PDA

View Full Version : Sox won't sign a pure DH


Rockabilly
12-07-2009, 04:55 PM
According to Ozzie. I guess that means no Dye, Thome, Vlad, Matsui or Delgado coming to the Sox.

dickallen15
12-07-2009, 05:03 PM
I read Kotsay, Jones even Vizquel leading off and DHing. I'm thinking that is a downgrade.

LoveYourSuit
12-07-2009, 05:05 PM
I think signing a pure DH is not an issue and actually a good thing as long as the guy can stay health 95% of the time.


With Thome and Thomas, the Sox did not have that.

oeo
12-07-2009, 05:07 PM
They've been saying this since the beginning, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. This offense is going to suck.

Rockabilly
12-07-2009, 05:10 PM
I would like to see the Sox sign DeRosa to be a part time DH and move around the diamond.

LoveYourSuit
12-07-2009, 05:11 PM
They've been saying this since the beginning, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. This offense is going to suck.


I think they are getting too caught up in the small ball BS and flexibility rather than waking up and realizing that in order to win at the Cell you have to mash.

DirtySox
12-07-2009, 05:14 PM
I think it's a bit too early to quantify the Offense's suckitude.

oeo
12-07-2009, 05:14 PM
I think they are getting too caught up in the small ball BS and flexibility rather than waking up and realizing that in order to win at the Cell you have to mash.

At least we finally have a weak-hitting offense to compete in the Metrodome.

areilly
12-07-2009, 05:18 PM
This sounds awfully similar to the vague threats of signing a Juan Pierre-type of player to DH a few years ago when Konerko almost walked.

I'm curious who they have their eye on if the goal is flexibility rather than specialized excellence.

oeo
12-07-2009, 05:18 PM
I think it's a bit too early to quantify the Offense's suckitude.

It doesn't seem like many more changes are going to be coming, considering the talk around the Sox at the WM right now. As it stands now, we don't have many people to drive runs in or even get on base. Obviously we're still missing an outfielder, but the talk is that the Sox don't have a lot of money to work with. Not only that, they seem to have a 'we'll keep an open mind, but we like what we have' mindset.

SoxNation05
12-07-2009, 05:21 PM
According to Ozzie. I guess that means no Dye, Thome, Vlad, Matsui or Delgado coming to the Sox.

Aside from Delgado those guys are outfielders, whether they play it well is different

DirtySox
12-07-2009, 05:22 PM
It doesn't seem like many more changes are going to be coming, considering the talk around the Sox at the WM right now. As it stands now, we don't have many people to drive runs in or even get on base. Obviously we're still missing an outfielder, but the talk is that the Sox don't have a lot of money to work with. Not only that, they seem to have a 'we'll keep an open mind, but we like what we have' mindset.

Fair enough. I still find it hard to take everything Ozzie and Kenny say at face value. I will wait until it's closer to spring training before I leap off any ledges.

JermaineDye05
12-07-2009, 05:25 PM
That's fine by me, move Konerko to DH and trade for Adrian Gonzalez.

oeo
12-07-2009, 05:28 PM
Fair enough. I still find it hard to take everything Ozzie and Kenny say at face value. I will wait until it's closer to spring training before I leap off any ledges.

I'm not leaping off the edge. Our starting rotation should keep us in games, the only question is whether we can put across enough runs.

DirtySox
12-07-2009, 05:31 PM
The only question is whether we can put across enough runs.

Agreed. And that question still remains to be determined with holes that need filling as of only December 7th. I'll start complaining once Jones/Kotsay are announced at a corner OF spot, and when Pods is signed to DH.

NLaloosh
12-07-2009, 05:31 PM
According to Ozzie. I guess that means no Dye, Thome, Vlad, Matsui or Delgado coming to the Sox.

I think that's a great idea. I'm looking forward to seeing some real flexibility this year.

Rockabilly
12-07-2009, 05:33 PM
How about Q being the DH. Than trade or sign 2 great defensive OF's

oeo
12-07-2009, 05:35 PM
How about Q being the DH. Than trade or sign 2 great defensive OF's

This would be an option if there was money to work with. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have much.

russ99
12-07-2009, 05:37 PM
This is a smokescreen.

Kenny specifically used "bench" after Jones, Vizquel and Kotsay signed.

The Sox will be adding another non-leadoff bat, bank it. It may not be until January, when the prices go down a bit, but it will happen.

This week, I want to see a backup catcher and a RH reliever brought in, but it wouldn't surprise me if Kenny made a bigger deal.

WhiteSox5187
12-07-2009, 05:39 PM
If this means that they want a guy who can actually play the field (like Dye in theory could play the OF) and then have a platoon at the DH spot to rest guys (like one day Quentin could be DH, then Konerko, etc.) I don't really mind it. If they mean though that they aren't going to try to get another power bat and might have a guy like Pods at DH (which I don't necessarily mind if it's part of that floating platoon)...I'm a bit worried. I think offensively we need another power bat somewhere and a leadoff hitter.

NardiWasHere
12-07-2009, 05:46 PM
As long as they get a guy who is good/can hit, who cares?

mzh
12-07-2009, 06:15 PM
This is a smokescreen.

Kenny specifically used "bench" after Jones, Vizquel and Kotsay signed.

The Sox will be adding another non-leadoff bat, bank it. It may not be until January, when the prices go down a bit, but it will happen.

This week, I want to see a backup catcher and a RH reliever brought in, but it wouldn't surprise me if Kenny made a bigger deal.

According to Mark Gonzalez, KW has said that right now Flowers is the leading candidate for #2 catcher

soxinem1
12-07-2009, 06:21 PM
If anything, guys like Vlad, Blalock, Delgado, Dye, etc. may well be a target of KW. Who says these guys cannot play the field 25-40 games a year, and regulars play the DH spot to rest.

Vlad did not play much OF this year, but they did that to safeguard him while he recovered from injuries.

I never believed Thome would come back anyway, and if this statement is true, that pretty much closes that chapter.

But managing the team like an NL World Series team for a whole season is silly, as those teams almost always have to use a bench player to DH, making that a stark disadvantage.

Being an AL team without a DH for 162 games more than likely means that will be the maximum number of games you will play that year.

TDog
12-07-2009, 06:38 PM
How about Q being the DH. Than trade or sign 2 great defensive OF's

I was going to post that the Sox not signing a "pure DH" (by the way, there is no such thing, but I will expand on that later) is no big deal because they don't need to sign Quentin.

This is good news in the respect that the Sox aren't looking for someone in the mold of an aging Jim Thome -- a powerful hitter with little or no speed who cannot help the team on defense. Sox fans have been complaining for years about the lineup that can only score via the home run, being built around hitters with no speed. This offseason, the Sox are apparently doing something about it.

DH isn't a position, of course, like second base or catcher or right field. It is a condition. A player who isn't a natural anything or a pure anything or lacks the defensive skills, even if it is because of age or injury, may end up in the role of designated hitter because he can't play a position. You don't need such a player on your team. The league gives you an extra bat in the lineup. That doesn't mean you have to take away a glove from the roster.

Domeshot17
12-07-2009, 06:40 PM
The scary thing is while Kenny might understand having a Vizquel/Kotsay/Jones DH rotation will get him no where, Ozzie is dead serious.

This is why you can't give Ozzie guys like this. He takes a guy who can have value as a backup and role player and kills him by playing him way too much. Vizquel was fine as like, a late inning defensive sub who gets 2-3 at bats a week since he doesn't hit anymore. But now ozzie is throwing around terms like Lead off with him and it just feels like we are going to piss away this great rotation.

Hopefully Kenny gets something done. We'll see.

Domeshot17
12-07-2009, 06:43 PM
I was going to post that the Sox not signing a "pure DH" (by the way, there is no such thing, but I will expand on that later) is no big deal because they don't need to sign Quentin.

This is good news in the respect that the Sox aren't looking for someone in the mold of an aging Jim Thome -- a powerful hitter with little or no speed who cannot help the team on defense. Sox fans have been complaining for years about the lineup that can only score via the home run, being built around hitters with no speed. This offseason, the Sox are apparently doing something about it.

DH isn't a position, of course, like second base or catcher or right field. It is a condition. A player who isn't a natural anything or a pure anything or lacks the defensive skills, even if it is because of age or injury, may end up in the role of designated hitter because he can't play a position. You don't need such a player on your team. The league gives you an extra bat in the lineup. That doesn't mean you have to take away a glove from the roster.

Just because we aren't living by the home run doesn't mean we are going to score runs. This team doesn't have 1 100 rbi hitter in the lineup right now.

I posted this a while back, and while I understand RBI's can be a poor judgement for individuals, as a team they are a great stat. Every playoff team in the league last year had I believe 295 or more RBIs out of the 3-4-5 spot. Most well over 300. The White Sox are currently looking more like 250. This is partially because we have a very weak middle of the order, and partially because we have no lead off. The idea we can get by with only addressing 1 of the 2 is a joke.

Ranger
12-07-2009, 06:58 PM
I think signing a pure DH is not an issue and actually a good thing as long as the guy can stay health 95% of the time.


With Thome and Thomas, the Sox did not have that.

I can agree with that. It wouldn't be the worst thing if they got a guy that could ONLY be a DH. But I can see the other way being better.

It doesn't seem like many more changes are going to be coming, considering the talk around the Sox at the WM right now. As it stands now, we don't have many people to drive runs in or even get on base. Obviously we're still missing an outfielder, but the talk is that the Sox don't have a lot of money to work with. Not only that, they seem to have a 'we'll keep an open mind, but we like what we have' mindset.

I don't think that's their mindset at all. In fact, they've been saying publicly that there are a couple of more things they would like to have.

I'm not leaping off the edge. Our starting rotation should keep us in games, the only question is whether we can put across enough runs.

If Rios and Quentin hit like they're supposed to (and I don't mean extraordinary years, just what they're capable of in an ordinary season), they should have enough to have a mediocre offense. Which, really, is all they would need to win a bunch of games with their pitching. Now, if those two guys struggle or Konerko struggles, it could be a tough year.

soxfanreggie
12-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Aside from Delgado those guys are outfielders, whether they play it well is different

When did Thome start playing the OF?

TDog
12-07-2009, 07:14 PM
Just because we aren't living by the home run doesn't mean we are going to score runs. This team doesn't have 1 100 rbi hitter in the lineup right now.

I posted this a while back, and while I understand RBI's can be a poor judgement for individuals, as a team they are a great stat. Every playoff team in the league last year had I believe 295 or more RBIs out of the 3-4-5 spot. Most well over 300. The White Sox are currently looking more like 250. This is partially because we have a very weak middle of the order, and partially because we have no lead off. The idea we can get by with only addressing 1 of the 2 is a joke.

I have no problem judging individuals by their RBIs. Players who drive in runners from scoring position at a strong rate are more valuable than high-on-base percentage guys in the RBI positions of the order who don't have a lot of success in driving in runners from scoring position.

But not signing a new player who can't play the field doesn't mean the Sox aren't going to get production out of their designated hitters in 2010.

Craig Grebeck
12-07-2009, 07:40 PM
I have no problem judging individuals by their RBIs. Players who drive in runners from scoring position at a strong rate are more valuable than high-on-base percentage guys in the RBI positions of the order who don't have a lot of success in driving in runners from scoring position.

But not signing a new player who can't play the field doesn't mean the Sox aren't going to get production out of their designated hitters in 2010.
Rotating bench players there would cripple an already poor offense.

oeo
12-07-2009, 07:45 PM
I don't think that's their mindset at all. In fact, they've been saying publicly that there are a couple of more things they would like to have.

There are a couple of more things that they HAVE TO have if they want to be considered a serious World Series contender, at least one of. I didn't say they weren't going to add anything. We still have a black hole in the outfield, obviously another offensive piece is going to be added.

If Rios and Quentin hit like they're supposed to (and I don't mean extraordinary years, just what they're capable of in an ordinary season), they should have enough to have a mediocre offense. Which, really, is all they would need to win a bunch of games with their pitching. Now, if those two guys struggle or Konerko struggles, it could be a tough year.

Well, they also need some work in the pen. We're going to playing a lot of close, low-scoring games and as it stands, the bullpen is not going to be up to the challenge.

Craig Grebeck
12-07-2009, 07:54 PM
Well, they also need some work in the pen. We're going to playing a lot of close, low-scoring games and as it stands, the bullpen is not going to be up to the challenge.
Not to mention defense. This team won't pitch near as good as people think if they don't figure out the defense.

Frater Perdurabo
12-07-2009, 08:01 PM
It would be asinine to start Vizquel at DH. He's a defensive specialist and is needed to back up SS, 3B and 2B. It is completely stupid to waste him by starting him for any games at DH (late inning pinch running/pinch hitting is a different story). Then again, Ozzie is the same guy who started BA at DH once.

Craig Grebeck
12-07-2009, 08:04 PM
It would be asinine to start Vizquel at DH. He's a defensive specialist and is needed to back up SS, 3B and 2B. It is completely stupid to waste him by starting him for any games at DH (late inning pinch running/pinch hitting is a different story). Then again, Ozzie is the same guy who started BA at DH once.
And Pablo.

Vizquel at DH is...I don't have the words.

parlaycard
12-07-2009, 08:10 PM
If Rios and Quentin hit like they're supposed to (and I don't mean extraordinary years, just what they're capable of in an ordinary season), they should have enough to have a mediocre offense. Which, really, is all they would need to win a bunch of games with their pitching. Now, if those two guys struggle or Konerko struggles, it could be a tough year.

And if Quentin and Rios hit like they did last year, then what?

1989
12-07-2009, 08:26 PM
And if Quentin and Rios hit like they did last year, then what?

Then 2nd place I guess. Unless Andruw Jones hits like it is 2005

TDog
12-07-2009, 09:56 PM
Rotating bench players there would cripple an already poor offense.

Would signing a player who couldn't play defense improve an already poor defense?

kobo
12-07-2009, 10:19 PM
Would signing a player who couldn't play defense improve an already poor defense?
No, it would improve a poor offense.

TDog
12-07-2009, 11:02 PM
No, it would improve a poor offense.

Then why are people complaining that the Sox aren't looking to sign a player who wouldn't be able to play defense?

Ranger
12-07-2009, 11:25 PM
Not to mention defense. This team won't pitch near as good as people think if they don't figure out the defense.

I think the defense is figured out, for the most part. I don't think they're going to be nearly as bad as they were last year. Alexei should be much more stable, I figure Beckham is more than capable of handling 2B, Teahen should be solid and Konerko already is. The problems last year were on the infield, and they're going into this season a little more settled than last year.

It would be asinine to start Vizquel at DH. He's a defensive specialist and is needed to back up SS, 3B and 2B. It is completely stupid to waste him by starting him for any games at DH (late inning pinch running/pinch hitting is a different story). Then again, Ozzie is the same guy who started BA at DH once.

Yeah, it did happen one time in April of 2007 when Thome was hurt. And since Erstad was the starting CF, Anderson was the DH one game. And after that game, he was sent down for the rest of the season. I guess I don't see this as some sort of huge deal or as some indication that Ozzie doesn't know what he's doing, which seems to be the tone of your post.

And if you think managers don't ocassionally have their less-than-optimal defensive team on the field for various reasons (a player might be feeling too banged up to play the field but feel good enough to take 4 AB's on a given day, for example), you'd be mistaken.

thedudeabides
12-08-2009, 01:48 AM
I think the defense is figured out, for the most part. I don't think they're going to be nearly as bad as they were last year. Alexei should be much more stable, I figure Beckham is more than capable of handling 2B, Teahen should be solid and Konerko already is. The problems last year were on the infield, and they're going into this season a little more settled than last year.



Yeah, it did happen one time in April of 2007 when Thome was hurt. And since Erstad was the starting CF, Anderson was the DH one game. And after that game, he was sent down for the rest of the season. I guess I don't see this as some sort of huge deal or as some indication that Ozzie doesn't know what he's doing, which seems to be the tone of your post.

And if you think managers don't ocassionally have their less-than-optimal defensive team on the field for various reasons (a player might be feeling too banged up to play the field but feel good enough to take 4 AB's on a given day, for example), you'd be mistaken.

Like the crazy game when Joe Crede and then Jermaine Dye ended up playing SS.

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-08-2009, 02:26 AM
I'm not leaping off the edge. Our starting rotation should keep us in games, the only question is whether we can put across enough runs.

Worked in '05. Could they pull it off again? We can only hope.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 02:34 AM
Would signing a player who couldn't play defense improve an already poor defense?
Not when that player doesn't see the field. The White Sox were never a poor defensive team because of Jim Thome or Frank Thomas.

TDog
12-08-2009, 03:56 AM
Not when that player doesn't see the field. The White Sox were never a poor defensive team because of Jim Thome or Frank Thomas.

Actually, the White Sox were a poor defensive team because of Frank Thomas. The play that ended the 2000 season for the White Sox was called to exploit Thomas' poor defensive at first base, where he was playing because Jerry Manuel wanted to get Harold Baines' bat in the lineup without losing Thomas. (Baines, of course, drove in the only run the Sox scored in the game.)

The Sox have people who can DH. It wouldn't help the team to sign someone who could do nothing but DH.

If anything, these complaints are premature.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 04:23 AM
Actually, the White Sox were a poor defensive team because of Frank Thomas. The play that ended the 2000 season for the White Sox was called to exploit Thomas' poor defensive at first base, where he was playing because Jerry Manuel wanted to get Harold Baines' bat in the lineup without losing Thomas. (Baines, of course, drove in the only run the Sox scored in the game.)
Ah, the idiocy of Jerry Manuel. I'd say that's a poor use of his resources. Sitting the far superior Paul Konerko for Harold Baines (who was putrid in his limited time in Chicago in 2000) is stupid. That's not on Frank Thomas; that's on the manager. Putting players in positions to fail because you don't understand their strengths and weaknesses is the cardinal managerial sin. It would be like using Omar Vizquel at designated hitter, zum beispiel.


The Sox have people who can DH. It wouldn't help the team to sign someone who could do nothing but DH.
Actually, it would. If said player is a damn good hitter, it would help a whole hell of a lot. As of now, there are no players on the roster who can hit at the level of a designated hitter without creating a massive hole in the outfield. We have Vizquel, who can back up the entire infield; Nix can play 2nd, Kotsay can (in a pinch) play CF (along with Jones) and 1B. Unfortunately, they are all below average hitters who should not DH more than against the occasional lefty -- in Jones' case.

If anything, these complaints are premature.
When the manager starts talking about putting Vizquel at DH, I take notice. Regardless of the idea's likelihood, its mere speculation is cause enough for concern.

russ99
12-08-2009, 08:25 AM
According to Mark Gonzalez, KW has said that right now Flowers is the leading candidate for #2 catcher

Very doubtful the Sox would waste a top prospect on the bench like that, he's better off in AAA, since he's got more work to do before being a successful hitter in the majors.

Cole Armstrong would be a better choice from within the system.

TDog
12-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Ah, the idiocy of Jerry Manuel. I'd say that's a poor use of his resources. Sitting the far superior Paul Konerko for Harold Baines (who was putrid in his limited time in Chicago in 2000) is stupid. That's not on Frank Thomas; that's on the manager. Putting players in positions to fail because you don't understand their strengths and weaknesses is the cardinal managerial sin. It would be like using Omar Vizquel at designated hitter, zum beispiel.



Actually, it would. If said player is a damn good hitter, it would help a whole hell of a lot. As of now, there are no players on the roster who can hit at the level of a designated hitter without creating a massive hole in the outfield. We have Vizquel, who can back up the entire infield; Nix can play 2nd, Kotsay can (in a pinch) play CF (along with Jones) and 1B. Unfortunately, they are all below average hitters who should not DH more than against the occasional lefty -- in Jones' case.


When the manager starts talking about putting Vizquel at DH, I take notice. Regardless of the idea's likelihood, its mere speculation is cause enough for concern.

Playing Baines over Konerko in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS wasn't idiocy. I initially recalled that Baines doubled in a run, but now, as now as I remember reading about it, Baines doubled to lead off the second and Herbert Perry drove him in with a sacrifice fly. (I attended the first two games but was working during the third.) Both Konerko and Thomas went hitless in the series. Really, the Sox might have won a game if Baines had started in place of Thomas, although people would have considered benching Thomas to be idiocy at the time. I wouldn't classify not benching Thomas as managerial idiocy, however it might have improved the chance of the White Sox winning, and I wouldn't label it idiocy to put Baines at DH in a move that would put Thomas on defense as a poor fielding first baseman and Konerko on the bench considering that Baines got more hits in the series than Thomas and Konerko combined, despite starting only one game. Statistics going into the series notwithstanding. Statistics, of course, are best used after the fact, and by then it's too late.

The problem was that Baines, because knee surgeries prevented him the lateral movement necessary to play defense, was nothing but a DH and Thomas, because he was a defensive liability on defense, should have been limited to the DH role. The team lacked flexibility. There were too many DHs on the team.

There is no reason to get upset with the direction of the White Sox because of statements that the team isn't looking for a hitter who can't play defense. During the 2005 World Series, Carl Everett was the White Sox DH for the games at the Cell, despite having the ability to play the outfield. Of course, that wasn't Plan A, Thomas having been injured, but Everett hit over .400 during the World Series that year without playing the field.

There is no way Vizquel is going to DH, despite a statement made alluding to the possibility before he ever dons a White Sox uniform. It will become apparent this spring that Vizquel no longer can hit. (Two seasons ago in San Francisco, he couldn't hit.) He might get some starts at shortstop early in the season if Ramirez continues to get off to another atrocious start, but if Guillen wants to get Vizquel into the same lineup as Ramirez, Ramirez will be DHing and Vizquel will be at short.

Concern over statements made by Ozzie Guillen in December, months before the roster is set, is wasted energy.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Playing Baines over Konerko in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS wasn't idiocy. I initially recalled that Baines doubled in a run, but now, as now as I remember reading about it, Baines doubled to lead off the second and Herbert Perry drove him in with a sacrifice fly. (I attended the first two games but was working during the third.) Both Konerko and Thomas went hitless in the series. Really, the Sox might have won a game if Baines had started in place of Thomas, although people would have considered benching Thomas to be idiocy at the time. I wouldn't classify not benching Thomas as managerial idiocy, however it might have improved the chance of the White Sox winning, and I wouldn't label it idiocy to put Baines at DH in a move that would put Thomas on defense as a poor fielding first baseman and Konerko on the bench considering that Baines got more hits in the series than Thomas and Konerko combined, despite starting only one game. Statistics going into the series notwithstanding. Statistics, of course, are best used after the fact, and by then it's too late.
Fun with small sample sizes!

The problem was that Baines, because knee surgeries prevented him the lateral movement necessary to play defense, was nothing but a DH and Thomas, because he was a defensive liability on defense, should have been limited to the DH role. The team lacked flexibility. There were too many DHs on the team.
Well, Baines should have been a pinch-hitter in that series, if anything. I probably wouldn't have put him on the 25-man roster. Again, adding a pure DH to this ballclub will not hurt the defense -- which was your point before, I believe.

There is no reason to get upset with the direction of the White Sox because of statements that the team isn't looking for a hitter who can't play defense. During the 2005 World Series, Carl Everett was the White Sox DH for the games at the Cell, despite having the ability to play the outfield. Of course, that wasn't Plan A, Thomas having been injured, but Everett hit over .400 during the World Series that year without playing the field.
Carl Everett was a below average DH. Jim Thome was far superior in his time here.

There is no way Vizquel is going to DH, despite a statement made alluding to the possibility before he ever dons a White Sox uniform. It will become apparent this spring that Vizquel no longer can hit. (Two seasons ago in San Francisco, he couldn't hit.) He might get some starts at shortstop early in the season if Ramirez continues to get off to another atrocious start, but if Guillen wants to get Vizquel into the same lineup as Ramirez, Ramirez will be DHing and Vizquel will be at short.

Concern over statements made by Ozzie Guillen in December, months before the roster is set, is wasted energy.
The fact that he mentioned it is evidence of Ozzie's, well, eccentricity.

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 01:26 PM
Very doubtful the Sox would waste a top prospect on the bench like that, he's better off in AAA, since he's got more work to do before being a successful hitter in the majors.

Cole Armstrong would be a better choice from within the system.

We can add fieldiing to that as well.

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 01:38 PM
Playing Baines over Konerko in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS wasn't idiocy. I initially recalled that Baines doubled in a run, but now, as now as I remember reading about it, Baines doubled to lead off the second and Herbert Perry drove him in with a sacrifice fly. (I attended the first two games but was working during the third.) Both Konerko and Thomas went hitless in the series. Really, the Sox might have won a game if Baines had started in place of Thomas, although people would have considered benching Thomas to be idiocy at the time. I wouldn't classify not benching Thomas as managerial idiocy, however it might have improved the chance of the White Sox winning, and I wouldn't label it idiocy to put Baines at DH in a move that would put Thomas on defense as a poor fielding first baseman and Konerko on the bench considering that Baines got more hits in the series than Thomas and Konerko combined, despite starting only one game. Statistics going into the series notwithstanding. Statistics, of course, are best used after the fact, and by then it's too late.

The problem was that Baines, because knee surgeries prevented him the lateral movement necessary to play defense, was nothing but a DH and Thomas, because he was a defensive liability on defense, should have been limited to the DH role. The team lacked flexibility. There were too many DHs on the team.

I agree with your reasoning.

Manuel benched Konerko several times during the year that season after Baines was re-acquired. He felt PK was not driving in runs the way he could or should have, so there should have been no suprise when it was done in the playoffs.

But Frank's deal was a little different. IIRC, Piniella only pitched to him once in a key RISP situation and walked him eight times in three games. It was Maggs, Manos, PK, and CLee and the rest of the lineup who did not pick up the slack.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Manuel benched Konerko several times during the year that season after Baines was re-acquired. He felt PK was not driving in runs the way he could or should have, so there should have been no suprise when it was done in the playoffs.

Was I surprised? No. Was it stupid? Absolutely.

Starting a poor hitter at DH while sliding a poor fielder to 1B while benching a good hitting, good fielding 1B is stupid.

TDog
12-08-2009, 01:46 PM
Fun with small sample sizes! ...

I don't see how you can complain that Manuel is an idiot because he replaced someone who didn't come close to getting a hit in the 2000 ALDS with someone who doubled and scored the only run in Game 3 of the series. It seemed like an inspired decision at the time -- half an inspired decision, really. If Manuel had benched Thomas (which wasn't going to happen, regardless of the manager), the Sox might have won that game.

And, really, whether or not Jim Thome was a better DH than Carl Everett, and he clearly was, the Sox did better as a team with Carl Everett at DH. Losing Frank Thomas didn't doom the White Sox in 2005.

Unless you only recognize the Pythagorean standings.

thomas35forever
12-08-2009, 02:36 PM
They've been saying this since the beginning, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. This offense is going to suck.
Would you rather have base-clogging power hitters who constantly go for all or nothing? I thought the organization was moving away from those. What do you want?

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 02:38 PM
I don't see how you can complain that Manuel is an idiot because he replaced someone who didn't come close to getting a hit in the 2000 ALDS with someone who doubled and scored the only run in Game 3 of the series. It seemed like an inspired decision at the time -- half an inspired decision, really. If Manuel had benched Thomas (which wasn't going to happen, regardless of the manager), the Sox might have won that game.
It was a stupid thing to do. If I drove home from work blindfolded it would be stupid regardless of whether or not I made it home.

And, really, whether or not Jim Thome was a better DH than Carl Everett, and he clearly was, the Sox did better as a team with Carl Everett at DH. Losing Frank Thomas didn't doom the White Sox in 2005.
No, it didn't. But you probably shouldn't count on a bullpen/rotation/defense as good as 2005.

Unless you only recognize the Pythagorean standings.
I don't really care for or about Pythagorean standings.

TDog
12-08-2009, 07:06 PM
It was a stupid thing to do. If I drove home from work blindfolded it would be stupid regardless of whether or not I made it home. ...

I hope you understand just how bad that analogy is.

I thought getting Baines in the lineup was the right thing to do. I thought so at the time, and I was proved right. Unfortunately, Manuel was unable to do it without hurting the defense. If you have a hitter who can't play the field -- and the 2000 White Sox had at least two of them by October -- you lose flexibility that can help you win games, or at least keep from losing them.

Your reasoning is not so dissimilar from people complaining that the Sox would lose at least 90 games because they traded Carlos Lee -- a real hitter -- for Scott Podsednik. At least wait to see how the team takes shape. I expect Quentin to be the closest thing the Sox have to a regular DH next year, but baseball seasons are full of the unexpected.

Right now you are complaining about hypotheticals.

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 07:15 PM
I hope you understand just how bad that analogy is.

I thought getting Baines in the lineup was the right thing to do. I thought so at the time, and I was proved right. Unfortunately, Manuel was unable to do it without hurting the defense. If you have a hitter who can't play the field -- and the 2000 White Sox had at least two of them by October -- you lose flexibility that can help you win games, or at least keep from losing them.

Your reasoning is not so dissimilar from people complaining that the Sox would lose at least 90 games because they traded Carlos Lee -- a real hitter -- for Scott Podsednik. At least wait to see how the team takes shape. I expect Quentin to be the closest thing the Sox have to a regular DH next year, but baseball seasons are full of the unexpected.

Right now you are complaining about hypotheticals.

Well said. That 2000 playoff team was crippled going in to that series, and it was a wonder they did not get blown out because most of the lineup left their bats at home and there was little flexibility to do anything about it.

I find it so amazing how the arm-chair managers always make these 'I would have done this or that' statements after the fact.

At the same time, I cannot recall any arm-chair managers winning any pennants either.....

hi im skot
12-08-2009, 08:22 PM
Since when do we believe anything that Kenny Williams says?

Jim Shorts
12-08-2009, 08:54 PM
Since when do we believe anything that Kenny Williams says?

Some of us know betta

Frater Perdurabo
12-08-2009, 09:03 PM
Yeah, it did happen one time in April of 2007 when Thome was hurt. And since Erstad was the starting CF, Anderson was the DH one game. And after that game, he was sent down for the rest of the season. I guess I don't see this as some sort of huge deal or as some indication that Ozzie doesn't know what he's doing, which seems to be the tone of your post.

And if you think managers don't ocassionally have their less-than-optimal defensive team on the field for various reasons (a player might be feeling too banged up to play the field but feel good enough to take 4 AB's on a given day, for example), you'd be mistaken.

So can you kindly describe a scenario where it would be appropriate to have Vizquel start as the DH?

And FWIW, Ozzie WAS a fool to put Erstad in CF and BA at DH, even for one game.

Just because he's the Sox manager doesn't mean that Ozzie is incapable of doing something stupid.

Frater Perdurabo
12-08-2009, 09:06 PM
When the manager starts talking about putting Vizquel at DH, I take notice. Regardless of the idea's likelihood, its mere speculation is cause enough for concern.

I completely agree.

Some folks think that Ozzie simply cannot make a bad decision.

Frater Perdurabo
12-08-2009, 09:15 PM
At the same time, I cannot recall any arm-chair managers winning any pennants either.....

This is a pointless argument that begs the question.

By their very definition, "arm chair managers" don't manage baseball teams.

Should we discount what Stephen Hawking says about the universe because he's never going to walk on the moon?

:rolleyes:

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 11:36 PM
This is a pointless argument that begs the question.

By their very definition, "arm chair managers" don't manage baseball teams.

Should we discount what Stephen Hawking says about the universe because he's never going to walk on the moon?

:rolleyes:

It is more accurate to state the 'I would have done.......' after-the-fact second-guessing that is pointless, IMHO.

Frater Perdurabo
12-09-2009, 07:40 AM
It is more accurate to state the 'I would have done.......' after-the-fact second-guessing that is pointless, IMHO.

Pointless, yes, but good discussion fodder. :)

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 07:52 AM
I hope you understand just how bad that analogy is.
Not really. It is counter-intuitive to a) replace a good hitter with a bad one and b) replace a good fielder with a bad one. Manuel did both simultaneously!

I thought getting Baines in the lineup was the right thing to do. I thought so at the time, and I was proved right. Unfortunately, Manuel was unable to do it without hurting the defense. If you have a hitter who can't play the field -- and the 2000 White Sox had at least two of them by October -- you lose flexibility that can help you win games, or at least keep from losing them.

You were not "proved" right. If anything, it sounds like the White Sox defense would have been fine (not to mention the offense) if Manuel would have started the better player in Konerko. I don't think Konerko vs. Baines circa 2000 is even a debate.
Your reasoning is not so dissimilar from people complaining that the Sox would lose at least 90 games because they traded Carlos Lee -- a real hitter -- for Scott Podsednik. At least wait to see how the team takes shape. I expect Quentin to be the closest thing the Sox have to a regular DH next year, but baseball seasons are full of the unexpected.
I would like for the manager to abstain from speculating that he'll start a defensive-minded, weak-hitting veteran at designated hitter. That's all I ask. Is that too much?

Right now you are complaining about hypotheticals.
...that the manager has talked about. With glee.

Well said. That 2000 playoff team was crippled going in to that series, and it was a wonder they did not get blown out because most of the lineup left their bats at home and there was little flexibility to do anything about it.

There's a word for making moves based on a sample size of two games: stupid. Konerko raked in September. Absolutely raked. He was fantastic with RISP. He killed in high leverage situations and hit well with two outs. He deserved to start.*

*Note, all of the splits I cited don't mean **** to me, but probably have some validity in the eyes of a baseball man like Jerry Manuel.

I find it so amazing how the arm-chair managers always make these 'I would have done this or that' statements after the fact.
Yes, I probably would have started the much better player.

At the same time, I cannot recall any arm-chair managers winning any pennants either.....
Ok.

soxinem1
12-09-2009, 08:39 AM
Not really. It is counter-intuitive to a) replace a good hitter with a bad one and b) replace a good fielder with a bad one. Manuel did both simultaneously!


You were not "proved" right. If anything, it sounds like the White Sox defense would have been fine (not to mention the offense) if Manuel would have started the better player in Konerko. I don't think Konerko vs. Baines circa 2000 is even a debate.

I would like for the manager to abstain from speculating that he'll start a defensive-minded, weak-hitting veteran at designated hitter. That's all I ask. Is that too much?


...that the manager has talked about. With glee.


There's a word for making moves based on a sample size of two games: stupid. Konerko raked in September. Absolutely raked. He was fantastic with RISP. He killed in high leverage situations and hit well with two outs. He deserved to start.*

*Note, all of the splits I cited don't mean **** to me, but probably have some validity in the eyes of a baseball man like Jerry Manuel.


Yes, I probably would have started the much better player.


Ok.

I do not think it is fair to fault a manager in a tough situation like this one. After all, what if Baines goes 3 for 3 and helps them win the game?

I also do not believe this incident qualified Manuel as stupid. His lineup of hitters were the ones who were stupid for putting him in that situation.

Was Joe Torre stupid for starting Ronnie Belliard over Orlando Hudson in the playoffs this year?

Was Jim Leyland stupid for starting Ted Power, who relived all year, in an elimination playoff game for PIT back in the 90's?

Was Sparky Anderson stupid for benching Howard Johnson for Marty Castillo at 3B in the 1984 post-season even though Johnson was the better player, played the most at 3B during the season, and Castillo was a catcher by trade?

Was Tony LaRussa stupid for starting untested rookie Alan Benes in a potential playoff series-winning game?

Was LaRussa even dumber for sending Rick Ankiel to the mound two additional times after he kept throwing his pitches in the stands in his first playoff start?

Was LaRussa dumb again for using a rookie setup man as his closer in the playoffs when STL won the World Series in 2006?

Was Jerry Manuel stupid for trying to shake up a lineup that was totally asleep by putting Frank Thomas, who clearly hit better as a 1B than a DH, at 1B and sitting a struggling young hitter for a veteran because he felt the match up worked?

The answer in all of these cases is no. A manager has to go with what he feels is right. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.

I know there is a lot of anti-Manuel feelings on this site, and that is okay.

But I do not think any rational fan can call him stupid for doing what he felt was the best decision for that occasion.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 08:57 AM
I do not think it is fair to fault a manager in a tough situation like this one. After all, what if Baines goes 3 for 3 and helps them win the game?
Which he didn't. What if Konerko did the same? What was more likely, given the situation? A poor hitter does well or a good hitter does well? I'll take the good hitter.

I also do not believe this incident qualified Manuel as stupid. His lineup of hitters were the ones who were stupid for putting him in that situation.
Two games. Too small a sample size to panic and bench one of your best hitters (who was great in September, by the way). It was stupid to react the way he did.

Was Joe Torre stupid for starting Ronnie Belliard over Orlando Hudson in the playoffs this year?
Belliard raked in September. Hudson sucked. Torre didn't set off a chain reaction with this move that removed a quality hitter and replaced a quality defender with a terrible one.

Was Jim Leyland stupid for starting Ted Power, who relived all year, in an elimination playoff game for PIT back in the 90's?
Again, not relevant.

Was Sparky Anderson stupid for benching Howard Johnson for Marty Castillo at 3B in the 1984 post-season even though Johnson was the better player, played the most at 3B during the season, and Castillo was a catcher by trade?
Again, not really familiar with this. They both sucked offensively. What does this have to do with Baines over Konerko, again?

Was Tony LaRussa stupid for starting untested rookie Alan Benes in a potential playoff series-winning game?
Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Was LaRussa even dumber for sending Rick Ankiel to the mound two additional times after he kept throwing his pitches in the stands in his first playoff start?
Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Was LaRussa dumb again for using a rookie setup man as his closer in the playoffs when STL won the World Series in 2006?
Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Was Jerry Manuel stupid for trying to shake up a lineup that was totally asleep by putting Frank Thomas, who clearly hit better as a 1B than a DH, at 1B and sitting a struggling young hitter for a veteran because he felt the match up worked?
1. Yes, he was stupid.
2. I'll take Frank's 1.023 OPS (in over 500 PA, mind you) at DH so long as he never comes anywhere near the field.
3. Do you really think a two game sample constitutes struggling? Konerko was great in 2000, September included. He was not struggling.

The answer in all of these cases is no. A manager has to go with what he feels is right. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.
And often times a manager's "feeling" is not backed by any sort of rational evidence. This is one of those times. Often times they panic, and start inadequate players under the guise of a "lineup shakeup!" because some fans won't fault them because, "Hey! who cares?! He tried to shake it up! At least he's doing something. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something -- and that is very true of baseball managers.

I know there is a lot of anti-Manuel feelings on this site, and that is okay.
You're right, there are a lot of anti-Manuel feelings on this site. I don't really think he was that terrible. It was stupid to start Baines over Konerko, though.

But I do not think any rational fan can call him stupid for doing what he felt was the best decision for that occasion.
Wait. I am irrational? You won't fault the guy because he felt he made the right decision. If I decided to let my children walk to school in subzero weather, because I felt it was right, despite the clear evidence that it may harm their health and driving them to school would be a more viable alternative, would my actions not be justified by such logic?

Is it impossible to criticize anyone in a seat of power?

TDog
12-09-2009, 02:16 PM
Not really. It is counter-intuitive to a) replace a good hitter with a bad one and b) replace a good fielder with a bad one. Manuel did both simultaneously! ....

Your analogy was ridiculous. It wasn't a question of your driving home blindfolded because the previous two days you were unsuccessful in finding your way home, maybe even had run over people, had to call and have your car towed to the front of your house with friends picking you up. Indeed that would have been stupid. Actually, if the above had happened, finding a more experienced driver who drives less frequently than he used to.

In the 2000 ALDS, Baines was a better hitter than Konerko. He was a better hitter than Thomas. Sure it was a small sample size, but postseason baseball is about small sample sizes. Was Guillen stupid for using Willie Harris as a pinch-hitter in Game 4 of the 2005 World Series? Was he stupid for putting Blum into the lineup in Game 3 (essentially he had no choice, but was he forced into a stupid move)?

Manuel made the right move offensively with a roster that was limited defensively. There isn't a moral imperative here where there is an absolute right or wrong. This is baseball, where the right person to get the job done in a given situation may have decidedly worse stats than the person who won't get the job done.

Guillen was obviously joking about using Vizquel as a DH. If he wasn't joking, he was speaking from a position of not having seen Vizquel lately and will change his mind when he sees Vizquel hit and field and is faced both with adding a weak hitter in the lineup and losing the DH if he needs to put the weak hitting defensive specialist in for defense late in the game.

Show outrage if you see Vizquel's name written into the lineup card as the DH. Until then, it is a hypothetical. Don't forget, Guillen knows a lot more about baseball than you do, and he has demonstrated that he likes to yank people's chains.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 02:29 PM
Your analogy was ridiculous. It wasn't a question of your driving home blindfolded because the previous two days you were unsuccessful in finding your way home, maybe even had run over people, had to call and have your car towed to the front of your house with friends picking you up. Indeed that would have been stupid. Actually, if the above had happened, finding a more experienced driver who drives less frequently than he used to.
Agree to disagree. Putting Baines' bat in the lineup would be like having my cataracts-stricken father drive drunk, while I, a sober and not blind young person sit handcuffed to the backseat.

In the 2000 ALDS, Baines was a better hitter than Konerko. He was a better hitter than Thomas. Sure it was a small sample size, but postseason baseball is about small sample sizes. Was Guillen stupid for using Willie Harris as a pinch-hitter in Game 4 of the 2005 World Series? Was he stupid for putting Blum into the lineup in Game 3 (essentially he had no choice, but was he forced into a stupid move)?
No, baseball is all about putting your best players in the game. Postseason baseball is the same. You play to win, you don't play to look like you're trying to shake it up.

Why would Guillen be stupid for using Harris as a pinch-runner? Speed was his skill. That was a no-brainer. Baines simply couldn't hit/field/run and putting him in the lineup forced a bad defender to play 1B. It's quite simple, really.

Blum? Really? Pinch-hitting your 25th man in a late extra innings game is a must.

Manuel made the right move offensively with a roster that was limited defensively. There isn't a moral imperative here where there is an absolute right or wrong. This is baseball, where the right person to get the job done in a given situation may have decidedly worse stats than the person who won't get the job done.
The roster wasn't limited defensively. Konerko>Baines as a hitter. Thomas>Baines as a hitter. Konerko>Thomas as a fielder. Baines going 1 for 3 does not make it the right move. Thomas muffing a play in extra innings absolutely makes it the wrong move.

Guillen was obviously joking about using Vizquel as a DH. If he wasn't joking, he was speaking from a position of not having seen Vizquel lately and will change his mind when he sees Vizquel hit and field and is faced both with adding a weak hitter in the lineup and losing the DH if he needs to put the weak hitting defensive specialist in for defense late in the game.
I would think he's aware of Vizquel's hitting prowess. Christ.

Show outrage if you see Vizquel's name written into the lineup card as the DH. Until then, it is a hypothetical. Don't forget, Guillen knows a lot more about baseball than you do, and he has demonstrated that he likes to yank people's chains.
I'm not really outraged, just surprised someone who is paid a ton of money to know about baseball would even mention it as a possibility.

UChicagoHP
12-09-2009, 02:47 PM
Agree to disagree. Putting Baines' bat in the lineup would be like having my cataracts-stricken father drive drunk, while I, a sober and not blind young person sit handcuffed to the backseat.


No, baseball is all about putting your best players in the game. Postseason baseball is the same. You play to win, you don't play to look like you're trying to shake it up.

Why would Guillen be stupid for using Harris as a pinch-runner? Speed was his skill. That was a no-brainer. Baines simply couldn't hit/field/run and putting him in the lineup forced a bad defender to play 1B. It's quite simple, really.

Blum? Really? Pinch-hitting your 25th man in a late extra innings game is a must.


The roster wasn't limited defensively. Konerko>Baines as a hitter. Thomas>Baines as a hitter. Konerko>Thomas as a fielder. Baines going 1 for 3 does not make it the right move. Thomas muffing a play in extra innings absolutely makes it the wrong move.


I would think he's aware of Vizquel's hitting prowess. Christ.


I'm not really outraged, just surprised someone who is paid a ton of money to know about baseball would even mention it as a possibility.

"The roster wasn't limited defensively. Konerko>Baines as a hitter. Thomas>Baines as a hitter. Konerko>Thomas as a fielder. Baines going 1 for 3 does not make it the right move. Thomas muffing a play in extra innings absolutely makes it the wrong move."

Agreed...as much as I liked Harold, playing him instead of Thomas was ridiculous.

34 Inch Stick
12-09-2009, 03:06 PM
This is a pointless argument that begs the question.

By their very definition, "arm chair managers" don't manage baseball teams.

Should we discount what Stephen Hawking says about the universe because he's never going to walk on the moon?

:rolleyes:

or the earth, for that matter

soxinem1
12-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Which he didn't. What if Konerko did the same? What was more likely, given the situation? A poor hitter does well or a good hitter does well? I'll take the good hitter.

Pure speculation based on what we know now.


Two games. Too small a sample size to panic and bench one of your best hitters (who was great in September, by the way). It was stupid to react the way he did.

If it was two games in a regular season series, maybe your point holds water, but not when you are about to get sent home. And as TDog has poinited out several times, there was no flexibility on that team to do anything else.

Belliard raked in September. Hudson sucked. Torre didn't set off a chain reaction with this move that removed a quality hitter and replaced a quality defender with a terrible one.

But Torre did replace a GG 2B with a utility player not known for his defense. What is your point?


Again, not relevant.

It is relevant because it was a managerial decision.


Again, not really familiar with this. They both sucked offensively. What does this have to do with Baines over Konerko, again?

Because Sparky felt that Castillo was the best choice at the time, just like Manuel.


Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Considering Alan Benes was a rookie with an ERA almost 5.00, yes.


Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Yes, 20-game winner Darryl Kile should have opened the series for STL, not the rookie fifth starter.


Did he start him over a demonstrably better player based on a two-game sample?

Considering Braden Looper had more closing experience than Wainwright, yes. If STL would have lost the series LaRussa's critics would have jumped all over him for using a rookie with career three saves.


1. Yes, he was stupid.
2. I'll take Frank's 1.023 OPS (in over 500 PA, mind you) at DH so long as he never comes anywhere near the field.
3. Do you really think a two game sample constitutes struggling? Konerko was great in 2000, September included. He was not struggling.

Again, all managerial decisions.


And often times a manager's "feeling" is not backed by any sort of rational evidence. This is one of those times. Often times they panic, and start inadequate players under the guise of a "lineup shakeup!" because some fans won't fault them because, "Hey! who cares?! He tried to shake it up! At least he's doing something. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something -- and that is very true of baseball managers.

That was not the issue. You are making it sound like Konerko not playing is the reason why they lost that series. They lost because the ENTIRE STARTING LINEUP didn't do ****.

You're right, there are a lot of anti-Manuel feelings on this site. I don't really think he was that terrible. It was stupid to start Baines over Konerko, though.

Whatever........


Wait. I am irrational? You won't fault the guy because he felt he made the right decision. If I decided to let my children walk to school in subzero weather, because I felt it was right, despite the clear evidence that it may harm their health and driving them to school would be a more viable alternative, would my actions not be justified by such logic?

To take your catch phrase, that is totally irrelevant.

Is it impossible to criticize anyone in a seat of power? Not at all. But Manuel's decision to start Baines over Konerko and let Frank play 1B did not cost them that series. You have your right to disagree with it, but the facts are the facts.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Facts are facts, managers are infallible, blah blah blah. I'll just say agree to disagree.

MisterB
12-09-2009, 04:26 PM
No, baseball is all about putting your best players in the game. Postseason baseball is the same. You play to win, you don't play to look like you're trying to shake it up

And in the postseason you don't have time for a young hitter to try work out of a funk. It was an elimination game, Konerko was 0-9 and hadn't hit a ball out of the infield for 7 straight plate appearances.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 04:34 PM
And in the postseason you don't have time for a young hitter to try work out of a funk. It was an elimination game, Konerko was 0-9 and hadn't hit a ball out of the infield for 7 straight plate appearances.
Christ. 0-9 isn't much of a funk. Baines sucked.

TDog
12-09-2009, 05:58 PM
...

Why would Guillen be stupid for using Harris as a pinch-runner? Speed was his skill. That was a no-brainer. Baines simply couldn't hit/field/run and putting him in the lineup forced a bad defender to play 1B. It's quite simple, really.

Blum? Really? Pinch-hitting your 25th man in a late extra innings game is a must. ...

Of course, Guillen didn't use Harris a pinch runner. He used Harris as a pinch hitter. Harris went to second on a bunt by Podsednik, to third on a ground out by Everett and scored on a single by Dye. And Blum didn't pinch hit. He went in to play second in the top of the 13th before hitting his home run in the top of the 14th.

I can see from your conclusions that you don't know what you are talking about. It is nice to see that you leave clues in the context of your post to make it more obvious.

Mod edit: This is a personal attack. Knock it off.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 06:12 PM
Of course, Guillen didn't use Harris a pinch runner. He used Harris as a pinch hitter. Harris went to second on a bunt by Podsednik, to third on a ground out by Everett and scored on a single by Dye. And Blum didn't pinch hit. He went in to play second in the top of the 13th before hitting his home run in the top of the 14th.

I can see from your conclusions that you don't know what you are talking about. It is nice to see that you leave clues in the context of your post to make it more obvious.

Mod edit: This is a personal attack. Knock it off.
Well, I'm out of here. I misremembered. But this argument has run its course, and as usual you refuse to budge and cite absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. Have a good one, TDog.

oldcomiskey
12-10-2009, 08:21 AM
I think they are getting too caught up in the small ball BS and flexibility rather than waking up and realizing that in order to win at the Cell you have to mash.

What exactly has mashing got us? Nothing. Ill take my chances with that pitching rotation and situational hitting

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2009, 08:24 AM
What exactly has mashing got us? Nothing. Ill take my chances with that pitching rotation and situational hitting
Good hitters, good pitchers and good fielders win. We lack good hitters. We probably lack good fielders, which nullifies our pitching to an extent.

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Good hitters, good pitchers and good fielders win. We lack good hitters. We probably lack good fielders, which nullifies our pitching to an extent.

Well that covers winning in baseball. Look at it this way, there is still a ways to go before ST. We haven't even gotten into the first of the year yet. I think that Hideki would be a great addition along with Crisp. That would give you the leadoff man, the DH, fill a hole in the outfield and give you another backup outfielder. Then it is just plug and play. Get another reliever and away we go.

MisterB
12-10-2009, 01:57 PM
Christ. 0-9 isn't much of a funk.

Over the course of the regular season no, 0-9 isn't much of a funk - but in the playoffs there is no "let's get 'em tomorrow" because there may not be a tomorrow (and for the Sox there wasn't one at that point). You have produce NOW or you go home, simple as that. Konerko was 24 and in his first postseason and it certainly looked like he wasn't responding to the situation very well, so Manuel went with a veteran with a good track record in the playoffs to try to get something going.

Corlose 15
12-10-2009, 09:27 PM
Well that covers winning in baseball. Look at it this way, there is still a ways to go before ST. We haven't even gotten into the first of the year yet. I think that Hideki would be a great addition along with Crisp. That would give you the leadoff man, the DH, fill a hole in the outfield and give you another backup outfielder. Then it is just plug and play. Get another reliever and away we go.

Since they're all players that are linked to the Sox:
1. Matsui
2. Putz
3. Gardner

I'd be fine with that.

Lundind1
12-11-2009, 06:05 PM
Since they're all players that are linked to the Sox:
1. Matsui
2. Putz
3. Gardner

I'd be fine with that.

1 down off that list. I say add another relief pitcher...solid middle to late inning guy there and a two way OF/Leadoff man or OF/DH. I would take OF/DH right now. But we still need a good table setter.

Lip Man 1
12-11-2009, 07:55 PM
The Sun-Times is quoting Kenny directly tonight as saying that the offense is next to be worked on.

Lip