I still believe the Sox would have more wins today if they never made this trade.
Trading for him in the first place was the mistake

southside rocks
08-22-2009, 11:31 PM
Trading for him in the first place was the mistake

In hindsight, it sure was. At the time, I think the intention was to put Swisher in left field, where he might have been okay; but then Quentin came tearing out of ST and locked down that spot, and they really had no place for Swish.

And although Sweeney has turned into a decent CF for the A's, I'd rather have Alex Rios.

I find it kind of funny that Swish is batting .242 and New York loves him. Hope it keeps fine for you, Nick, but I'm so glad I don't have to see you in Sox pinstripes any longer!

chunk
08-23-2009, 12:27 AM
I find it hilarious that people are citing his low batting average, despite him having a higher OPS than any of our outfielders.

Boondock Saint
08-23-2009, 01:33 AM
I find it hilarious that people are citing his low batting average, despite him having a higher OPS than any of our outfielders.

I find it hilarious that people on here are suddenly jumping to the defense of a crybaby that did nothing but play ****ty baseball for us all last year.

DumpJerry
08-23-2009, 01:49 AM
Watch your language.
We have a language filter for words that are not permitted here. Otherwise, leave the moderating to the Moderators.

JB98
08-23-2009, 02:01 AM
I find it hilarious that people are citing his low batting average, despite him having a higher OPS than any of our outfielders.

I didn't find anything hilarious about Swisher's horse**** performance in a White Sox uniform last year.

StillMissOzzie
08-23-2009, 02:44 AM
I didn't want Swisher back.

But you had to have had a better back up plan than Pods/Wise/Anderson.

Pods is not a good baseball player. There is not one single aspect of baseball he does good.

Is that you, Bernstein? I guess batting around .300 stinks. :rolleyes:

I find it hilarious that people on here are suddenly jumping to the defense of a crybaby that did nothing but play ****ty baseball for us all last year.

I agree. Swisher was nothing like his prior year when the Sox acquired him, and he pretty much stunk up USCF in his time here. I couldn't care less what he does now, dumping his unproductive ass was the right thing to do.

SMO
:gulp:

southside rocks
08-23-2009, 09:08 AM
I find it hilarious that people are citing his low batting average, despite him having a higher OPS than any of our outfielders.

Maybe we should wait until the season is over to compare Nick Swisher's 2008 and 2009 performances, eh? He really made his mark here in the last six weeks of the season, let's give him equal time in NY.

Anyhow, best of luck to him! I'm sure he had an off year in '08; it happens. But he sure didn't handle it well, and I'm glad that Ozzie and Kenny don't want that kind of player on their team.

WizardsofOzzie
08-23-2009, 10:43 AM
I didn't want Swisher back.

But you had to have had a better back up plan than Pods/Wise/Anderson.

Pods is not a good baseball player. There is not one single aspect of baseball he does good.

To say Pods hasn't been a shot in the arm to this team is ridiculous. Yes, he's not a shoe in hall of famer but we needed a guy who can leadoff and that's exactly what Pods has been able to do for us. Last years leadoff man nightmare of plugging in random guys who never did it before was a mess. Pods came out of nowhere to fill that role and putting up respectable #'s in the process, and most importantly he's cheap, enabling us to free up the money to acquire guys like Peavy and Rios.
Do you REALLY want me to answer that question? :wink: Heck, do I even NEED to?!
I know you don't need to answer. If Lisa Dergan ever turns up missing, I'm directing the authorities to you. :D:

Watch your language.
:scratch:

TDog
08-23-2009, 01:30 PM
Nick Swisher's late and close slash stats in 2009:

.340 .470 .566 1.036

Edit: Pods' are:

.322 .349 .356 .705

Of course, I think it's stupid to base a player's worth on such a small sample size, but whatever.

Especially since the Swisher sample is weighted toward his fast start.

It really is amazing how often close games come down to Podsednik. In the one-run loss a week ago, he drove in one run with a triple and scored the only other run the Sox scored but he failed with runners in scoring position and two outs in his next two at bats. Really, it's amazing how often the White Sox leadoff man comes up with big runs in scoring position. Was it Podsednik who drove in the winning run against the Yankees the night Swisher tied the game with a ninth-inning home run after striking out three times?

When you are running away with the division, even the food tastes better. If the Yankees were looking up at the Red Sox a day after scoring just one run a day after scoring 20 runs, Yankees fans would sound a lot like WSI posters and probably wouldn't be so happy with Swisher's act.

areilly
08-23-2009, 08:46 PM
"Nick Swisher is so bad I want to cry." Truer words have never been spoken.

TDog
08-23-2009, 09:39 PM
In hindsight, it sure was. At the time, I think the intention was to put Swisher in left field, where he might have been okay; but then Quentin came tearing out of ST and locked down that spot, and they really had no place for Swish.

And although Sweeney has turned into a decent CF for the A's, I'd rather have Alex Rios.

I find it kind of funny that Swish is batting .242 and New York loves him. Hope it keeps fine for you, Nick, but I'm so glad I don't have to see you in Sox pinstripes any longer!

A news release issued by the Whtie Sox after the trade stated they had acquired Swisher to play center.

Ranger
08-25-2009, 08:54 PM
You forgot to mention the "just win series" mantra that exists in the clubhouse. I throw up everytime I hear the veterans and the coaches spewing that garbage, and they spew it often. Why do you think they always lose the third game after taking the first two in a three-game set? Because "winning series" is all that matters. The final game of a series doesn't count in the White Sox world.

I don't think Cabrera was a leader. I know Swisher wasn't. But they do need somebody to remind them that every game counts in the standings, even the last game of the series when you've taken the first two.


This is where I think some fans are missing the point. When they say this, they're talking about averages. When, on average, you win a series (taking 2 of 3) and you do that consistently over a full season, you'll win 100 games. It's the same as saying .600 ball down the stretch will probably get enough wins to take the division.

They aren't saying, "well, we've already won the first two games...no need to worry about the last one. Let's move onto the next series!"

When it's all said and done, if the Sox have averaged winning two of every 3 games, they will win the Central. That's the point.

BleacherBandit
08-25-2009, 09:04 PM
This is where I think some fans are missing the point. When they say this, they're talking about averages. When, on average, you win a series (taking 2 of 3) and you do that consistently over a full season, you'll win 100 games. It's the same as saying .600 ball down the stretch will probably get enough wins to take the division.

They aren't saying, "well, we've already won the first two games...no need to worry about the last one. Let's move onto the next series!"

When it's all said and done, if the Sox have averaged winning two of every 3 games, they will win the Central. That's the point.

It'd be saying the same thing as, "if we lose this series 1-2, we'll want to sweep the next series, preferably."

Ranger
08-25-2009, 09:10 PM
I didn't want Swisher back.

But you had to have had a better back up plan than Pods/Wise/Anderson.

Pods is not a good baseball player. There is not one single aspect of baseball he does good.

Podsednik has his share of problems, no question. But to say he's not good in "one single aspect of baseball" is really over the top, and completely inaccurate.

Where he's been good:
-Hitting for average
-Hitting with RISP
-Speed

Where he's been satisfactory:
-OBP

Where he's been poor (or had moments of "awful"):
-Defense
-Smart baserunning

JB98
08-26-2009, 12:31 AM
This is where I think some fans are missing the point. When they say this, they're talking about averages. When, on average, you win a series (taking 2 of 3) and you do that consistently over a full season, you'll win 100 games. It's the same as saying .600 ball down the stretch will probably get enough wins to take the division.

They aren't saying, "well, we've already won the first two games...no need to worry about the last one. Let's move onto the next series!"

When it's all said and done, if the Sox have averaged winning two of every 3 games, they will win the Central. That's the point.

I think you missed my point entirely.

Paul Konerko said, "We just have to win series, but the first game is always the most important of the three. One day at a time. I know it's a cliche, but we can't play Boston or New York before we play Baltimore."

No, Paul, you don't have to win series. You have to win games. The first game is NOT the most important of the three. Every game carries an equal weight in the standings. EVERY game is important. You don't get extra points by winning the first game of a series. The second and third games are in no way less valuable. What a stupid mentality to have.

The Sox give games away ALL THE TIME with poor execution, which suggests the mental focus is nowhere near where it needs to be. Quite often, the worst Sox performances come in the third game of a series. The Sunday afternoon record is an embarrassment. The record when trying to sweep teams is a joke.

Hey, the third game of the series doesn't matter as much as the first, does it Paulie?

Lip Man 1
08-26-2009, 02:12 AM
JB:

In 12 chances to sweep a series this year the Sox have only done it twice and I think the Sunday home record is now 2-10.

Your points are valid and all goes back to the "leadership" issue that so many are talking about.

The Sox have quiet leaders... people who try to set an example and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But there are times when someone needs to throw all the postgame food on the floor after a loss (or two or three or twenty) to one of the worst teams in the American League. If a rookie doesn’t have his head on straight (I’m looking at you Chris Getz) in the field, somebody needs to get on him for it. If a player (Scott Podsednik) suddenly becomes a basket case because the Sox went out and got another outfielder, he needs to be called out by a teammate or if the Sox are going through an embarrassing stretch of games at Toronto or at Oakland or at Minnesota, said person will work to do something to fix it and not just tell the media in so many words, ‘that’s the way it is…’

Call them ‘clubhouse lawyers,’ call them ‘red-asses,’ call them whatever you want, but the Sox need some of them.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
08-26-2009, 02:13 AM
JB:

In 12 chances to sweep a series this year the Sox have only done it twice and I think the Sunday home record is now 2-10.

Your points are valid and all goes back to the "leadership" issue that so many are talking about.

The Sox have quiet leaders... people who try to set an example and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But there are times when someone needs to throw all the postgame food on the floor after a loss (or two or three or twenty) to one of the worst teams in the American League. If a rookie doesn’t have his head on straight (I’m looking at you Chris Getz) in the field, somebody needs to get on him for it. If a player (Scott Podsednik) suddenly becomes a basket case because the Sox went out and got another outfielder, he needs to be called out by a teammate or if the Sox are going through an embarrassing stretch of games at Toronto or at Oakland or at Minnesota, said person will work to do something to fix it and not just tell the media in so many words, ‘that’s the way it is…’
Call them ‘clubhouse layers,’ call them ‘red-asses,’ call them whatever you want, but the Sox need some of them.

Lip

I'd just take better players.

And also, there's no evidence supporting any of your claims.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2009, 02:15 AM
Draw me a graph supporting yours.

Your attitude is typical of the stat geeks and folks who are trying to turn baseball into spacial mechanics. If it's not down on paper with numbers there's nothing to it.

Heart, guts, desire, luck...pish posh...doesn't matter, doesn't compute.

Please take your slide rules and graphs someplace else.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
08-26-2009, 02:30 AM
Draw me a graph supporting yours.

Your attitude is typical of the stat geeks and folks who are trying to turn baseball into spacial mechanics. If it's not down on paper with numbers there's nothing to it.

Heart, guts, desire, luck...pish posh...doesn't matter, doesn't compute.

Please take your slide rules and graphs someplace else.

Lip
Typical response. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that guys haven't been throwing food everywhere in the post-game. Also, I don't really give a **** if they do. Some people call them leaders, some call them babies. When we're winning, we've got great leadership!

Good players win. It's simple.

Learn to debate without resorting to the same tired, crotchety, old-man cliches.

DrCrawdad
08-26-2009, 06:51 AM
Draw me a graph supporting yours.

Your attitude is typical of the stat geeks and folks who are trying to turn baseball into spacial mechanics. If it's not down on paper with numbers there's nothing to it.

Heart, guts, desire, luck...pish posh...doesn't matter, doesn't compute.

Please take your slide rules and graphs someplace else.

Lip

Without a doubt stats have a place in the game. However there are times where fans who adore stats need to lift their heads from the books and watch the game. With that in mind, I'm reminded of arguments I had early this season. The stats guys had some metric which indicted to them that Soriano was one of the best outfielders in MLB. As I said then, if you think Soriano is a good fielder, you haven't watched him play. Those stat-head Soriano lovers disappeared at some point this season.

Domeshot17
08-26-2009, 08:14 AM
One of the best posts that I've seen in awhile. I couldn't stand Swisher as a player or as a fake/annoying supposedly funny guy. Total act -- compounded by his walking example for why relying only on statistical analysis (OPS in particular) can be just as misleading as making judgments by only watching the games. BUT . . .

the problems that Cabrera had with that clubhouse weren't all about Cabrera. There's a complacency in that group -- been there for years now -- that manifests in the exact ways described above. It's symbolized by the dinosaur middle of the order, which physically mirrors the mental torpor with which these guys approach too many games. Too many times, they are DOA, and their effort reflects it.

(1) I disagree with the first top of the statement. I think Swisher is that goofy light spirited guy. I think that meshes with some and not with others. You heard about Cabrera having problems in his clubhouse all of last year. You didn't hear much more than rumors and rumblings that some guys didn't like Swisher. By all major he accounts, he had the support of his teammates.
I think a big part of his down year was never having any stability. I understand baseball is a game of flexibility, but the struggles were predictable. Take a guy whos always been a warm weather player, put him in chicago, out of position, hitting in a spot hes never hit before, you generally ask for trouble.
Swisher pouting at the end of the year was unexceptable, but Kenny picking him up, it was just always the wrong fit. It wasn't even buying a square peg for a round hole, it was overpaying to a large extent for a square peg in the round hole

(2) I do agree a lot on Cabrera. He was the wrong guy saying the right things. It was like when Joakim Noah was calling out the Bulls. All the right things being said, but the wrong guy. The problem is the Sox don't have that. They have 3 quiet leaders in PK Dye and Thome, another one in Burls. They need to someone to hold them accountable, just has to be the right guy doing it.

asindc
08-26-2009, 09:51 AM
I find it hilarious that people are citing his low batting average, despite him having a higher OPS than any of our outfielders.

I find it odd that you cite his OPS as if that adequately sums up the quality of his play. Frankly, anyone who hits left-handed a significant number of ABs in Yankee Stadium should sport an OPS at least that high. That does not tell me that he would have put up those numbers playing CF for the Sox this year, or that Pods or Rios would not be putting up those number playing full time in Yankee Stadium.

If the Yanks fans are happy with him, good for them. The first trade for Swisher was bad and I was skeptical from the start. The second trade was bad in part because it compounded the first trade. I'm glad KW made the second trade, though. I can't imagine any scenario in which the Sox would be a better team this year with Swisher on it instead of Pods and Rios.

Big D
08-26-2009, 10:42 AM
I find it odd that you cite his OPS as if that adequately sums up the quality of his play. Frankly, anyone who hits left-handed a significant number of ABs in Yankee Stadium should sport an OPS at least that high. That does not tell me that he would have put up those numbers playing CF for the Sox this year, or that Pods or Rios would not be putting up those number playing full time in Yankee Stadium.

Swisher actually has much better numbers on the road this year for some reason. He's actually been awful at Yankee Stadium, but has hit like an All-Star on the road. 18 of his 21 homers have been hit on the road.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=swishni01&year=2009&t=b

veeter
08-26-2009, 10:47 AM
Jhonny Nunez will be a part of the bullpen next year. If Linebrink didn't have that horrible contract, he'd be here now. I think he's going to be a good one. Time will tell.

JB98
08-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Typical response. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that guys haven't been throwing food everywhere in the post-game. Also, I don't really give a **** if they do. Some people call them leaders, some call them babies. When we're winning, we've got great leadership!

Good players win. It's simple.

Learn to debate without resorting to the same tired, crotchety, old-man cliches.

I'll take a stab at this. I'm 33 years old. I hope I'm not a tired, crotchety, old man yet.

The White Sox are now 13-26 in the final game of a series. Does anyone else find it strange that a .500 team is playing .333 baseball in the final game of a series? That's not a small sample size either. That's 39 games, nearly one quarter of the MLB schedule.

We have a GM talking in the papers about how he expects to make the playoffs AND win in the playoffs. Our manager has said the talent is good enough to get to the World Series AND win it. Yet we have a .500 team that routinely beats itself with mistakes, both physical and mental. Execution-wise, the club is very erratic from day-to-day in all areas. They quite literally beat Zach Greinke one game and come back and lose to Jeremy Guthrie the next. Again, they are 13-26 in the final game of a series. They are 2-9 when trying to sweep teams. They are 7-13 on Sundays. They are 2-8 in Sunday home games, which is especially odd since they are 10-0 in Saturday home games. The Sox have won at home on Sunday only once since 4/12, and that was against the Cubs on 6/28. As recently as last Sunday, we had the manager calling out the team for a lack of energy. After last night's loss in Boston, a veteran outfielder suggested the team needed to bring more intensity to the field.

All that I've stated above is truth. I don't believe any of it is wacky ole JB's opinion. From these facts, I've come to the conclusion that there is some sort of mental flaw in the team's approach. I'll take the team captain at his word that they believe "the first game of the series is the most important one." From the data, it's pretty clear the Sox don't think the final game of a series is too important. I see them clowning it up on getaway day all the time. ALL THE TIME. It's been going on all season, and it's cost them. It's hard to build even a modest four- or five-game winning streak if you can't sweep teams, if you can finish up a series strong and leave town on a good note.

The sad thing is the Sox would be in first place if they had just gone 18-21 in those 39 games instead of 13-26. But hey, man, we're just trying to win series. If we do that over the whole season, we'll play .600 ball and win the Central, yada, yada, yada.

I don't know that we need guys to be flipping over the buffet in the locker room. But something isn't adding up about this season. Either the Sox don't have as much talent as they think they have, or their approach to the game is seriously broken.

Redus Redux
08-26-2009, 01:25 PM
I dunno how much I should keep swaying back and forth on this trade.

Apparently it didnt free up money for Viciedo, so to speak, as we've gone on to spend later in the year on other guys.



I think Swisher's OBP would be mighty fine right about now. BABIP indicated he had bad luck last year...yet even then he still had power.

I think with his OBP we'd be looking a lot better. I'm sick of having all these .345-ish OBP guys who are supposedly carrying the team. While I might not want to find a corner OF spot for Nick this year...... we will definitely have a need for that kind of batter next year.

And I cant shy away from the contract being pretty friendly for today's landscape.

Nuñez better be great dammit.

Craig Grebeck
08-26-2009, 01:54 PM
I'll take a stab at this. I'm 33 years old. I hope I'm not a tired, crotchety, old man yet.

The White Sox are now 13-26 in the final game of a series. Does anyone else find it strange that a .500 team is playing .333 baseball in the final game of a series? That's not a small sample size either. That's 39 games, nearly one quarter of the MLB schedule.

We have a GM talking in the papers about how he expects to make the playoffs AND win in the playoffs. Our manager has said the talent is good enough to get to the World Series AND win it. Yet we have a .500 team that routinely beats itself with mistakes, both physical and mental. Execution-wise, the club is very erratic from day-to-day in all areas. They quite literally beat Zach Greinke one game and come back and lose to Jeremy Guthrie the next. Again, they are 13-26 in the final game of a series. They are 2-9 when trying to sweep teams. They are 7-13 on Sundays. They are 2-8 in Sunday home games, which is especially odd since they are 10-0 in Saturday home games. The Sox have won at home on Sunday only once since 4/12, and that was against the Cubs on 6/28. As recently as last Sunday, we had the manager calling out the team for a lack of energy. After last night's loss in Boston, a veteran outfielder suggested the team needed to bring more intensity to the field.

All that I've stated above is truth. I don't believe any of it is wacky ole JB's opinion. From these facts, I've come to the conclusion that there is some sort of mental flaw in the team's approach. I'll take the team captain at his word that they believe "the first game of the series is the most important one." From the data, it's pretty clear the Sox don't think the final game of a series is too important. I see them clowning it up on getaway day all the time. ALL THE TIME. It's been going on all season, and it's cost them. It's hard to build even a modest four- or five-game winning streak if you can't sweep teams, if you can finish up a series strong and leave town on a good note.

The sad thing is the Sox would be in first place if they had just gone 18-21 in those 39 games instead of 13-26. But hey, man, we're just trying to win series. If we do that over the whole season, we'll play .600 ball and win the Central, yada, yada, yada.

I don't know that we need guys to be flipping over the buffet in the locker room. But something isn't adding up about this season. Either the Sox don't have as much talent as they think they have, or their approach to the game is seriously broken.
And that's what I'm attributing it to. Many managers and general managers talk a big game about world series and blah blah blah (our manager especially, he of the "Erstad hits like .400" nonsense). Doesn't make them bad at their jobs, they just flaunt what might not be there in the press.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2009, 03:03 PM
JB:

The bottom line issue is that for some folks (usually those holding degrees in advanced quantum physics...LOL) if you can't quantify it with three pages of formulas, it doesn't mean ****.

I mean God forbid, if the fans don't know what Jermaine Dye hits on every other Wednesday against left handed pitchers with last names having seven letters or less in the 8th inning or later! (be still my beating heart...) :D:

Like Crawdad said and Daver has said in the past, you'd think these folks would once in awhile, you know, actually watch a game instead of playing simulations on a computer.

Old man my ass Grebeck...I trust what I see and what I've heard from interviewing a lot more players than the eggheads will ever do. The intangibles matter, this team has quiet leadership and they need something to occasionally grab the attention of the players by the throat.

Take the time to actually read those 50 odd interviews I done for this site and maybe you'll actually learn something about the game from the people who actually played it for a living, not simulated it in their mother's basement.

And again, for whatever it's worth a high ranking front office member e-mailed me in late July and categorically said the biggest issue with this club is (direct quote) it has "no killer instinct."

That gives some credence to what JB is saying. Or does this front office person not know **** because it's not on a computer?

Lip

ChiSoxGirl
08-26-2009, 03:07 PM
I'll take a stab at this. I'm 33 years old. I hope I'm not a tired, crotchety, old man yet.

The White Sox are now 13-26 in the final game of a series. Does anyone else find it strange that a .500 team is playing .333 baseball in the final game of a series? That's not a small sample size either. That's 39 games, nearly one quarter of the MLB schedule.

We have a GM talking in the papers about how he expects to make the playoffs AND win in the playoffs. Our manager has said the talent is good enough to get to the World Series AND win it. Yet we have a .500 team that routinely beats itself with mistakes, both physical and mental. Execution-wise, the club is very erratic from day-to-day in all areas. They quite literally beat Zach Greinke one game and come back and lose to Jeremy Guthrie the next. Again, they are 13-26 in the final game of a series. They are 2-9 when trying to sweep teams. They are 7-13 on Sundays. They are 2-8 in Sunday home games, which is especially odd since they are 10-0 in Saturday home games. The Sox have won at home on Sunday only once since 4/12, and that was against the Cubs on 6/28. As recently as last Sunday, we had the manager calling out the team for a lack of energy. After last night's loss in Boston, a veteran outfielder suggested the team needed to bring more intensity to the field.

All that I've stated above is truth. I don't believe any of it is wacky ole JB's opinion. From these facts, I've come to the conclusion that there is some sort of mental flaw in the team's approach. I'll take the team captain at his word that they believe "the first game of the series is the most important one." From the data, it's pretty clear the Sox don't think the final game of a series is too important. I see them clowning it up on getaway day all the time. ALL THE TIME. It's been going on all season, and it's cost them. It's hard to build even a modest four- or five-game winning streak if you can't sweep teams, if you can finish up a series strong and leave town on a good note.

The sad thing is the Sox would be in first place if they had just gone 18-21 in those 39 games instead of 13-26. But hey, man, we're just trying to win series. If we do that over the whole season, we'll play .600 ball and win the Central, yada, yada, yada.

I don't know that we need guys to be flipping over the buffet in the locker room. But something isn't adding up about this season. Either the Sox don't have as much talent as they think they have, or their approach to the game is seriously broken.

No wonder writing the game reports has been so painful for me this season!!! That's a hell of a stat.

Craig Grebeck
08-26-2009, 03:14 PM
JB:

The bottom line issue is that for some folks (usually those holding degrees in advanced quantum physics...LOL) if you can't quantify it with three pages of formulas, it doesn't mean ****.

I mean God forbid, if the fans don't know what Jermaine Dye hits on every other Wednesday against left handed pitchers with last names having seven letters or less in the 8th inning or later! (be still my beating heart...) :D:

Like Crawdad said and Daver has said in the past, you'd think these folks would once in awhile, you know, actually watch a game instead of playing simulations on a computer.

Old man my ass Grebeck...I trust what I see and what I've heard from interviewing a lot more players than the eggheads will ever do. The intangibles matter, this team has quiet leadership and they need something to occasionally grab the attention of the players by the throat.

Take the time to actually read those 50 odd interviews I done for this site and maybe you'll actually learn something about the game from the people who actually played it for a living, not simulated it in their mother's basement.

And again, for whatever it's worth a high ranking front office member e-mailed me in late July and categorically said the biggest issue with this club is (direct quote) it has "no killer instinct."

That gives some credence to what JB is saying. Or does this front office person not know **** because it's not on a computer?

Lip
Mods, seriously, does none of this qualify as a personal attack?

I don't think we're an average team because we lack killer instinct. We are less talented than Detroit. They're just a better team. It happens. You're telling me AJ is a quiet leader? Ozzie is a quiet leader? I'm confused.

Sometimes you just aren't as talented. I don't need computers to know we aren't as good as Detroit. But if you want to argue from your high horse decrying advances in statistics (none of which I've propagated in this thread, not that it matters to you), go right ahead.

spawn
08-26-2009, 03:18 PM
Mods, seriously, does none of this qualify as a personal attack?

Seriously Craig Grebeck, nowhere in his post does he attack you personally. It's already been said I don't know how many times, but I'll say it again...stop the armchair moderating. And that isn't directed only at you. If you think you are being attacked in a post, report it, and we will decide if your complaint has merit. The next person that tries to do our job for us will get a rip.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2009, 03:41 PM
Spawn:

First off I apologize to you if I even came close to crossing the line. Grebeck's 'old man' comment really pissed me off.

Now back to JB's points which are factually true regarding the bizarre numbers. Another thing that does have to be considered though JB is what is the lineup on Sunday, or the getaway day of a series?

There have been times when Ozzie will pull the old Jerry Manager Gandhi Manual trick of having as Steve Rosenbloom once called it, "the Sunday spring training lineup..."

How many times were stiffs like Wise, Anderson, Lillibridge, Betemit, Miller etc. starting those games because 'so and so' needed a 'rest.' And not just one of them but sometimes two or three which crippled the lineup

That's another thing this 'old man' doesn't understand, 40 years ago guys played 150 games with travel to the coast, with night games and with numerous DOUBLE HEADERS, (you could literally play three games in 36 hours, Sunday DH, Monday night game) today guys who are in shape all season with nutritionists and personal trainers need a day off (or in Ozzie's case two) every ten days or so?

So JB that will certainly effect how the team does the final game of a series or on Sunday especially if you were as bad off the bench as this team was for the first two months.

Lip

spawn
08-26-2009, 03:48 PM
Spawn:

First off I apologize to you if I even came close to crossing the line. Grebeck's 'old man' comment really pissed me off.

Lip
No apology necessary Lip. What I read in your post was attacking stat heads in general, not Grebeck personally.

oeo
08-26-2009, 03:49 PM
Without a doubt stats have a place in the game. However there are times where fans who adore stats need to lift their heads from the books and watch the game. With that in mind, I'm reminded of arguments I had early this season. The stats guys had some metric which indicted to them that Soriano was one of the best outfielders in MLB. As I said then, if you think Soriano is a good fielder, you haven't watched him play. Those stat-head Soriano lovers disappeared at some point this season.

Every time I see Soriano play LF, I giggle that Billy Ashley said that.

Nellie_Fox
08-26-2009, 04:24 PM
Mods, seriously, does none of this qualify as a personal attack?You call somebody a tired, crotchety old man, and then come running to us when they respond a little brusquely? I don't think so.

JB98
08-26-2009, 07:41 PM
And that's what I'm attributing it to. Many managers and general managers talk a big game about world series and blah blah blah (our manager especially, he of the "Erstad hits like .400" nonsense). Doesn't make them bad at their jobs, they just flaunt what might not be there in the press.

I might have agreed with you early in the season, but I don't now.

Earlier in the year, we had Anderson, Wise, Fields, Lillibridge, Betemit and Miller all on the roster at the same time. On any given day, 2-4 of those players were in the starting lineup. THAT, my friend, is a talent problem.

A lot of those holes have been plugged up now. Beckham is a talented player. Rios is a talented player. Quentin is back and has been playing regularly for over a month. There aren't any glaring, easy outs in this lineup any longer. They just aren't getting it done as a unit.

I don't think Detroit has more talent than the Sox, certainly not in the everyday lineup. Ordonez and Guillen are on their last legs. Inge has power, but is batting .240. Everett is a good glove, no-hit shortstop. Cabrera and Granderson are great and solid, respectively, but after that, c'mon. Ryan Raburn? Clete Thomas? These guys are OK, but certainly not overly gifted.

How is Detroit more talented than the Sox? We don't have a starting pitcher like Verlander and we don't have a Cabrera. But I think the depth of talent is actually better on the Sox roster.

Craig Grebeck
08-26-2009, 10:27 PM
I might have agreed with you early in the season, but I don't now.

Earlier in the year, we had Anderson, Wise, Fields, Lillibridge, Betemit and Miller all on the roster at the same time. On any given day, 2-4 of those players were in the starting lineup. THAT, my friend, is a talent problem.

A lot of those holes have been plugged up now. Beckham is a talented player. Rios is a talented player. Quentin is back and has been playing regularly for over a month. There aren't any glaring, easy outs in this lineup any longer. They just aren't getting it done as a unit.

I don't think Detroit has more talent than the Sox, certainly not in the everyday lineup. Ordonez and Guillen are on their last legs. Inge has power, but is batting .240. Everett is a good glove, no-hit shortstop. Cabrera and Granderson are great and solid, respectively, but after that, c'mon. Ryan Raburn? Clete Thomas? These guys are OK, but certainly not overly gifted.

How is Detroit more talented than the Sox? We don't have a starting pitcher like Verlander and we don't have a Cabrera. But I think the depth of talent is actually better on the Sox roster.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think they are far, far better defensively and their offense is probably equal with ours.

The difference is in the defense.

JB98
08-26-2009, 10:53 PM
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think they are far, far better defensively and their offense is probably equal with ours.

The difference is in the defense.

They are certainly a better defensive club than us, especially on the infield.

IMO, the Sox bullpen has underachieved big-time since the All-Star break, which is another difference between the teams. I think the Sox have some proven guys in the bullpen, but Thornton is the only one getting it done with any consistency right now.

Lip Man 1
08-27-2009, 01:03 PM
JB (and others):

I specifically passed along your post to some of my contacts in the media. I thought the numbers you presented about 'series sweeps,' 'Sunday records', 'leadership' were very interesting.

I also included some of my thoughts on leadership, quiet leadership as opposed to in your face leadership for example and some of the things I've noticed this year.

I got this response today from someone who covers the Sox on an almost daily basis and thought you'd find it revealing:

"Great line about "quiet leadership." I don't entirely agree with Paul Konerko's comments last night, but he's entitled to his opinion.

Chris Getz got a free pass in a Friday night game in late April (I didn't work the game) in which he didn't hustle after missing a throw and stayed in the game. Your eyes aren't lying.

What we're seeing is a combo of 2006 ("don't worry, there's plenty of time") vs. 2007 (too many stoic vets with untimely slumps).

I'm curious to see what happens in NY with KW there and if he calls them something worse than underachievers."

Lip

NLaloosh
08-27-2009, 01:11 PM
Well, I think it's gonna get pretty ugly because they're not gonna make the playoffs.

They might finish in 3rd place and then what are we gonna hear from Kenny, Ozzie and the players?

Lip Man 1
08-27-2009, 01:36 PM
I would hope that Kenny would say what he's said in the past (particularly after the 2007 debacle) "I'm the GM, if it doesn't work, blame me..."

Which is very fair in my book.

Lip

JB98
08-27-2009, 02:21 PM
JB (and others):

I specifically passed along your post to some of my contacts in the media. I thought the numbers you presented about 'series sweeps,' 'Sunday records', 'leadership' were very interesting.

I also included some of my thoughts on leadership, quiet leadership as opposed to in your face leadership for example and some of the things I've noticed this year.

I got this response today from someone who covers the Sox on an almost daily basis and thought you'd find it revealing:

"Great line about "quiet leadership." I don't entirely agree with Paul Konerko's comments last night, but he's entitled to his opinion.

Chris Getz got a free pass in a Friday night game in late April (I didn't work the game) in which he didn't hustle after missing a throw and stayed in the game. Your eyes aren't lying.

What we're seeing is a combo of 2006 ("don't worry, there's plenty of time") vs. 2007 (too many stoic vets with untimely slumps).

I'm curious to see what happens in NY with KW there and if he calls them something worse than underachievers."

Lip





A lot of people say we should be slinging arrows at Ozzie and staff for failing to teach the fundamentals. My feeling has always been that big-leaguers should know the fundamentals by the time they reach the majors. If they don't know the basics, send 'em back to the minors for more instruction. That's what minor league baseball is for.

That said, I don't think Ozzie and staff have done a good enough job this season of holding guys accountable when they make blatant, embarrassing mental mistakes, or mistakes that are born out of poor hustle. The lineup card is the manager's weapon. If players repeatedly make dumb plays, their names shouldn't be on that lineup card the next day. Ramirez is really the only one that Ozzie has held accountable this year.

chisoxfanatic
08-27-2009, 02:24 PM
That said, I don't think Ozzie and staff have done a good enough job this season of holding guys accountable when they make blatant, embarrassing mental mistakes, or mistakes that are born out of poor hustle. The lineup card is the manager's weapon. If players repeatedly make dumb plays, their names shouldn't be on that lineup card the next day. Ramirez is really the only one that Ozzie has held accountable this year.
I think Ozzie is just trying to maximize the number of wins here, and there often haven't been many other options.

#1swisher
08-27-2009, 02:55 PM
If players repeatedly make dumb plays, their names shouldn't be on that lineup card the next day. Ramirez is really the only one that Ozzie has held accountable this year.

Alexei sat, due to an ankle sprain (not because Ozzie held him accountable) during the Yankees/Angel series - 7.30/8.6

Nix @short. Sox won those series.

Lip Man 1
08-27-2009, 04:11 PM
#1Swisher:

Ozzie has called out Ramirez this season to the media. It was reported in the mainstream newspapers.

Lip

JB98
08-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Alexei sat, due to an ankle sprain (not because Ozzie held him accountable) during the Yankees/Angel series - 7.30/8.6

Nix @short. Sox won those series.

Yes, so what are you suggesting? That we should bench Ramirez and play Nix at shortstop?

#1swisher
08-27-2009, 08:20 PM
Yes, so what are you suggesting? That we should bench Ramirez and play Nix at shortstop?


In a word...yes.

oeo
08-27-2009, 08:23 PM
In a word...yes.

Nix was booting balls left and right at SS. As long as Lillibridge is on the roster, he shouldn't play ANY SS.

JB98
08-27-2009, 10:35 PM
In a word...yes.

I'm not sold on Ramirez as a championship-level shortstop, but I definitely do not think Nix is the answer at that position. His throwing arm isn't good enough. His range to his right isn't good enough. And he's not nearly good enough offensively to account for those shortcomings defensively.