PDA

View Full Version : Why is Kenny still playing?


MattSharp
07-04-2002, 01:04 AM
I mean seriously. He has 5 hits in his last 16 games, prior to that three hit outburst yesterday. He went 0 for 5 today and has been on a steady decline for a month. On June 3rd his average was .299. I don't know what this guy is doing differently. I don't know if hes hurtin' or what. But this is as bad last year. We all complained about Ray as a lead off hitter but Kenny isn't doing any good either. I would just as assume he Jose hitting 2nd with Ray leading off. Jose has been heating up a bit lately. Who knows.

Kenny needs to find his stroke badly though if the Sox want to turn the offense around....

Nellie_Fox
07-04-2002, 02:35 AM
Because half the game is played with a glove, and the Sox don't have anyone better in center field?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2002, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Because half the game is played with a glove, and the Sox don't have anyone better in center field?

Not exactly.

Unless you're a pitcher or catcher, you spend half the game standing around with a glove on one hand, and your thumb up your butt with the other.

:)

Pitching AND defense are half the game. But pitchiing is far, far more important than defense. And hitting is the other half. The math is pretty simple, really.

Lofton is still playing because he's still a better bet of doing something good leading off than Ray Durham (though that might be changing). This team has few options for centerfielders, too.

wassagstdu
07-04-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Unless you're a pitcher or catcher, you spend half the game standing around with a glove on one hand, and your thumb up your butt with the other.

Pitching AND defense are half the game. But pitchiing is far, far more important than defense. And hitting is the other half. The math is pretty simple, really.

No, pitching and defense are more like 70% of the game, and they are not separable, unless your pitcher is striking out 27 per game. And even strikeouts depend on defense making the hitter try to do more than put the ball in play.

MattSharp
07-04-2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Because half the game is played with a glove, and the Sox don't have anyone better in center field?

What about Aaron Rowand? How much more does this guy have to prove? He is an EXCELLENT fielder. And he could be hitting better than Lofton. And if Kenny is hurtin' then hes no good to us in the field either. He complained last year that Cleveland didn't know he was hurt and whatnot, so I hope that isn't happening again..

duke of dorwood
07-04-2002, 12:38 PM
I am hoping the All Star break can heal Lofton. He is the outfield's answer to the Choice right now. I also think they are leaving him in as trade bait.

MarkEdward
07-04-2002, 01:45 PM
Kenny Lofton is still one of the fifteen best CFs in the league, and he's well above replacement level. He's not beginning to suck; he's coming back down to earth. Did anyone really think he was going to post a .900 OPS all year? I'm surprised the Sox got this much production from him this year. Besides, the Sox have nobody to replace him yet (Borchard won't get called up this year). Unless Rowand starts showing some plate discipline, Loften should continue to start in center.

doublem23
07-04-2002, 01:50 PM
While I agree that Kenny has been sucking since May or so, there isn't anyone better that can take his place.

That said, I do not wish to see him in a Sox uniform come 2003.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu


No, pitching and defense are more like 70% of the game, and they are not separable, unless your pitcher is striking out 27 per game. And even strikeouts depend on defense making the hitter try to do more than put the ball in play.

This is really quite simple. One team is on offense. The other is on defense. The team that scores the most runs wins. That's why the single greatest predictor of a team's success (measured as wins) is the ratio between runs scored versus runs allowed.

You can't score runs pitching or catching the ball. You can only prevent the other team from doing so. Thus, for exactly half the game, pitching and defense help you win the game.

For the other half, hitting is helping you win the game.

Do the math. Pitching and defense make up one-half, and hitting makes up the other half. Given these irrefutable facts, try justifying your 70 percent figure for pitching and defense. You can't. That's because for half the game, you're at-bat, not in the field pitching balls and shagging flies.

It doesn't take too much intuitive sense to note that hitting is more important than either pitching or defense. After all, a pitcher can't prevent runs by himself (he needs defenders, too), but the hitters account for 100 percent of the runs scored.

I don't no where all these silly arguments about hitting, pitching, and defense get started. It's as if Lord God Abner Doubleday proclaimed the baseball world flat, and anyone who points out the mathematical facts to the contrary is condemned by the True-Believers as a heretic.

wassagstdu
07-04-2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Do the math. Pitching and defense make up one-half, and hitting makes up the other half.

I don't no where all these silly arguments about hitting, pitching, and defense get started.

It is more important to have good pitching and defense than hitting. That means you will win more, in spite of the obvious fact that winning percentage is dictated by the difference between runs scored and allowed. The reason for that is that good pitching and defense will always dominate good hitting. Hitting depends to a large degree on pitchers making mistakes. If they don't, and if they are good, the best hitter is ineffective. That's reality.
Hitting is not an individual thing any more than defense, unless you are talking about statistics rather than winning / run production.
You build the best hitting team possible, and I will build the best pitching/defensive team possible and I will beat you every time -- or about 70% of the time anyway.
Closer to home, you build the best Sox hitting team you can and I will build the best pitching team I can -- both with the existing Sox payroll. Again, I will beat you every time.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2002, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
It is more important to have good pitching and defense than hitting. That means you will win more, in spite of the obvious fact that winning percentage is dictated by the difference between runs scored and allowed. The reason for that is that good pitching and defense will always dominate good hitting. Hitting depends to a large degree on pitchers making mistakes. If they don't, and if they are good, the best hitter is ineffective. That's reality.
Hitting is not an individual thing any more than defense, unless you are talking about statistics rather than winning / run production.
You build the best hitting team possible, and I will build the best pitching/defensive team possible and I will beat you every time -- or about 70% of the time anyway.
Closer to home, you build the best Sox hitting team you can and I will build the best pitching team I can -- both with the existing Sox payroll. Again, I will beat you every time.

Yes, of course. Good pitching beats good hitting. And vice versa. :smile:

Your point is irrelevant. All that is important is to be be better (i.e. "more good") than your opponent. That's how you win. At least as far as I know, since I'm not aware of a team ever winning while scoring fewer runs than their opponent. Fill me in if I'm wrong.

In the simplest terms, score more runs than you allow. We're fortunate in baseball that offense and defense can be precisely measured: 27 outs per team per game. You might want to re-think applying to baseball the same philosophy you've doubtlessly heard in football, basketball and other sports where the "defense wins championships" credo actually bears some truth.

HALF the game is played with the bat in your hand. If my team plays that half better than your team, your pitching (and defense) by default, is in a heap of trouble.

But please, don't let me change your viewpoint...

<starts banging head against brick wall>

LongDistanceFan
07-04-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu




i promise myself that i wasn't going to get involve, but here goes.

so by your definition, if you have a team of royce clayton, capable of hitting 200 avg with great "d" and with a staff of great pict vs a staff of great hitting and mediocre pit........ you are telling me that you will win 70% of the time?

wassagstdu
07-04-2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Good pitching beats good hitting. And vice versa.

>

Correct -- up to the point.

Not that this proves anything, but take a look at the current team statistics: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/statistics?stat=teambat&league=mlb&year=2002&season=2
The Sox are currently 2nd in MLB in runs scored and 24th in pitching.

Look at it this way: The difference between the best hitter and the worst is one hit every two games or so. The difference between a team of .330 hitters and a team of .230 hitters is maybe four hits a game. The difference between a staff of the best pitchers and a staff of the worst is a LOT more than four hits a game allowed.

And yes, I'll take a team of Claytons and Loftons -- plus Glavine, Lowe, Randy Johnson, Colon, Gagne, Smolz, Remlinger, Romero. You can have anyone you want but pitching and defense comparable to Clayton's hitting. How about a team of Frank Thomas's, you pick the year?) The ONLY games you'll win are when my pitchers don't show up.

I am sure the statisticians have settled this. Any out there?
:fsock