PDA

View Full Version : *Official* Danks sweeps away rain, M's hitters; Sox win 3-2


Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 04:02 PM
Danks!
Paulie!
Discuss!
:)

soxnut1018
04-25-2010, 04:02 PM
:sweep
:bandance::bandance::bandance:
:bliss::bliss::bliss:
kM7C_yNlCLU

Sockinchisox
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
John Danks is a man.

DirtySox
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
So when can we lock up John Danks to a long term deal?

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
Of course, Jenks has to make it interesting after recording the first two outs.

Is this the first time this year the Sox have won when scoring just three runs?

twinslayer
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
In that case, Jenks is an infant

Frankfan4life
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
Another one-run victory. Nice, but stressful.

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
John Danks is pitching like the ace I envision him being eventually. Maybe this is the year he establishes himself as one?

thomas35forever
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
I finally get to use this:
:sweep

That is all.

manders_01
04-25-2010, 04:03 PM
Nice, nice game. Good pitching, a few hits, I like what I saw. Keep it up Sox!!! :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

WhiteSox5187
04-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Woo! Scary there! Bobby should have more faith in his fastball!

getonbckthr
04-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Can people start getting on base for Paulie? He's a machine right now.

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 04:04 PM
So when can we lock up John Danks to a long term deal?

Hopefully soon.

Maybe he's waiting for Jordan to get promoted. At the rate Quentin is hitting, maybe that will be sooner than later.

DaveFeelsRight
04-25-2010, 04:04 PM
see people? there are teams out there with an offense thats worse than us.

Frankfan4life
04-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Three wins in a row. We are officially....ON A ROLL!!!

skobabe8
04-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Time to drink! :gulp:

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 04:05 PM
When was the last time the Sox completed a sweep?

I can't remember it happening in 2009.

October26
04-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Sox win! Sox win! Sox win; Paulie is our hero again. :D: Great pitching again by Johnny Danks!

LITTLE NELL
04-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Can people start getting on base for Paulie? He's a machine right now.

Now on a pace for 76 HRs
Did we just sweep?

Soxman219
04-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Sweet sweep!

sullythered
04-25-2010, 04:06 PM
When was the last time the Sox completed a sweep?

I can't remember it happening in 2009.

Looks like July 1st against Cleveland. Is that possible?

badgerboy1848
04-25-2010, 04:06 PM
John Danks is the ****.......................nuff said!

thomas35forever
04-25-2010, 04:07 PM
Now on pace to win 68 games. We're slowly but surely moving up.

manders_01
04-25-2010, 04:07 PM
Now on a pace for 76 HRs
Did we just sweep?

We did in fact! Feels good, doesn't it? :cool:

SephClone89
04-25-2010, 04:07 PM
Looks like July 1st against Cleveland. Is that possible?

That was during the 7 game winning streak, IIRC. That seems right.

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 04:08 PM
Danks reminds me a little bit of Jack McDowell, definitely in a good way.

I love it when our starter goes eight strong innings and just hands the ball to the closer.

twinsuck
04-25-2010, 04:08 PM
I wish I could have watched!!! Sweeeeeeep!!!!! Let's keep this going!

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 04:08 PM
Nice. Way to stick with the hard stuff on Jr. today, Bobby. Loves me some high heat. Loves me some PK too. Walnuts for all my friends and Mr. Danks gets the well deserved W thanks to Mr Paulie.

Not a lot of offense, but enough.

How :sweep it is...

:soxwin:

:)

:supernana:

Oh and just for good measure and because it just happened...

:twinslose:

:D:

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 04:09 PM
That was during the 7 game winning streak, IIRC. That seems right.

It would be nice to add seven more wins to this current three-game winning streak.

manders_01
04-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Danks reminds me a little bit of Jack McDowell, definitely in a good way.

I love it when our starter goes eight strong innings and just hands the ball to the closer.

Yeah, that's huge.

twinslayer
04-25-2010, 04:10 PM
Nice. Way to stick with the hard stuff on Jr. today, Bobby. Loves me some high heat. Loves me some PK too. Walnuts for all my friends and Mr. Danks gets the well deserved W thanks to Mr Paulie.

Not a lot of offense, but enough.

How :sweep it is...

:soxwin:

:)

:supernana:

Oh and just for good measure and because it just happened...

:twinslose:

:D:

May as well say Best Day EVER!

thomas35forever
04-25-2010, 04:10 PM
Nice. Way to stick with the hard stuff on Jr. today, Bobby. Loves me some high heat. Loves me some PK too. Walnuts for all my friends and Mr. Danks gets the well deserved W thanks to Mr Paulie.

Not a lot of offense, but enough.

How :sweep it is...

:soxwin:

:)

:supernana:

Oh and just for good measure and because it just happened...

:twinslose:

:D:
:supernana::wooty:

MushMouth
04-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Love when Paulie gets on power rolls like this. Old school slugger!:bandance:

russ99
04-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Good deal. Sox Sweep!

We won't get lots of runs every day, so we need to win more of these close ones.

Tragg
04-25-2010, 04:14 PM
Danks can pitch.

harwar
04-25-2010, 04:14 PM
paulie is awesome .. we win and the twins lose .. gaining ground

Konerko05
04-25-2010, 04:14 PM
My anger for Guillen has subsided alot in the last three days. Yeah, that sounds fickle, and it's not just because they won the last three games.

I believe his press conference the other day really woke this team up. I know alot of you think everything Guillen says is a complex genius way to help the team in some fasion. The other day was the first day I actually thought he was completely spot on.

I also liked Thornton warming up the pen with a lefty up, and his visit to the mound to talk to Jenks. Leaving him in showed Jenks he's still the man if he wants to be, but he also let him know if you can't handle this situation someone is right behind him who will. Sorry for that long sentence.

Dan H
04-25-2010, 04:15 PM
Good deal. Sox Sweep!

We won't get lots of runs every day, so we need to win more of these close ones.


Exactly right about winning the close ones. Losing low scoring games has been a Sox staple the last few years. Also it was nice to see one-run wins this weekend.

Quentin looks terrible, though. Bobby gave me a heart attack.

Crestani
04-25-2010, 04:15 PM
Bobby Jenks scares the **** out of me..!!

Over By There
04-25-2010, 04:15 PM
Love it. Let's keep it going in Arlington.

EnglishChiSox
04-25-2010, 04:16 PM
Why couldn't Paulie just wait one more, 3 straight walkoffs would have been awesome. Ah well, a sweep with 2 walkoffs will have do this time round, all with the backend of the rotation as well.

JimmyJames
04-25-2010, 04:16 PM
Danks is officially the next jersey I am buying.

Nice game.

harwar
04-25-2010, 04:19 PM
White Sox have two in the top 5 in home runs in the AL .. small ball is so small i can barely see it

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 04:22 PM
White Sox have two in the top 5 in home runs in the AL .. small ball is so small i can barely see it

I'd like to see our team avg and obp, probably near the bottom if not at the bottom.

Rikirk
04-25-2010, 04:23 PM
PAULIE!!!
Damn ya gotta love tha guy.

:)

Lip Man 1
04-25-2010, 04:23 PM
Yes it's the first time they've won a game scoring three runs or less.

I'm just happy for the sweep and mentally the boost it gives this team. Plus three under is a hell of a lot better from a mental aspect than five under knowing you have to go to Texas (where the Sox struggle) and of course a very good Yankee team.

Lip

soxfanatlanta
04-25-2010, 04:25 PM
They really needed this before the road trip. :gulp:

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 04:30 PM
We could have easily gotten swept this series or at least lost it. Nice to see this team step-up big when they needed to.

shingo10
04-25-2010, 04:36 PM
My anger for Guillen has subsided alot in the last three days. Yeah, that sounds fickle, and it's not just because they won the last three games.

I believe his press conference the other day really woke this team up. I know alot of you think everything Guillen says is a complex genius way to help the team in some fasion. The other day was the first day I actually thought he was completely spot on.

I also liked Thornton warming up the pen with a lefty up, and his visit to the mound to talk to Jenks. Leaving him in showed Jenks he's still the man if he wants to be, but he also let him know if you can't handle this situation someone is right behind him who will. Sorry for that long sentence.


Having Thornton up in the 9th was my favorite part of today. Who cares how it gets done as long as we win. If it means him and Jenks have to split save opportunites so be it. Let's just get wins. Great series. Let's figure out how to play in Texas now.

GoGoCrede
04-25-2010, 04:41 PM
I had a really bad feeling about Griffey that inning, since it seems like ex-Sox players always screw us, but as it turns out, I know nothing.

Ichiro did not have a good series against us, it seemed. Oh well! Same for Byrnes. God, how crappy must the Mariners feel right now? Getting swept by a team with the 2nd worst record in the majors? :smile:

Really good game. Last year's team could never really rise above winning 2 of 3, so this is a good sign. Danks is a stud.

Lundind1
04-25-2010, 04:42 PM
Of course, Jenks has to make it interesting after recording the first two outs.

Is this the first time this year the Sox have won when scoring just three runs?

I'll be honest, I didn't feel any pressure at all at the ballpark with two on and two out in the ninth. I have a renewed confidence in Bobby.

ramblinsoxfan11
04-25-2010, 04:42 PM
Great to see Danks pitching as well as he has been, now if only Buehrle and Peavey could follow his example...

ohthosechisox
04-25-2010, 04:47 PM
Danks is officially the next jersey I am buying.

Good choice! I've had my Danks jersey for a year and a half. :cool:

Great game! I'm glad they were able to get it in. I'm 2-0 on the season - sweet!

Konerko05
04-25-2010, 04:47 PM
I'll be honest, I didn't feel any pressure at all at the ballpark with two on and two out in the ninth. I have a renewed confidence in Bobby.

Jenks is missing bats with his fastball again, which is a really good sign.

Hopefully he can figure out how to snap off a curveball like he used to.

His stuff is actually still pretty good besides that. His 91mph fastballs move alot. His change up is pretty decent as well. There's just something about him blowing fastballs by hitters. Well it's actually probably just because he was better when he was/is doing that.

SoxGirl4Life
04-25-2010, 04:48 PM
Paulie leading the Bigs with 8 dingers! :)

Lundind1
04-25-2010, 04:51 PM
Jenks is missing bats with his fastball again, which is a really good sign.

Hopefully he can figure out how to snap off a curveball like he used to.

His stuff is actually still pretty good besides that. His 91mph fastballs move alot. His change up is pretty decent as well. There's just something about him blowing fastballs by hitters. Well it's actually probably just because he was better when he was/is doing that.

Scoring today, I got him at 96 with a high fastball. The good velocity is going to get this job done with a bit of movement.

I would really like to see this team get more hits. There was a point about the 5th inning that I checked my scoring and we only had 1 hit. This does concern me because without the hits, there are not many runners on base and the small ball thing won't work.

Good game, good series. It wasn't pretty, but these are the games that good teams win. Let's keep the line moving.

johnnyg83
04-25-2010, 04:52 PM
Good win.

If we could hit .250 w/ RISP we'd be dangerous.

TheOldRoman
04-25-2010, 04:54 PM
Now on a pace for 76 HRs
Did we just sweep? Yes, but I think he hits a hot streak in September and ends up with 80.

slavko
04-25-2010, 04:54 PM
Jenks is missing bats with his fastball again, which is a really good sign.

Hopefully he can figure out how to snap off a curveball like he used to.

His stuff is actually still pretty good besides that. His 91mph fastballs move alot. His change up is pretty decent as well. There's just something about him blowing fastballs by hitters. Well it's actually probably just because he was better when he was/is doing that.

Griff had no chance against high heat. Bobby seem to have 3 different fastballs now. He still scares me, did it again today. Palpitations, can do without them.

HITMEN OF 77
04-25-2010, 04:56 PM
Love the sweep! Love it even more since it was against Seattle. Way to go boys!

Konerko05
04-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Griff had no chance against high heat. Bobby seem to have 3 different fastballs now. He still scares me, did it again today. Palpitations, can do without them.

He loves to put runners on with two outs. It's extremely frustrating. He really needs to start keeping guys off the basepaths. His WHIP was 1.7 before today. I don't really feel like doing the math again, but it will be worse in tomorrow's stats. We are always one bloop away from blowing a save/game.

ohthosechisox
04-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Great to see Danks pitching as well as he has been, now if only Buehrle and Peavy could follow his example...

I don't think Buehrle has been that bad except for his last outing. Floyd worries me more, although he was better than his stat line showed on Friday.

jabrch
04-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Jenks is missing bats with his fastball again, which is a really good sign.

This is a recent (last 5 years?) phrase that I don't get at all. The pitcher doesn't "miss bats". The bats miss the ball. The pitcher throws to a target, not to avoid the bat.

What am I missing about this?

Konerko05
04-25-2010, 05:00 PM
What am I missing about this?

Bats.

october23sp
04-25-2010, 05:02 PM
Muge, keep it up.

ChiTownTrojan
04-25-2010, 05:03 PM
see people? there are teams out there with an offense thats worse than us.

Looking up and down the batting average column for the Seattle lineup made me feel a little better about our own situation. They had 5 guys starting today who were under the Mendoza line!

KMcMahon817
04-25-2010, 05:04 PM
Good choice! I've had my Danks jersey for a year and a half. :cool:

Great game! I'm glad they were able to get it in. I'm 2-0 on the season - sweet!

I've had one since he rookie year with the sox. And, my sig all last season was Johnny Danks: Your 2009 Cy Young Award winner. Got a lot of comments on here for that...doesn't look like it was so bold after all.:bandance:

Rikirk
04-25-2010, 05:05 PM
I kinda feel sorry for TCQ, Bacon, and AJ....
They be struggling...nothing but outs. They need in on this party.

soltrain21
04-25-2010, 05:08 PM
Well, that was a nice series. Let's have six more of those series in a row.

ChiTownTrojan
04-25-2010, 05:09 PM
I kinda feel sorry for TCQ, Bacon, and AJ....
They be struggling...nothing but outs. They need in on this party.

Hopefully the wins take some of the pressure off them. They're all capable of much more than they're showing right now.

Rdy2PlayBall
04-25-2010, 05:09 PM
He can't have too good of a season, or the Yankees will want him. I hope we get a home town discount... or we threaten to trade Jordan Danks to Japan. :D:

Great. I was testing so I only got to listen to the final out... stressful, but good. Glad to see a real win steak! :bandance:

SI1020
04-25-2010, 05:09 PM
Woo! Scary there! Bobby should have more faith in his fastball! Especially since it appears at least to me that his velocity is back a little. Mix the heat with the occasional knee buckling curve and he should be fine. He also threw a nice change there in the 9th, the motion said dead red fastball but the pitch wasn't. Jenks is almost there IMO despite making the last two times out too exciting.

soxlady8
04-25-2010, 05:10 PM
Good win !!!!! Bobby is gettin' scary as of late. He seems to be having trouble !! Great to see Konerko hitting well !!! A sweep of the M's is great !!

GlassSox
04-25-2010, 05:12 PM
Very good to get the sweep. Now here's hoping that AJ, TCQ, & TCM can get it going soon.

SI1020
04-25-2010, 05:15 PM
My anger for Guillen has subsided alot in the last three days. Yeah, that sounds fickle, and it's not just because they won the last three games.

I believe his press conference the other day really woke this team up. I know alot of you think everything Guillen says is a complex genius way to help the team in some fasion. The other day was the first day I actually thought he was completely spot on.

I also liked Thornton warming up the pen with a lefty up, and his visit to the mound to talk to Jenks. Leaving him in showed Jenks he's still the man if he wants to be, but he also let him know if you can't handle this situation someone is right behind him who will. Sorry for that long sentence. I like this post and the sentiments describe me to some extent too. Deep down inside I really want to like Ozzie. Let the team play to the man's strengths.

FielderJones
04-25-2010, 05:24 PM
This is a recent (last 5 years?) phrase that I don't get at all. The pitcher doesn't "miss bats". The bats miss the ball. The pitcher throws to a target, not to avoid the bat.

What am I missing about this?

I think "missing bats" is a SABRhead term for high strikeout pitchers. In the Baseball Prospectus / fantasy league world, pitchers who pitch to contact suck because any ball in play is a potential disaster. Contact pitchers like Mark Buehrle could never have success or throw a no-hitter, much less a perfect game, because they hit too many bats. The real world is, of course, different.

Tragg
04-25-2010, 05:26 PM
I think "missing bats" is a SABRhead term for high strikeout pitchers. In the Baseball Prospectus / fantasy league world, pitchers who pitch to contact suck because any ball in play is a potential disaster. Contact pitchers like Mark Buehrle could never have success or throw a no-hitter, much less a perfect game, because they hit too many bats. The real world is, of course, different.
And the least foul tip isn't a missed bat and is equal to a ball knocked 440 over the CF wall: that is, the pitcher has control ONLY over missing the bat, not how well the ball is hit if it touches the bat. It's severely flawed analysis.

jabrch
04-25-2010, 05:29 PM
I think "missing bats" is a SABRhead term for high strikeout pitchers. In the Baseball Prospectus / fantasy league world, pitchers who pitch to contact suck because any ball in play is a potential disaster. Contact pitchers like Mark Buehrle could never have success or throw a no-hitter, much less a perfect game, because they hit too many bats. The real world is, of course, different.

I knew it sounded stupid. Thanks for clarifying. A pitcher has no control over what happens once he releases the ball. He doesn't "miss' the bat. He hits/misses his spot.

konerko 14
04-25-2010, 05:30 PM
imagine how many more runs we would of scored if people could get on base for Paulie, he has 8 homers already!!! most in baseball, but only 14 RBI's

doublem23
04-25-2010, 05:33 PM
I'd like to see our team avg and obp, probably near the bottom if not at the bottom.

Yeah, the longball is the only thing saving this team right now.

We need more home runs!

FielderJones
04-25-2010, 05:34 PM
I knew it sounded stupid. Thanks for clarifying. A pitcher has no control over what happens once he releases the ball. He doesn't "miss' the bat. He hits/misses his spot.

Right, it makes the batter a cardboard cutout who has no adjustment control over the swing plane hit bat takes.

TDog
04-25-2010, 05:37 PM
Yes it's the first time they've won a game scoring three runs or less. ...

That reflects more poorly on the pitching than it does the hitting, considering the team was built around the promise of great starting pitching.

All three wins in this series were last at-bat wins, all with home runs, which is nice to see. In the first two games, the bullpen put the Sox in the hole, but they came back.

The Sox should have had a bigger cushion, wasting a lead-off double by not getting him over to third, and after Konerko doubled to put runners on second and third with none out, the Sox could only tie the game. If Pierzynski grounds out to the right side, the Sox would have taken the lead. People consider that boring, but the way the White Sox are built, they are a winning team if they do those things.

The pressure of getting the runner home from third with one out in the first was taken off with an Adam Moore passed ball. Moore has had a tough time this season, becoming the first catcher since Mark Salas to be called for interference twice in a game and grabbing a ball with his mask in the same series. He is obviously inexperienced and in the majors for his bat after hitting very well in the minors. I was hoping the Sox could take greater advantage.

But there are no complaints with a win.

Fortunately, Danks was on today. Again.

doublem23
04-25-2010, 05:39 PM
I think "missing bats" is a SABRhead term for high strikeout pitchers. In the Baseball Prospectus / fantasy league world, pitchers who pitch to contact suck because any ball in play is a potential disaster. Contact pitchers like Mark Buehrle could never have success or throw a no-hitter, much less a perfect game, because they hit too many bats. The real world is, of course, different.

Missing bats is more used to describe pitchers with a lot of movement on their pitches. Obviously, the best pitch in the world is rendered useless if a guy puts a good swing on it, but generally speaking, more movement = more swings and misses (for good pitchers).

As for your condescending remarks, you do realize Mark Buehrle is a complete anomaly, right? His career is an amazing case study making things work against the odds. Just because ONE GUY has had amazing success that doesn't mean what you can learn from the other, oh, I don't know, tens of thousands who have also played MLB baseball is rendered completely useless. Look at the league leaders for K/9 IP. Notice how they're usually the best pitchers in the league. More K = Better Pitcher. That's a decent rule of thumb, but it doesn't mean its impossible for guys to have success outside of that formula.

This isn't rocket science, guys, you don't have to endorse every little thing BP does to acknowledge that occasionally they are correct.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 05:40 PM
Missing bats is a discernible skill. That isn't even arguable.

doublem23
04-25-2010, 05:40 PM
This is a recent (last 5 years?) phrase that I don't get at all. The pitcher doesn't "miss bats". The bats miss the ball. The pitcher throws to a target, not to avoid the bat.

What am I missing about this?

Pitchers don't throw in straight lines.

doublem23
04-25-2010, 05:43 PM
Not sure how much of this has been talked about, but I really like Ozzie's call to stick with Bobby in the 9th. I'm big on established bullpen roles, so I like Ozzie sticking with Bobby and letting him know that the 9th inning is his. That was gutsy, especially considering the favorable L/L matchup with Thornton I figured Ozzie would want to employ. Even if Griffey tied or won the game for Seattle, I think it was the right call.

Of course, Bobby K'ing Griffey to end the game makes it 10x better. :cool:

BringHomeDaBacon
04-25-2010, 05:44 PM
Barack Obama has a better arm than Juan Pierre

DirtySox
04-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Really? The term "missing bats" is being turned into a shot at Sabermetrics? :rolleyes: Keep reaching.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 05:49 PM
Not sure how much of this has been talked about, but I really like Ozzie's call to stick with Bobby in the 9th. I'm big on established bullpen roles, so I like Ozzie sticking with Bobby and letting him know that the 9th inning is his. That was gutsy, especially considering the favorable L/L matchup with Thornton I figured Ozzie would want to employ. Even if Griffey tied or won the game for Seattle, I think it was the right call.

Of course, Bobby K'ing Griffey to end the game makes it 10x better. :cool:

Honestly, I wanted Thornton. But, I like Ozzies motivation there of challenging Bobby with someone warmed up.

If Bobby needs to think Matt is ready to take his job to perform, then by all means.

doublem23
04-25-2010, 05:53 PM
Honestly, I wanted Thornton. But, I like Ozzies motivation there of challenging Bobby with someone warmed up.

If Bobby needs to think Matt is ready to take his job to perform, then by all means.

If Bobby's going to be the closer, then Bobby should have the 9th inning.

Now, if you don't think Bobby should be the closer, that's a different discussion. But I don't think you do him any favors by saying he's your man and then pulling the rug out from under him when the heat gets turned up.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 05:57 PM
If Bobby's going to be the closer, then Bobby should have the 9th inning.

Now, if you don't think Bobby should be the closer, that's a different discussion. But I don't think you do him any favors by saying he's your man and then pulling the rug out from under him when the heat gets turned up.

I dont think Bobby should be the closer anymore. I think Thornton is more dominant and I dont give a **** that he throws lefty.

TheOldRoman
04-25-2010, 06:01 PM
Honestly, I wanted Thornton. But, I like Ozzies motivation there of challenging Bobby with someone warmed up.

If Bobby needs to think Matt is ready to take his job to perform, then by all means.Remember back to our argument a few days ago. At least you are admitting that Ozzie made the right call. You won't remember this as a big decision Ozzie made that worked out, but you certainly would have remembered it if Jenks would have blown the save. Jenks had put the last two guys on, looked shakey, was facing a lefty, and Thornton was warmed up. And yet, Ozzie gambled that Bobby wasn't going to let three guys on in a row with two outs. Of course, as good as Thornton is, he could have come in and given up a hit to Griffey to lose the game. We will never know. This is one of Ozzie's decisions that turned out right.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Remember back to our argument a few days ago. At least you are admitting that Ozzie made the right call. You won't remember this as a big decision Ozzie made that worked out, but you certainly would have remembered it if Jenks would have blown the save. Jenks had put the last two guys on, looked shakey, was facing a lefty, and Thornton was warmed up. And yet, Ozzie gambled that Bobby wasn't going to let three guys on in a row with two outs. Of course, as good as Thornton is, he could have come in and given up a hit to Griffey to lose the game. We will never know. This is one of Ozzie's decisions that turned out right.

a) I'll remember it. I dont hold back when i think someone did something right.

and b) that assumes that putting thornton in would have failed.

Its easy to make the right decision when either one of them works out.

TDog
04-25-2010, 06:09 PM
I dont think Bobby should be the closer anymore. I think Thornton is more dominant and I dont give a **** that he throws lefty.

I think matchups should determine who closes games. But Thornton does have a blown save in a Sox loss this year, and he lost another game when he got knocked around after coming in with one out none on and the score tied.

If Thornton closed in every save situation, he would make people just as nervous as Jenks does.

fram40
04-25-2010, 06:14 PM
I think matchups should determine who closes games. But Thornton does have a blown save in a Sox loss this year, and he lost another game when he got knocked around after coming in with one out none on and the score tied.

If Thornton closed in every save situation, he would make people just as nervous as Jenks does.

+1

For this bullpen to be as good as possible, Jenks needs to be the closer. An effective closer. If Jenks fails - the entire bullpen will be stressed.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 06:15 PM
I think matchups should determine who closes games. But Thornton does have a blown save in a Sox loss this year, and he lost another game when he got knocked around after coming in with one out none on and the score tied.

If Thornton closed in every save situation, he would make people just as nervous as Jenks does.

Perhaps Thornton wouldnt have got knocked around if he wasnt pitching the day before in a lost cause.

Even with all that, Thorton's numbers are better than Bobbys so far, its just the Sox rallied after Bobby blew yesterday.

TheOldRoman
04-25-2010, 06:20 PM
Missing bats is more used to describe pitchers with a lot of movement on their pitches. Obviously, the best pitch in the world is rendered useless if a guy puts a good swing on it, but generally speaking, more movement = more swings and misses (for good pitchers).

As for your condescending remarks, you do realize Mark Buehrle is a complete anomaly, right? His career is an amazing case study making things work against the odds. Just because ONE GUY has had amazing success that doesn't mean what you can learn from the other, oh, I don't know, tens of thousands who have also played MLB baseball is rendered completely useless. Look at the league leaders for K/9 IP. Notice how they're usually the best pitchers in the league. More K = Better Pitcher. That's a decent rule of thumb, but it doesn't mean its impossible for guys to have success outside of that formula.

This isn't rocket science, guys, you don't have to endorse every little thing BP does to acknowledge that occasionally they are correct.I disagree. Look at last year's (http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_/year/2009/sort/strikeoutsPerNineInnings/type/expanded-2/minip/100) K/9 for starting pitchers. Jonathan Sanchez, Ricky Nolasco, and Chad Gaudin are all ranked in the top 15. Striking out batters could make a pitcher better, but it certainly isn't a rule of thumb that is seldom broken. That is why so many have fallen in love with the AJ Burnetts, Javier Vazquezes and Daniel Cabreras of the world. High strikeout guys can often be wild, walking batters, throwing a lot of pitches and leaving the game early. Of course, we are not talking about Santana or Lincecum, just high strikeout pitchers in general. I might choose a high K pitcher over a low K pitcher if they were similar, but I don't think teams should actively look for high K pitchers.

TheOldRoman
04-25-2010, 06:27 PM
a) I'll remember it. I dont hold back when i think someone did something right.

and b) that assumes that putting thornton in would have failed.

Its easy to make the right decision when either one of them works out.You are ignoring the fact that Thornton could have failed. It isn't a guarantee he would have gotten the out. Matt is a great pitcher, but people have fallen too hard in love with him. He blows leads and loses games like anybody else. Just look at last Saturday. When Bobby does it he is obese, but when Thornton does it its no big deal. And truthfully, if Thornton comes in with runners in first and second and gives up a game losing double, we wouldn't have blamed him much because he came into a mess, couldn't start the inning, and even though Griffey's best days are behind him he is one of the best players ever.

This team is considerably worse with Thornton as closer. Aside from the fact that he hasn't closed regularly and we don't know if he could handle the mental aspect, we lose are best weapon in the bullpen. A lock down lefty is far more valuable than a marginal at best improvement at closer. I know you will probably answer that "righties can get anybody out," but would you want to consistently see Randy Williams facing Mauer or Morneau in the 8th with a one run lead? Thornton gives us WAY more in this role than as a closer.

kevingrt
04-25-2010, 06:33 PM
If we keep on hitting the ball high and far like we did this weekend we could hit about ten HR's in this upcoming series at the Great American Ballpark. Lets hope for more long balls and solid starting pitching.

Nice job by Jenks today too. I don't care how you get the job done, but just do it and keep on chugging.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 06:34 PM
I don't really care who is termed "closer," but I do think Matt is the best reliever we've got, and he shouldn't be reserved for three outs in the ninth. If we're ahead one in the seventh and the bases are loaded, bring Matt in. If Bobby is faltering, bring Matt in. Use him in the most important situations.

TDog
04-25-2010, 06:36 PM
Perhaps Thornton wouldnt have got knocked around if he wasnt pitching the day before in a lost cause.

Even with all that, Thorton's numbers are better than Bobbys so far, its just the Sox rallied after Bobby blew yesterday.

If Thornton were the designated closer, he would often be called upon to pitch on successive days, just as Jenks did today, just as Jenks has done many times in his career. Sometimes Jenks has pitched more than two games in a row.

If you're going to claim Thornton should be the closer, you can't excuse a failure by arguing that he was destined to fail because the idiot manager had him pitch an inning the day before on three day's rest.

I'm not being a Jenks apologist. As I wrote, I would close with the pitcher I thought provided the best matchup for the Sox. But your argument that Thornton failed because he threw one inning in the last four days is one a Thornton apologist would make.

masloan
04-25-2010, 06:39 PM
If Bobby's going to be the closer, then Bobby should have the 9th inning.

Now, if you don't think Bobby should be the closer, that's a different discussion. But I don't think you do him any favors by saying he's your man and then pulling the rug out from under him when the heat gets turned up.

While that is how the game is played (the closer getting the 9th inning) I completely disagree with it. Yes, it worked out today. I personally would have put Thornton in (and yes I know that he could have blown the save). I think there are only a few closers in the game today who should never be questioned in that spot, and Jenks is not one of them. He puts runners on too often, and his control so far this season has been awful (6.4 BB/9 innings).

I do think Jenks needs to remain the closer b/c of the effect moving Thorton would have on the entire bullpen.

cws05champ
04-25-2010, 06:48 PM
Honestly, I wanted Thornton. But, I like Ozzies motivation there of challenging Bobby with someone warmed up.

If Bobby needs to think Matt is ready to take his job to perform, then by all means.

I would have gone to Thorton too. With Griffey not really good against LHP anymore and his decreased bat speed, I thought it was ideal for MT to come in and not have it affect Jenks too much mentally afterwards. I understand you want your closer to know you have confidence in him, but it's about winning games above egos when the team is scuffling.

guillensdisciple
04-25-2010, 06:48 PM
3 1 run victories in a row?

That is so not Sox like. Oh well, keep on giving me proof that you'll be okay please :D

spawn
04-25-2010, 06:53 PM
If we keep on hitting the ball high and far like we did this weekend we could hit about ten HR's in this upcoming series at the Great American Ballpark. Lets hope for more long balls and solid starting pitching.

Nice job by Jenks today too. I don't care how you get the job done, but just do it and keep on chugging.
I'm just glad Bobby challenged him with 3 fastballs instead of trying to trick him. That's what got him in trouble yesterday. He challenged him today. Makes me glad Ozzie came out and talked to him. And I loved watching Bobby mouth "I got him".

TDog
04-25-2010, 07:03 PM
I'm just glad Bobby challenged him with 3 fastballs instead of trying to trick him. That's what got him in trouble yesterday. He challenged him today. Makes me glad Ozzie came out and talked to him. And I loved watching Bobby mouth "I got him".

I missed that, not being able to see the game. It is good to know Jenks does not seem to lack confidence.

It is interesting that today, right about at the same time, two former White Sox hitters, who the team let go, came up for different teams to pinch hit with two out in the ninth, down by a run with the tying run on second base.

Both Griffey and Thome struck out.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 07:12 PM
Missing bats is a discernible skill. That isn't even arguable.

Please clarify. I have no idea how a pitcher can control that skill...

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 07:13 PM
Just because ONE GUY has had amazing success that doesn't mean what you can learn from the other, oh, I don't know, tens of thousands who have also played MLB baseball is rendered completely useless. Look at the league leaders for K/9 IP. Notice how they're usually the best pitchers in the league. More K = Better Pitcher. That's a decent rule of thumb, but it doesn't mean its impossible for guys to have success outside of that formula.

I'll take Mark Buehrle, and you can take Javier Vazquez. :tongue:

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 07:16 PM
Please clarify. I have no idea how a pitcher can control that skill...

Bugs Bunny could, especially with his "slowball." :tongue:

rwcescato
04-25-2010, 07:19 PM
Danks!
Paulie!
Discuss!
:)

Danks is the ace of this team and he will be for years to come. Hows Brandon McCarthy doing these days.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 07:20 PM
Bugs Bunny could, especially with his "slowball." :tongue:

Which IIRC still required the batters to swing said bat...

Pitchers can no more miss a bat than they can hit a bat, though they both actually can be attempted and actually a pitcher could miss bats all the time by winding up and firing the ball straight in to the grass at the edge of the mound repeatedly which would make it impossible for the ball to ever contact a bat.

I realize it's just an expression about pitchers who have a lot of motion on their pitches or tend to have a high K rate, but to defend it as a quantifiable skill is simply silly.

johnnyg83
04-25-2010, 07:20 PM
Danks is the ace of this team and he will be for years to come. Hows Brandon McCarthy doing these days.

He's a FA after this year. Might be an ace for someone else.

SoxFan1979
04-25-2010, 07:23 PM
Sweet Sweet Sweep! :dtroll::dtroll::bandance::bandance:

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 07:23 PM
He's a FA after this year. Might be an ace for someone else.

I think he's still arbitration-eligible, though.

ilsox7
04-25-2010, 07:23 PM
He's a FA after this year. Might be an ace for someone else.

He is not a FA until 2013.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 07:31 PM
Which IIRC still required the batters to swing said bat...

Pitchers can no more miss a bat than they can hit a bat, though they both actually can be attempted and actually a pitcher could miss bats all the time by winding up and firing the ball straight in to the grass at the edge of the mound repeatedly which would make it impossible for the ball to ever contact a bat.

I realize it's just an expression about pitchers who have a lot of motion on their pitches or tend to have a high K rate, but to defend it as a quantifiable skill is simply silly.
That's bull****. It is a repeatable skill that is evident statistically. Call it "inducing whiffs," call it "missing bats," whatever you want to term it: there are pitchers out there who are good at throwing pitches that result in swinging strikes. Why argue against that?

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 07:31 PM
Please clarify. I have no idea how a pitcher can control that skill...
Just saw this. By having good stuff and command.

johnnyg83
04-25-2010, 07:32 PM
He is not a FA until 2013.

Oh, my. You've just made my night.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 07:37 PM
That's bull****. It is a repeatable skill that is evident statistically. Call it "inducing whiffs," call it "missing bats," whatever you want to term it: there are pitchers out there who are good at throwing pitches that result in swinging strikes. Why argue against that?

It's really just semantics in the end. The issue I and others have with the expression is that it makes the batter a passive object as if they have no control over the outcome - the cardboard cutout as was noted earlier in this thread.

In the end the ball misses the bat 99.999% of the time the batter doesn't swing so it's a poorly worded expression, IMO that's all. In the end it's just a new phrase for strikeout artist really...

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 07:44 PM
It's really just semantics in the end. The issue I and others have with the expression is that it makes the batter a passive object as if they have no control over the outcome - the cardboard cutout as was noted earlier in this thread.

In the end the ball misses the bat 99.999% of the time the batter doesn't swing so it's a poorly worded expression, IMO that's all. In the end it's just a new phrase for strikeout artist really...
That doesn't make sense.

MetroPD
04-25-2010, 07:56 PM
How about that Carlos Quentin? Thankfully we have Jones and Paulie putting good wood on the ball.

tstrike2000
04-25-2010, 08:00 PM
Since it's the one thing working, keep the homer's coming.

TDog
04-25-2010, 08:07 PM
... In the end the ball misses the bat 99.999% of the time the batter doesn't swing so it's a poorly worded expression, IMO that's all. In the end it's just a new phrase for strikeout artist really...

That's exactly how I feel about it. I see it as a fashionable expression that had a fresh sound to it at first because it reverses the process of hitting a baseball. Ken Harrelson does something similar when he tells you how many hits someone hot and refers not to the home runs, but the ones that stayed in the park.

Now I just find the expression cliche.

If you watch a lot of Class A ball, you'll see hardthrowing pitchers who average 2 strikeouts an inning, but also average at least two walks. I guess they miss a lot of bats, but judging from their ERA, when they don't, the ball misses a lot of leather.

MARTINMVP
04-25-2010, 08:08 PM
Today's game was the one to be at! It was a bit cold but the bitter sweet feeling of a sweep at the end and feeling this surge of momentum was worth it. Really hoping that the warmer weather in Texas will help bring our bats to life.

GoSox2K3
04-25-2010, 08:11 PM
How about that Carlos Quentin? Thankfully we have Jones and Paulie putting good wood on the ball.

If the Sox are going to do be anything better than mediocre this year, Quentin needs to turn things around.

Right now, Quentin, Pierre, AJ, Beckham and Ramirez are just killing us. There are too many spots in that lineup that seem like automatic outs.

Oh, and Peavy needs to snap out of it too. If he's going to pull a Barry Zito on us this year, then we are toast.

The sweep was great this weekend, but I don't expect Texas and NY to exactly roll over for us.

KMcMahon817
04-25-2010, 08:18 PM
Today's game was the one to be at! It was a bit cold but the bitter sweet feeling of a sweep at the end and feeling this surge of momentum was worth it. Really hoping that the warmer weather in Texas will help bring our bats to life.

I really think this could wake up Beckham, TCM and hopefully Quentin, which is much needed.

Frater Perdurabo
04-25-2010, 08:24 PM
It makes complete sense to say that a pitcher throws with a sufficiently confusing mix of velocity, location and movement to cause hitters to miss a lot when they swing.

But as an abbreviation, "missing bats" doesn't properly describe what's happening or why it's significant.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 08:27 PM
That's exactly how I feel about it. I see it as a fashionable expression that had a fresh sound to it at first because it reverses the process of hitting a baseball. Ken Harrelson does something similar when he tells you how many hits someone hot and refers not to the home runs, but the ones that stayed in the park.

Now I just find the expression cliche.

If you watch a lot of Class A ball, you'll see hardthrowing pitchers who average 2 strikeouts an inning, but also average at least two walks. I guess they miss a lot of bats, but judging from their ERA, when they don't, the ball misses a lot of leather.

Ichiro misses about as much leather as any other hitter in the game... You just coined the next hot phrase...:D:

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 08:28 PM
If Thornton were the designated closer, he would often be called upon to pitch on successive days, just as Jenks did today, just as Jenks has done many times in his career. Sometimes Jenks has pitched more than two games in a row.

If you're going to claim Thornton should be the closer, you can't excuse a failure by arguing that he was destined to fail because the idiot manager had him pitch an inning the day before on three day's rest.

I'm not being a Jenks apologist. As I wrote, I would close with the pitcher I thought provided the best matchup for the Sox. But your argument that Thornton failed because he threw one inning in the last four days is one a Thornton apologist would make.

A closer wouldnt be asked to come in when the team is in a lost cause unless he hasnt been getting work and there is a day off coming.

In any case, I'll just stick with the fact that Thorton has better numbers this year and all of 2009 with 2008 being a bit of a wash.

If Bobby is such a great closer, he can get out mauer and morneau in the 8th.

I prefer to base the pitching on matchups as well, but if we MUST have a closer, I would prefer Matt, our best reliever, to do it.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 08:29 PM
Someone just tell me how the batter is made a passive object by the phrase.

JB98
04-25-2010, 08:36 PM
Rain and traffic jams today, but it was all worth it because the Sox won.

I thought it was interesting when Ozzie went to the mound in the eighth, but decided to leave Danks in. It obviously worked out well, but that's the type of decision Ozzie used to make in 2004 and 2005 with great regularity.

As time has gone on, Ozzie has managed more "by the book," and I believe that it has worked to his detriment. Sticking with Danks was more of a "gut feel" move. It seems like our manager is right more often than not when he manages that way. When he does all that lefty-righty, by-the-book bull****, it comes back to haunt him and the Sox.

Thumbs up to Ozzie for trusting Danks in a tough spot. Johnny is obviously pitching very well right now.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 08:37 PM
A closer wouldnt be asked to come in when the team is in a lost cause unless he hasnt been getting work and there is a day off coming.

In any case, I'll just stick with the fact that Thorton has better numbers this year and all of 2009 with 2008 being a bit of a wash.

If Bobby is such a great closer, he can get out mauer and morneau in the 8th.

I prefer to base the pitching on matchups as well, but if we MUST have a closer, I would prefer Matt, our best reliever, to do it.

Thornton has the role of not only the setup man, but being a guy you call on to get out guys like Mauer who happen to hit left handed. The Sox only have one other lefty in the pen - Williams so if they move Thornton to closer, Williams becomes your primary LHP out of the pen.

TDog
04-25-2010, 08:38 PM
A closer wouldnt be asked to come in when the team is in a lost cause unless he hasnt been getting work and there is a day off coming.

In any case, I'll just stick with the fact that Thorton has better numbers this year and all of 2009 with 2008 being a bit of a wash.

If Bobby is such a great closer, he can get out mauer and morneau in the 8th.

I prefer to base the pitching on matchups as well, but if we MUST have a closer, I would prefer Matt, our best reliever, to do it.

And yet you insist that it wasn't Thornton's fault that he didn't have enough rest to get two outs without giving up a run with no one on base because he pitched one inning in the last four games.

I don't believe in the closer mentality. I don't believe either Jenks or Thornton should be the closer per se. There are times I would go with Jenks and there are times I would go with Thornton. There are games when it is more important for Thornton to get out of the trouble before the ninth. And in those cases, he couldn't be used as a closer.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Bobby Jenks pitched an inning in a losing cause after Matt Thornton pitched an inning in a losing cause, and he would have pitched on April 17 as well if Thornton had not lost the game. At the time I believed Guillen wanted to get them some work. Both pitchers had not pitched in four days.

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 08:44 PM
Nice to see that we didn't get the classic Sunday lineup from last year. This could have been a whole different game. Good for Ozzie to stick with the regulars.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 08:55 PM
Thornton has the role of not only the setup man, but being a guy you call on to get out guys like Mauer who happen to hit left handed. The Sox only have one other lefty in the pen - Williams so if they move Thornton to closer, Williams becomes your primary LHP out of the pen.

You dont have to be a left handed pitcher to get a left handed hitter out. if they were scheduled in the 9th, Jenks would still get the ball. Theres no reason we cant have an 8th inning guy who does the 8th. There is absolutely NO reason we need to use a crappy pitcher like Williams just because he's a lefty.


And yet you insist that it wasn't Thornton's fault that he didn't have enough rest to get two outs without giving up a run with no one on base because he pitched one inning in the last four games.

I don't believe in the closer mentality. I don't believe either Jenks or Thornton should be the closer per se. There are times I would go with Jenks and there are times I would go with Thornton. There are games when it is more important for Thornton to get out of the trouble before the ninth. And in those cases, he couldn't be used as a closer.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Bobby Jenks pitched an inning in a losing cause after Matt Thornton pitched an inning in a losing cause, and he would have pitched on April 17 as well if Thornton had not lost the game. At the time I believed Guillen wanted to get them some work. Both pitchers had not pitched in four days.

Tdog, instead of harping on the same thing you previously said, how about you go to this, that i wrote in response to your post.

In any case, I'll just stick with the fact that Thorton has better numbers this year and all of 2009 with 2008 being a bit of a wash.

Better numbers. This year and last. So you can stop talking about that one game where Thorton lost the game and focus on a whole season +

ChiSoxGirl
04-25-2010, 08:59 PM
I'm going to make it simple. I loved everything about today. Everything. That is all.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 09:10 PM
You dont have to be a left handed pitcher to get a left handed hitter out. if they were scheduled in the 9th, Jenks would still get the ball. Theres no reason we cant have an 8th inning guy who does the 8th. There is absolutely NO reason we need to use a crappy pitcher like Williams just because he's a lefty.

No if Williams were the only option you might well indeed go with a RHP, but Mauer's 3-year split show his OPS is about 80 points lower against LHP than it is against RHP with a slightly higher K-rate to boot.

So yeah, you could ignore the conventional wisdom and throw out a RHP in a clutch situation with one of the top LHH coming to the plate in the 8th leading by a run and men on first and second and two away (again, for example) but I doubt most managers would make that choice given an option.

Shutting down LH power hitters late in the game is something that many teams try to do. It's been that way for a long time. Ideally the Sox have both Putz and Thornton to go man for man in the 8th if necessary then Bobby takes the 9th. If you move Thornton to the closer role, you lose that capability and most managers prefer to have that option.

JB98
04-25-2010, 09:15 PM
If Jenks were to lose his job as closer (let's hope not), I would think either Putz or maybe even Santos would be in line to take over. I really doubt they would want to take Thornton out of his seventh/eighth inning role.

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 09:22 PM
If Jenks were to lose his job as closer (let's hope not), I would think either Putz or maybe even Santos would be in line to take over. I really doubt they would want to take Thornton out of his seventh/eighth inning role.

Santos and Putz have worked well in that role as well.

I think Putz is first in line probably given his experience as closer. I wouldn't be surprised if Ozzie starts easing Santos into the role, having him pitch in the 9th inning in a game without a chance for a save and then bringing in in games with a 2 or 3 run lead.

It's Dankerific
04-25-2010, 09:47 PM
No if Williams were the only option you might well indeed go with a RHP, but Mauer's 3-year split show his OPS is about 80 points lower against LHP than it is against RHP with a slightly higher K-rate to boot.

So yeah, you could ignore the conventional wisdom and throw out a RHP in a clutch situation with one of the top LHH coming to the plate in the 8th leading by a run and men on first and second and two away (again, for example) but I doubt most managers would make that choice given an option.

Shutting down LH power hitters late in the game is something that many teams try to do. It's been that way for a long time. Ideally the Sox have both Putz and Thornton to go man for man in the 8th if necessary then Bobby takes the 9th. If you move Thornton to the closer role, you lose that capability and most managers prefer to have that option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're you not with the posters that stated those sorts of statistics aren't really worth anything because the situations are always different when discussing if its better to have 0 outs and a man on first or 1 out and a man on 2nd?

Mauer's OPS split is against an average of all pitchers. It doesnt account for the difference between reliever and starter either. It certainly doesnt account for having a below league average LHP like Williams.

I'll take a good pitcher over a good statistical split EVERY TIME. Perhaps you disagree, but I don't understand how that analysis would sway someone (if not you) from using the best available pitcher but not for not bunting and giving away an out for a worse result, statistically.

Tragg
04-25-2010, 09:49 PM
Someone just tell me how the batter is made a passive object by the phrase.
Not by the phrase, but by the analysis.

Missing bats is a discernible skill. That isn't even arguable.
But not the sole objective measure of pitcher effectiveness, as is advertised.

voodoochile
04-25-2010, 10:03 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're you not with the posters that stated those sorts of statistics aren't really worth anything because the situations are always different when discussing if its better to have 0 outs and a man on first or 1 out and a man on 2nd?

Mauer's OPS split is against an average of all pitchers. It doesnt account for the difference between reliever and starter either. It certainly doesnt account for having a below league average LHP like Williams.

I'll take a good pitcher over a good statistical split EVERY TIME. Perhaps you disagree, but I don't understand how that analysis would sway someone (if not you) from using the best available pitcher but not for not bunting and giving away an out for a worse result, statistically.

I think there are definitely times you want to have a shut down lefty in the pen to go after a strong left handed hitter in a crucial situation. I think the same thing for having a shut down right handed reliever. The Sox have several guys who can do that from the right side (Putz, Jenks, Santos (at least in theory)) but only one guy from the left - Thornton. Making Thornton the closer makes the bullpen less flexible and I think that's as necessary as anything.

I agree and obviously Ozzie does too that occasionally having Thornton start the ninth is a good thing if a few strong LHH are coming up. But for the most part I don't have a problem with Bobby being the closer at the moment either. I think he's going to be fine even if he's struggling a bit now...

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 10:04 PM
Not by the phrase, but by the analysis.


But not the sole objective measure of pitcher effectiveness, as is advertised.
It's not advertised as such. Some folks think Bobby's more effective when he's inducing whiffs.

There are many, many measures of effective pitching -- no ****.

TDog
04-25-2010, 10:11 PM
No if Williams were the only option you might well indeed go with a RHP, but Mauer's 3-year split show his OPS is about 80 points lower against LHP than it is against RHP with a slightly higher K-rate to boot.

So yeah, you could ignore the conventional wisdom and throw out a RHP in a clutch situation with one of the top LHH coming to the plate in the 8th leading by a run and men on first and second and two away (again, for example) but I doubt most managers would make that choice given an option.

Shutting down LH power hitters late in the game is something that many teams try to do. It's been that way for a long time. Ideally the Sox have both Putz and Thornton to go man for man in the 8th if necessary then Bobby takes the 9th. If you move Thornton to the closer role, you lose that capability and most managers prefer to have that option.

This is a point that should be obvious, but sadly, it will probably require repeating until failures by the Sox bullpen against tough lefties with no southpaw available inspire people to call Guillen an idiot for not having a southpaw available.

Brian26
04-25-2010, 10:28 PM
I also liked Thornton warming up the pen with a lefty up, and his visit to the mound to talk to Jenks. Leaving him in showed Jenks he's still the man if he wants to be, but he also let him know if you can't handle this situation someone is right behind him who will. Sorry for that long sentence.

That could have been a monumental point in Sox history. I can't remember Jenks ever being lifted while the Sox still had the lead in a game.

Brian26
04-25-2010, 10:29 PM
Quentin looks terrible, though. Bobby gave me a heart attack.

Hopefully Quentin will come around. That walk he drew yesterday before the Rios HR was huge.

Brian26
04-25-2010, 10:32 PM
Good win !!!!! Bobby is gettin' scary as of late. He seems to be having trouble !! Great to see Konerko hitting well !!! A sweep of the M's is great !!

"As of late" as in the last two and a half years?

Brian26
04-25-2010, 10:33 PM
Yeah, the longball is the only thing saving this team right now.

We need more home runs!

More dingers, and someone needs to teach Alexei to hit the damn ball to the right side with a runner on 2nd with no outs.

Brian26
04-25-2010, 10:38 PM
I don't really care who is termed "closer," but I do think Matt is the best reliever we've got, and he shouldn't be reserved for three outs in the ninth. If we're ahead one in the seventh and the bases are loaded, bring Matt in. If Bobby is faltering, bring Matt in. Use him in the most important situations.

If it was the 7th game of the World Series and we needed that out with Griffey at the plate, I would have brought Thornton in and told him to throw nothing but high heat on the inside half.

I noticed Griffey had backed off the plate today about six inches to try to catch up to the inside fastball he had trouble with yesterday. We're lucky that he didn't take Jenks out of the park with a three run homer in the 9th. None of Jenks' pitches were as high as they should have been, and that first fastball he threw was wheel-house. Griffey, thankfully, was taking all the way.

Being an early regular season game, I can understand the decision to stick with Bobby.

Tragg
04-25-2010, 10:51 PM
It's not advertised as such. Some folks think Bobby's more effective when he's inducing whiffs.

There are many, many measures of effective pitching -- no ****.
Tell that to BP, particularly the writers they brought on board this year.

BadBobbyJenks
04-25-2010, 10:58 PM
When did Bobby start throwing a change up?

Danks seems to finally have complete command of his change and the results have been spectacular. He is just nasty.

AJ needs to be batting 8th. The L/R/L/R thing is a joke. Give me good hitters in important spots in the lineup.

VMSNS
04-25-2010, 11:02 PM
I was at today's game (first game of the season), and I'm glad we got the sweep. Feels good to finally win a series. Danks looked good and managed to limit some damage that could have been done after that error by Rios.

We still can't hit with runners in scoring position, and I have absolutely no idea why AJ is in the 5 spot. He looks ice-cold. Hopefully he can get it together. Bobby also continues to make things interesting, although his velocity today seemed much higher than his usual 91-92 mph, so that's a good sign. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach once I saw that Griffey was up, but thankfully he wiffed at the high heat.

Good game. Let's build some momentum and get out of this hole we started in.

Craig Grebeck
04-25-2010, 11:09 PM
Tell that to BP, particularly the writers they brought on board this year.
Link me.

You're not arguing with BP, you're arguing with me.

slavko
04-25-2010, 11:51 PM
I think matchups should determine who closes games. But Thornton does have a blown save in a Sox loss this year, and he lost another game when he got knocked around after coming in with one out none on and the score tied.

If Thornton closed in every save situation, he would make people just as nervous as Jenks does.

They make me equally nervous. I don't think Matt has the "essentials' to close.

It makes complete sense to say that a pitcher throws with a sufficiently confusing mix of velocity, location and movement to cause hitters to miss a lot when they swing.

But as an abbreviation, "missing bats" doesn't properly describe what's happening or why it's significant.

Try to turn a phrase, even a stale one, and it generates 50 posts.

Barack Obama has a better arm than Juan Pierre Better OBP too. If [name withheld] were leading off instead of Noodle Arm, we'd be capable of playing small ball. Was Jerry Owens this rotten of a thrower?

"As of late" as in the last two and a half years? That my feeling. LOL.

BadBobbyJenks
04-25-2010, 11:55 PM
Was anyone else lip reading when Ozzie came to talk to Bobby?

I got this ****er, I got this ****er.

It's Dankerific
04-26-2010, 03:04 AM
This is a point that should be obvious, but sadly, it will probably require repeating until failures by the Sox bullpen against tough lefties with no southpaw available inspire people to call Guillen an idiot for not having a southpaw available.

In JJ Putz's last fully healthy year, 2007, the lefty OPS against him was .449 (versus .455 in righties).

Williams' lefty OPS against this year is .734, the previous 3 years .549.

Williams has very little history. Santos in very limited duty this year has lefty OPS against .258.

The point should be obvious, but sadly, people here can't figure out it doesnt matter what ****ing hand you throw with, but whether you get people out.

CLUBHOUSE KID
04-26-2010, 07:44 AM
I knew it sounded stupid. Thanks for clarifying. A pitcher has no control over what happens once he releases the ball. He doesn't "miss' the bat. He hits/misses his spot.

Exactly.

Carolina Kenny
04-26-2010, 08:10 AM
Rain and traffic jams today, but it was all worth it because the Sox won.

I thought it was interesting when Ozzie went to the mound in the eighth, but decided to leave Danks in. It obviously worked out well, but that's the type of decision Ozzie used to make in 2004 and 2005 with great regularity.

As time has gone on, Ozzie has managed more "by the book," and I believe that it has worked to his detriment. Sticking with Danks was more of a "gut feel" move. It seems like our manager is right more often than not when he manages that way. When he does all that lefty-righty, by-the-book bull****, it comes back to haunt him and the Sox.

Thumbs up to Ozzie for trusting Danks in a tough spot. Johnny is obviously pitching very well right now.

A great observation.

guillensdisciple
04-26-2010, 09:16 AM
Anyone else envision a cy young for mr. Danks in the near future?

khan
04-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Let me first state this:

I'm PLEASED with the outcome of this past weekend. I'm overjoyed at the sweep. About as overjoyed as a father whose child finally figured out potty training. Or, if you like, the dog owner whose pet has finally learned not to crap inside the house.


Having stated this, I remain concerned about this team. They faced a weak-hitting team that lost one of their starting 8 due to injury. They didn't face Lee or Hernandez, or any non-descript pitcher "they'd never seen before." The lineup is still hitting like **** for the most part. The bullpen was unnecessarily leaky.

And yet, they still needed late-inning heroics that go SO counter to how the team is built to pull out 2 of the 3 games.


Here's hoping that the lineup can quickly get out of it's funk, and SOON. Here's hoping for even MEDIOCRE situational hitting. I hope for these things because I don't think that this team will be able to continually escape **** ups by Jenks. I root for these things because this team won't get to face the oppositions #3, 4, and 5 SPs in each and every series.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2010, 11:11 AM
Khan:

I know Ozzie's very concerned about their reliance on home runs to score runs. He talked about it again after yesterday's game and there were stories in the newspapers today about his comments.

And their hitting with runners in scoring position is horrifically bad. The Sox went 0-for-10 with runners in scoring position yesterday, falling to .143 in that category in the last 10 games.

Lip

Hitmen77
04-26-2010, 11:37 AM
Khan:

I know Ozzie's very concerned about their reliance on home runs to score runs. He talked about it again after yesterday's game and there were stories in the newspapers today about his comments.

And their hitting with runners in scoring position is horrifically bad. The Sox went 0-for-10 with runners in scoring position yesterday, falling to .143 in that category in the last 10 games.

Lip

Same old White Sox problem. Players come and go and we still chronically leave runners stranded in scoring position.

voodoochile
04-26-2010, 12:28 PM
Same old White Sox problem. Players come and go and we still chronically leave runners stranded in scoring position.

Well we may not be getting hits, but we did get some guys home this weekend from 3rd with less than two outs and those runs turned out to be crucial in 3 tightly contested games.

JermaineDye05
04-26-2010, 12:51 PM
Anyone else envision a cy young for mr. Danks in the near future?

That was my belief when his change-up which was a work in progress in ST 2007 and then became his best pitch that year. In 2008 he came up with a cutter and now that's his second best pitch.

From what I've read from experts, many envision him as a future ace/cy young winner.

It's Dankerific
04-26-2010, 12:53 PM
From what I've read from experts, many envision him as a future ace/cy young winner.

Thats right. I've always known.

TDog
04-26-2010, 01:44 PM
Well we may not be getting hits, but we did get some guys home this weekend from 3rd with less than two outs and those runs turned out to be crucial in 3 tightly contested games.

I thought I was the only fan who cared about this.

The White Sox were 2-for-6 on Saturday with runners in scoring position, though, which is a heck of a lot better than their team batting average.

Hits with runners in scoring postion don't always lead to runs, though. That is true for every team in the baseball, not just the White Sox. In the end, scoring the runs is important. Adam Jones yesterday got a hit with a man on third, but had he grounded out up the middle, there would have been no less damage -- same result but not looking as good on the RISP BA.

asindc
04-26-2010, 01:52 PM
I thought I was the only fan who cared about this.

The White Sox were 2-for-6 on Saturday with runners in scoring position, though, which is a heck of a lot better than their team batting average.

Hits with runners in scoring postion don't always lead to runs, though. That is true for every team in the baseball, not just the White Sox. In the end, scoring the runs is important. Adam Jones yesterday got a hit with a man on third, but had he grounded out up the middle, there would have been no less damage -- same result but not looking as good on the RISP BA.

You are definitely not alone on this. HRs, SFs, sac bunts (no matter who does it), groundouts up the middle, HBP-steal-hit-passed ball (Pierre in 1st yesterday), bases loaded walk,... I don't care how it gets done, as long as it does.

I think the fact that so many players fail in fundamental situations that don't necessary require that the ball be hit hard where no one can catch is due to baseball management's (not just the Sox) insistence on basing compensatiion on easily quantifiable numbers such as HRs, hits, RBI, etc. If TCQ would get as much credit for an RBI sac bunt as he does for scoring that same runner from 3rd on a double to the gap, I imagine that he would be a better bunter.

voodoochile
04-26-2010, 01:56 PM
I thought I was the only fan who cared about this.

The White Sox were 2-for-6 on Saturday with runners in scoring position, though, which is a heck of a lot better than their team batting average.

Hits with runners in scoring postion don't always lead to runs, though. That is true for every team in the baseball, not just the White Sox. In the end, scoring the runs is important. Adam Jones yesterday got a hit with a man on third, but had he grounded out up the middle, there would have been no less damage -- same result but not looking as good on the RISP BA.

It's all about the runs, TDog...

I was at a game many years ago when the Sox were playing the Yankees. Must have been 94 or 95. I went with some friends from work who were from NY and obviously cheering for the Yankees. Midway through the game the Sox were losing 2-1 but had men on first and third with nobody out and Frank batting. Frank grounded into a double play but the runner from third scored the tying run. I stood up and applauded, but the Yankee fans were all telling me it was a bad outcome. Later in the game the Sox scored another run and ended up winning 3-2. Frank's "blunder" turned out to be a pretty important run after all.

Get 'em on. Get 'em over. Get 'em in. Whatever works so long as you score that's what's important. I have been occasionally been known to visit game threads after similar incidences as I posted above early in the game and post a woohoo, Sox scored post, not bothering to stop and read the griping I know will inevitably be there. This team is geared to win with pitching, so every single run they score by whatever means is important.

And yes, I'd love to see the Sox be more efficient scoring when they have big opportunities, but I figure that will come as the offense settles in and gets going.

To quote Hawk from last year, "We haven't hit our stride yet." :D:

(runs away and hides...:wink: )

asindc
04-26-2010, 02:18 PM
It's all about the runs, TDog...

I was at a game many years ago when the Sox were playing the Yankees. Must have been 94 or 95. I went with some friends from work who were from NY and obviously cheering for the Yankees. Midway through the game the Sox were losing 2-1 but had men on first and third with nobody out and Frank batting. Frank grounded into a double play but the runner from third scored the tying run. I stood up and applauded, but the Yankee fans were all telling me it was a bad outcome. Later in the game the Sox scored another run and ended up winning 3-2. Frank's "blunder" turned out to be a pretty important run after all.

Get 'em on. Get 'em over. Get 'em in. Whatever works so long as you score that's what's important. I have been occasionally been known to visit game threads after similar incidences as I posted above early in the game and post a woohoo, Sox scored post, not bothering to stop and read the griping I know will inevitably be there. This team is geared to win with pitching, so every single run they score by whatever means is important.

And yes, I'd love to see the Sox be more efficient scoring when they have big opportunities, but I figure that will come as the offense settles in and gets going.

To quote Hawk from last year, "We haven't hit our stride yet." :D:

(runs away and hides...:wink: )

No need to run or hide, a run is a run is a run.

khan
04-26-2010, 02:21 PM
You are definitely not alone on this. HRs, SFs, sac bunts (no matter who does it), groundouts up the middle, HBP-steal-hit-passed ball (Pierre in 1st yesterday), bases loaded walk,... I don't care how it gets done, as long as it does.
To this, we can all agree.

I, however, would like to see this team more regularly produce, not leave it up to last inning heroics or mistakes by the opposition that are not regular occurrences. While it was good that Pierre scored that run [good teams take advantage of their opponents' mistakes], I'd also like this team to take advantage of more opportunities. [good teams also hit with RISP]

I think the fact that so many players fail in fundamental situations that don't necessary require that the ball be hit hard where no one can catch is due to baseball management's (not just the Sox) insistence on basing compensatiion on easily quantifiable numbers such as HRs, hits, RBI, etc. If TCQ would get as much credit for an RBI sac bunt as he does for scoring that same runner from 3rd on a double to the gap, I imagine that he would be a better bunter.
OBP with RISP is easily quantifiable, so is OPS with RISP, and so is Batting Average with RISP. As you stated, almost every contract has language that rewards players for certain degree of performance, not just the SOX. But then, the players' union and the individual agents would have to agree to some of the other measures being incentivized.

TDog
04-26-2010, 07:05 PM
It's all about the runs, TDog...

I was at a game many years ago when the Sox were playing the Yankees. Must have been 94 or 95. I went with some friends from work who were from NY and obviously cheering for the Yankees. Midway through the game the Sox were losing 2-1 but had men on first and third with nobody out and Frank batting. Frank grounded into a double play but the runner from third scored the tying run. I stood up and applauded, but the Yankee fans were all telling me it was a bad outcome. Later in the game the Sox scored another run and ended up winning 3-2. Frank's "blunder" turned out to be a pretty important run after all.

Get 'em on. Get 'em over. Get 'em in. Whatever works so long as you score that's what's important. I have been occasionally been known to visit game threads after similar incidences as I posted above early in the game and post a woohoo, Sox scored post, not bothering to stop and read the griping I know will inevitably be there. This team is geared to win with pitching, so every single run they score by whatever means is important.

And yes, I'd love to see the Sox be more efficient scoring when they have big opportunities, but I figure that will come as the offense settles in and gets going.

To quote Hawk from last year, "We haven't hit our stride yet." :D:

(runs away and hides...:wink: )

I am too young to remember Sherm Lollar grounding into a doubleplay in Game 5 of the 1959 World Series, but I read that was the only run the Sox scored that day in a win over Sandy Koufax.

Too bad the pitching didn't show up in Game 6.

SI1020
04-26-2010, 08:38 PM
I am too young to remember Sherm Lollar grounding into a doubleplay in Game 5 of the 1959 World Series, but I read that was the only run the Sox scored that day in a win over Sandy Koufax.

Too bad the pitching didn't show up in Game 6. Oh the pitcher showed up. Al Lopez just decided to keep him on the shelf.

Tragg
04-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Link me.

You're not arguing with BP, you're arguing with me.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10027

Read the first paragraph of Swartz's "Introducing SIERA"

cws05champ
04-27-2010, 11:39 AM
To this, we can all agree.

OBP with RISP is easily quantifiable, so is OPS with RISP, and so is Batting Average with RISP. As you stated, almost every contract has language that rewards players for certain degree of performance, not just the SOX. But then, the players' union and the individual agents would have to agree to some of the other measures being incentivized.
Could a contract have measurable such as Avg with RISP or AVG w/ men on base? I don't believe I have ever seen that in a ML contract. Only incentives have been awards.

It would be really interesting if a player took the route of a heavily incentive laden deal with such measurable stats. Don't know if MLB or MLBPA would allow it though.

TDog
04-27-2010, 11:56 AM
...
OBP with RISP is easily quantifiable, so is OPS with RISP, and so is Batting Average with RISP. As you stated, almost every contract has language that rewards players for certain degree of performance, not just the SOX. But then, the players' union and the individual agents would have to agree to some of the other measures being incentivized.

Maybe this is off-topic, but on-base percentage with runners in scoring position is a fairly meaningless stat. It credits players who are intentionally walked or pitched around, which really is rather neutral in judging whether a player has success with runners in scoring position. It includes bases-loaded walks and being hit by pitches. Taking those may or may not be a skill. It also includes people who walk on close 3-2 pitches with two outs when they would better serve their team by driving in the run. You don't know what you're looking at.

If you're in a situation where a sacrifice fly could win the game, but you walk on pitches that you might have been able to hit deep enough into the outfield, you can improve your OBP w/RISP. But if you hit that sacrifice fly and win the game, you lower that OBP w/RISP. A sacrifice fly is counted as a time at bat for calculating OBP. It should be for calculating batting averages as well, but it isn't.

khan
04-27-2010, 03:29 PM
Maybe this is off-topic, but on-base percentage with runners in scoring position is a fairly meaningless stat.
OK, if you don't like that, then how about OPS with RISP, or BA with RISP? You really ARE the Minutia Police here.

It credits players who are intentionally walked or pitched around, which really is rather neutral in judging whether a player has success with runners in scoring position. It includes bases-loaded walks and being hit by pitches. Taking those may or may not be a skill. It also includes people who walk on close 3-2 pitches with two outs when they would better serve their team by driving in the run. You don't know what you're looking at.
Take a step back and ask yourself:

1. Are any of these things BAD for your team? Really?
2. Is it ever a good idea to start forming the habit of swinging at pitches outside the strikezone?

If you're in a situation where a sacrifice fly could win the game, but you walk on pitches that you might have been able to hit deep enough into the outfield, you can improve your OBP w/RISP. But if you hit that sacrifice fly and win the game, you lower that OBP w/RISP. A sacrifice fly is counted as a time at bat for calculating OBP. It should be for calculating batting averages as well, but it isn't.

Seriously, you took out the time to post something this long to rail against OBP? [HONESTLY no offense, but] Are you unemployed or retired?

I know these "newfangled stats" like OBP scare everyone over the age of ~45 or so, but really: I gave you the option of OBP w/RISP, OPS w/RISP, and BA w/RISP in the previous post. You could have made your point by merely stating that you prefer some other metric in contracts instead.

TDog
04-27-2010, 03:33 PM
OK, if you don't like that, then how about OPS with RISP, or BA with RISP? You really ARE the Minutia Police here.


Take a step back and ask yourself:

1. Are any of these things BAD for your team? Really?
2. Is it ever a good idea to start forming the habit of swinging at pitches outside the strikezone?



Seriously, you took out the time to post something this long to rail against OBP? [HONESTLY no offense, but] Are you unemployed or retired?

I know these "newfangled stats" like OBP scare everyone over the age of ~45 or so, but really: I gave you the option of OBP w/RISP, OPS w/RISP, and BA w/RISP in the previous post. You could have made your point by merely stating that you prefer some other metric in contracts instead.

And it was YOUR postulate that the very nature of the incentives in the contracts encourages players to play a certain way... You had every opportunity to support your view.

I am a very fast typist. On-base percentage with runners in scoring postiion is an irrelevant statistic.

SI1020
04-27-2010, 03:38 PM
I know these "newfangled stats" like OBP scare everyone over the age of ~45 or so Not really. It's just that some of them seem a whole lot more relevant than others.

Nellie_Fox
04-27-2010, 03:42 PM
I know these "newfangled stats" like OBP scare everyone over the age of ~45 or so...I'm closing in on 61, but I've taken three graduate-level classes in statistics and two in research design. I'm just scared of people who treat statistics as the be-all and end-all, and don't understand the limitations.

khan
04-27-2010, 03:45 PM
Not really. It's just that some of them seem a whole lot more relevant than others.

Agreed. And I gave TDog 3 options to support asindc's theory about MLB contracts. He was after "easily quantifiable numbers" in his initial post, so I gave them to him.

khan
04-27-2010, 03:47 PM
I'm closing in on 61, but I've taken three graduate-level classes in statistics and two in research design.
We're happy for you.

I'm just scared of people who treat statistics as the be-all and end-all, and don't understand the limitations.
Agreed. But they do hold some utility in baseball, wouldn't you agree? But then:

I gave TDog 3 options to support asindc's theory about MLB contracts. He was after "easily quantifiable numbers" in his initial post, so I gave them to him.

TDog
04-27-2010, 04:00 PM
...
I gave TDog 3 options to support asindc's theory about MLB contracts. He was after "easily quantifiable numbers" in his initial post, so I gave them to him.

I was only interesting in pointing out how ridiculous it is to even consider a statistic that sometimes rewards a player for for doing things that hurts his team, sometimes penalizing a player for doing things that help his team and often rewards a player for doing things he has no control over.

BadBobbyJenks
04-27-2010, 04:16 PM
I was only interesting in pointing out how ridiculous it is to even consider a statistic that sometimes rewards a player for for doing things that hurts his team, sometimes penalizing a player for doing things that help his team and often rewards a player for doing things he has no control over.

Walking with runners in scoring position hurts the team?

spawn
04-27-2010, 04:20 PM
We're happy for you.

You insult people over 45, and then when someone in the age group you insulted refutes your claim, this is your response? Class. Pure class.

TDog
04-27-2010, 05:12 PM
Walking with runners in scoring position hurts the team?

If there is one out and a runner on third with first base open and the next hitter is Carlos Quentin who hits into a doubleplay the walk hurts the team. That's not a hypothetical, by the way. And it isn't the only such example you can find by digging less than a month into White Sox history. Sadly, such examples aren't as rare as they should be.

If you have the opportunity to hit a sacrifice fly in many situations, that is preferable to walking, and a sacrifice fly lowers your on-base percentage.

Maybe it helps the team because, hypothetically, Quentin hits a home run. Or maybe you're not hitting in front of Quentin, but Konerko, who never hits into doubleplays. Maybe the pitcher didn't give you anything to hit and you didn't have an opportunity to hit a sacrifice fly or get a hit on a pitch just off the strike zone. You have no idea whether someone with a high on-base percentage with runners in scoring position is helping your team. You have no idea what that stat means.

I wrote that it was off-topic, and I probably shouldn't have made the point, not because I don't stand by it, but because this is probably not the appropriate forum for the discussion. I did not write that a high on-base percentage with runners in scoring position was bad. I wrote that it was ridiculously irrelevant.

Unlike, say, RBIs.

BadBobbyJenks
04-27-2010, 05:50 PM
If there is one out and a runner on third with first base open and the next hitter is Carlos Quentin who hits into a doubleplay the walk hurts the team. That's not a hypothetical, by the way. And it isn't the only such example you can find by digging less than a month into White Sox history. Sadly, such examples aren't as rare as they should be.

If you have the opportunity to hit a sacrifice fly in many situations, that is preferable to walking, and a sacrifice fly lowers your on-base percentage.



Unlike, say, RBIs.

It did not hurt the team. The player behind him did not execute. Getting on base is always good.

voodoochile
04-27-2010, 05:59 PM
It did not hurt the team. The player behind him did not execute. Getting on base is always good.

Yes and no...

On a rated scale, taking a walk with a man on third and less than two outs is 3rd on the list of outcomes. It's not better than a groundball or flyball that scores the runner.



Hit
Out that scores the runner
walk
Out that fails to score the runner

Runs are what matter. If a player goes to the plate looking to take a walk, they are abdicating their responsibility. If they intentionally let hittable pitches go by including ones that are technically balls then again, they aren't doing their job.

From a big picture perspective, a walk that leaves the runner at third right there and that runner at third never comes home to score is meaningless at best. It doesn't mean a damned thing from a team perspective in those circumstances and their "success" is no better than the "failures" that followed.

TDog
04-27-2010, 06:56 PM
It did not hurt the team. The player behind him did not execute. Getting on base is always good.

Your chances of scoring are greater with a man on third and first base open with one out than they are with a men on first and third with one out. Whether you choose to blame the player who walks for hurting the team is irrelevant to my argument.

On-base percentage with runners in scoring position is an irrelevant statistic.

It's Dankerific
04-27-2010, 07:03 PM
Your chances of scoring are greater with a man on third and first base open with one out than they are with a men on first and third with one out. Whether you choose to blame the player who walks for hurting the team is irrelevant to my argument.

On-base percentage with runners in scoring position is an irrelevant statistic.

Oh no. It depends on the situation. The batter, the guy on first and 3rd, the pitcher, the peanut vendor.

Lets have some consistency.

voodoochile
04-27-2010, 07:05 PM
Oh no. It depends on the situation. The batter, the guy on first and 3rd, the pitcher, the peanut vendor.

Lets have some consistency.

I don't think the peanut vendor matters...:D:

TDog
04-27-2010, 07:14 PM
Oh no. It depends on the situation. The batter, the guy on first and 3rd, the pitcher, the peanut vendor.

Lets have some consistency.

There is nothing inconsistent in what I wrote here.

Obviously, if you bunt the winning run over to third, as a manager you would expect the next hitter, perhaps the next two hitters, to be intentionally walked, and you measure that in your decision on whether to bunt in that situation, whether you would rather rather have three outs to drive in the runner from second with a hit or out to drive in the runner from third with a deep fly and another out to get a hit. And the hitters coming up would play into your decision. Which situation would you rather have? Which hitters would you rather have come to the plate with which runners on base?

But there is no question that your percentages of scoring a runner from third with less than one out are greater if first base is open.

But, again, that doesn't affect my argument that on-base percentage with runners in scoring position is an irrelevant statistic.

SI1020
04-28-2010, 03:20 PM
We're happy for you.
One of the best things about this place is that there are folks here that in addition to being able to read, write and spell are accomplished in their lives. It makes for a better all around experience than one usually gets on a message board. This is uncalled for. Nellie was not lording his professional credentials, just trying to inform that he does have a solid frame of reference for this particular subject.