PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie on Thome


Brian26
08-10-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm not sure if this has specifically been covered in another thread, but I found it to be amusing, if not maddening.

Ozzie was interviewed before the game on Thome, and he went out of his way to say that "WE chose to not bring Thome back...WE."

Kenny wanted the bat at Soxfest, and Ozzie talked him out of it. MLB just aired an episode of the The Club two weeks ago where Ozzie had to convince KW and JR we didn't need another bat.

Epic fail at revisionist history on the part of Ozzie.

hi im skot
08-10-2010, 11:35 PM
Eh, I'm over it.

Lip Man 1
08-10-2010, 11:37 PM
In the same interview he also said he'd still take the ability to rotate players, mix and match lineups and play a diverse style of ball over what the Sox were doing.

Unless he's outright lying I have to at least give him that he's not backing down from his principles despite what is happening at the DH spot.

Lip

Tragg
08-10-2010, 11:50 PM
Williams knows Guillen is poor at evaluating and putting together an offensive team. This clowining with the offense began in 2007 and a)hasn't relented and b)hasn't succeeded (2008 was saved by injury).

This year, Williams let Guillen have his personal Jack Haley instead of Thome or some other legitimate DH.
"We" are both responsible.

Craig Grebeck
08-10-2010, 11:56 PM
A full-time, productive DH would not impede the success of a team with our pitching staff.

russ99
08-11-2010, 12:00 AM
Williams knows Guillen is poor at evaluating and putting together an offensive team. This clowining with the offense began in 2007 and a)hasn't relented and b)hasn't succeeded (2008 was saved by injury).

This year, Williams let Guillen have his personal Jack Haley instead of Thome or some other legitimate DH.
"We" are both responsible.

What exactly has Ozzie "evaluated" since 2007, besides giving Anderson every chance to succeed and turning to bench players when he failed?

I also thought it was the GM's responsibility to "put together an offensive team".

TornLabrum
08-11-2010, 12:08 AM
What exactly has Ozzie "evaluated" since 2007, besides giving Anderson every chance to succeed and turning to bench players when he failed?

I also thought it was the GM's responsibility to "put together an offensive team".

Please, don't you know it's all Ozzie's fault when we lose, but it's all the team's doing when we win? Get with the program!

Nelfox02
08-11-2010, 12:10 AM
Leaving this team a bat short was a bad idea in the off season, it is still a bad idea all these months later


I know a lot of people around here are bored of this discussion, but it is hard for me "get over" leaving a fundamental design flaw in the make up of your team from day one.....you can attack Ozzie for promoting the ridiculous idea of platooning guys like Kotsay and Jones as DH's, but at the end of the day it is Kenny who sets this roster

Tragg
08-11-2010, 12:15 AM
What exactly has Ozzie "evaluated" since 2007, besides giving Anderson every chance to succeed and turning to bench players when he failed?

I also thought it was the GM's responsibility to "put together an offensive team".
It is - that's why I gave "we" the credit.
Unfortunately, I suspect organization politics prevents Williams from being too heavy handed in the personnel.
The notion of not having a dh is indefensible.

I like how the blame is still put on Anderson, who was batting 9th. He was so bad that Ozzie was forced to put ERstad in the 2 hole or lead off Wise and Jerry Owens. That is beyond ludicrous.

This has all been documented before: Erstad, Owens, Wise at the top of the lineup; Quentin headed for AAA, Sweeney not even bothered to evaluate after seeing the brilliant Owens.

TheOldRoman
08-11-2010, 12:18 AM
It is - that's why I gave "we" the credit.
Unfortunately, I suspect organization politics prevents Williams from being too heavy handed in the personnel.
The notion of not having a dh is indefensible.

I like how the blame is still put on Anderson, who was batting 9th. He was so bad that Ozzie was forced to put ERstad in the 2 hole or lead off Wise and Jerry Owens. That is beyond ludicrous.

This has all been documented before: 2007 - Erstad, Owens, Wise at the top of the lineup; Quentin headed for AAA, Sweeney not even bothered to evaluate after seeing the brilliant Owens.Once again, that is purely speculation on your part. Quentin was recovering from an injury which is why the team talked about leaving him in extended spring training.

Craig Grebeck
08-11-2010, 12:19 AM
Please, don't you know it's all Ozzie's fault when we lose, but it's all the team's doing when we win? Get with the program!
Why argue the topic at hand when you can wade in the waters of useless generalities?

WhiteSox5187
08-11-2010, 12:33 AM
Please, don't you know it's all Ozzie's fault when we lose, but it's all the team's doing when we win? Get with the program!

I just don't get why no one puts any of the blame on Kenny for these bad talent evaluations. I can remember Kenny saying of Owens in spring training of 2008 "We have our leadoff man for the significant future." Williams was the guy who said Anderson would hit .275 with 20 HRs if he were an every day player. He was the guy who traded Sweeney, he was the guy who thought Swisher could play CF every day and then thought 38 year old Ken Griffey Junior could play CF. Why does Ozzie get all the blame for "bad talent evaluation"?

LoveYourSuit
08-11-2010, 12:47 AM
The history of this franchise at the DH position:

Baines
Thomas
Thome
Kotsay/Jones

You guys don't see something wrong with that?

Anyone that still wants to defend Ozzie's thinking about "mixing and matching" for that position needs to get a clue about the game of baseball.

Nellie_Fox
08-11-2010, 12:55 AM
The history of this franchise at the DH position:

Baines
Thomas
Thome
Kotsay/Jones

You guys don't see something wrong with that?

Anyone that still wants to defend Ozzie's thinking about "mixing and matching" for that position needs to get a clue about the game of baseball.As pitching gets more and more specialized, and teams carry an ever-greater number of pitchers, the remaining roster spots become a bigger conundrum. You are hard-pressed to carry a guy who can only hit against right handers and can't play a defensive position under any circumstances. Harold and Frank could hit pitchers from either side. Thome no longer can.

I don't think it was so much wanting to have only a rotating DH as it was wanting to be able to occasionally move other guys to DH to give them a partial day off, while the regular DH is able to take a spot in the field. Thome didn't give them that.

LoveYourSuit
08-11-2010, 01:20 AM
As pitching gets more and more specialized, and teams carry an ever-greater number of pitchers, the remaining roster spots become a bigger conundrum. You are hard-pressed to carry a guy who can only hit against right handers and can't play a defensive position under any circumstances. Harold and Frank could hit pitchers from either side. Thome no longer can.

I don't think it was so much wanting to have only a rotating DH as it was wanting to be able to occasionally move other guys to DH to give them a partial day off, while the regular DH is able to take a spot in the field. Thome didn't give them that.


This is a team that felt so confident on their pitching that they did not include a true long man out of the pen.

So if they were so confident in that department, why not save a roster spot for a guy who can only hit RH pitchers?

The choice was made at Kotsay over Thome, and it is killing us right now.

Nellie_Fox
08-11-2010, 01:38 AM
This is a team that felt so confident on their pitching that they did not include a true long man out of the pen.

So if they were so confident in that department, why not save a roster spot for a guy who can only hit RH pitchers?

The choice was made at Kotsay over Thome, and it is killing us right now.
Either you completely missed my point, or chose to ignore it. I didn't say that the result has been great, just that the logic is understandable. Teams have far fewer bench players than they used to; those that you have are going to have to be a little bit flexible. Recently, Mauer couldn't catch because his throwing shoulder was giving him problems, so they were DHing him. That made Thome totally superfluous, and only available for pinch-hitting in a league that rarely uses a pinch hitter. That really shortens your bench.

munchman33
08-11-2010, 01:53 AM
Either you completely missed my point, or chose to ignore it. I didn't say that the result has been great, just that the logic is understandable. Teams have far fewer bench players than they used to; those that you have are going to have to be a little bit flexible. Recently, Mauer couldn't catch because his throwing shoulder was giving him problems, so they were DHing him. That made Thome totally superfluous, and only available for pinch-hitting in a league that rarely uses a pinch hitter. That really shortens your bench.

And Mauer is no Kotsay.

I see what your saying, but he's still right. We all knew Quentin would need a lot of starts at DH, and we had to have someone who could DH and play the field. Fine then if Thome's not the answer. But neither was Kotsay. And unlike with Thome, where you have to make a case he's not the answer, Kotsay was NEVER the answer. As much as I like some of the moves Kenny's made, it's hard not to see going into a season with Kotsay primed for 450 at bats as anything other than a reason to fire a GM. It's complete and utter ignorance at the top, especially since it was allowed to continue.

Nellie_Fox
08-11-2010, 02:14 AM
And Mauer is no Kotsay.

I see what your saying, but he's still right. We all knew Quentin would need a lot of starts at DH, and we had to have someone who could DH and play the field. Fine then if Thome's not the answer. But neither was Kotsay. And unlike with Thome, where you have to make a case he's not the answer, Kotsay was NEVER the answer. As much as I like some of the moves Kenny's made, it's hard not to see going into a season with Kotsay primed for 450 at bats as anything other than a reason to fire a GM. It's complete and utter ignorance at the top, especially since it was allowed to continue.Whether Kotasy is the answer is irrelevant. The point is, and I agree with it, in an era where your "bench" is only three or four guys, you simply can no longer afford to have a guy who can only DH against right-handed pitching, and can't play a defensive position.

Sam Spade
08-11-2010, 02:20 AM
Whether Kotasy is the answer is irrelevant. The point is, and I agree with it, in an era where your "bench" is only three or four guys, you simply can no longer afford to have a guy who can only DH against right-handed pitching, and can't play a defensive position.
Makes sense to me. Really we shouldn't be talking about Kotsay, Thome, or Jones. Kenny should have gotten someone else. He knew it, and he trusted his manager over his gut, which is defensible. Hopefully he learned something.

daveeym
08-11-2010, 03:58 AM
Leaving this team a bat short was a bad idea in the off season, it is still a bad idea all these months later


I know a lot of people around here are bored of this discussion, but it is hard for me "get over" leaving a fundamental design flaw in the make up of your team from day one.....you can attack Ozzie for promoting the ridiculous idea of platooning guys like Kotsay and Jones as DH's, but at the end of the day it is Kenny who sets this roster
This is the **** I'm sick of and why I don't post on baseball related threads. Yeah no **** it was a fundamental flaw from the start. The majority of the board ****ing agrees. But those of us that can ****ing understand nuances are god damn sick of it. Money, reality, personalities play into everything and for whatever god damn reason we didn't get a god damn real dh. Anyone that takes og's or kw's bs team building bs that our team is fine as it is is an idiot. You're not smart for knocking this team for being a bat short, we all ****ing get it and so does management. It is was it ****ing is and no one on the sox or is a fan of the sox WANTS ****ing Kotsay as a regular player. If you can't understand that they tried but it didn't work out and now are playing pollyanna you're the idiot not the genious. And the fact is with all the flaws they're still in a position to make the playoffs and still throw a heck of a rotation out there and get hot at the right time and give us our 2nd WS in the decade.

daveeym
08-11-2010, 04:09 AM
This is a team that felt so confident on their pitching that they did not include a true long man out of the pen.

So if they were so confident in that department, why not save a roster spot for a guy who can only hit RH pitchers?

The choice was made at Kotsay over Thome, and it is killing us right now.This is the other revisionist history that is killing me. That's not the choice. Kotsay was signed to fill a role as a back up, the sox then LOST OUT on a dh, forcing Kotsay into the position. OG and Kenny hardly wanted Kotsay as the dh but what do you expect them to do, mother**** the guy when their other plans went south and Kotsay ended up as the dh by default? Ripping KW is one thing but ripping Kotsay for being put in a position that wasn't the plan is ridiculous. And trying to tie it in to a long man out of the pen when the pen is one of the best things about this team, (pena the long man as it stands) is silly.

Dan H
08-11-2010, 05:46 AM
What angers me is that it seems like Ozzie is trying to cover his butt over this decision. That sort of stuff happens with losing teams. Fingers get pointed as the season worsens. The White Sox are only one game out as I write this so why is there any debate about Thome? What is done is done and it is time to move on. The Sox are short a left handed bat and will have to do the best they can without one.

Ozzie needs to shut up about Thome and do the best he can with the team he has. Right now it sounds like he feels the Sox can't win the division and he is already looking to shift the blame to Kenny. (but I'm sure they get along real well.) If that is his attitude, maybe it is time for him to find employment elsewhere.

Frater Perdurabo
08-11-2010, 07:09 AM
I agree with the inherent logic of having a versatile bench.

But that only works well if you have more good hitters than you have defensive positions.

The Sox do not have more good hitters than defensive positions.

And here in August, the DH has the worst offensive production on the team.

kufram
08-11-2010, 08:49 AM
I like what was tried at DH this year and I think it is the way of the near future. It hasn't worked very well in the hitting production, obviously, but it has given a flexibility to rest players without losing their bat. In the cases of PK and TCQ that could be seen as successful in my mind but it is hard to quantify with numbers. I am not sure it was in any way a refusal by KW and/or OG to GET the bat we all know the team has needed... I just think it is hard to acquire the right guy but easy to complain when it doesn't happen. I think lessons have been learned and that with the a couple of adjustments the rotating DH will be the function of that position.

Sure, it is possible that they let Thome go a year too early but that doesn't mean the plan is wrong. We just ended up a player or two in the right position for it to work. I'm not spending any time looking for someone to blame because I don't think for one minute that management have been stupid or neglecting in responsibility or uncaring. It just didn't quite work out ... yet. Still, we are in a race and these guys got us here. It is painful when they lose and full of promise when they win. The fun and pain is all part of being a fan.

Craig Grebeck
08-11-2010, 08:54 AM
Why are people acting as though this team had to keep an extra pitcher? Was Randy Williams that indispensable? No. Absolutely not. Teams can afford to have a full-time DH. This is the AL, after all.

soltrain21
08-11-2010, 09:03 AM
While I'm pissed at Ozzie for not wanting an extra bat in the first place, I remember an interview pretty early on in the season on CSN with KW. He said as soon as he felt they needed to make a move for a bat they would. That he hated the idea from the get-go, and if it wasn't working he would fix it.

Well, it was NEVER working and he never fixed it.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-11-2010, 09:04 AM
You want to talk flexible bench? How about the ability to replace a big bat like Morneau with another big bat in Thome?
That's flexible.

Boondock Saint
08-11-2010, 09:09 AM
While I'm pissed at Ozzie for not wanting an extra bat in the first place, I remember an interview pretty early on in the season on CSN with KW. He said as soon as he felt they needed to make a move for a bat they would. That he hated the idea from the get-go, and if it wasn't working he would fix it.

Well, it was NEVER working and he never fixed it.

Well, you weren't supposed to remember that. That's just the bull**** he fed the fans and media to get us off his back until we forget he ever said that stuff.

ron_j_galt
08-11-2010, 09:10 AM
Regarding the usefulness of hitters who can 'only' hit RHP, the hitter in question has 'only' damaged RHP to the tune of:

2006: .321/.454/.749 1.203
2007: .315/.455/.668 1.123
2008: .249/.372/.496 .868
2009: .262/.383/.498 .881
2010: .277/.425/.631 1.056

For someone whose 'only' talent is to DH like this against RHP, you make room on the roster. There's no reason the Sox couldn't have used LHP days to rest and rotate.

russ99
08-11-2010, 10:33 AM
I like what was tried at DH this year and I think it is the way of the near future. It hasn't worked very well in the hitting production, obviously, but it has given a flexibility to rest players without losing their bat. In the cases of PK and TCQ that could be seen as successful in my mind but it is hard to quantify with numbers. I am not sure it was in any way a refusal by KW and/or OG to GET the bat we all know the team has needed... I just think it is hard to acquire the right guy but easy to complain when it doesn't happen. I think lessons have been learned and that with the a couple of adjustments the rotating DH will be the function of that position.

Sure, it is possible that they let Thome go a year too early but that doesn't mean the plan is wrong. We just ended up a player or two in the right position for it to work. I'm not spending any time looking for someone to blame because I don't think for one minute that management have been stupid or neglecting in responsibility or uncaring. It just didn't quite work out ... yet. Still, we are in a race and these guys got us here. It is painful when they lose and full of promise when they win. The fun and pain is all part of being a fan.

Agree. The plan itself is a good one, but Kenny (and Jerry) cheaped out on us in Free Agency, when such bats are easily acquired.

As for the complainers who rail on Ozzie saying he didn't think they needed a bat - that was strictly for the guys in the clubhouse, to instill confidence.

Would you want your boss saying how you all stink and that they're looking for replacements? How would you perform if he/she did so?

Domeshot17
08-11-2010, 10:44 AM
Agree. The plan itself is a good one, but Kenny (and Jerry) cheaped out on us in Free Agency, when such bats are easily acquired.

As for the complainers who rail on Ozzie saying he didn't think they needed a bat - that was strictly for the guys in the clubhouse, to instill confidence.

Would you want your boss saying how you all stink and that they're looking for replacements? How would you perform if he/she did so?

Ozzie came out right around the time of Sox Fest and put his defient I am the boss attitude out there by saying there was not 1 player the Sox could acquire in baseball who would be the DH and he was going with his system. Ozzie then came out and said how important it was to KEEP HIS BENCH FRESH AND GET KOTSAY PLENTY OF ABs.

I know you think Ozzie has no flaws and is never wrong, but he has been 100% wrong in his DH approach this year. With any kind of decent bat in the middle of the lineup making up for the waste Kotsay has been, the Sox, even with last night's loss, would be comfortably in first.

And for the record, bosses do this all the time. All of the time Bosses come out and tell people if you don't pick up your numbers or do better you will be replaced. It is very common in every profession, and Ozzie HAS done it to players in the past.

Jollyroger2
08-11-2010, 10:46 AM
Agree. The plan itself is a good one, but Kenny (and Jerry) cheaped out on us in Free Agency, when such bats are easily acquired.

As for the complainers who rail on Ozzie saying he didn't think they needed a bat - that was strictly for the guys in the clubhouse, to instill confidence.

Would you want your boss saying how you all stink and that they're looking for replacements? How would you perform if he/she did so?

They didn't need the boss to tell them they stink, the numbers speak very plainly for themselves. Yet nothing is changing and the lineup still has multiple glaring dead spots. In many cases stats are going down, not up.

Add to that the very visible lack of concentration and effort the last five games and it's adding up to a quick sinking in the standings if they don't start playing better asap. Thanks to management's inexplicable stupor at the trade deadline, they have no other options at this point.

And I'm sorry but enough already with the "they got in late" nonsense. That happens in baseball, big deal. It's not like they were playing a 12:30pm game yesterday afternoon. Baltimore traveled after the game Monday night too and pounded out 14 runs of offense on the Tribe.

I'm tired of subpar play, excuses, and guys getting time in the lineup to "hit" .230 or worse. I'm tired of seeing them get pounded at home by the Twins, then hearing the manager praise Minnesota and coddle his underachievers. Get some wins.

kufram
08-11-2010, 12:22 PM
This has turned back into the anti KW/OG rant that some seize on.... it only takes 3-4 losses to the "wrong" team. Of course 7 or 8 wins always seem to be against the "wrong" teams to mean anything.

Whilst I would agree with the too many pitchers theory, that opens up an entire field of discussion and I think I know what would happen if I go very far into that. I am from an era when 100 pitches was not a measurement. A starter threw until he was no longer effective and some of those guys had long careers. Relievers who came in for one inning and then were unavailable the next game simply didn't exist. Outfielders were expected to be able to catch anything they could touch with their mitt and ALL of them could reach home on one bounce with a throw. These guys played doubleheaders every Sunday and the starter of the first game wasn't available to pitch the second game because he would have thrown too many pitches to be of any good, but everyone else went out there. Now, some aspects of the game have got better, but sunglasses on top of the cap?... What is that about?

So, yes, fewer pitchers more bench players I'm all for that.

FielderJones
08-11-2010, 02:02 PM
I am from an era when 100 pitches was not a measurement. A starter threw until he was no longer effective and some of those guys had long careers.

Some of those guys had short careers. That was also the era of the reserve clause and of no free agency. Failed starters were the bullpen. Much less money was tied up in pitching, because contracts were one year. If a pitcher blew his arm out he went into insurance or auto sales, and a new guy with a one year contract replaced him.

In modern baseball, ownership is trying to preserve its investment in long-term pitching contracts that the free-agency era demands.

kufram
08-11-2010, 02:15 PM
Some of those guys had short careers. That was also the era of the reserve clause and of no free agency. Failed starters were the bullpen. Much less money was tied up in pitching, because contracts were one year. If a pitcher blew his arm out he went into insurance or auto sales, and a new guy with a one year contract replaced him.

In modern baseball, ownership is trying to preserve its investment in long-term pitching contracts that the free-agency era demands.


Yes , I'm aware of all that and I did have a bit of a rant but I'm not totally wrong. Free agency is good for the players but at a cost. Hitting is great but fielding, particularly in the outfield, is a diminished art. I like the DH because it keeps sluggers like Thome and Thomas in the game for longer but I don't like the DH because it is a one-skill position that makes too much of the long ball. Players make many more poor decisions about what to do with the ball situationally.

russ99
08-11-2010, 02:18 PM
Ozzie came out right around the time of Sox Fest and put his defient I am the boss attitude out there by saying there was not 1 player the Sox could acquire in baseball who would be the DH and he was going with his system. Ozzie then came out and said how important it was to KEEP HIS BENCH FRESH AND GET KOTSAY PLENTY OF ABs.

I know you think Ozzie has no flaws and is never wrong, but he has been 100% wrong in his DH approach this year. With any kind of decent bat in the middle of the lineup making up for the waste Kotsay has been, the Sox, even with last night's loss, would be comfortably in first.

And for the record, bosses do this all the time. All of the time Bosses come out and tell people if you don't pick up your numbers or do better you will be replaced. It is very common in every profession, and Ozzie HAS done it to players in the past.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think the rotating DH is an excellent idea, when you have hitters who can produce. And by produce I don't mean only be able to hit 35 HRs. The flaw isn't the idea, it's the execution with the talent we have here.

I don't ever recall Ozzie mentioning during Sox Fest how he had to give Kotsay plenty of at-bats. He was signed as a bench player, and IMO due to failures by Jones and Nix to claim more playing time, was pushed into a bigger role.

I don't like Kotsay playing so much either, especially when they could have gotten a Vlad Guerrero for pennies on the dollar in January, but Kenny had only 25 cents yet again.

I never said Ozzie has no flaws. His biggest is going with the matchups too often. But he's more right than wrong and IMO has bought some wiggle room with his overall performance since hired here. Too many people are ready to point fingers at a moment's notice.

BadBobbyJenks
08-11-2010, 02:33 PM
People are still defending the DH being able to play the field strategy? My head hurts.

Brian26
08-11-2010, 02:38 PM
What angers me is that it seems like Ozzie is trying to cover his butt over this decision. That sort of stuff happens with losing teams. Fingers get pointed as the season worsens. The White Sox are only one game out as I write this so why is there any debate about Thome? What is done is done and it is time to move on. The Sox are short a left handed bat and will have to do the best they can without one.

Ozzie came out right around the time of Sox Fest and put his defient I am the boss attitude out there by saying there was not 1 player the Sox could acquire in baseball who would be the DH and he was going with his system. Ozzie then came out and said how important it was to KEEP HIS BENCH FRESH AND GET KOTSAY PLENTY OF ABs.

This is what I was talking about when I made the initial post to start this thread.

It was Ozzie's choice to go with the rotating DH this year...his and his alone. Whether it works or not is almost ancillary to the conversation now. I'm just shocked that he would come out at this point and so overtly try to claim that this was an "organizational" decision. Ozzie got his way, and it's his team. There is no "we" in not finding another bat (whether Thome or someone else). Kenny gave him the team he begged for, so why wouldn't he use "I" when he was in the dugout the other day talking about the decision to go with this rotating DH system.

Seems like a weak move on his part.

kittle42
08-11-2010, 02:41 PM
It was Ozzie's choice to go with the rotating DH this year...his and his alone. Whether it works or not is almost ancillary to the conversation now. I'm just shocked that he would come out at this point and so overtly try to claim that this was an "organizational" decision. Ozzie got his way, and it's his team. There is no "we" in not finding another bat (whether Thome or someone else). Kenny gave him the team he begged for, so why wouldn't he use "I" when he was in the dugout the other day talking about the decision to go with this rotating DH system.

Seems like a weak move on his part.

He makes the ****ing lineups!

Craig Grebeck
08-11-2010, 05:13 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think the rotating DH is an excellent idea, when you have hitters who can produce. And by produce I don't mean only be able to hit 35 HRs. The flaw isn't the idea, it's the execution with the talent we have here.

I don't ever recall Ozzie mentioning during Sox Fest how he had to give Kotsay plenty of at-bats. He was signed as a bench player, and IMO due to failures by Jones and Nix to claim more playing time, was pushed into a bigger role.

I don't like Kotsay playing so much either, especially when they could have gotten a Vlad Guerrero for pennies on the dollar in January, but Kenny had only 25 cents yet again.

I never said Ozzie has no flaws. His biggest is going with the matchups too often. But he's more right than wrong and IMO has bought some wiggle room with his overall performance since hired here. Too many people are ready to point fingers at a moment's notice.
Wait, you thought Nix/Jones would play well enough to keep Kotsay off the field? And when did Nix even get a chance?

Jesus. Something new every day.

Tragg
08-11-2010, 05:15 PM
This Kotsay business should be resolved soon...he should be DFAd for Teahen.

If not now, when?

Pennant races create their own "chemistry", so that (flimsy) reason is naught.


Still doesn't solve the DH problem, but it's a marginal upgrade.

kittle42
08-11-2010, 05:58 PM
This Kotsay business should be resolved soon...he should be DFAd for Teahen.

There's no way. Lillibridge or Viciedo will go. With Omar able to play 2B and Teahen, um, "able" to play 3B, the great Kotsay shall stay!

LoveYourSuit
08-11-2010, 07:32 PM
Why are people acting as though this team had to keep an extra pitcher? Was Randy Williams that indispensable? No. Absolutely not. Teams can afford to have a full-time DH. This is the AL, after all.


About time someone makes some ****ing sense here.

It's the DH rule, it's the AL!

Christ, how hard can we make this concept.

LoveYourSuit
08-11-2010, 07:34 PM
Agree. The plan itself is a good one, but Kenny (and Jerry) cheaped out on us in Free Agency, when such bats are easily acquired.

As for the complainers who rail on Ozzie saying he didn't think they needed a bat - that was strictly for the guys in the clubhouse, to instill confidence.

Would you want your boss saying how you all stink and that they're looking for replacements? How would you perform if he/she did so?


Like who?

Who wanted to come here, please tell me?

The only guy who wanted to come here, was Jim Thome.

Crestani
08-11-2010, 07:49 PM
There's no way. Lillibridge or Viciedo will go. With Omar able to play 2B and Teahen, um, "able" to play 3B, the great Kotsay shall stay!



Viciedo goes..He needs to learn more plate discipline. Besides, while Teahen is not the best defensive player, he is still a tad better than Viciedo at this stage. Lillibridge is to versatile to send back down and can do more things to help the club down the stretch IMO.

Frater Perdurabo
08-11-2010, 10:43 PM
"Have a DH who can field" is a backwards strategy.

The proper strategy would be "Have one too many position players who hit well, and rotate them at DH to keep them fresh."

Both Konerko and Kotsay can only play first base, and Kotsay does not "hit well."

soxinem1
08-11-2010, 11:02 PM
Whether Kotasy is the answer is irrelevant. The point is, and I agree with it, in an era where your "bench" is only three or four guys, you simply can no longer afford to have a guy who can only DH against right-handed pitching, and can't play a defensive position.

I understand your rationale, but why was Kotsay the choice then?

They knew early on he had difficulty playing anywhere in the OF, and what is the purpose of him breaking Konerko?

In theory, I don't have a problem with Ozzie's idea, they just made a tremendous error in the player they picked to be the primary DH.

Russell Branyan could have filled in at DH, 1B, 3B, and LF, while adding a LOT more production.

What kind of versatility does a 1B/DH with 25 RBI at this stage of the season bring?

Frater Perdurabo
08-11-2010, 11:05 PM
What kind of versatility does a 1B/DH with 25 RBI at this stage of the season bring?

Mark Kotsay = Brian Daubach?

Nellie_Fox
08-12-2010, 01:10 AM
You want to talk flexible bench? How about the ability to replace a big bat like Morneau with another big bat in Thome?
That's flexible.Since you didn't use teal, I'll have to assume that you're serious. Thome did NOT replace Morneau, and COULD NOT replace Morneau. That's the point exactly. And when Mauer couldn't throw for a while recently, they had to sit Thome so they could DH Mauer, because Thome can't do anything else to keep himself in the lineup. Thome has provided the Twins with some production, no argument, be he has in no way provided the Twins with flexibility.

People keep on mother-****ing Ozzie and KW for not providing another big bat in the lineup, but no one says who that should be. Who? Who should he get/have gotten, and who should he have given up to get him?

KW tried; it's just that nothing worked out. It isn't like he can just say "I want player X" and the other team has to give him to you, or that he has to agree to come here.

kufram
08-12-2010, 03:43 AM
About time someone makes some ****ing sense here.

It's the DH rule, it's the AL!

Christ, how hard can we make this concept.


The DH rule made teams adapt. It is a relatively new rule and created some problems. Baseball will adapt, as it always does, within the rules. I think the DH will be used more like we have tried to use it this year by more teams and players will be acquired that fit that use of the "position". The production from the DH will still be a hitter's production but done by 2 or 3 players that also play a field position.

The only flaw in the DH concept was that it only was taken up by one league which made baseball a little rugby-like. THAT is a problem for me.

Stoky44
08-12-2010, 08:07 AM
The DH rule made teams adapt. It is a relatively new rule and created some problems. Baseball will adapt, as it always does, within the rules. I think the DH will be used more like we have tried to use it this year by more teams and players will be acquired that fit that use of the "position". The production from the DH will still be a hitter's production but done by 2 or 3 players that also play a field position.

The only flaw in the DH concept was that it only was taken up by one league which made baseball a little rugby-like. THAT is a problem for me.


Teams are going to start using the DH like we have, as a rotating position. The argument for this approach is now that amphetamines are out of the game players are going to need more rest.

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2010, 08:10 AM
Great. You rotate the position. Jim Thome could have been part of that rotation. I don't think the Twins are bemoaning his lack of versatility.

soxinem1
08-12-2010, 08:23 AM
Mark Kotsay = Brian Daubach?

More like Mark Kotsay = Armando Rios

LITTLE NELL
08-12-2010, 09:05 AM
I understand your rationale, but why was Kotsay the choice then?

They knew early on he had difficulty playing anywhere in the OF, and what is the purpose of him breaking Konerko?

In theory, I don't have a problem with Ozzie's idea, they just made a tremendous error in the player they picked to be the primary DH.

Russell Branyan could have filled in at DH, 1B, 3B, and LF, while adding a LOT more production.

What kind of versatility does a 1B/DH with 25 RBI at this stage of the season bring?

Thats it a nutshell.

hawkjt
08-12-2010, 09:14 AM
I agree that with steroids receding, pitching a premium,speed back in the game, stimulants banned, the DH position is evolving.

You have to wonder if PK's most consistent year in the last 4-5 is directly attributable to Paulie getting more time off of 1st base with Kotsay stepping in quite a bit.

I think the basic concept by ozzie was fine,if Kotsay hit like last year,or kenny found a better hitter/fielder to slot in there.

russ99
08-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Again, obviously the guys in there for the Sox this year aren't hitting, it's not just Kotsay. The idea is a good one, the pieces used were not.

Designated hitter doesn't only mean designated plodding old guy who can't play a position and can only hit home runs. Any hitter can fill the position.

Playing devil's advocate, if we had a guy like LaRoche rotating in the DH and outfield, would anybody have a problem with the concept?

khan
08-12-2010, 11:39 AM
The DH rule made teams adapt. It is a relatively new rule and created some problems.

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_hitter

A rule from 1973 is "relatively new?"

TDog
08-12-2010, 11:50 AM
As pitching gets more and more specialized, and teams carry an ever-greater number of pitchers, the remaining roster spots become a bigger conundrum. You are hard-pressed to carry a guy who can only hit against right handers and can't play a defensive position under any circumstances. Harold and Frank could hit pitchers from either side. Thome no longer can.

I don't think it was so much wanting to have only a rotating DH as it was wanting to be able to occasionally move other guys to DH to give them a partial day off, while the regular DH is able to take a spot in the field. Thome didn't give them that.

Astute analysis. For a couple of seasons, Thome seemed to disappear in the late innings as the opposition got him out with left-handed relievers who seemed to be only in the league to get out Thome and similar left-handed hitters. Also for the last couple of years, I could feel Guillen's frustration in needing to other players in at the DH position to keep their bats in the lineup while they needed a rest from playing defense or were too banged up to play defense.

There used to be more room on the roster for people who could only hit. Greg Luzinski was the first great White Sox exclusive designated hitter, and he could hit anybody. He also played on White Sox teams that only carried 10 pitchers.

Baines and Thomas, of course, were the two greatest hitters in the history of the franchise.

FielderJones
08-12-2010, 11:56 AM
Baines and Thomas, of course, were the two greatest hitters in the history of the franchise.

:appling
"In the DH era, yes."

soxinem1
08-12-2010, 12:28 PM
Playing devil's advocate, if we had a guy like LaRoche rotating in the DH and outfield, would anybody have a problem with the concept?

Not sure if LaRoche is much in the OF, as he has 'stone leg syndrome' and is primarily a 1B, but with Kotsay only available to PH, DH, and play 1B, the likes of LaRoche would be fine. At least he would have 75-85 RBI right now which is more that Jones and Kotsay combined.

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2010, 01:14 PM
Again, obviously the guys in there for the Sox this year aren't hitting, it's not just Kotsay. The idea is a good one, the pieces used were not.

Designated hitter doesn't only mean designated plodding old guy who can't play a position and can only hit home runs. Any hitter can fill the position.

Playing devil's advocate, if we had a guy like LaRoche rotating in the DH and outfield, would anybody have a problem with the concept?
Adam LaRoche is not a major league outfielder.

kufram
08-12-2010, 01:28 PM
What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_hitter

A rule from 1973 is "relatively new?"

The fundamental rules of baseball were formed a long time ago and although there have been tweaks I call the DH a fundamental rule change. It changed the entire concept of one place in the lineup. Even the height of the mound didn't change the role of pitchers... it just made them stronger. Relatively is the operative word.

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2010, 01:33 PM
The fundamental rules of baseball were formed a long time ago and although there have been tweaks I call the DH a fundamental rule change. It changed the entire concept of one place in the lineup. Even the height of the mound didn't change the role of pitchers... it just made them stronger. Relatively is the operative word.
The DH has been in place longer than most players in the organization have been alive, Vizquel being the lone exception. It's not new to them.

Are you guys even trying anymore?

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2010, 01:34 PM
:appling
"In the DH era, yes."
A different debate, surely, but of all the guys you could have chosen pre-DH era you chose...Luke Appling. Really? Fine player, obviously, but as a hitter he and Frank aren't even in the same paragraph.

khan
08-12-2010, 01:40 PM
The fundamental rules of baseball were formed a long time ago and although there have been tweaks I call the DH a fundamental rule change. It changed the entire concept of one place in the lineup. Even the height of the mound didn't change the role of pitchers... it just made them stronger. Relatively is the operative word.
Sorry, but regardless of how you try to spin it, a 37 year old rule is not in ANY WAY "new." The height of the mound isn't really "new," either. Hell, even interleague play, which is NOW in it's 14th iteration isn't really "new." AL teams and managers have had many many years to "adapt" to all of these things.

The stupid All Star Game being the determinant for home field advantage in the WS is "new." [And dumb.]


[For the record, including a DH is the RIGHT WAY to play baseball. The NL and one of the leagues in Japan are ALONE in their refusal to accept it in terms of worldwide professional leagues, if memory serves.]

LoveYourSuit
08-12-2010, 01:50 PM
This thread is making my head spin.

All I know is that in my lifetime being a Sox fan, the DH position in the line up has been the single most productive position on offense.

I guess this is why this new concept has me so upset. I feel that we are giving up an edge when playing other AL teams.

And I can bet my house that this concept will not stick. The Yankees and Red Sox will continue to pay the $$$ for a "hitter only" type guy if it makes the team good. Players get old and they end up being full time hitters. The NL is full of these types of guys. Guys who can only hit but can barely hold a glove on. Where do you think those guys will finish their careers, more than likely the AL.

kufram
08-12-2010, 02:39 PM
Sorry, but regardless of how you try to spin it, a 37 year old rule is not in ANY WAY "new." The height of the mound isn't really "new," either. Hell, even interleague play, which is NOW in it's 14th iteration isn't really "new." AL teams and managers have had many many years to "adapt" to all of these things.

The stupid All Star Game being the determinant for home field advantage in the WS is "new." [And dumb.]


[For the record, including a DH is the RIGHT WAY to play baseball. The NL and one of the leagues in Japan are ALONE in their refusal to accept it in terms of worldwide professional leagues, if memory serves.]

So I guess in a few years the ASG rule won't be dumb anymore? I think the DH was a bad idea, but I accepted it a long time ago. I also accept that it will evolve. The rules to the game I grew up with changed and will always feel "new" to me...and I did mean relative to the original fundamental rules of the game but, hey... sorry for the term, no need to shoot me over it.

soltrain21
08-12-2010, 02:40 PM
So I guess in a few years the ASG rule won't be dumb anymore?

It will be dumb - but it won't be new.

Tragg
08-12-2010, 09:16 PM
Again, obviously the guys in there for the Sox this year aren't hitting, it's not just Kotsay. The idea is a good one, the pieces used were not.
No it is not a good idea.
A DH needs only to hit. To worry about defense from a DH is nutty.

Versatile bench players for the budgets of most teams means utility level talent....like Kotsay.
That's' fine, but not for the DH.
Guillen needs to worry less about his offensive theories and his pristine happy clubhouse that shows him due respect and spend more time on getting talent on this team. Because his clowning has cost this team talent.

Domeshot17
08-12-2010, 10:29 PM
the theory could work if you were the Yanks, but when you dont have the budget, you have to do it the best way to win.

Nellie_Fox
08-13-2010, 01:53 AM
No it is not a good idea.
A DH needs only to hit. To worry about defense from a DH is nutty.You've missed the point. The game keeps evolving. The current evolution is toward more and more specialization in the bullpen, thus needing more bullpen pitchers. So, something has to change. Either you need the couple of remaining bench spots you have to be more versatile, or you have to carry fewer pitchers. When your "bench" is only three or four players, having one of them be a guy who can only hit, and can only hit right-handers, really puts you in a bind.

khan
08-13-2010, 11:28 AM
So I guess in a few years the ASG rule won't be dumb anymore?
I don't know about YOUR view, but for me, it will always be a dumb idea.

I think the DH was a bad idea, but I accepted it a long time ago.
Wait, I thought that this was a "new" rule in your words...

I also accept that it will evolve. The rules to the game I grew up with changed and will always feel "new" to me...and I did mean relative to the original fundamental rules of the game but, hey... sorry for the term, no need to shoot me over it.
I'm not shooting you over it. I'm just disagreeing with your notion that a 37 year old rule is somehow "new."

Moreover, using the faulty reasoning of "newness" to defend the STUPID idea that Mark freakin' Kotsay should EVER be a player with more than ~200 or so AB is silly.


A DH platoon can work. In fact, I've been in favor of using Thome v. RHP for YEARS, and then finding a corresponding player for DH v. LHP. But, for some STUPID reason, Ozzie had this moronic idea to [over]use Thome v. LHP, despite an AVALANCHE of data to contradict this tactic.

What kills me even MORE is that Ozzie's solution to Thome's [relative] ineffectiveness v. LHP [compared to his effectiveness v. RHP] was to get a ****tier player to replace Thome. In other words, to REMOVE Thome's effectiveness v. RHP with Kotsay's ineptitude, despite the reality that RHP is the OVERWHELMING majority of pitchers in MLB. It's counterintuitive to replace good players with ****ty ones. It's also counterintuitive to undervalue a starting spot in the lineup that is so VITAL to a team, whether you like the DH rule or not.

khan
08-13-2010, 11:35 AM
You've missed the point. The game keeps evolving. The current evolution is toward more and more specialization in the bullpen, thus needing more bullpen pitchers. So, something has to change. Either you need the couple of remaining bench spots you have to be more versatile, or you have to carry fewer pitchers. When your "bench" is only three or four players, having one of them be a guy who can only hit, and can only hit right-handers, really puts you in a bind.

Let me distill your post down to this:

bench versatility >>>>>>>>>>> a virtual everyday STARTING spot in the lineup


Am I correct?

If so, I disagree with you. A starting spot in the lineup, whether you want to get-those-damn-kids-off-your-lawn with the "newfangled" DH or not is more important than a bench. Spare the semantics about the "DH isn't a position." The man who is the DH will be in the lineup for 600+ PA in a year. The bench guys COMBINED might only have 800 or so PA in a year, between pinch hitting, injury replacement, giving the [more important] starters a rest on Sundays, etc...

In my view, the STARTING DH [or the players who will platoon there] is more important than bench versatility.


And yes, I like versatility. I also appreciate that the game is evolving. But it is folly to overvalue a bench at the expense of a CRUCIAL starting spot in the lineup.

Domeshot17
08-13-2010, 11:38 AM
You've missed the point. The game keeps evolving. The current evolution is toward more and more specialization in the bullpen, thus needing more bullpen pitchers. So, something has to change. Either you need the couple of remaining bench spots you have to be more versatile, or you have to carry fewer pitchers. When your "bench" is only three or four players, having one of them be a guy who can only hit, and can only hit right-handers, really puts you in a bind.

I don't know, I mean in theory yes, but it is all theory. To me A guy who hits RHP hard and provides offensive power >>>>>>>>>>>>> a guy who can stand on 1b and play league average defense, no other position, and might be one of the 10 worst offensive players in the game.

TCentral
08-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Pretty interesting article on Jim Thome in todays Minneapolis Star Tribune.

SCCWS
08-17-2010, 08:56 AM
I think it should be noted that despite the lack of production from the DH, the White Sox are ranked 7th in the AL in almost every offensive category. Lower in doubles and triples and higher in HRs but 7th in almost every other category.
They are also ranked 7th in Pitching and 10th in Fielding. They are basically an average AL team with below average fielding.

TheOldRoman
08-17-2010, 10:05 AM
I think it should be noted that despite the lack of production from the DH, the White Sox are ranked 7th in the AL in almost every offensive category. Lower in doubles and triples and higher in HRs but 7th in almost every other category.
They are also ranked 7th in Pitching and 10th in Fielding. They are basically an average AL team with below average fielding.Where are they below average in the field? RF and where else? They are a very solid team defensively.

SCCWS
08-17-2010, 11:00 AM
Roman: You are correct. ESPN runs team fielding worst to best. They are ranked 5th best in fielding, so better than average.

Hitmen77
08-17-2010, 11:08 AM
Another Thome article:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/2606112,CST-SPT-deluca17.article

This was a terrible decision and it was Ozzie's decision. But that's okay, we'd rather have Kotsay!