PDA

View Full Version : Jenks Airs His Side


Lip Man 1
11-21-2009, 11:10 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1896517,CST-SPT-sox21.article

Lip

DirtySox
11-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Chances are becoming more likely that he will be moved.

DonnieDarko
11-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Dammit, I don't want to lose Jenks. Seriously, what the hell is the problem here? If it's his weight, then go on a leaner diet or something. Take some weight loss drugs, get some better conditioning. I don't know. I just don't see the benefit to trading away Jenks or letting him just go. Who the hell are we gonna let close if he leaves? Thornton? I'm not 100% sold on him yet.

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 01:30 PM
It really doesn't surprise me that Cowley wrote this article.

Rohan
11-21-2009, 01:33 PM
I don't think it's his weight as much as it is that he's lost a lot of the velocity he once had on all of his pitches.

Not only that, but even if he were to get it back, I have a feeling that hitters have pretty much figured him out.

When a closer is unable to change his stuff when hitters have adapted to him, he's done. Case and point: Shingo

Domeshot17
11-21-2009, 01:52 PM
See to me Jenks is a better pitcher now then his earliest career. I say that because early career he WAS a 1 pitch pitcher. If he wasn't throwing 99 he wasn't on the mound. Now, he can change speeds and location, he controls his hook better etc. He can still gear it up when he has too. I think injuries have caught up to him. While I agree, as a closer, weight is not a big concern, he needs to work on his durability. The back happens, the kindey stones are fluke, but tweaking a calf, being a better shape prevents those kinds of injuries.

soxinem1
11-21-2009, 01:54 PM
I agree with the fact that his second half was not a reason for the downfall of the team, there was plenty of blame to go around. And he did not get consistent work all sesaon long. There were way to many 3-4-5 days in a row stretches that he just sat.

But the bottom line is that he obviously does not take his career seriously and that is nobody's fault but his. Being a big guy is one thing, but he has tremendous conditioning issues that are really putting his career in jeopardy, and he just does not seem to realize it. He has wore down each of his four full seasons with the team.

It is high time Jenks grow up and commit himself to his craft.

Danryan
11-21-2009, 02:14 PM
We all know Bobby is not close to the same pitcher he was in 05. Why would you take 9 mph off your fastball at 27 years old voluntarily? To me he is injured and is only mediocre. Either way injured or not he is not a dependable closer anymore and I don't see him getting back to his old form.

soxyess
11-21-2009, 02:52 PM
Bobby is pretty much gone. He will be part of a package to get Crawford.

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 02:59 PM
Bobby is pretty much gone. He will be part of a package to get Crawford.

We all wish. Something tells me that we won't be getting Carl Crawford, once again.

DirtySox
11-21-2009, 03:00 PM
We all wish. Something tells me that we won't be getting Carl Crawford, once again.

Yep. And something tells me that Tampa isn't interested in overpaid middling closers with conditioning issues.

soxyess
11-21-2009, 03:04 PM
Yep. And something tells me that Tampa isn't interested in overpaid middling closers with conditioning issues.

If thats the case then we shouldnt want him either. Launch him for prospects. What team needs a closer?

oeo
11-21-2009, 03:04 PM
Yep. And something tells me that Tampa isn't interested in overpaid middling closers with conditioning issues.

Tampa should be interested in any type of closer. :tongue:

I don't know if Jenks will be gone, but I don't think he will be closing for the Sox by the end of the year.

DirtySox
11-21-2009, 03:08 PM
If thats the case then we shouldnt want him either. Launch him for prospects. What team needs a closer?

Dunno. But Tampa isn't the type of organization to dump tons of money into a closer. Certainly not a middle of the pack closer.

NLaloosh
11-21-2009, 03:09 PM
I would keep him one more year. I like Bobby but really, are the Sox asking all that much of him?

Hey, we're paying you $ 6 million dollars to represent our team as a professional athlete so would you please keep your weight under 260 ?

Thanks, Bobby.

soxyess
11-21-2009, 03:40 PM
I would keep him one more year. I like Bobby but really, are the Sox asking all that much of him?

Hey, we're paying you $ 6 million dollars to represent our team as a professional athlete so would you please keep your weight under 260 ?

Thanks, Bobby.

I think he's closer to 300 than 250. Im guessing Bobby at 305-310

NLaloosh
11-21-2009, 03:46 PM
I think he's closer to 300 than 250. Im guessing Bobby at 305-310

I don't know how much he weighs but I know that they're not asking the guy to be ripped.

They'd probably love it if he just knocked off 20-25 pounds which isn't at all unreasonable. That's my point.

Bobby could avoid all of this rhetoric by just shutting up and losing some weight.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-21-2009, 04:02 PM
It's a bit troubling that when he gets his first big contract he is not motivated to work even harder. Maybe his velocity dropped because of his nagging injuries in 2009. Maybe his velocity dropped because he did not work hard and his weight caused those injury problems.

In either case, I think it is a big gamble to have to pay him $7 million or so to work 50 or 60 innings and hope he can get back to being more effective as a closer.

veeter
11-21-2009, 05:04 PM
Like him or not, Bobby is a good to very good closer. He's not great, but he's damn important. And considering the Sox bullpen was horse **** last year, losing a nice piece of it makes no sense. But hey, it's not my money.

oeo
11-21-2009, 05:14 PM
Like him or not, Bobby is a good to very good closer. He's not great, but he's damn important. And considering the Sox bullpen was horse **** last year, losing a nice piece of it makes no sense. But hey, it's not my money.

Unlike in years past, Bobby was part of the problem.

It's Dankerific
11-21-2009, 05:17 PM
Jenks is one of those guys who was great for a short time. We have to trade him while we can get something back for him. Otherwise, we'll just have our memories.

DirtySox
11-21-2009, 05:22 PM
I think it is a big gamble to have to pay him $7 million or so to work 50 or 60 innings and hope he can get back to being more effective as a closer.

Completely agreed. With the supposed lack of funds to spend this offseason, why sink a huge chunk of it in such a question mark? That 7 million is better invested elsewhere.

veeter
11-21-2009, 05:24 PM
Unlike in years past, Bobby was part of the problem.But I can't group him with Tony Pena, Scott Linebrink or Randy Williams. Bobby blew six saves. If he's gone, all those guys move up and we're in real trouble. But with Dotel a goner and Bobby maybe looking that way too, Kenny HAS to have something up his sleeve.

Corlose 15
11-21-2009, 05:29 PM
But I can't group him with Tony Pena, Scott Linebrink or Randy Williams. Bobby blew six saves. If he's gone, all those guys move up and we're in real trouble. But with Dotel a goner and Bobby maybe looking that way too, Kenny HAS to have something up his sleeve.

That's really the issue. We can all sit here and say the Sox should get rid of Jenks while his value is still high, but if they do, that's one more hole to fill in a part of the team the Sox have been trying to fix for 4 years now.

DirtySox
11-21-2009, 05:32 PM
That's really the issue. We can all sit here and say the Sox should get rid of Jenks while his value is still high.

His value really isn't that high. Especially with what he will be due in arbitration. This is why there has been suggestions of non-tendering.

TomBradley72
11-21-2009, 06:00 PM
It's mid November....Jenks shouldn't be talking about "drama" from 2009...he should be talking about what he is doing to make sure he has a great 2010.

Ranger
11-21-2009, 06:09 PM
It really doesn't surprise me that Cowley wrote this article.

Scott Merkin wrote about the same issue about a month or so ago.

I don't think it's his weight as much as it is that he's lost a lot of the velocity he once had on all of his pitches.

Not only that, but even if he were to get it back, I have a feeling that hitters have pretty much figured him out.

When a closer is unable to change his stuff when hitters have adapted to him, he's done. Case and point: Shingo


His velocity has not changed in 3 years. It's been steady since 2007.

We all know Bobby is not close to the same pitcher he was in 05. Why would you take 9 mph off your fastball at 27 years old voluntarily? To me he is injured and is only mediocre. Either way injured or not he is not a dependable closer anymore and I don't see him getting back to his old form.

It's more like 4 or 5 MPH off the fastball, not 9. He still throws regularly in the mid 90's. Touches 97 a fair amount and when he really wants to, he can hit 99 (last year's NLDS, for example).

The reason a person would choose not to throw so hard is a realization that he might not be able to sustain a career for very long. Very few guys can continue to get outs for several years with just one pitch (Rivera is an anomoly). Also, very few guys can continue to throw 99-100 for several years without eventually blowing out their arms (See Joel Zumaya).

Now, I don't know what his condition habits are, or what his diet is, but he needs to commit himself to doing both of those right. And I disagree with the notion that he's not dependable when healthy. That's completely false. When he's healthy, he's at least above average as a closer. At least.

soxfanreggie
11-21-2009, 06:12 PM
Can we just get him a few months of workouts with Bob and Jillian from The Biggest Loser? It could be an off-season reality show for the fans.

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 06:20 PM
Scott Merkin wrote about the same issue about a month or so ago.



Yeah, but the intent behind it just sounds like he's stirring the pot. Reading the article, it doesn't seem like it's all that bad. However, the title "Battle of the Bulge" just sounds like Cowley is trying to make this out to be something more than it is. I don't blame him for taking that angle as it gets us White Sox fans concerned and makes us want to read it and that's Joe's job, to get readers.

stevemcstud
11-21-2009, 06:25 PM
I love Bobby to death, but if I had the choice between paying him $8m or having $8m to spend in this type of Market I will take the $8m.

Thorton is ready to take over the closer spot and there are plenty of good relievers on the market. We can pick up two on $1-2m and have another $4m to spend on some free agents.

JB98
11-21-2009, 06:46 PM
If they do trade Jenks, they better address the bullpen in free agency. I don't want to hear any of this, "We can't spend $1 when we only have 50 cents" bull****.

Even if they keep Jenks, the Sox bullpen isn't championship-caliber.

LoveYourSuit
11-21-2009, 06:47 PM
Scott Merkin wrote about the same issue about a month or so ago.




His velocity has not changed in 3 years. It's been steady since 2007.



It's more like 4 or 5 MPH off the fastball, not 9. He still throws regularly in the mid 90's. Touches 97 a fair amount and when he really wants to, he can hit 99 (last year's NLDS, for example).

The reason a person would choose not to throw so hard is a realization that he might not be able to sustain a career for very long. Very few guys can continue to get outs for several years with just one pitch (Rivera is an anomoly). Also, very few guys can continue to throw 99-100 for several years without eventually blowing out their arms (See Joel Zumaya).

Now, I don't know what his condition habits are, or what his diet is, but he needs to commit himself to doing both of those right. And I disagree with the notion that he's not dependable when healthy. That's completely false. When he's healthy, he's at least above average as a closer. At least.


If Jenks doesn't lose weight and gets his ass in shape, that will get him out of baseball quicker than he trying to be efficient and saving his arm from "hard throwing."

LoveYourSuit
11-21-2009, 06:50 PM
If they do trade Jenks, they better address the bullpen in free agency. I don't want to hear any of this, "We can't spend $1 when we only have 50 cents" bull****.

Even if they keep Jenks, the Sox bullpen isn't championship-caliber.


People are going to sadly miss Dotel more than they think.

He still hasn't been replaced and I don't think Pena is the answer.

So the Sox are looking at two pieces not just one if Jenks is gone.

JB98
11-21-2009, 06:56 PM
People are going to sadly miss Dotel more than they think.

He still hasn't been replaced and I don't think Pena is the answer.

So the Sox are looking at two pieces not just one if Jenks is gone.

And that's fine. I'm a big fan of Jenks. When healthy, I think he's a solid reliever, definitely above average, a borderline All-Star. But if they determine that $7-8 million is better spent on two or three other pieces to the puzzle than Jenks, that's fine.

I just don't want them dumping Jenks and then crying poor while we go into the season with Thornton as the closer and Pena and Linebrink as the primary setup men. That isn't going to cut it.

I share your skepticism of Pena. I wasn't impressed this past summer.

SOXSINCE'70
11-21-2009, 07:11 PM
I hope Kenny has a plan "b", like many others on the board.
I am not sold on Matt Thornton as the closer. Losing Jenks would be difficult to overcome.
The 'Pen already needs some help. Closers, unlike apples or oranges,don't grow on trees. Getting rid of Jenks will not help this situation, IMO.

SCCWS
11-21-2009, 07:33 PM
Thorton is ready to take over the closer spot and there are plenty of good relievers on the market. We can pick up two on $1-2m and have another $4m to spend on some free agents.

Huh?? Do we hope the opponent has all lefties. Thornton is mediocre against right handers. Right-handed batters hit .289 against him. Thornton is very effective against left-handers but that is it.

Sufferin
11-21-2009, 07:41 PM
Put me in the "keep Bobby" category. Arbitration will take care for itself, he should get what he's worth, based on how he's done for the past 4-5 years. It's not like arbitration automatically overpays the player, they do lose hearings. His biggest problem this year wasn't velocity, he was consistently 93-95. That, combined with his hook will get it done. His problem was location, and that can be fixed.

Plus we're talking about this being a bad year, when he converted 29 out of 35, it could be worse and my guess it will be without him next year. Thornton save 4 out of 5 last year, technically speaking that's worse than 29 out of 35. Not saying that's a big enough sample, but I am saying it's not like he's a proven closer. Jenks is, and I don't think dumping him after 1 sub-par year is not wise IMHO. Being able to count on a guy in to close games in invaluable and tom e a guy who has done it before is our best shot. Plus there ain't **** out there as far as FA relievers go.

Ranger
11-21-2009, 07:55 PM
If Jenks doesn't lose weight and gets his ass in shape, that will get him out of baseball quicker than he trying to be efficient and saving his arm from "hard throwing."

I don't know if being unhealthy would get him out of baseball quicker than tearing up his arm would, but yes, it would behoove him to take care of himself.

Daver
11-21-2009, 08:10 PM
If Jenks doesn't lose weight and gets his ass in shape, that will get him out of baseball quicker than he trying to be efficient and saving his arm from "hard throwing."

Yeah, that Ruth guy had his career ruined because he couldn't get in shape.

oeo
11-21-2009, 08:16 PM
If they do trade Jenks, they better address the bullpen in free agency. I don't want to hear any of this, "We can't spend $1 when we only have 50 cents" bull****.

The last time they did that, they ended up with Scott Linebrink. Still two years left on that deal.

Even if they keep Jenks, the Sox bullpen isn't championship-caliber.

No way of knowing that until the games are played. Who considered Cotts and Politte to be great set up men in 2005? Cotts was a hated man before 2005. Who expected Hermanson to be a good closer? Even our bullpen in 2009 ranked ahead of the Yankees' pen for most of the year.

It's Dankerific
11-21-2009, 08:16 PM
Yeah, that Ruth guy had his career ruined because he couldn't get in shape.

I Know! I love watching Jenks crank those HRs to CF.

Daver
11-21-2009, 08:30 PM
I Know! I love watching Jenks crank those HRs to CF.

I'm not all at surprised that you completely failed to grasp the point.

It's Dankerific
11-21-2009, 08:39 PM
I'm not all at surprised that you completely failed to grasp the point.

I'm agreeing with you. I can't think of any potential differences from being a 1920s HR hitter and a 2000s Closer.

I mean, look at all those cases sherlock holmes solved while on cocaine. People nowadays worry about too much!

Brian26
11-21-2009, 08:49 PM
See to me Jenks is a better pitcher now then his earliest career. I say that because early career he WAS a 1 pitch pitcher.

In 2005, he was a two-pitch pitcher: a deadly 100+ mph fastball and a ungodly nasty hook.

In 2009, his fastball was clocked at 92 on a regular basis, and he seldom threw the curveball with men on 2nd or 3rd.

I'm not sure why people keep classifying him as a "better pitcher" now. I guess people think if they keep saying it enough, maybe it will come true. Jenks can't spot the ball like Mariano Rivera and will never be that type of pitcher.

voodoochile
11-21-2009, 08:51 PM
I'm agreeing with you. I can't think of any potential differences from being a 1920s HR hitter and a 2000s Closer.

I mean, look at all those cases sherlock holmes solved while on cocaine. People nowadays worry about too much!

You do know that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, right?

oeo
11-21-2009, 08:51 PM
In 2005, he was a two-pitch pitcher: a deadly 100+ mph fastball and a ungodly nasty hook.

In 2009, his fastball was clocked at 92 on a regular basis, and he seldom threw the curveball with men on 2nd or 3rd.

I'm not sure why people keep classifying him as a "better pitcher" now. I guess people think if they keep saying it enough, maybe it will come true. Jenks can't spot the ball like Mariano Rivera and will never be that type of pitcher.

He threw his hook better and more consistently in 2007 and 2008. He basically was a one pitch guy in 2005, that's why he was constantly in trouble in the World Series.

He was not a better pitcher in 2009, but since dialing back the fastball and focusing on being more of a pitcher than a thrower after 2006, he's been a better pitcher. Just look at the numbers. The strikeouts may have been down, but so was everything else. I will take the 2007 95-96 MPH throwing Jenks over the 100 MPH 05-06 Jenks every day of the week.

soxinem1
11-21-2009, 08:52 PM
Yep. And something tells me that Tampa isn't interested in overpaid middling closers with conditioning issues.

Especially when they can sign Billy Wagner for about the same $$$$ Jenks willl make in 2010.

Brian26
11-21-2009, 08:52 PM
Yeah, that Ruth guy had his career ruined because he couldn't get in shape.

It's why baseball is the greatest sport on this planet. David Wells and John Kruk have pretty good careers while Gabe Kapler mires in mediocity.

Brian26
11-21-2009, 08:56 PM
He threw his hook better and more consistently in 2007 and 2008. He basically was a one pitch guy in 2005, that's why he was constantly in trouble in the World Series.

I don't think we watched the same World Series. When was he in trouble during Games 1 and 4?

oeo
11-21-2009, 09:00 PM
I don't think we watched the same World Series. When was he in trouble during Games 1 and 4?

He didn't get in trouble in Game 1, but he had the tying run at 2nd in Game 4. Regardless, he threw his fastball way too much. He depended on it, and it hurt him. It was 100mph, and it didn't do anything. He has a lot more movement at the mid-90s. When he moved away from being that type of guy in 2007, he gave up less hits, walked less, gave up less homeruns, runs, etc.

JB98
11-21-2009, 09:01 PM
The last time they did that, they ended up with Scott Linebrink. Still two years left on that deal.

So? Just because that turned out to be a bad deal doesn't mean we should neglect the bullpen and leave it as is. The Dotel signing worked OK for them. Spending the money to extend Thornton was a wise move, too.

soxinem1
11-21-2009, 09:03 PM
Can we just get him a few months of workouts with Bob and Jillian from The Biggest Loser? It could be an off-season reality show for the fans.

We can get him on here too:

http://sharetv.org/images/dance_your_ass_off-show.jpg



People are going to sadly miss Dotel more than they think.

He still hasn't been replaced and I don't think Pena is the answer.

So the Sox are looking at two pieces not just one if Jenks is gone.


These are understatements. At least Dotel can get into some good stretches when he just throws 'Blew By You' for weeks at a time.

Pena, OTOH, is more likely to have those hits 'Blow By Him'.

SI1020
11-21-2009, 09:04 PM
In 2005, he was a two-pitch pitcher: a deadly 100+ mph fastball and a ungodly nasty hook.

In 2009, his fastball was clocked at 92 on a regular basis, and he seldom threw the curveball with men on 2nd or 3rd.

I'm not sure why people keep classifying him as a "better pitcher" now. I guess people think if they keep saying it enough, maybe it will come true. Jenks can't spot the ball like Mariano Rivera and will never be that type of pitcher. Totally agree. I don't understand why some want to pretend it is otherwise.

Brian26
11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
He didn't get in trouble in Game 1, but he had the tying run at 2nd in Game 4.

Come on, be serious. Someone singled and then the Astros bunted him over to 2nd.

russ99
11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
I'm a big fan of Bobby, but to come to camp out of shape for years, then having his body run down by the end of the season because of it - then run his mouth off like he's being a "scapegoat" is a sure ticket out of town with this organization...

I'm waiting on Ozzie's or Coop's rebuttal.

oeo
11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
So? Just because that turned out to be a bad deal doesn't mean we should neglect the bullpen and leave it as is. The Dotel signing worked OK for them. Spending the money to extend Thornton was a wise move, too.

I didn't say to neglect it, but you want them to shell out big bucks, and as evidenced by Scott Linebrink's terrible contract: it's not worth it.

oeo
11-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Come on, be serious. Someone singled and then the Astros bunted him over to 2nd.

Alright, Brian. Apparently you just want to forget about the original argument. Let's start arguing about some minor detail so we can forget that you said Jenks early in his career was the bestest.

soxinem1
11-21-2009, 09:09 PM
I didn't say to neglect it, but you want them to shell out big bucks, and as evidenced by Scott Linebrink's terrible contract: it's not worth it.

Like you, I feel that KW way overpaid for this guy, but relievers are hot and cold. Linebrink had some good stretches for us, and has the stuff and experience that can help him bounce back..... unlike Pena, who is downright scary in Dotel's role.

I also believe Dotel should be brought back.

JB98
11-21-2009, 09:16 PM
I didn't say to neglect it, but you want them to shell out big bucks, and as evidenced by Scott Linebrink's terrible contract: it's not worth it.

I did not say they should shell out big bucks. I said, if they trade Jenks, they better use that $7 or $8 million to get two or three guys for the bullpen. I don't want them trading Jenks, doing nothing with the bullpen and then babbling about how they only have 50 cents.

Either spend the $8 million to keep Jenks, or spend the money to better the depth in the bullpen. They don't need to give somebody $5 million a year. There aren't many relievers on the market who deserve that anyway.

Brian26
11-21-2009, 09:23 PM
Alright, Brian. Apparently you just want to forget about the original argument. Let's start arguing about some minor detail so we can forget that you said Jenks early in his career was the bestest.

I said Jenks was a better pitcher in 2005 than he was last year.

You seem to want to change the argument to claim he was the bestest in 2007, which nobody is disputing.

LoveYourSuit
11-21-2009, 09:39 PM
Yeah, that Ruth guy had his career ruined because he couldn't get in shape.


Statistics show that fat players tend to burn out quicker than those who stay in shape. Fact is Jenks has already suffered thru many nagging injuries so far in his young career.

Although Ruth has nothing to do with this era of baseball nor this conversation (but thanks for bringing him up), let's just say he was a freak.

LoveYourSuit
11-21-2009, 09:46 PM
Totally agree. I don't understand why some want to pretend it is otherwise.

It's another one of the "folk heros" our fans can't seem to accept that maybe they are no longer that good.


It will be scarry to see the fan reaction if the Sox decide to go a different dirrection than Bobby Jenks.

Ranger
11-21-2009, 09:56 PM
Even if they keep Jenks, the Sox bullpen isn't championship-caliber.




No way of knowing that until the games are played. Who considered Cotts and Politte to be great set up men in 2005? Cotts was a hated man before 2005. Who expected Hermanson to be a good closer? Even our bullpen in 2009 ranked ahead of the Yankees' pen for most of the year.

Yeah, I've never really been a fan with declaring that something in baseball isn't "championship-caliber." What does that even mean? The Yankees bullpen wasn't all that good, so are they still championship caliber? I think people throw it around too much like they throw around phrases such as: "you can't win a championship with ______ as your starting shortstop." Sure you can. And you can also win a World Series with a mediocre bullpen, or a mediocre rotation, or medicore offense if the other parts of your team are right.

Had the Sox had a better offense and better defense, they most certainly could've won a championship with the bullpen they had last year.

Baseball teams have way too many moving parts and variables to declare one aspect of it "non-championship caliber."


In 2005, he was a two-pitch pitcher: a deadly 100+ mph fastball and a ungodly nasty hook.

In 2009, his fastball was clocked at 92 on a regular basis, and he seldom threw the curveball with men on 2nd or 3rd.

I'm not sure why people keep classifying him as a "better pitcher" now. I guess people think if they keep saying it enough, maybe it will come true. Jenks can't spot the ball like Mariano Rivera and will never be that type of pitcher.

People call him a "better pitcher" now because he really is no longer a "thrower." There's a difference, which he has seemed to learn. Guys like Tony Pena are throwers. Hopefully, he will learn to pitch. Jenks was a thrower when he got here, but he's gotten better at becoming a pitcher. He's certainly not stellar, but he's improved.

I think people are also overstating how bad Jenks was in 2009. He really wasn't all that terrible, aside from the injuries. In some statistical categories, he was even better last year than in 2006, which was still a pretty good year for him. ERA better, WHIP was better, K/BB were better...all important categories for a reliever. Granted he was worse in HRs allowed.

People can talk about drop in velocity all they want, but it's hard to ignore that in some areas, the indications are that he has, since '06, learned to "pitch" better. What happened between 2006 and 2007? Fastballs went from upper 90's to mid 90's (where they still pretty much are). What else happened? Well, he's drastically cut down on the walks he's issued. He allowed 31 that year and 13, 17, and 16 in every year since in a comparable amount of games. Last year was also the first year he didn't throw a single wild pitch. He's not throwing as hard as he did 3 years ago, but he's also controlling his pitches a lot better.

Now, the problem last year more than anything, was his health. And that's really been the issue the last two seasons. If Bobby Jenks is healthy, he's still one of the better relievers out there.

Daver
11-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Statistics show that fat players tend to burn out quicker than those who stay in shape. Fact is Jenks has already suffered thru many nagging injuries so far in his young career.

Although Ruth has nothing to do with this era of baseball nor this conversation (but thanks for bringing him up), let's just say he was a freak.

Kirby Puckett, David Wells, John Kruk , and Rod Beck would like to disagree with you.

John Kruk said it best, I'm not an athlete, I'm a ballplayer.

JB98
11-21-2009, 10:34 PM
Yeah, I've never really been a fan with declaring that something in baseball isn't "championship-caliber." What does that even mean? The Yankees bullpen wasn't all that good, so are they still championship caliber? I think people throw it around too much like they throw around phrases such as: "you can't win a championship with ______ as your starting shortstop." Sure you can. And you can also win a World Series with a mediocre bullpen, or a mediocre rotation, or medicore offense if the other parts of your team are right.

Had the Sox had a better offense and better defense, they most certainly could've won a championship with the bullpen they had last year.

Baseball teams have way too many moving parts and variables to declare one aspect of it "non-championship caliber."




People call him a "better pitcher" now because he really is no longer a "thrower." There's a difference, which he has seemed to learn. Guys like Tony Pena are throwers. Hopefully, he will learn to pitch. Jenks was a thrower when he got here, but he's gotten better at becoming a pitcher. He's certainly not stellar, but he's improved.

I think people are also overstating how bad Jenks was in 2009. He really wasn't all that terrible, aside from the injuries. In some statistical categories, he was even better last year than in 2006, which was still a pretty good year for him. ERA better, WHIP was better, K/BB were better...all important categories for a reliever. Granted he was worse in HRs allowed.

People can talk about drop in velocity all they want, but it's hard to ignore that in some areas, the indications are that he has, since '06, learned to "pitch" better. What happened between 2006 and 2007? Fastballs went from upper 90's to mid 90's (where they still pretty much are). What else happened? Well, he's drastically cut down on the walks he's issued. He allowed 31 that year and 13, 17, and 16 in every year since in a comparable amount of games. Last year was also the first year he didn't throw a single wild pitch. He's not throwing as hard as he did 3 years ago, but he's also controlling his pitches a lot better.

Now, the problem last year more than anything, was his health. And that's really been the issue the last two seasons. If Bobby Jenks is healthy, he's still one of the better relievers out there.

I totally disagree. The bullpen was poor the second half. It's one of the reasons the Sox did not come close to winning the division. Thus, it is not championship-caliber. The offense is not championship-caliber and neither is the defense.

Basically, we have a good rotation. Beyond that, KW has a lot of work ahead of him over the next three or four months.

LoveYourSuit
11-21-2009, 10:39 PM
Kirby Puckett, David Wells, John Kruk , and Rod Beck would like to disagree with you.

John Kruk said it best, I'm not an athlete, I'm a ballplayer.


So you can name 5 Fat succesful ML players out of the 20K which have played in the history of the game?


Daver, the odds are are not good for out of shape players in this game. Especially for a franchise who is about to handcuff themselves with an $8 million price tag on their closer.

soxfanreggie
11-21-2009, 11:08 PM
Kirby Puckett, David Wells, John Kruk , and Rod Beck would like to disagree with you.

John Kruk said it best, I'm not an athlete, I'm a ballplayer.

Don't forget Cecil Fielder! Two-time MVP runner-up (narrowly missed in 1990 and 1991), 3-time All-Star, 2 Silver Sluggers, and a World Series Championship. He was a big boy!

Slight hijack...good reminder of how good Big Frank was in the voting: 3rd in 1991, 8th in 1992, won in '93 and '94, 8th in '95 and '96, 3rd in '97, comes back with 2nd in 2000, which I think we all know he should have won, and 4th in 2006.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml

Domeshot17
11-22-2009, 01:08 AM
I said Jenks was a better pitcher in 2005 than he was last year.

You seem to want to change the argument to claim he was the bestest in 2007, which nobody is disputing.

I really wasn't speaking of last year when I said I see him as a better pitcher now, I was talking about 07 and 08. Last year, who knows. But between the 3 injuries he had, its possible to have a very down year. Closers tend to pitch well in grooves. You hear guys go on save steaks of 12-14-16 in a row. Jenks never had the chance to do that last year. Sometimes because of his fault (injuries) and sometimes because the team was so bad he wouldn't get work.

That said, hes still in the top 1/3 of closers in the mlb IMO.

And in terms of the don't spend money because Linebrink sucks, how about the truth, spend it WISELY. Don't overspend on an old middle reliever with a **** ton of miles on his arm. Its the same reason why I hate when people say don't spend any money on the draft because of Borchard. Not all FA signings of middle relief end up bad.

Frater Perdurabo
11-22-2009, 07:20 AM
It really doesn't matter if Jenks is fat or not.

What other fat players did has no bearing on how Jenks performs, or on what weight is ideal for Jenks.

What does matter is to what extent Jenks' conditioning - which is entirely within his ability to control - affects his durability and performance.

NLaloosh
11-22-2009, 07:41 AM
Kirby Puckett, David Wells, John Kruk , and Rod Beck would like to disagree with you.

John Kruk said it best, I'm not an athlete, I'm a ballplayer.

Well. I guess that by naming 4 overweight players over the past 25 years that proves the point about a player's conditioning being of no concern.

jabrch
11-22-2009, 08:53 AM
Joe Cowley...

Nobody knows what the Sox will do with Jenks. You can sure bet that KW won't dump him unless he gets good value for him. If he makes a deal that improves the club, then he can trade anyone he wants as far as I am concerned.

One day people will stop paying attention to the Joe Cowleys of the world. I can't wait.

Brian26
11-22-2009, 09:33 AM
So you can name 5 Fat succesful ML players out of the 20K which have played in the history of the game?


Daver, the odds are are not good for out of shape players in this game. Especially for a franchise who is about to handcuff themselves with an $8 million price tag on their closer.

Well. I guess that by naming 4 overweight players over the past 25 years that proves the point about a player's conditioning being of no concern.

Considering he didn't list his favorite Sox player, Bull Luzinski, my guess is that he didn't think it was necessary to name every out-of-shape baseball player in the history of baseball to prove his point.

At least that's how I understood the post.

The point being, which has long been understood, that conditioning is not as crucial in baseball as other sports.

Red Barchetta
11-22-2009, 09:56 AM
When it comes to pitching, I am confident in the SOX brass on this. I can't think of too many pitchers they let go "too early" in their career. Especially any who came back to personally bite us. Sure, they have gone on to pitch a few more years, however it's not like they ever traded away a Roger Clemens who went on to win 20 games with another team (even though he probably had some help). :D:

voodoochile
11-22-2009, 10:11 AM
When it comes to pitching, I am confident in the SOX brass on this. I can't think of too many pitchers they let go "too early" in their career. Especially any who came back to personally bite us. Sure, they have gone on to pitch a few more years, however it's not like they ever traded away a Roger Clemens who went on to win 20 games with another team (even though he probably had some help). :D:

Give DLS a few years, once they replace his shoulder and arm with the mechanism from a pitching machine, he's a shoe-in to make the HOF...

Hi Munch... :tongue:

dickallen15
11-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Well. I guess that by naming 4 overweight players over the past 25 years that proves the point about a player's conditioning being of no concern.
Tony Gwynn was heavy too, but I agree with you. A lot of fat guys are really good players. Not a lot of them play as long as guys who do work at being their best physically. Heavy guys being successful for a long time is more the exception than the rule.

Noneck
11-22-2009, 11:47 AM
I don't care if he is fat or skinny. As long as he does the job.

The thing I don't want is to dump Jenks for prospects and not replace him. Then use the money saved on Jenks to pay the salaries of Teahen and Vizquel and call it a wash.

#1swisher
11-22-2009, 12:22 PM
After reading the article, Bobby and all the White Sox players need to get in condition. Paul Konerko, Scott Podsednik are good examples of what you can achieve when you start taking care of your #1 asset.

TheVulture
11-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Statistics show that fat players tend to burn out quicker than those who stay in shape. Fact is Jenks has already suffered thru many nagging injuries so far in his young career.

Although Ruth has nothing to do with this era of baseball nor this conversation (but thanks for bringing him up), let's just say he was a freak.

Ruth was never as fat as Jenks, and really wasn't fat at all until he was into his thirties.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r115/subgenius88/babe_ruth_pitching.jpg http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r115/subgenius88/bigbadbobby1.jpg

ewokpelts
11-22-2009, 03:08 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1896517,CST-SPT-sox21.article

Lipbye bye fatty....

Sargeant79
11-23-2009, 06:58 PM
Kenny returns fire...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091123&content_id=7707382&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb

PalehosePlanet
11-23-2009, 10:55 PM
Kenny returns fire...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091123&content_id=7707382&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb

I don't like KW's approach here. You're only lessening his trade value by ripping him.

FielderJones
11-23-2009, 11:04 PM
I don't like KW's approach here. You're only lessening his trade value by ripping him.

Which quote was the ripping one? I see a GM pointing out the obvious. I missed the personal attack.

Sufferin
11-24-2009, 04:39 PM
This tells me they're not going to trade him and Kenny's ripping him in anticipation of arbitration, where they will bring this up again in an effort to win the case.

This is how I feel about things, from AJ:

"He's one of the best closers around, and he's done it for years and years. He saved the World Series for us. He's done a million things for us to help us win. He's a guy that teams are going to say, 'If the ball gets to Jenks, then the game is over.' So, if you lose him, you lose that and everyone else has to pick up a bigger role. We need him healthy, and if he's back, it would be great for us."

Saving games consistently takes a special mental make up not all guys have. If they do trade him, we'll miss him when he's gone.

MetroPD
11-24-2009, 07:20 PM
9mph lost on his fastball at 27 years old, sounds like a Billy Koch moment again. Face it most closers only last 2-3 years and thats it. Bobby Thigpen was never the same after he set the record, baseball is unkind on hard throwing closers.

Mohoney
11-25-2009, 01:19 AM
I don't think the weight has as much to do with this as the obvious signs of a closer in decline. The weight might be the cause of the problems, but losing the weight can't be COUNTED ON as the solution to those problems.

Diminished velocity AND control problems? I don't care what you weigh, your ability to PITCH in 2010 is what I'm worried about.

Jermaine Dye was a 2005 hero, too. Projecting his ability to HIT in 2010, especially after he showed the signs of decline that he did last year, got him bought out. If Kenny Williams were to hold Bobby Jenks to this same standard and want to be rid of him before a collapse happens, I wouldn't blame him one bit. In fact, I wish we would get over the mentality of not sending money with contracts and show Scott Linebrink the door as well.

HomeFish
11-25-2009, 01:45 AM
Thanks for 2005, Bobby. I hope you're not on the White Sox in April.

Ranger
11-25-2009, 01:55 AM
I totally disagree. The bullpen was poor the second half. It's one of the reasons the Sox did not come close to winning the division. Thus, it is not championship-caliber. The offense is not championship-caliber and neither is the defense.

Basically, we have a good rotation. Beyond that, KW has a lot of work ahead of him over the next three or four months.


You're saying no team could've won the World Series if they replaced their pens with the Sox 09 bullpen? That's completely false. If the Sox had a stronger offense and defense, and had gotten to the postseason, they would've had every chance to win the whole thing. You're forgetting that just about every bullpen in baseball (even bullpens of teams that win championships) are suspect to some extent.

The offense wasn't doing the bullpen any favors last year. If all you ever have is a 1-run lead, tie game, or 1-run defecit, your pen is going to lose a lot of games for you.

JermaineDye05
11-25-2009, 02:11 AM
You're saying no team could've won the World Series if they replaced their pens with the Sox 09 bullpen? That's completely false. If the Sox had a stronger offense and defense, and had gotten to the postseason, they would've had every chance to win the whole thing. You're forgetting that just about every bullpen in baseball (even bullpens of teams that win championships) are suspect to some extent.

The offense wasn't doing the bullpen any favors last year. If all you ever have is a 1-run lead, tie game, or 1-run defecit, your pen is going to lose a lot of games for you.

Neither were the starters. Contreras and Colon really hurt our bullpen last year early on.

If your starters are constantly being taken out in the 5th or 6th inning as a result of bad defense or just bad pitching, it's going to hurt your bullpen. Down the stretch we saw a ton of starts from Contreras where he was forced to be taken out before the 5th inning.

Our bullpen was just bad down the stretch, a lot because they had been used so much earlier in the year as a result of ineffective starting pitching and many times as a result of bad defense which forced the starters to throw more than they should have.

This is one reason why I'm really excited about the rotation next year as 1-5 can go 6-7 innings (1-4 can easily go 7+) which then leaves 2-3 innings for the bullpen.

Last year we had 2 guys at the back of the rotation that we'd be thrilled if they made it to the 6th.

gobears1987
11-25-2009, 02:10 PM
Starting the season with Colon and Contreras in the rotation and then having a Clayton Richard who couldn't go deep into games killed the bullpen. The bullpen stank in the 2nd half because they were overused in the 1st half. Why was the 2005 pen so much better than the 2006 pen despite having mostly the same personnel? The reason is our starters went deep and it was rare for the pen to takeover prior to the 7th inning.

MisterB
11-25-2009, 02:47 PM
Why was the 2005 pen so much better than the 2006 pen despite having mostly the same personnel? The reason is our starters went deep and it was rare for the pen to takeover prior to the 7th inning.

There was more turnover in that BP than you remember.


Jenks carried over to '06 and did well.
Cotts and Politte carried over but fell off the map.
Hermanson was a non-factor.
Takatsu was gone.
Vizcaino and Marte were replaced with McCarthy and Thornton.
Plus 06 had the MacDougal/Riske/Logan/Haeger/Montero revolving door.


The 06 'pen only pitched 5 1/3 more innings than the 05 pen, the performance just wasn't there.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2009, 07:43 PM
Mark Gonzales on Chicago Tribune Live today said he still thinks that Jenks will be traded and that the issue with him isn't his size, he's just a big guy, but his overall fitness.

He said the thing that is bothering Kenny and Ozzie are the numerous small nagging injuries he is suffering due to an overall lack of conditioning.

Lip

PatK
11-28-2009, 11:08 AM
Jenks gave up 9 HR's last year. He gave up 10 in the previous three years combined.

His WHIP was second highest of his career.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the last two years he's had nagging injuries and doesn't seem to be starting the season in good shape. It's the sign of a bad trend.

HarryChappas
11-28-2009, 09:16 PM
Trade him and free up money for Figgins!

SOXSINCE'70
11-28-2009, 09:25 PM
Bobby Thigpen was never the same after he set the record, baseball is unkind on hard throwing closers.

This is true, but how do you explain Mariano Rivera's success since 1997,the year he first became a closer??

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2009, 09:29 PM
This is true, but how do you explain Mariano Rivera's success since 1997,the year he first became a closer??

Explanation for Mariano Rivera? A once-in-a-generation closer.

SOXSINCE'70
11-29-2009, 08:46 AM
Explanation for Mariano Rivera? A once-in-a-generation closer.

First ballot Hall of Famer.

Brian26
11-29-2009, 10:26 AM
This is true, but how do you explain Mariano Rivera's success since 1997,the year he first became a closer??

Rivera has better mechanics with a smoother delivery than Thigpen, and he has never thrown as consistently hard or violently as Thigpen. Most importantly, Rivera was never overused by Torre.

Waysouthsider
11-29-2009, 11:55 AM
What I don't like about all this is how everything becomes public with the Sox...I have been wishing, for a long time, that individuals in the organization would keep their mouths shut. Ozzie running his mouth without any thoughts to the consequences stopped being cute a long time ago IMHO.

I do think Bobby needs to take better care of himself, and Mark could have probably benefited from a different throwing program last winter and etc. etc...but I don't think it helps the players or the organization to have all of this out in public given the need to maintain professional relationships.

At the very least this circus results in it becoming harder to trade Jenks and devalues him as an asset for the team. I hope they keep him and get him right, but if they do trade him his value has gone down because of all this...

SI1020
11-29-2009, 05:37 PM
What I don't like about all this is how everything becomes public with the Sox...I have been wishing, for a long time, that individuals in the organization would keep their mouths shut. Ozzie running his mouth without any thoughts to the consequences stopped being cute a long time ago IMHO.

I do think Bobby needs to take better care of himself, and Mark could have probably benefited from a different throwing program last winter and etc. etc...but I don't think it helps the players or the organization to have all of this out in public given the need to maintain professional relationships.

At the very least this circus results in it becoming harder to trade Jenks and devalues him as an asset for the team. I hope they keep him and get him right, but if they do trade him his value has gone down because of all this... I agree with everything.

Sam Spade
11-29-2009, 06:56 PM
What I don't like about all this is how everything becomes public with the Sox...I have been wishing, for a long time, that individuals in the organization would keep their mouths shut. Ozzie running his mouth without any thoughts to the consequences stopped being cute a long time ago IMHO.

I do think Bobby needs to take better care of himself, and Mark could have probably benefited from a different throwing program last winter and etc. etc...but I don't think it helps the players or the organization to have all of this out in public given the need to maintain professional relationships.

At the very least this circus results in it becoming harder to trade Jenks and devalues him as an asset for the team. I hope they keep him and get him right, but if they do trade him his value has gone down because of all this...
To me it says that they are only slightly interested in trading him.

soxinem1
11-29-2009, 07:32 PM
What I don't like about all this is how everything becomes public with the Sox...I have been wishing, for a long time, that individuals in the organization would keep their mouths shut. Ozzie running his mouth without any thoughts to the consequences stopped being cute a long time ago IMHO.

I do think Bobby needs to take better care of himself, and Mark could have probably benefited from a different throwing program last winter and etc. etc...but I don't think it helps the players or the organization to have all of this out in public given the need to maintain professional relationships.

At the very least this circus results in it becoming harder to trade Jenks and devalues him as an asset for the team. I hope they keep him and get him right, but if they do trade him his value has gone down because of all this...

This has been very common throughout Reinsdorf's tenure.

SOXSINCE'70
11-29-2009, 08:32 PM
Rivera has better mechanics with a smoother delivery than Thigpen, and he has never thrown as consistently hard or violently as Thigpen. Most importantly, Rivera was never overused by Torre.

This is very true.

Jim Shorts
11-30-2009, 12:49 PM
I have been wishing, for a long time, that individuals in the organization would keep their mouths shut. Ozzie running his mouth without any thoughts to the consequences stopped being cute a long time ago IMHO.



Ozzie knows exactly what he's saying exactly when he's saying it. There's a purpose behind what comes out of Ozzie's mouth when cameras and mic's are infront of him.

How Sox fans don't see this yet really surprises me

asindc
11-30-2009, 01:28 PM
Ozzie knows exactly what he's saying exactly when he's saying it. There's a purpose behind what comes out of Ozzie's mouth when cameras and mic's are infront of him.

How Sox fans don't see this yet really surprises me

I agree with this 100%.

Craig Grebeck
11-30-2009, 03:30 PM
I agree with this 100%.
So are you guys saying Ozzie is some sort of genius?

spawn
11-30-2009, 04:09 PM
So are you guys saying Ozzie is some sort of genius?
I think they're saying he isn't as stupid as a lot of people here think he is.

Jim Shorts
11-30-2009, 04:37 PM
I think they're saying he isn't as stupid as a lot of people here think he is.

Ding! That is correct. Or, he's a lot smarter than most give him credit for...

Waysouthsider
11-30-2009, 05:46 PM
I don't question Ozzie's intelligence, I think he's bright and I think he's incredibly dedicated to the Sox...I just think he's careless about what he says...no verbal self-discipline/restraint...

Maybe I'm dense, but I can't see how his outbursts really help much...maybe someone else can help me see his "master plan?"

FielderJones
11-30-2009, 11:03 PM
Maybe I'm dense, but I can't see how his outbursts really help much...maybe someone else can help me see his "master plan?"

When there are team problems, Ozzie deflects the media circus away from his players and toward himself.

#1swisher
12-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Mark Giangreco on the 10pm news. KW said that he wasn't shopping Jenks.

spawn
12-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Mark Giangreco on the 10pm news. KW said that he wasn't shopping Jenks.
Yep.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4714535

Of course, KW could just be saying that. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

It's Dankerific
12-05-2009, 01:18 PM
So is this the time we're supposed to believe KW or is this the time that anyone who believes anything KW says is stupid?

I get confused on this issue. I'd like to know ahead of time, this time.

spawn
12-05-2009, 01:22 PM
So is this the time we're supposed to believe KW or is this the time that anyone who believes anything KW says is stupid?

Believe what you want to believe. :shrug:

kittle42
12-05-2009, 03:43 PM
So is this the time we're supposed to believe KW or is this the time that anyone who believes anything KW says is stupid?

I get confused on this issue. I'd like to know ahead of time, this time.

Ha! How true. Great post!

Ranger
12-05-2009, 05:11 PM
I think they're saying he isn't as stupid as a lot of people here think he is.

Ding! That is correct. Or, he's a lot smarter than most give him credit for...


He's a TON smarter than some people give him credit for. Just because his english isn't all that good, doesn't make him an idiot.

soxinem1
12-05-2009, 10:18 PM
He's a TON smarter than some people give him credit for. Just because his english isn't all that good, doesn't make him an idiot.

I don't think his intellegence is really the question, it is more his judgement regarding what he says.

NLaloosh
12-05-2009, 10:40 PM
I think that Ozzie is very intelligent and he is a master manipulator.

I think that he manages what he has to work with about as well as any manager.

Ranger
12-07-2009, 05:46 PM
I don't think his intellegence is really the question, it is more his judgement regarding what he says.


I might be the only person that doesn't get fired up over anything he says anymore. This, "you won't believe what Ozzie said this time" stuff is overrated. He's entertaining. His "outrageous" comments don't change anything and don't affect the outcome on the field.

cards press box
12-07-2009, 05:55 PM
I might be the only person that doesn't get fired up over anything he says anymore. This, "you won't believe what Ozzie said this time" stuff is overrated. He's entertaining. His "outrageous" comments don't change anything and don't affect the outcome on the field.

I totally agree. Casey Stengel used to say all sorts of "outrageous" things to media in his day and he did it for the same reason that Ozzie does: to take heat and media scrutiny off of his players so they can relax and play better. The "Old Perfessor" knew what he was doing and so does Ozzie.

I also agree that many people unfairly hold Ozzie's English against him. One question I have for all of Ozzie's critics is this -- how many languages can you speak? Could you, in your teens, go to a foreign country where English was not the primary language and do as well as Ozzie did here as a teenager playing in the San Diego system? I took four years of Spanish in high school and I have nowhere near the command of that language that Ozzie does of English.

One more thing -- Ozzie and Al Lopez are the best managers that this franchise have ever had. Both, incidentally and perhaps not coincidentally, excelled at developing young pitchers.

Lip Man 1
12-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Cards:

Not disagreeing with you but I remember being amazed when Billy Pierce told me the best manager he ever played for was Paul Richards. He said Richards taught him more about baseball than anyone else did in all his years in the game.

Richards was a tremendous Sox manager too.

Lip

Noneck
12-07-2009, 10:51 PM
Cards:

Not disagreeing with you but I remember being amazed when Billy Pierce told me the best manager he ever played for was Paul Richards. He said Richards taught him more about baseball than anyone else did in all his years in the game.

Richards was a tremendous Sox manager too.

Lip
Lip,

You are speaking of him being a great manager in 1st stint? Not in 76?

cards press box
12-07-2009, 11:31 PM
Cards:

Not disagreeing with you but I remember being amazed when Billy Pierce told me the best manager he ever played for was Paul Richards. He said Richards taught him more about baseball than anyone else did in all his years in the game.

Richards was a tremendous Sox manager too.

Lip

Lip, I definitely agree that Paul Richards was an excellent manager. Perhaps more than anyone else, Richards was responsible for shaking the Sox out of its post-1919 doldrums and laying the foundation for the Go-Go Sox. If I had to list the top White Sox managers from WWII to the present, I would list:

Al Lopez
Ozzie Guillen
Paul Richards
Tony LaRussa
Jeff Torborg

If I'm not mistaken, Richards and Billy Pierce were also teammates on the World Champion 1945 Detroit Tigers.