PDA

View Full Version : Williams Likes What He Sees So Far


Lip Man 1
03-15-2012, 12:04 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0315-white-sox-chicago--20120315,0,1849726.story

Lip

A. Cavatica
03-15-2012, 12:28 AM
What else could he possibly say?

He obviously can't like what he's seen.

DirtySox
03-15-2012, 12:28 AM
What else could he possibly say?

He obviously can't like what he's seen.

Yep.

/thread

SoxSpeed22
03-15-2012, 12:46 AM
That makes one of us.
Hector Santiago and Brent Morel doing well have been the only things I've enjoyed so far.

CubKilla
03-15-2012, 01:38 AM
Kenny's the problem. Ozzie wasn't.

doublem23
03-15-2012, 01:51 AM
Kenny's the problem. Ozzie wasn't.

It's possible (and probable) that they both were/are the problem.

I can't see how anyone could have watched the Sox last year and not seen that Ozzie flat out quit on them.

kufram
03-15-2012, 03:03 AM
It's possible (and probable) that they both were/are the problem.

I can't see how anyone could have watched the Sox last year and not seen that Ozzie flat out quit on them.

The whole team quit on the team last year.

pudge
03-15-2012, 03:49 AM
Kenny's the problem. Ozzie wasn't.

Wrong. He rolled the dice on Peavy, Rios, Dunn - who on this board was against those moves? Not many. He went bust at the casino, but at least he went for it.

LITTLE NELL
03-15-2012, 06:14 AM
IF is the word now more than ever as far as White Sox baseball is concerned. The way I see it there are 5 IFS, they are Dunn, Rios, Beckham, Peavy and Sale. Thats a lot of IFS. If they all come through with good years the Sox will contend and everybody will love Kenny again.
I agree with a previous post that said Kenny has tried, the moves he made with bringing Dunn, Peavy and Rios were applauded by just about all of us and lets hope this is the year they all come through.

bigsoxfan420
03-15-2012, 07:03 AM
IF is the word now more than ever as far as White Sox baseball is concerned. The way I see it there are 5 IFS, they are Dunn, Rios, Beckham, Peavy and Sale. Thats a lot of IFS. If they all come through with good years the Sox will contend and everybody will love Kenny again.
I agree with a previous post that said Kenny has tried, the moves he made with bringing Dunn, Peavy and Rios were applauded by just about all of us and lets hope this is the year they all come through.

I'll give you Dunn and Peavy, but I don't remember any real excitement of Rios. The guy underachieved in Toronto and Kenny grabbed him off the trash heap, and big surprise he was just that.

SI1020
03-15-2012, 08:30 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0315-white-sox-chicago--20120315,0,1849726.story

Lip Blah blah blah. His words mean little to me anymore.

doublem23
03-15-2012, 08:55 AM
The whole team quit on the team last year.

Yeah, and that's on the manager. How many times do you hear that a team takes on it's manager's personality? Ozzie gets a ton of credit, and rightfully so, for the intense, confident style the Sox had during the '05 season, then he deserves a ton of blame for the dead, sleepwalking style of the '11 Sox.

I'll give you Dunn and Peavy, but I don't remember any real excitement of Rios. The guy underachieved in Toronto and Kenny grabbed him off the trash heap, and big surprise he was just that.

Rios had a few very good years in Toronto; he was an All-Star in back-to-back seasons in 2006-2007. He actually wasn't that bad in 2010, either.

bigsoxfan420
03-15-2012, 09:10 AM
Yeah, and that's on the manager. How many times do you hear that a team takes on it's manager's personality? Ozzie gets a ton of credit, and rightfully so, for the intense, confident style the Sox had during the '05 season, then he deserves a ton of blame for the dead, sleepwalking style of the '11 Sox.



Rios had a few very good years in Toronto; he was an All-Star in back-to-back seasons in 2006-2007. He actually wasn't that bad in 2010, either.

That may be true, but at $12.5M a year he is hardly worth it IMO with an average of 76 RBI and 17 HR over his 8 year career. All I can say as I hope the Sox have 3 nominees for "comeback player of the year".

Hitmen77
03-15-2012, 09:15 AM
What else could he possibly say?

He obviously can't like what he's seen.

Blah blah blah. His words mean little to me anymore.

Yep. This is the same guy who proclaimed that Josh Fields was going to be an all-star.

He might say "man, this team is full of overpaid, underperforming veterans whom I acquired.....and our talent level in the minor leagues is pathetically bad!"....but only if someone gave him some truth serum.

DumpJerry
03-15-2012, 09:16 AM
What else could he possibly say?

He obviously can't like what he's seen.
He has made critical comments on the record many times. That is among the things he could possibly say and has, indeed, said it in the past.

bluedemon45
03-15-2012, 09:42 AM
He likes who he sees managing the team- he knows he has control and has a lot less headaches for the upcoming season. Too bad his ego is to big to see that everyone else hates what we've seen.

shingo10
03-15-2012, 09:50 AM
Does anyone really think the Sox are going to have the worst pitching in baseball?

KW's comments are very well spoken if you look at them objectively and not in the biased way that a lot of you are. All he said is that the staff is stressing fundamentals and paying attention to little things that are going to make the team successful over the long haul-when games actually matter.

He's not proclaiming that they are going to win the division or world series. He's saying that they will be improved. They've already stated that they have been working on throwing runners out, and hitting the cutoff man. Sounds like an improvement to me.

Nellie_Fox
03-15-2012, 12:21 PM
Wrong. He rolled the dice on Peavy, Rios, Dunn - who on this board was against those moves? Not many. He went bust at the casino, but at least he went for it.There was some opposition to Dunn, but it was shouted down.

Harry Chappas
03-15-2012, 12:25 PM
Wrong. He rolled the dice on Peavy, Rios, Dunn - who on this board was against those moves? Not many. He went bust at the casino, but at least he went for it.

Wrong. Yes, he rolled the dice and many/most here applauded him for doing so, but his biggest "crime" is that abomination that is our farm system. It is because of this that we are almost entirely dependent upon free agency to begin with. Ozzie had to go but I really wish JR had the stones to really clean house and begin a rebuild in earnest.

The other issue I have with what you wrote is that it somehow makes it sound like the fans were equally culpable. Sure, I was excited about Peavy and Dunn (not so much about Rios) but I'm not paid to be right. It's Williams job to NOT go "bust at the casino." It's what separates him from a rotisserie league manager and besides, there were plenty of experts that questioned the moves so it wasn't like they were unanimously regarded as "can't miss" deals.

asindc
03-15-2012, 01:02 PM
Wrong. Yes, he rolled the dice and many/most here applauded him for doing so, but his biggest "crime" is that abomination that is our farm system. It is because of this that we are almost entirely dependent upon free agency to begin with. Ozzie had to go but I really wish JR had the stones to really clean house and begin a rebuild in earnest.

The other issue I have with what you wrote is that it somehow makes it sound like the fans were equally culpable. Sure, I was excited about Peavy and Dunn (not so much about Rios) but I'm not paid to be right. It's Williams job to NOT go "bust at the casino." It's what separates him from a rotisserie league manager and besides, there were plenty of experts that questioned the moves so it wasn't like they were unanimously regarded as "can't miss" deals.

I think what he is accusing some fans of is Monday morning quarterbacking.

DonnieDarko
03-15-2012, 01:27 PM
I like what I've seen so far--albeit, in Spring Training. Mostly like what I've seen out of Morel and Beckham (and Dunn too, I suppose, but my expectations for him were rather low in the first place). I suppose that I'm a bit more optimistic about this year than I was before, but the true test will be when the regular season starts.

Man. Only, what, 15 more days to go?! Seems like an eternity. :(

Bobby Thigpen
03-15-2012, 01:49 PM
I think what he is accusing some fans of is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Tell him what he's won!!

asindc
03-15-2012, 01:52 PM
Tell him what he's won!!

The same prize HC wins for accusing him of blaming the fans.

shingo10
03-15-2012, 02:01 PM
there were plenty of experts that questioned the moves so it wasn't like they were unanimously regarded as "can't miss" deals.

Who cares what "experts" say at all?

Experts said that we were going to win the division last year. And that the Sox would finish 4th in the divisions in 2005. The experts just talk to talk. I don't think any baseball exec or manager should care at all what they think.

Harry Chappas
03-15-2012, 02:11 PM
I think what he is accusing some fans of is Monday morning quarterbacking.

I get it and I agree. But whether we thought they were great signings doesn't matter in the least - what matters is did they pan out? At the end of the day, a GM is judged by the win/loss column, not how aggressive he is or how many big names he signs.

Like I wrote before, his whiffs on Peavy, Dunn (thus far), and Rios wouldn't be as glaring if he did more than pay lip service to building a strong farm system.

Slats
03-15-2012, 02:11 PM
Wrong. He rolled the dice on Peavy, Rios, Dunn - who on this board was against those moves? Not many. He went bust at the casino, but at least he went for it.

Exactly. Well said sir.

SI1020
03-15-2012, 02:13 PM
There was some opposition to Dunn, but it was shouted down. Vociferously. In fairness, I was not one of those suffering the wrath of the board on this issue. Other opinions yes on occasion I have felt the wrath, but not regarding the Dunn signing, of which I was lukewarm towards.

Harry Chappas
03-15-2012, 04:16 PM
Exactly. Well said sir.

What's so hard about going "all in"? It's not like Williams was spending his own money.

But I guess we should all shut up and applaud the effort (however much it takes to write really big checks) and ignore the results.

MisterB
03-15-2012, 05:51 PM
What else could he possibly say?

He obviously can't like what he's seen.

When it comes to Spring Training, the fans care about stats; the players, coaches and management care about everything else BUT stats.

The players are tweaking their swing or working on their weaker pitches or getting reps in.
The coaches are looking at mechanics and execution and instruction.
The GM is looking at all that plus the dynamics between the players and the coaches, especially with the personnel changes since last season.

All that coupled with the fact that ST numbers are worthless means that yes, he very well could like what he sees.

TDog
03-15-2012, 06:05 PM
When it comes to Spring Training, the fans care about stats; the players, coaches and management care about everything else BUT stats.

The players are tweaking their swing or working on their weaker pitches or getting reps in.
The coaches are looking at mechanics and execution and instruction.
The GM is looking at all that plus the dynamics between the players and the coaches, especially with the personnel changes since last season.

All that coupled with the fact that ST numbers are worthless means that yes, he very well could like what he sees.

This was pretty much my take. I have no trouble believing Kenny Williams likes what he sees because what he is looking at isn't what fans are looking at.

doublem23
03-15-2012, 06:30 PM
When it comes to Spring Training, the fans care about stats; the players, coaches and management care about everything else BUT stats.

This is true, I can't believe how many people I know have watched baseball for years still think things like W-L, ERA, OBP, HR, etc. in Spring Training matter even in the slightest bit.

Tragg
03-15-2012, 06:46 PM
I don't know whether things are going well or not.
But I do know that ERAs, OBPs/BAs and wins and losses aren't the relevant data on which to judge at this point.

balke
03-16-2012, 12:48 AM
It's possible (and probable) that they both were/are the problem.

I can't see how anyone could have watched the Sox last year and not seen that Ozzie flat out quit on them.

Everyone quit - many before the season started. PK showed up all year... did anyone else?


Hey Ozzie you want fast guys who play defense? Here's Nick Swisher. Here's Jim Thome. Here's Adam Dunn.

You don't have to play Dunn if you don't want - just pick out one of the great minor leaguers like this fast defensive outfielder Viciedo we picked up.

There was no cohesion there. I think part of Kenny wanted to get these kind of players to show Ozzie who's boss. I think part of Ozzie was loving how bad of a fail Dunn was.

I saw more value in keeping Ozzie in this situation. Latino connection, the most newsworthy part of the Sox on a national level, and more history in this uniform than Kenny. I think it was obvious someone had to go though. I like both individually to stay, but they don't play well together.

I'm actually pretty excited to see what the Marlins do with his managing and the speed/talent they've given him.

Daver
03-16-2012, 01:05 AM
Everyone quit - many before the season started. PK showed up all year... did anyone else?


Hey Ozzie you want fast guys who play defense? Here's Nick Swisher. Here's Jim Thome. Here's Adam Dunn.

You don't have to play Dunn if you don't want - just pick out one of the great minor leaguers like this fast defensive outfielder Viciedo we picked up.

There was no cohesion there. I think part of Kenny wanted to get these kind of players to show Ozzie who's boss. I think part of Ozzie was loving how bad of a fail Dunn was.

I saw more value in keeping Ozzie in this situation. Latino connection, the most newsworthy part of the Sox on a national level, and more history in this uniform than Kenny. I think it was obvious someone had to go though. I like both individually to stay, but they don't play well together.

I'm actually pretty excited to see what the Marlins do with his managing and the speed/talent they've given him.

Ozzie Guillen evaluates talent like my ass chews gum.

balke
03-16-2012, 01:18 AM
Ozzie Guillen evaluates talent like my ass chews gum.


He's not paid to do that. He asked for a type of team on several occasions - the talent evaluator he hoped would give him that - gave him this team here right now.

That talent evaluator will probably draft a center to play catcher next year, and a special teams coach to scout his outfield.

doublem23
03-16-2012, 01:22 AM
I saw more value in keeping Ozzie in this situation. Latino connection, the most newsworthy part of the Sox on a national level, and more history in this uniform than Kenny. I think it was obvious someone had to go though. I like both individually to stay, but they don't play well together.

For all of Ozzie's "national newsworthiness" the Sox landed what? 1 game on ESPN last season? I'd prefer the Sox be in the news because they're good, not because their manager is a profane, homophobic trainwreck.

I honestly cannot believe anyone seriously pines for Ozzie who was openly grumbling to the media about his contract while the Sox's flatlining playoff hopes were being snuffed out in August for the 3rd straight underachieving season.

balke
03-16-2012, 01:40 AM
I'd prefer the Sox be in the news because they're good, not because their manager is a profane, homophobic trainwreck.

I honestly cannot believe anyone seriously pines for Ozzie who was openly grumbling to the media about his contract while the Sox's flatlining playoff hopes were being snuffed out in August for the 3rd straight underachieving season.


I think they were good when he was there too. First World Series title since 1917?

I'm not pining either. I just think he has more value than KW.

Not every football player is Frank Thomas. Let's start looking for guys who can hit a baseball consistantly instead of accumulating slow OBP and HR slugs. Find guys who can play baseball, not guys you wish could play baseball cause they hit the ball far.

Daver
03-16-2012, 01:41 AM
He's not paid to do that. He asked for a type of team on several occasions - the talent evaluator he hoped would give him that - gave him this team here right now.

That talent evaluator will probably draft a center to play catcher next year, and a special teams coach to scout his outfield.

Kenny Williams does not make the lineup, that really was Ozzie Guillen that penciled in Rob Mackowiak as the starting CFer that whole season, it was Ozzie Guillen that decided that Angel Gonzalez should try every position not numbered one or two, it is the mangers job to evaluate talent, and Ozzie does it like my ass chews gum.

balke
03-16-2012, 01:54 AM
Kenny Williams does not make the lineup, that really was Ozzie Guillen that penciled in Rob Mackowiak as the starting CFer that whole season, it was Ozzie Guillen that decided that Angel Gonzalez should try every position not numbered one or two, it is the mangers job to evaluate talent, and Ozzie does it like my ass chews gum.

And those names were on the roster because?

Center field options Since Rowand left:

Brian Anderson
Ken Griffey Jr.
Jerry Owens
Dewayne Wise
Darren "Got my man" Erstad
Luis "5 tool" Terrero
Ryan "Good strikeout" Sweeney
and Podsednik when his groin wasn't pulled.

How dare he put Angel Gonzalez or Mackowiak out there. Should've known Wise was the future all along.

Dan H
03-16-2012, 04:10 AM
For all of Ozzie's "national newsworthiness" the Sox landed what? 1 game on ESPN last season? I'd prefer the Sox be in the news because they're good, not because their manager is a profane, homophobic trainwreck.

I honestly cannot believe anyone seriously pines for Ozzie who was openly grumbling to the media about his contract while the Sox's flatlining playoff hopes were being snuffed out in August for the 3rd straight underachieving season.


I agree. Some think Guillen is a tough guy when he is just a bad manager with a anger management problem. Williams needs to clean up this mess, but that can happen faster with Guillen being Miami's problem.

TomBradley72
03-16-2012, 08:33 AM
I'm glad Guillen is gone- nice run- but time to move on- he had a long tenure but his voice, like a lot of leaders/managers had gone "stale" by the end.

KW should have been let go as well- but JR has never really shown the ability (or desire) to execute large scale organization overhauls. This is a pretty bad team- a 35 yo catcher with a AAAA back up, two of our best arms gone from last season with no replacements of note, an outfield defense with echos of Garr/Lemon/Washington, no real closer, nothing very exciting in the farm system, etc.

Between the two- I'm glad we prioritized Guillen's exit- I think Ventura will be a very good manager (along with Guillen, LaRussa, Torborg and Tanner- the best managers of my time as a fan) and a great "face of the franchise".

Frater Perdurabo
03-16-2012, 08:55 AM
Kenny's the problem. Ozzie wasn't.

I quoted this post to show it wasn't a so-called KW apologist or alleged Ozzie hater who introduced Ozzie into this thread.

Ozzie's fans need to let it go. Ozzie's gone. If you want the wound to heal, stop picking the scab.

I root for the laundry. How about we talk about the players and coaches currently wearing that laundry?

wassagstdu
03-16-2012, 09:05 AM
2005: Ozzie got the kind of team he wanted, it gelled, nobody quit, they won. KW gets credit for listening to Ozzie. WSI was not enthusiastic going in.

2011: KW proved who was boss, Ozzie got the opposite of the team he wanted, it had no chemistry and no performance, they lost. WSI was much more enthusiastic going in.

Who was right? Not KW, not WSI. KW gets no credit for going all in and destroying the team, whatever WSI may have thought of his moves. I will take a winner I did not agree with any time over a loser I did agree with. I expect this team to finish last, but if they win I will celebrate KW's genius.

asindc
03-16-2012, 09:19 AM
Everyone quit - many before the season started. PK showed up all year... did anyone else?

Buehrle
Humber
Alexei
Crain
Santos


Hey Ozzie you want fast guys who play defense? Here's Nick Swisher. Here's Jim Thome. Here's Adam Dunn.

You don't have to play Dunn if you don't want - just pick out one of the great minor leaguers like this fast defensive outfielder Viciedo we picked up.

What "fast guys who play defense" did you rather see KW acquire instead of Swisher, Thome, and Dunn?

There was no cohesion there. I think part of Kenny wanted to get these kind of players to show Ozzie who's boss. I think part of Ozzie was loving how bad of a fail Dunn was.

As scathing an indictment on Ozzie's performance last year as anyone can come up with.

I saw more value in keeping Ozzie in this situation. Latino connection, the most newsworthy part of the Sox on a national level, and more history in this uniform than Kenny. I think it was obvious someone had to go though. I like both individually to stay, but they don't play well together.

Completely irrelevant.

I'm actually pretty excited to see what the Marlins do with his managing and the speed/talent they've given him.

You can follow Ozzie and the team he manages on this site:

http://forums.marlinsbaseball.com/

BainesHOF
03-16-2012, 10:30 AM
Kenny's the problem. Ozzie wasn't.

Is this Cowley or Oney?

Harry Chappas
03-16-2012, 11:01 AM
This is true, I can't believe how many people I know have watched baseball for years still think things like W-L, ERA, OBP, HR, etc. in Spring Training matter even in the slightest bit.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between over-emphasizing ST performance and writing it off completely.

For a steady veteran, I don't put much stock in ST. Konerko is scuffling but that doesn't concern me in the least. But I think it's fair to look at young players that will be counted on in the regular season (Viciedo/Morel/Flowers/Sale) and veterans coming off of atrocious years (Dunn/Rios/Peavy/Beckham) and speculate about their upcoming seasons.

SI1020
03-16-2012, 11:50 AM
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between over-emphasizing ST performance and writing it off completely.
Exactly.

LITTLE NELL
03-16-2012, 12:40 PM
This is true, I can't believe how many people I know have watched baseball for years still think things like W-L, ERA, OBP, HR, etc. in Spring Training matter even in the slightest bit.


You are correct but the last 3 seasons I would bet we have won the fewest games in ST or close to it. I would like to see us around the .500 mark in ST, the last few years this team has come out of ST like they have never played the game before. If it wasn't for that hot streak in 2010 the Sox would have been under .500 for 3 straight seasons. I think Ventura is going to be a very good manager but there are just too many question marks on this roster. I think I read somewhere that Robin wants to win ST games especially in the last week so they hit the season on a high note, lets see what happens.

RKMeibalane
03-16-2012, 01:23 PM
Not every football player is Frank Thomas. Let's start looking for guys who can hit a baseball consistantly instead of accumulating slow OBP and HR slugs. Find guys who can play baseball, not guys you wish could play baseball cause they hit the ball far.

Though I understand the point you're trying to make, using Frank Thomas as an example doesn't make sense. As a player who hit over .300 for his career, Thomas was more than capable of hitting the ball consistently, and was much more than a "slow OBP, HR slug."

kufram
03-16-2012, 01:56 PM
The key word here is speculation. That's all anything said about spring training performance really is. If a player has a great spring training but a horrible season, nobody cares about the spring training. If a player has a horrible spring training and a great season, nobody cares about the spring training.

wassagstdu
03-16-2012, 05:57 PM
The key word here is speculation. That's all anything said about spring training performance really is. If a player has a great spring training but a horrible season, nobody cares about the spring training. If a player has a horrible spring training and a great season, nobody cares about the spring training.

True, but the question is, how much correlation is there? My guess would be not much for established performers, who may use the time to experiment or work on a weakness, but more for younger or less consistent players who have something to prove in ST or who (like Rios) tend to have long term fluctuations in performance. Perennial slow starters (TCM) need to change that in ST.

soxinem1
03-16-2012, 06:56 PM
This is true, I can't believe how many people I know have watched baseball for years still think things like W-L, ERA, OBP, HR, etc. in Spring Training matter even in the slightest bit.

Exactly.

I always watched how players looked and performed individually in ST. This year, like many others, the pitching has given up some runs, but look at the names of the pitchers. Most of them will be in A,AA,AAA in a week, so that does not concern me.

What I want to see is the MLB staff get work, and Dunn, Rios, D'Aza, and Beckham swing the bat with confidence. And so far most of them, esp. Dunn, have.

Then we wish for the best when the bell tolls.

Tragg
03-16-2012, 07:45 PM
He's not paid to do that. He asked for a type of team on several occasions - the talent evaluator he hoped would give him that - gave him this team here right now.

That talent evaluator will probably draft a center to play catcher next year, and a special teams coach to scout his outfield.

Yes he was paid to do that; he makes evaluations in the spring, for his roster, and within the roster who should play. Shall we forget his evaluations of Erstad, Wise and Kotsay? Or his initial evaluation of TCQ?
He can ask for a certain type of team, but " you can't always get what you want". He did the square-peg thing far too often.

And he got his type of team more often than people remember. He got his team in 2007 - that worked out nicely (yes, there were injuries; but that wasn't all of it). His type of team is ludicrous anyway - low OBP guys with no power who are fast won't win jack.

balke
03-16-2012, 07:46 PM
What "fast guys who play defense" did you rather see KW acquire instead of Swisher, Thome, and Dunn?



Depends what I could afford for $130 million and the 5th highest payroll in baseball. I guess I'd expect to have pick of the litter really.

asindc
03-16-2012, 08:02 PM
Depends what I could afford for $130 million and the 5th highest payroll in baseball. I guess I'd expect to have pick of the litter really.

Names, please.

Frater Perdurabo
03-16-2012, 09:10 PM
I was hot for Carl Crawford a year ago, but he was hot garbage last year, too.

Jordan Danks is fast and plays good defense, but so far he has been unable to hit. Unfortunately, the minor leagues are littered with fast guys who can play good defense but who cannot hit.

doublem23
03-16-2012, 09:17 PM
Jordan Danks is fast and plays good defense, but so far he has been unable to hit. Unfortunately, the minor leagues are littered with fast guys who can play good defense but who cannot hit.

Yeah, because despite the objections of some posters here, you actually do have to score runs to win games.

gobears1987
03-16-2012, 09:29 PM
Kenny should've been shown the door last Fall.

balke
03-17-2012, 12:20 AM
Yeah, because despite the objections of some posters here, you actually do have to score runs to win games.

Yes, and actually some fast good defenders hit the ball. They don't hit 40 homeruns and strikeout 200 times - but they score runs. They hit for this long last stat called average.

balke
03-17-2012, 12:31 AM
Names, please.

Nah. It's not about one player over the other - it's about an end result of not getting the job done as a GM. It doesn't really matter who I wanted.

A lot of money and focus was put on the DH role instead of finding position players who could add offense and field positions. Offense added was always HR related and not hit related.

This team has had an extreme imbalance of batting average which I think disrupts any chance for rhythm. Live by the long ball and die by it. HR and OBP are needed and great - but they don't mean jack if noone can actually hit the ball often in your lineup to move slugs around the bases.

I liked Thome - but when he left it was obvious the Sox needed something different - instead they tried to find more of the same. And when they got Thome they left CF barren for years. 3B hopefully works out with Morel - but that too has been a disaster. 2B I understand - Beckham showed promise and hasn't come through - but then that just points back to Kenny again with his willingness to call guys up too soon.

Daver
03-17-2012, 12:53 AM
I liked Thome - but when he left it was obvious the Sox needed something different - instead they tried to find more of the same. And when they got Thome they left CF barren for years. 3B hopefully works out with Morel - but that too has been a disaster. 2B I understand - Beckham showed promise and hasn't come through - but then that just points back to Kenny again with his willingness to call guys up too soon.

CF was barren before they acquired Thome.

doublem23
03-17-2012, 03:12 AM
I liked Thome - but when he left it was obvious the Sox needed something different - instead they tried to find more of the same. And when they got Thome they left CF barren for years. 3B hopefully works out with Morel - but that too has been a disaster. 2B I understand - Beckham showed promise and hasn't come through - but then that just points back to Kenny again with his willingness to call guys up too soon.

They didn't leave CF barren for years, they had one of the best CF prospects in baseball, coming off a huge season in AAA, ready to take over. The Rowand/Thome deal was a perfect trade for the Sox, it gave them exactly what they needed (LH power) for exactly what they had (CF depth). Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Even perfect trades don't work out. But in absolutely no alternate universe would the Sox ever not pull the trigger on that deal.

doublem23
03-17-2012, 03:16 AM
Yes, and actually some fast good defenders hit the ball. They don't hit 40 homeruns and strikeout 200 times - but they score runs. They hit for this long last stat called average.

Who ****ing cares about batting average? If you're going to try to throw stats around, at least have the courtesy to pick the ones that mean something.

Frater Perdurabo
03-17-2012, 08:20 AM
I care about batting average. It's not the most important stat, but it tells us something useful about a player over the long term.

Guys who can hit .300 with power over the course of their careers in the majors are a rare breed, and for whatever reason the Sox haven't developed a consistent .300 hitter who also hit for power since Magglio Ordonez. He's no longer a Sox player because the Tigers' owner was willing to shell out a huge contract to him despite his bum knee. Oh, and the Sox farm director when he came up through our system was KW.

I'd love to have the next George Brett or Wade Boggs. Or the Tampa Bay edition of Carl Crawford. Who wouldn't?

balke
03-17-2012, 08:52 AM
I care about batting average. It's not the most important stat, but it tells us something useful about a player over the long term.

Guys who can hit .300 with power over the course of their careers in the majors are a rare breed, and for whatever reason the Sox haven't developed a consistent .300 hitter who also hit for power since Magglio Ordonez. He's no longer a Sox player because the Tigers' owner was willing to shell out a huge contract to him despite his bum knee. Oh, and the Sox farm director when he came up through our system was KW.

I'd love to have the next George Brett or Wade Boggs. Or the Tampa Bay edition of Carl Crawford. Who wouldn't?




When the team is down by 1 or 2 with the bases loaded and you're in the heart of the order.... you need to walk away with a run.


Why did the Sox struggle so much with this?


Our guys struggle to make contact on good pitches - they can't beat a guy when they have to. A special player is needed who can hit the ball in these situations to drive in runs. He can't just sit there with his bat on his shoulder expecting to be walked - or hit "The highest popup I have ever seen" because he's addicted to long balls (or GIDP).


And notice I'm not saying that's everyone on the team that has to do that - there just needs to be a balance more for this team. They don't have enough guys hitting for average.

kufram
03-17-2012, 09:55 AM
I care about batting average. It's not the most important stat, but it tells us something useful about a player over the long term.

Guys who can hit .300 with power over the course of their careers in the majors are a rare breed, and for whatever reason the Sox haven't developed a consistent .300 hitter who also hit for power since Magglio Ordonez. He's no longer a Sox player because the Tigers' owner was willing to shell out a huge contract to him despite his bum knee. Oh, and the Sox farm director when he came up through our system was KW.

I'd love to have the next George Brett or Wade Boggs. Or the Tampa Bay edition of Carl Crawford. Who wouldn't?


I value batting average. Give me a guy who gets a base hit 1 out of every 3 at bats. Put him in the right place in a decent line up and he gives you runs. Simple.

Tragg
03-17-2012, 10:31 AM
I liked Thome - but when he left it was obvious the Sox needed something different - instead they tried to find more of the same.
No, they got who Ozzie wanted: Kotsay, who could also play the field.

Frater Perdurabo
03-17-2012, 11:03 AM
No, they got who Ozzie wanted: Kotsay, who could also play the field.

The problem is that by the time they got Kotsay, in addition to being a mediocre hitter, he couldn't play the outfield and could only play the one position that our best hitter could only play, so Ozzie DHed Kotsay. The better plan given the roster we had in 2010 would have been to rotate Paulie and Quentin at DH, while giving Jones more starts in RF and Kotsay more starts at 1B.

doublem23
03-17-2012, 11:46 AM
I value batting average. Give me a guy who gets a base hit 1 out of every 3 at bats. Put him in the right place in a decent line up and he gives you runs. Simple.

You realize that in the American League last year, only 4 full-time players, met that criteria, right?

cws05champ
03-17-2012, 11:47 AM
They didn't leave CF barren for years, they had one of the best CF prospects in baseball, coming off a huge season in AAA, ready to take over. The Rowand/Thome deal was a perfect trade for the Sox, it gave them exactly what they needed (LH power) for exactly what they had (CF depth). Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Even perfect trades don't work out. But in absolutely no alternate universe would the Sox ever not pull the trigger on that deal.

Completely agree...a lot of people forget that Brian Anderson was pushing his way into the big leagues, and despite Rowand's crash into wall plays Anderson was a far better defender. Everyone was saying about Brian, just hit .240-.260 and play good defense in that season. With the rest of the offense his offense should not have mattered. Unfortunately he only hit .192 in the 1st half and that was enough to get him pulled. And it was the pitching in the 2nd half that failed in 2006.

I wouldn't say the trade didn't work out, we got Thome for 4 years and he played great for us.

kufram
03-17-2012, 12:52 PM
You realize that in the American League last year, only 4 full-time players, met that criteria, right?


Ok, you want to be pedantic, good for you ... I should have said 3 hits out of 10 at bats. That is close to 1 out of 3. I don't care if there is only one of them.... that's the one i want.

You don't value average. I'm not here to argue with you. I do value average.

doublem23
03-17-2012, 01:22 PM
Ok, you want to be pedantic, good for you ... I should have said 3 hits out of 10 at bats. That is close to 1 out of 3. I don't care if there is only one of them.... that's the one i want.

You don't value average. I'm not here to argue with you. I do value average.

That's a cop out, I'm merely pointing out that what you're asking of players is extremely rare. 3 out of 10? OK, we're up to 13 players in the entire American League last year. If you want to put any stock in BA, at least have the knowledge to know what is an acceptable level of success. .333 and .300 are not.

JB98
03-17-2012, 01:29 PM
The main problem with the Sox the last few years is they don't get hits at critical times. Sure, I'd like to have some .300 hitters. Who wouldn't? Unfortunately, there's only about a dozen or so of those in the league. Run production is what matters most, and the Sox have been lacking in that area for quite some time.

Tragg
03-17-2012, 01:43 PM
Completely agree...a lot of people forget that Brian Anderson was pushing his way into the big leagues, and despite Rowand's crash into wall plays Anderson was a far better defender. Everyone was saying about Brian, just hit .240-.260 and play good defense in that season. With the rest of the offense his offense should not have mattered. Unfortunately he only hit .192 in the 1st half and that was enough to get him pulled. And it was the pitching in the 2nd half that failed in 2006.

I wouldn't say the trade didn't work out, we got Thome for 4 years and he played great for us.
And we just traded away Chris Young. Sox thought they had a surplus in CF.

balke
03-17-2012, 03:29 PM
The main problem with the Sox the last few years is they don't get hits at critical times. Sure, I'd like to have some .300 hitters. Who wouldn't? Unfortunately, there's only about a dozen or so of those in the league. Run production is what matters most, and the Sox have been lacking in that area for quite some time.

I'm more talking .275+ with power. A guy behind Konerko who doesn't have the likelihood to hit below .260 or the threat to hit in the .230s or less.

Swisher, Dunn, and the later years of Thome being of that ilk.

Honestly for me years ago the Sox should've identified the need for quality players and spent their money more wisely. There have been many times they should've sold high on good talent - and allocated money towards free agents who were better than what they've settled for. Why were the Sox buying DH's when obviously the team would be in need of a 1Bman in the coming years?

12million a year gets thrown at a non defensive position when you've got Viciedo coming up, TCQ, Konerko, and a team who might need a rebuild. Sox should've been addressing CF or 3B. the 8 million to Pierre could've been 16 mil to a good position player - and the team would be better for it in the long run. A lot of bad buys have led to this "talented" team that has no real balance. Just lots of athletes who could do well in the right system or in a good year.

I understand how difficult it can be - especially when you think it's okay to pay $125 million for this pile of crap - but the thought of a guy like Pujols getting $30mil a year is "asinine".

kufram
03-17-2012, 03:53 PM
That's a cop out, I'm merely pointing out that what you're asking of players is extremely rare. 3 out of 10? OK, we're up to 13 players in the entire American League last year. If you want to put any stock in BA, at least have the knowledge to know what is an acceptable level of success. .333 and .300 are not.


So you do acknowledge that there are some hitters capable of hitting .300? All I'm saying is I want them. I think you know the point I'm making is that I want as high a batting average as I can get. .275 is better than .225

I haven't said BA is how the west is won, I said I put stock in it. You don't.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me not want to post here. Maybe that is your objective. You win.

If you don't mind too much I'll put stock in what I want with or without your approval. Are you the knowledge accountant?

TheVulture
03-17-2012, 10:30 PM
I haven't said BA is how the west is won

That's good, because the Sox are in the central. Geez, can't you get nuffin right?:stooges:

Nellie_Fox
03-18-2012, 12:52 AM
Who ****ing cares about batting average? If you're going to try to throw stats around, at least have the courtesy to pick the ones that mean something.Why do you have to get angry at people who have a different view of the game than you you do?

Daver
03-18-2012, 12:52 AM
So you do acknowledge that there are some hitters capable of hitting .300? All I'm saying is I want them. I think you know the point I'm making is that I want as high a batting average as I can get. .275 is better than .225


The problem that many people have with BA is that the same people that use it as a standard also believe a walk is as good as hit, which is not true in any way you choose to look at the game.

johnnyg83
03-18-2012, 01:32 AM
Why do you have to get angry at people who have a different view of the game than you you do?

I agree. A little diplomacy and respect for other people's opinion goes a long way. Even if you don't agree with it. There's an old saying about having a conversation with a know-it-all ...

kufram
03-18-2012, 04:32 AM
A walk isn't as good as a hit but it is better than an out. The point I was trying, and obviously failing, to make was that I would value BA when making out my lineup card. That does not mean to say that I would make out my card according to BA, but it would be a contributing factor.

Oh.... forget it.... I wish I'd just stayed off the thread.

doublem23
03-18-2012, 05:27 AM
The problem that many people have with BA is that the same people that use it as a standard also believe a walk is as good as hit, which is not true in any way you choose to look at the game.

Exactly, as we all know, runs don't count when the guy got to 1st base via the walk.

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2012, 08:52 AM
Exactly, as we all know, runs don't count when the guy got to 1st base via the walk.

Are you prepared to argue that a walk is as good as a single when first base is open and there's a runner in scoring position?

doublem23
03-18-2012, 08:57 AM
Are you prepared to argue that a walk is as good as a single when first base is open and there's a runner in scoring position?

Its obviously not but with this flawed logic you could argue that guys should just swing for the fences at every PA since a HR is unquestionably the best possible result of every at bat

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2012, 10:05 AM
Its obviously not but with this flawed logic you could argue that guys should just swing for the fences at every PA since a HR is unquestionably the best possible result of every at bat

What flawed logic? Your statement combines logical fallacy with straw man, since no sane person would argue that one should always swing for the fences.

In certain situations a walk is as good as a hit. In others, a hit is much better. I don't think we need to list all possible situations to agree with this overall statement. We can all also agree that some outs are preferable (RBI sac fly) over others (GIDP with bases loaded and one out).

The point is that there are too many different types of situations in baseball to elevate OBP above BA as a rule.

doublem23
03-18-2012, 10:32 AM
What flawed logic? Your statement combines logical fallacy with straw man, since no sane person would argue that one should always swing for the fences.

In certain situations a walk is as good as a hit. In others, a hit is much better. I don't think we need to list all possible situations to agree with this overall statement. We can all also agree that some outs are preferable (RBI sac fly) over others (GIDP with bases loaded and one out).

The point is that there are too many different types of situations in baseball to elevate OBP above BA as a rule.

And we'll just have to disagree, as any basic study of baseball clearly shows that the single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs, and OBP is clearly a more meaningful number than BA.

balke
03-18-2012, 11:38 AM
And we'll just have to disagree, as any basic study of baseball clearly shows that the single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs, and OBP is clearly a more meaningful number than BA.

I actually don't dispute this much. I value OBP - but this team last year proved that if that's ALL you value you risk being a total embarrassment. These guys couldn't even sacrifice-fly in runners because they didn't know how to make good contact with men on base facing good pitches.

Konerko needed a better protector than Dunn/Rios last year - just based on the threat of what actually happened happening. Being completely overmatched when put in situations that demanded the get a big hit - not a walk.

There's no doubt in my mind that there's a big difference between:
.250 .410 30/30 +100 RBI and
.300 .360 30/30 +100 RBI

When you are in a situation against a fresh bullpen arm or good pitcher with men on base and you need a run - I want the guy with BA up to bat in that situation. Too many times last year they left the bases loaded cause that guy didn't exist.

RKMeibalane
03-18-2012, 11:59 AM
Exactly, as we all know, runs don't count when the guy got to 1st base via the walk.

Daver's point is that if a batter draws a walk with a man in scoring position, the base-runner doesn't have an opportunity to advance or score. If a batter gets a hit with the same runner in scoring position, he has the opportunity score.

SI1020
03-18-2012, 12:14 PM
I agree. A little diplomacy and respect for other people's opinion goes a long way. Even if you don't agree with it. There's an old saying about having a conversation with a know-it-all ... It's getting more and more common around here. It's not good enough to counter a position with one of your own, it's necessary to belittle the poster you are responding to. It gets tiresome. I thought about saying the hell with it several times, but the board will live on with or without me. I still like to read what many of the posters have to say.

doublem23
03-18-2012, 12:18 PM
Daver's point is that if a batter draws a walk with a man in scoring position, the base-runner doesn't have an opportunity to advance or score. If a batter gets a hit with the same runner in scoring position, he has the opportunity score.

Yes, I understood the point, if baseball were a two-outcome game with only walks and singles, it would be a valid point, but it's not. Not making outs is the most critically important thing in the world in baseball. Obviously it depends on the situation, but how you achieve that goal is less important than it being achieved.

I actually don't dispute this much. I value OBP - but this team last year proved that if that's ALL you value you risk being a total embarrassment. These guys couldn't even sacrifice-fly in runners because they didn't know how to make good contact with men on base facing good pitches.

Konerko needed a better protector than Dunn/Rios last year - just based on the threat of what actually happened happening. Being completely overmatched when put in situations that demanded the get a big hit - not a walk.

There's no doubt in my mind that there's a big difference between:
.250 .410 30/30 +100 RBI and
.300 .360 30/30 +100 RBI

When you are in a situation against a fresh bullpen arm or good pitcher with men on base and you need a run - I want the guy with BA up to bat in that situation. Too many times last year they left the bases loaded cause that guy didn't exist.

This is all fine, if this is how you view the game, I fully respect your opinion, but you should be aware of two things:

A) You're doing it again with these hypothetical players that are absurdly good. A 30/30 guy with an OBP above .350 is basically a once in a generation type talent. You're really splitting hairs with having to chose between Player A and Player B, as both would probably be sure-bet HOF players.

B) You're arguing against math. I don't know how else to put it, there's no numbers-based defense for ever arguing against the higher OBP player. If you want to view the game as a series of high-pressure, do-or-die, we need this 1 run endless situation, that's fine, but that basically ignores something like... 95% of the rest of the game. Its frustrating when you blow games in the 8th and 9th inning because you couldn't punch that one run in with a key hit, but almost always those games are lost in the 3rd and 4th inning when guys aren't working counts, drawing walks, etc. and instead grounding out and popping out because they're up they're swinging away.

balke
03-18-2012, 12:48 PM
Yes, I understood the point, if baseball were a two-outcome game with only walks and singles, it would be a valid point, but it's not. Not making outs is the most critically important thing in the world in baseball. Obviously it depends on the situation, but how you achieve that goal is less important than it being achieved.



This is all fine, if this is how you view the game, I fully respect your opinion, but you should be aware of two things:

A) You're doing it again with these hypothetical players that are absurdly good. A 30/30 guy with an OBP above .350 is basically a once in a generation type talent. You're really splitting hairs with having to chose between Player A and Player B, as both would probably be sure-bet HOF players.

B) You're arguing against math. I don't know how else to put it, there's no numbers-based defense for ever arguing against the higher OBP player. If you want to view the game as a series of high-pressure, do-or-die, we need this 1 run endless situation, that's fine, but that basically ignores something like... 95% of the rest of the game.

I actually am proud to say I am. Some games can only be won in those last few innings - when the other team has a starting pitcher who is in the zone and shutting your guys down.

Baseball isn't straight stats. There wouldn't be playoffs if it were. And yeah hate to use the example - but 2005 is an example of that. There's more than stats - there's chemistry and manufacture as well. That's why setting lineups is part of the game as well.

4-5 guys in the middle of your order with the tendency to GIDP and draw walks is a bad combo. High OBP is an ingredient to success. I argue more .275+ hitters with power instead of guys who could hit between .230 - .260 with a ton of walks is what would've made this team better.

And yeah once in a generation batters - I get that. But look at how much this team spent to get here. There's no real good reason a player like that can't be wearing silver and black right now.

Bobby Thigpen
03-18-2012, 01:16 PM
It's getting more and more common around here. It's not good enough to counter a position with one of your own, it's necessary to belittle the poster you are responding to. It gets tiresome. I thought about saying the hell with it several times, but the board will live on with or without me. I still like to read what many of the posters have to say.
It's not just around here, it's everywhere in general.

SI1020
03-18-2012, 01:19 PM
It's not just around here, it's everywhere in general. It's the internet, really just life in general. This place still isn't as bad as most boards, but it has slipped a bit in the civility department.

TDog
03-18-2012, 01:35 PM
And we'll just have to disagree, as any basic study of baseball clearly shows that the single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs, and OBP is clearly a more meaningful number than BA.

And yet, hometown fans boo when one of their hitters is issued an intentional walk.

On-base percentage is just as meaningless a stat as batting average. Stats are meaningless if you take them out of context. Simply looking at a player's on-base percentage doesn't tell you much of anything. It might tell you where he hits in the lineup or who hits behind them. Look at Adam Dunn's on-base percentage in his starts in the seventh spot in the order last year and compare that to what he did higher in the order.

Billy Beane would disagree (and this was one of the reasons he said Carlos Gonzalez was expendable), but on-base percentage is a meaningless stat if it isn't founded in a high batting average.

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2012, 01:45 PM
Getting on base is a critical ingredient in scoring runs, but scoring runs itself is the most important element of the game when your team is batting.

By the same token, preventing runs with good pitching and defense is equally important.

SCCWS
03-18-2012, 06:11 PM
And we'll just have to disagree, as any basic study of baseball clearly shows that the single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs, and OBP is clearly a more meaningful number than BA.

I disagree. A sacrifice fly is making an out but it may be a very positive outcome.

doublem23
03-18-2012, 06:47 PM
I disagree. A sacrifice fly is making an out but it may be a very positive outcome.

That's not always true, it depends heavily on the situation, but there are times when a sacrifice fly is a negative play (most of these occur when you are trailing).

ghostface36
03-18-2012, 07:29 PM
if you're arguing stats atleast argue the right ones
OPS+>OPS>>>OBP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BA

Golden Sox
03-18-2012, 07:39 PM
Final Score, White Sox 7, Cubs 5. Always remember my fellow White Sox fans: When the White Sox lose to the Cubs in a exhibition game, its just a exhibition game. When the White Sox beat the Cubs in a exhibition game, its a resounding victory!

TheVulture
03-18-2012, 08:52 PM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all.

kittle42
03-18-2012, 10:38 PM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all.

It really is the truth.

DSpivack
03-18-2012, 10:51 PM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all.

It really is the truth.

That sums it up well.

doublem23
03-18-2012, 10:58 PM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all.

Only if you view the game as a series of disconnected events that have no bearing on each other, but the thing about guys who draw a lot of walks is they also see a lot of pitches and work pitchers. An 8-pitch walk is ultimately better than a 1-pitch single in most cases.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, I'm too tired to work them all out, but in I would guess 75-80% of game situations, a walk and single are worth exactly the same.

kittle42
03-18-2012, 11:06 PM
I don't know what the exact numbers are, I'm too tired to work them all out, but in I would guess 75-80% of game situations, a walk and single are worth exactly the same.

Also true. But no one can just agree that there's a grey area, so let's by all means keep arguing until we call each other names!

SI1020
03-19-2012, 08:47 AM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all. I think I ought to bookmark this.

asindc
03-19-2012, 09:22 AM
Only if you view the game as a series of disconnected events that have no bearing on each other, but the thing about guys who draw a lot of walks is they also see a lot of pitches and work pitchers. An 8-pitch walk is ultimately better than a 1-pitch single in most cases.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, I'm too tired to work them all out, but in I would guess 75-80% of game situations, a walk and single are worth exactly the same.

I disagree. A walk might occur even if the batter is completely overmatched or if the umpire calls the pitches wrong. A hit is far less likely the result of sheer good forture over skill. With the one-pitch hit, the pitcher knows he has been beaten (save the weak dribbler out of reach of any fielder), while the pitcher is more likely to feel the batter reached base during the walk because the umpire squeezed him, not because of the batter's skill. I understand the point about wearing down the pitcher, but two runs scored on three pitches is always preferable to zero runs scored on 26 pitches.

All that is secondary, though, to the primary point: Unless 1B is already occupied, a walk cannot possibly advance a runner/score a run, let alone advance the runner more than one base, while a hit will much more often than not advance a runner. For that reason, a walk will never be more preferable than a hit. As preferable in some cases, yes, but never more preferable.

dickallen15
03-19-2012, 09:57 AM
Yes, I understood the point, if baseball were a two-outcome game with only walks and singles, it would be a valid point, but it's not. Not making outs is the most critically important thing in the world in baseball. Obviously it depends on the situation, but how you achieve that goal is less important than it being achieved.



This is all fine, if this is how you view the game, I fully respect your opinion, but you should be aware of two things:

A) You're doing it again with these hypothetical players that are absurdly good. A 30/30 guy with an OBP above .350 is basically a once in a generation type talent. You're really splitting hairs with having to chose between Player A and Player B, as both would probably be sure-bet HOF players.

B) You're arguing against math. I don't know how else to put it, there's no numbers-based defense for ever arguing against the higher OBP player. If you want to view the game as a series of high-pressure, do-or-die, we need this 1 run endless situation, that's fine, but that basically ignores something like... 95% of the rest of the game. Its frustrating when you blow games in the 8th and 9th inning because you couldn't punch that one run in with a key hit, but almost always those games are lost in the 3rd and 4th inning when guys aren't working counts, drawing walks, etc. and instead grounding out and popping out because they're up they're swinging away.
There can be situations were making an out is preferrable to taking a walk. Say your team is down one run man on third one out. A fly out that scores a run could be a better result than a walk especially if the next guy hits into a DP or strikes out, which opens up an entire other can of worms as many think a strikeout is just an out, no different than any other out.

The most important thing is to score runs. I agree with you in a sense OBP should not be ignored, and BA isn't the end all, but walks don't score runs unless the bases are loaded. Assuming except for singles the rest of their extra base hits were the same, I'd take a .310 hitter with a .330 OBP vs. a .220 hitter with a .340 OBP every time. I guess I'm advocating OPS.

Teams walk and hit hitters on purpose. They never let someone get a hit on purpose.

The bottom line is there are so many numbers available now and people who know what they are doing look at them and value each number differently. There are so many situations where each number is probably the number that could be more significant. To each their own. Everyone can make a decent argument that the number they most value is the most important, and everyone who values a different number can make the argument that their thinking is flawed.

SCCWS
03-19-2012, 10:00 AM
That's not always true, it depends heavily on the situation, but there are times when a sacrifice fly is a negative play (most of these occur when you are trailing).

So we agree your original post was wrong. I said a Sac. Fly "may" produce a positive outcome. Your original post was "single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs,".
A Sac Fly could produce a winning run which would be better than a walk or an infield single not scoring a run

doublem23
03-19-2012, 10:37 AM
So we agree your original post was wrong. I said a Sac. Fly "may" produce a positive outcome. Your original post was "single most important result of any PA is to not make an out, regardless of how it occurs,".
A Sac Fly could produce a winning run which would be better than a walk or an infield single not scoring a run

You are correct, I should have noted in 99.9999999999999999999% of PA the single most important thing to do is not make an out. You got me!

doublem23
03-19-2012, 10:43 AM
I disagree. A walk might occur even if the batter is completely overmatched or if the umpire calls the pitches wrong. A hit is far less likely the result of sheer good forture over skill. With the one-pitch hit, the pitcher knows he has been beaten (save the weak dribbler out of reach of any fielder), while the pitcher is more likely to feel the batter reached base during the walk because the umpire squeezed him, not because of the batter's skill. I understand the point about wearing down the pitcher, but two runs scored on three pitches is always preferable to zero runs scored on 26 pitches.

This is getting way too deep into the psyche of the game for absolutes. I think it's just as easy for a pitcher to know that he's been beat when he walks a guy if a batter fouls off several close 3-2 pitches and than takes ball 4 in dirt and can just as easily feel that even a sharply hit ball should have been handled by his defense (we'll call that a Zambrano).

What any of this essentially boils down to is that, with the exception of the most extreme circumstances in the game (winning run at third, 2 out, bottom of the 9th, etc.) a walk and a single are equal outcomes, therefore, why would you willingly chose the stat (batting average) that completely ignores that in favor of one the captures all relevant data?

Harry Chappas
03-19-2012, 11:47 AM
This is a fascinating argument. Unfortunately for the Sox, they're not particularly good in either category and I don't see that changing dramatically in '12.

Personally, I'd weigh BA over OBP and it's more of a "gut" feeling than one derived from statistical analysis. IMO, we simply don't have enough good hitters in our lineup to put pressure on the opposing pitcher.

Looking back on 2005, that team finished in the bottom half of the league in BA, OBP, and OPS but scored 100 more runs. Is it Hawk that says "don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it" or something like that? They also finished 4th overall in ERA which played a huge role as well.

TomBradley72
03-19-2012, 02:10 PM
IMHO- this has turned into one of the most annoying thread discussions (hijacked from original topic)- right up there with the endless debates over whether or not Brian Anderson's career was derailed because he didn't start Game 2 of 2006.

doublem23
03-19-2012, 02:22 PM
IMHO- this has turned into one of the most annoying thread discussions (hijacked from original topic)- right up there with the endless debates over whether or not Brian Anderson's career was derailed because he didn't start Game 2 of 2006.

Well you've really added something to the discussion, that is for sure

TomBradley72
03-19-2012, 05:17 PM
Well you've really added something to the discussion, that is for sure

It's been weeks since anyone added anything to the point of this thread which was KW's assessment of spring training- not molecular level analysis of the impact of a single vs. a walk and every other iteration.

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2012, 05:33 PM
You are correct, I should have noted in 99.9999999999999999999% of PA the single most important thing to do is not make an out. You got me!

I suspect that sac flies account for more than .0000000000000001% of plate appearances. My problem with the philosophy of "the most important thing for batters to do is avoid making outs" is two fold. Every team is going to make three outs, the question is how can you maximize those outs. The second is that not all outs are the same, there are such things as productive outs.

Harry Chappas
03-19-2012, 05:36 PM
It's been weeks since anyone added anything to the point of this thread which was KW's assessment of spring training- not molecular level analysis of the impact of a single vs. a walk and every other iteration.

Well this is your golden opportunity to right the direction of this thread.

God, the season can't start soon enough. Things are getting a little chippy around here!

TDog
03-19-2012, 05:39 PM
This is a fascinating argument. Unfortunately for the Sox, they're not particularly good in either category and I don't see that changing dramatically in '12.

Personally, I'd weigh BA over OBP and it's more of a "gut" feeling than one derived from statistical analysis. IMO, we simply don't have enough good hitters in our lineup to put pressure on the opposing pitcher.

Looking back on 2005, that team finished in the bottom half of the league in BA, OBP, and OPS but scored 100 more runs. Is it Hawk that says "don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it" or something like that? They also finished 4th overall in ERA which played a huge role as well.

There are people who will tell you that the stats prove the 2005 White Sox were lucky. I am not among them, though.

The reason you may have a gut feeling that you should give batting average more weight than on-base percentage may be that hits are something that come on a hitter's terms whereas walks sometimes -- with some hitters often -- come on a pitcher's terms.

It's not just a matter of intentional walks. It is pitchers pitching around hitters or being too fine with them because they are in a situation where a walk has far less chance of hurting them than a mistake. I have seen this inflate on-base percentages for power hitters with low batting averages. It also inflates the OPS of power hitters with low batting averages because that stat has inflated on-base percentages as a foundation.

If you put a .230 or .240 hitter with a .375 on-base percentage in a situation where the pitcher has to get him out (of course, it depends on the matchup, but) his batting average is more statistically relevant to the situation than his batting average. Fans, pretty much of all teams, complain that their hitters don't hit with runners in scoring position, even after a game when they go 3-for-9 for a .333 average. But you never hear fans complain that their team has a low on-base percentage with runners in scoring position or that they don't walk enough with a runner on third and less than two out.

Frater Perdurabo
03-19-2012, 05:49 PM
Statistics help predict the past, and for that they are useful.

I'd like my hitters to have excellent eyesight and superb bat control. Good numbers will follow.

kittle42
03-19-2012, 05:58 PM
It's been weeks since anyone added anything to the point of this thread which was KW's assessment of spring training-

The Sox still look like they'll suck.

doublem23
03-19-2012, 06:09 PM
I suspect that sac flies account for more than .0000000000000001% of plate appearances. My problem with the philosophy of "the most important thing for batters to do is avoid making outs" is two fold. Every team is going to make three outs, the question is how can you maximize those outs. The second is that not all outs are the same, there are such things as productive outs.

What most people term as "productive outs," however, are ultimately negative. Most of the only times outs have a positive effect on WPA, which measures a team's chance of winning based on situation, are in close, late game situations in a sac fly. I know old school baseball logic says its productive to move a runner from 1st to 2nd (among other things), but going from 0 out, 1XX to 1 out X2X is a decline in WPA, and it's really not much of a decline from 1 out 1XX.

Obviously every team is going to make 3 outs per inning. You maximize those outs by taking as long as possible to make them.

doublem23
03-19-2012, 06:10 PM
The Sox still look like they'll suck.

Pretty much, what else am I supposed to talk about this offseason? How awesome our infield is going to be when 1/2 of it is Brent Morel and Gordon Beckham? How excited I am to see Alex Rios 150 more times this year?

kittle42
03-19-2012, 06:10 PM
Obviously every team is going to make 3 outs per inning. You maximize those outs by taking as long as possible to make them.

Mike Hargrove and Carlton Fisk were excellent at that. :wink:

kittle42
03-19-2012, 06:12 PM
Pretty much, what else am I supposed to talk about this offseason? How awesome our infield is going to be when 1/2 of it is Brent Morel and Gordon Beckham? How excited I am to see Alex Rios 150 more times this year?

No kidding. I can start talking about my fantasy teams - one of them has a chance to win. And those games *are* played on paper! :D:

A. Cavatica
03-19-2012, 07:45 PM
Which is better, Dunn almost walking or Dunn almost getting a hit?

34rancher
03-19-2012, 08:19 PM
Which is better, Dunn almost walking or Dunn almost getting a hit?

Dunn getting hit, preferably on the first pitch. He's on base for sure that way and can't strike out.

balke
03-19-2012, 08:39 PM
Which is better, Dunn almost walking or Dunn almost getting a hit?

Hitting the highest popup EVER in the history of the world - cause it's exciting baseball. Get'em Swamp Donkey.

DirtySox
03-19-2012, 08:46 PM
"Dunn almost walked" might be my all time favorite WSI meme. God bless you Munch.

gobears1987
03-19-2012, 09:02 PM
A walk is sometimes as good as a hit.
A walk is never better than a hit.
A hit is always as good as a walk.
A hit is sometimes better than a walk.

There, I believe I've cleared this argument up once and for all.

All of this is true, and it is because of that Billy Beane and Moneyball are nothing but failures.

Daver
03-19-2012, 09:28 PM
Pretty much, what else am I supposed to talk about this offseason? How awesome our infield is going to be when 1/2 of it is Brent Morel and Gordon Beckham? How excited I am to see Alex Rios 150 more times this year?

The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield is one of the highlights of this season.

Frater Perdurabo
03-19-2012, 09:43 PM
The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield is one of the highlights of this season.

But, but, but, can you quantify that into a formula for me? :rolleyes:

doublem23
03-19-2012, 10:42 PM
The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield is one of the highlights of this season.

Take that Alex Rodriguez, Robinson Cano, and Mark Teixeira, our IF defense is better. Certainly takes the sting off the 25 more games they will likely win over us.

PicktoCLick72
03-19-2012, 10:58 PM
I mean I know this may be a rough season, but the mood here is getting beyond ridiculous. It's like everyone is attempting to one-up the previous poster on how pessimistic they are. I know everyone has a right to their opinion, so i will leave it at that. This is not going to be a fun place this year.

kittle42
03-20-2012, 12:34 AM
I mean I know this may be a rough season, but the mood here is getting beyond ridiculous. It's like everyone is attempting to one-up the previous poster on how pessimistic they are. I know everyone has a right to their opinion, so i will leave it at that. This is not going to be a fun place this year.

No, the mood is infinitely ridiculous!

And this place is going to be so bad this year, I will want to commit suicide!

You have now been one-upped!

kittle42
03-20-2012, 12:36 AM
Take that Alex Rodriguez, Robinson Cano, and Mark Teixeira, our IF defense is better. Certainly takes the sting off the 25 more games they will likely win over us.

"The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield is one of the highlights of this season" hardly calls for the above response.

He didn't say, "The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield overshadows the team's glaring problems and makes them a contender."

DSpivack
03-20-2012, 12:48 AM
No, the mood is infinitely ridiculous!

And this place is going to be so bad this year, I will want to commit suicide!

You have now been one-upped!

Oh yeah, well I think the Sox will lose 163 games this season!

You figure it out.

DSpivack
03-20-2012, 12:49 AM
"The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield is one of the highlights of this season" hardly calls for the above response.

He didn't say, "The fact that the White Sox have a strong defensive infield overshadows the team's glaring problems and makes them a contender."

http://dkpresents.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/talking_heads_-_stop_making_sense_f.jpg?w=350&h=350

shingo10
03-20-2012, 10:46 AM
No, the mood is infinitely ridiculous!

And this place is going to be so bad this year, I will want to commit suicide!

You have now been one-upped!


Hilarious.

kittle42
03-20-2012, 11:07 AM
Hilarious.

Side-splittingly unbelievably hilarious!

One-upped, and out-fonted.

kufram
03-20-2012, 11:29 AM
No, the mood is infinitely ridiculous!

And this place is going to be so bad this year, I will want to commit suicide!

You have now been one-upped!


My only regret is that I can only kill myself once.

tstrike2000
03-20-2012, 12:27 PM
Take that Alex Rodriguez, Robinson Cano, and Mark Teixeira, our IF defense is better. Certainly takes the sting off the 25 more games they will likely win over us.

So, wait? You're telling us the Sox won't be very good this year?

doublem23
03-20-2012, 01:11 PM
So, wait? You're telling us the Sox won't be very good this year?

Or the Yankees are going to be awesome

tstrike2000
03-20-2012, 02:54 PM
Or the Yankees are going to be awesome

AL East could be a fun race if Toronto and Baltimore would ever get their acts together, but at least Toronto got their good uniforms back. Ok, end of hijack.

doublem23
03-20-2012, 02:58 PM
AL East could be a fun race if Toronto and Baltimore would ever get their acts together, but at least Toronto got their good uniforms back. Ok, end of hijack.

So did the O's

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4ec2991569bedda53e000031/baltimore-orioles-2012-jerseys.jpg

WhiteSox5187
03-20-2012, 05:33 PM
So did the O's

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4ec2991569bedda53e000031/baltimore-orioles-2012-jerseys.jpg

Those are good uniforms but I never thought there was anything wrong with the Orioles old uniform either. Outside of that solid orange uniform the Orioles wore sporadically in the 1970s I don't think that they have ever had a bad uniform.

TomBradley72
03-20-2012, 07:26 PM
Those are good uniforms but I never thought there was anything wrong with the Orioles old uniform either. Outside of that solid orange uniform the Orioles wore sporadically in the 1970s I don't think that they have ever had a bad uniform.

It's time to change the name of this thread to "random, restless for the season to start baseball topics thread". :cool:

balke
03-20-2012, 07:39 PM
It's time to change the name of this thread to "random, restless for the season to start baseball topics thread". :cool:


I think the responses in this thread are the perfect reaction to the title. "KW likes what he sees so far" Make a silly statement get a silly response - or something along those lines.

DSpivack
03-20-2012, 09:32 PM
Those are good uniforms but I never thought there was anything wrong with the Orioles old uniform either. Outside of that solid orange uniform the Orioles wore sporadically in the 1970s I don't think that they have ever had a bad uniform.

The big change from recent uniforms--I think--is that they're returning to the Bird hats.

TheVulture
03-20-2012, 11:37 PM
I think the responses in this thread are the perfect reaction to the title. "KW likes what he sees so far" Make a silly statement get a silly response - or something along those lines.


I think they left out the rest of his quote: "I like the way the bullpen is shaping up, and I just can't get enough watching Matt Kemp in the outfield. That guy is just a great player. It's been a pleasure sharing facilities with them."

Nellie_Fox
03-21-2012, 01:02 AM
The big change from recent uniforms--I think--is that they're returning to the Bird hats.They're returning to the cartoon bird after they had returned to the original "ornithologically correct" bird.

DSpivack
03-21-2012, 02:22 AM
They're returning to the cartoon bird after they had returned to the original "ornithologically correct" bird.

Thanks for the clarification. I enjoy reading Uniwatch, but I can never keep up with the level of detail of uniforms.

As for the O's, it's really a shame what that franchise has become. Maybe I wouldn't have a soft spot for them (one of my best friends from college is a Baltimore-area native who is bitter about the Colts leaving town despite being born after the team left) if I was old enough to remember 1983 (I claim no right to complain about Tito Landrum), but it's sad to see them fall on hard times. I only went to a few Orioles games when I lived in DC a few years ago, but even coming in alone as an opposing fan, I thought the fans couldn't be nicer. I was walking up to the park and one person asked if I had tickets, I did not, so they gave me an extra club ticket they had and refused to take anything for it, so I sat next to them during the game and had a good time. The park may have been relatively empty because it was April and the matchup was Orioles-White Sox, but still they came across as pretty gracious, kind folk. And what a nice park.

russ99
03-21-2012, 01:10 PM
Being away for a week in Germany with limited internet gives tons of perspective: It's still only spring training.

I'll wait until they play real games before starting to pass judgement.

johnnyg83
03-21-2012, 01:45 PM
Being away for a week in Germany with limited internet gives tons of perspective: It's still only spring training.

I'll wait until they play real games before starting to pass judgement.

I won't. Just one E in judgment. 8^)

California Sox
03-21-2012, 11:01 PM
I won't. Just one E in judgment. 8^)

Actually,it's acceptable either way, though 1 e is preferred in America, and 2 e's are preferred in England and Canada.

On baseball -- I think Jordan Danks should get a shot at making the roster. He won't, but I'd like to see him get a few more ABs against MLB pitchers to see if his new approach is working or if it's a sample size mirage.

tsoxman
03-22-2012, 05:38 AM
Wrong. He rolled the dice on Peavy, Rios, Dunn - who on this board was against those moves? Not many. He went bust at the casino, but at least he went for it.
Oh please not this again. I will grant you Dunn...it only cost us money albeit a lot of it, but there were huge red flags on Peavy, Rios, Swisher, Linebrink, etc. Don't say that 'Not Many' were against these moves.

What can be said, IMO, is that both Williams and Guiilen recklessly managed whatever political capital that they earned in 2005, and we fans will pay dearly for it for years to come. Both should have been fired.

shingo10
03-22-2012, 10:45 AM
Being away for a week in Germany with limited internet gives tons of perspective: It's still only spring training.

I'll wait until they play real games before starting to pass judgement.


Post of the thread right here. The fact that Williams likes what he sees from the new staff is something that is completely logical. Anyone who is up in arms about it is just looking to complain.

So far, other than Crain, the Sox have remained relatively healthy throughout the spring. To me thats more important than anything.

I wonder what would happen if the Sox started the year on fire. What would people here find to complain about?

doublem23
03-22-2012, 10:51 AM
What would people here find to complain about?

Being proven wrong, of course. :cool:

I do believe the Sox have a chance if a few guys bounce back to career norms, their SP holds together, and Miguel Cabrera continues to field ground balls with his face.

SOXSINCE'70
03-22-2012, 11:06 AM
Yeah, and that's on the manager. How many times do you hear that a team takes on it's manager's personality? Ozzie gets a ton of credit, and rightfully so, for the intense, confident style the Sox had during the '05 season, then he deserves a ton of blame for the dead, sleepwalking style of the '11 Sox.



Rios had a few very good years in Toronto; he was an All-Star in back-to-back seasons in 2006-2007. He actually wasn't that bad in 2010, either.

The problem is: I can't stop dwelling on his horrible '09 and '11 campaigns.:(:

johnnyg83
03-22-2012, 11:13 AM
Actually,it's acceptable either way, though 1 e is preferred in America, and 2 e's are preferred in England and Canada

Oh really? And I suppose you're one of those folks who think it's "acceptable" to to spell color with a u and maybe even wear white pants after Labor Day. :D:

kittle42
03-22-2012, 11:33 AM
I wonder what would happen if the Sox started the year on fire. What would people here find to complain about?

We can always wait til the crash and burn, like the Pirates last season.

As the people like to say when the Sox start off cold, it's a long season. Same if they start off hot. Reserve judgment.

There is nothing wrong with taking a temperate, grey-area stance on something. So few people are willing/able to do that anymore. America!

kufram
03-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Oh really? And I suppose you're one of those folks who think it's "acceptable" to to spell color with a u and maybe even wear white pants after Labor Day. :D:


Not sure if it is "acceptable" to spell colour with a u, but it is correct in proper English.

shingo10
03-22-2012, 11:57 AM
Being proven wrong, of course. :cool:

I do believe the Sox have a chance if a few guys bounce back to career norms, their SP holds together, and Miguel Cabrera continues to field ground balls with his face.

Cabrera at third honestly does give me hope. He's gonna cost them some games over there.

shingo10
03-22-2012, 11:58 AM
We can always wait til the crash and burn, like the Pirates last season.

As the people like to say when the Sox start off cold, it's a long season. Same if they start off hot. Reserve judgment.

There is nothing wrong with taking a temperate, grey-area stance on something. So few people are willing/able to do that anymore. America!


I agree with with reserving judgment. I just don't agree with expecting the worst right of the get go. But yeah it is a long season indeed.

Nellie_Fox
03-22-2012, 12:28 PM
Actually,it's acceptable either way, though 1 e is preferred in America, and 2 e's are preferred in England and Canada.And (unlike the superfluous "u" in colour and favour) I think the British "judgement" makes more sense. I do, however, always write it "judgment."

kufram
03-22-2012, 01:11 PM
And (unlike the superfluous "u" in colour and favour) I think the British "judgement" makes more sense. I do, however, always write it "judgment."


Having lived in the South of England for over 30 years now I have adapted to what is correct in my surroundings. Every time one of my terribly English friends reminds me that we (Americans) bastardized the English language I have to remind them that my speech is closer to the speech of their ancestors than the speech they use today.

If I wrote colour or favour without the u people would just think I was stupid.

I also like it when they claim that baseball is "just a bastardized version of Cricket" (a game I have learned to appreciate at test match level) I am happy to let them live in that world but tell them that any third baseman from college level up would out throw any Cricket fielder in the world. I can't hit a ball very well once it has bounced, but they don't know how to throw.

TDog
03-22-2012, 05:50 PM
...
I also like it when they claim that baseball is "just a bastardized version of Cricket" (a game I have learned to appreciate at test match level) I am happy to let them live in that world but tell them that any third baseman from college level up would out throw any Cricket fielder in the world. I can't hit a ball very well once it has bounced, but they don't know how to throw.

A cricket ball weighs a bit more (10 percent, just a wee bit more) and it has a different seem pattern. But cricket is an entirely different game than baseball. If baseball is a bastardized version of cricket, American football is a bastardized version of English football and Irish hurling is a combination of baseball and field hockey. I was watching a test match in my hotel room in Scotland a few years ago, and the announcers were raving about a catch that the player made, incredibly enough, the announcer went on about, with his non-throwing had. Calling baseball a bastardized version of cricket rather than an influence is misunderstanding baseball.

kufram
03-22-2012, 06:33 PM
A cricket ball weighs a bit more (10 percent, just a wee bit more) and it has a different seem pattern. But cricket is an entirely different game than baseball. If baseball is a bastardized version of cricket, American football is a bastardized version of English football and Irish hurling is a combination of baseball and field hockey. I was watching a test match in my hotel room in Scotland a few years ago, and the announcers were raving about a catch that the player made, incredibly enough, the announcer went on about, with his non-throwing had. Calling baseball a bastardized version of cricket rather than an influence is misunderstanding baseball.


The similarity of the two games ends at the fact that both are based around hitting a ball with a stick. I think American football has more to do with Rugby than football (soccer). Many over here used to think that the use of pads in American football made the players "soft".

Baseball is often derided because it is much closer to Rounders, a game played by school girls. Whenever that co-relation was made I'd say that I'd like to introduce them to Frank Thomas and see if they'd like to call him a school girl.

TDog
03-22-2012, 07:16 PM
The similarity of the two games ends at the fact that both are based around hitting a ball with a stick. I think American football has more to do with Rugby than football (soccer). Many over here used to think that the use of pads in American football made the players "soft".

Baseball is often derided because it is much closer to Rounders, a game played by school girls. Whenever that co-relation was made I'd say that I'd like to introduce them to Frank Thomas and see if they'd like to call him a school girl.

I'm not sure what sport was first to have a rectangular playing field with a ball and a goal. Obviously basketball came later than hockey, although Russians have claimed that Springfield, Mass., isn't where the first basketball was played and have disputed that the game was invented by a man with Ph.D. who ended up the man in the history of the University of Kansas to coach the men's basketball team to more losses than wins. I'm not even sure if people were playing hockey before soccer.

But for Brits to deride baseball because it evolved from a game that little girls played is historically curious considering that the British outlawed hurling in Ireland early in the 20th century because hurleys for security reasons, despite hurling's resemblance to the girl's game of field hockey.

I have heard Brits deride baseball because baseball players used gloves, and it's possible that football would be more entertaining without the pads. But I don't believe such criticisms of American sports are any more egregious than Americans complaining they can't stand soccer because nothing ever happens.

DSpivack
03-22-2012, 07:31 PM
I'm not sure what sport was first to have a rectangular playing field with a ball and a goal. Obviously basketball came later than hockey, although Russians have claimed that Springfield, Mass., isn't where the first basketball was played and have disputed that the game was invented by a man with Ph.D. who ended up the man in the history of the University of Kansas to coach the men's basketball team to more losses than wins. I'm not even sure if people were playing hockey before soccer.

But for Brits to deride baseball because it evolved from a game that little girls played is historically curious considering that the British outlawed hurling in Ireland early in the 20th century because hurleys for security reasons, despite hurling's resemblance to the girl's game of field hockey.

I have heard Brits deride baseball because baseball players used gloves, and it's possible that football would be more entertaining without the pads. But I don't believe such criticisms of American sports are any more egregious than Americans complaining they can't stand soccer because nothing ever happens.

To be fair, I have heard the same criticism coming from Chicago players of 16-inch softball towards the 14-inch variety of the sport. :tongue:

doublem23
03-22-2012, 07:46 PM
To be fair, I have heard the same criticism coming from Chicago players of 16-inch softball towards the 14-inch variety of the sport. :tongue:

Exactly, it ain't softball is you can't break a finger

KMcMahon817
03-22-2012, 07:46 PM
Anybody else check the box score today?

Dunn 2 for 3 with 2 HRs and 6 RBI!?!?!?!?! And off of Cy Chen.....I like what I see. Can't wait for this season to start!

TDog
03-22-2012, 08:22 PM
Anybody else check the box score today?

Dunn 2 for 3 with 2 HRs and 6 RBI!?!?!?!?! And off of Cy Chen.....I like what I see. Can't wait for this season to start!

What impresses me most about Adam Dunn's numbers this spring isn't just that he seems to be hitting with authority, but that he has come up 35 times and has only struck out once.

Nellie_Fox
03-23-2012, 12:52 AM
I was watching a test match in my hotel room in Scotland a few years ago...That's funny, because when I was in Scotland two summers ago, it seemed like the only sports that were on when I was in my hotel room were cricket and darts. Darts I understand. I watched several hours of cricket, trying to "get it." I mentioned to my Scottish friends that I had been watching, but didn't understand a lot about what was going on. One replied "don't worry, we don't understand it either." I asked why it was on so much then, and he replied "for the English."

asindc
03-23-2012, 01:02 AM
That's funny, because when I was in Scotland two summers ago, it seemed like the only sports that were on when I was in my hotel room were cricket and darts. Darts I understand. I watched several hours of cricket, trying to "get it." I mentioned to my Scottish friends that I had been watching, but didn't understand a lot about what was going on. One replied "don't worry, we don't understand it either." I asked why it was on so much then, and he replied "for the English."

Cricket is the only sport I haven't figured out by just watching. Even Aussie Rules Football makes sense after awhile.

DSpivack
03-23-2012, 01:07 AM
That's funny, because when I was in Scotland two summers ago, it seemed like the only sports that were on when I was in my hotel room were cricket and darts. Darts I understand. I watched several hours of cricket, trying to "get it." I mentioned to my Scottish friends that I had been watching, but didn't understand a lot about what was going on. One replied "don't worry, we don't understand it either." I asked why it was on so much then, and he replied "for the English."

:rolling:

Darts is like bowling to me, I can understand the fun of playing it (though I've only played darts a few times, I love bowling), but not the fun of watching it on TV.

I remember years ago seeing some Highland Games competition on ESPN (back when they used to show random fun stuff like that), and finding the caber toss lots of fun to see. When I was a 13 or 14 we went on a family trip to London and Scotland. I loved Edinburgh, and Inverness seemed a nice small town.

Cricket is the only sport I haven't figured out by just watching. Even Aussie Rules Football makes sense after awhile.

When I was in Australia, we had some locals try to teach us cricket. The gameplay seemed simple enough; fielders, a bowler and a batsmen, not too unlike baseball. The scoring absolutely boggled my mind and I still don't understand it. But I guess the only sport that has a built-in tea break is not really for me, anyway.

In New Zealand, I remember watching on TV a match between Australia and New Zealand in rugby. That rivalry seemed great, and the sport lots of fun and not really that hard to understand. I've caught a few AFL games over the years, and it seems similar enough to rugby. What I have trouble understanding there is the difference between AFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League. I did watch a number of games in the Rugby World Cup last fall (though it was spring in the Land of the Long White Cloud), it was fun to see the All Blacks finally re-capture the title after being shut out for years, and on their home turf, nonetheless. I do think the Haka the coolest pre-game ritual in all of sports.

kufram
03-23-2012, 03:12 AM
That's funny, because when I was in Scotland two summers ago, it seemed like the only sports that were on when I was in my hotel room were cricket and darts. Darts I understand. I watched several hours of cricket, trying to "get it." I mentioned to my Scottish friends that I had been watching, but didn't understand a lot about what was going on. One replied "don't worry, we don't understand it either." I asked why it was on so much then, and he replied "for the English."


I was on the British Baseball Federation Championship team in the 80s and the championship game was played at the Oval. I trod all over the crease in my spikes! I was the all-important 10th man.... doesn't mean I was good. Ian Botham was the pre-game attraction hitting against a well-known bowler who had taken up pitching. Botham, arguably the best all-around cricketer ever didn't hit much... a few line drives, no long balls at all.

I believe that no mlb hitter would fare well against a good bowler... the trouble starts when the ball bounces. But you do score 4 runs for a grounder that gets past everybody!

One loves the sports one grows up with and that is right.

tstrike2000
03-23-2012, 08:28 AM
Anybody else check the box score today?

Dunn 2 for 3 with 2 HRs and 6 RBI!?!?!?!?! And off of Cy Chen.....I like what I see. Can't wait for this season to start!

Even if he strikes out 190 times during the season, if he can somehow hit .240 with 35 bombs, that would be quite a turnaround.

kufram
03-23-2012, 01:41 PM
I haven't watched any spring training whatsoever and I'm not much of a numbers guy, but I have a hunch that Dunn will have a good year and he is certainly primed for Comeback Player of the Year. He's doesn't have to do all that much, by his own standards, to win that crown.

SCCWS
03-23-2012, 04:45 PM
What impresses me most about Adam Dunn's numbers this spring isn't just that he seems to be hitting with authority, but that he has come up 35 times and has only struck out once.

To quote the immortal Jim Boutin: I had a no-hitter going and then the big kids got out of school.
Lets not be "impressed" until we see him do it when it counts. Just like why the W/L record doesn't mean much, neither does stats, especially the first few weeks of spring.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
03-23-2012, 05:58 PM
To quote the immortal Jim Boutin: I had a no-hitter going and then the big kids got out of school.
Lets not be "impressed" until we see him do it when it counts. Just like why the W/L record doesn't mean much, neither does stats, especially the first few weeks of spring.

:rolleyes:

God forbid we try to take something positive out of Spring Training.

Wasn't most of WSI pissed that it seemed like the players didn't give a damn during ST? Now that a few players are actually performing, it's "who cares? it's ST."

I don't recall TDog saying that Adam Dunn is cured of all his woes and will carry this through to the season (if I remember, TDog is one of Dunn's biggest detractors). He just made a note that Dunn, a notorious strikeout machine, only has one K in 35 ABs. That's impressive for him, ST or not.

Of course, we need to wait and see if he can continue this...but this stretch shows that he has it in him. I'm actually excited to see him if he keeps this up, and who knows, he might get cheered on Opening Day with a great spring.

Lip Man 1
03-23-2012, 06:19 PM
For the first time I'm seeing Dunn take pitches to left field with authority.

More and more I'm thinking the organization or Ozzie or somebody made a mistake by not sending him to the minors after the appendicitis issue last year for a week or so to get his timing back.

Lip

TDog
03-23-2012, 06:20 PM
To quote the immortal Jim Boutin: I had a no-hitter going and then the big kids got out of school.
Lets not be "impressed" until we see him do it when it counts. Just like why the W/L record doesn't mean much, neither does stats, especially the first few weeks of spring.

White Sox fans seem much quicker to find negatives in spring training than positives.

The reason I'm impressed with Dunn striking out so infrequently this spring (although he apparently struck out today) is that he struck out so frequently last spring and the spring before that. I'm not suggesting that his numbers extrapolate into a massive regular season or that he looks like he could have a Ted Williams sort of year where he leads the league in walks while being among the leaders in batting average and home runs while being among the toughest to strike out. I am impressed that he seems to be working hard on making contact. His walk total suggests he is often going deep in the count and still not striking out at anywhere near the rate one expects from him.

I have been hoping that Adam Dunn comes back from last season with a totally different approach to hitting and a willingness to work with his hitting coach. I have never believed that the old Adam Dunn who struck out 190 times while hitting around .240 would help the White Sox offense. I am impressed that he now seems to be working on becoming the sort of hitter who will.

KMcMahon817
03-23-2012, 09:36 PM
Agreed TDog. Dunn is pretty much the biggest factor in whether or not the SOX will be competitive. If he comes out and hits .250/30/90, the SOX will be in business.

Brian26
03-23-2012, 11:34 PM
To quote the immortal Jim Boutin: I had a no-hitter going and then the big kids got out of school.
Lets not be "impressed" until we see him do it when it counts. Just like why the W/L record doesn't mean much, neither does stats, especially the first few weeks of spring.

Beyond "stats", what is impressive and encouraging is that Dunn is doing things right now that he couldn't do for the last five months of the season last year. Obviously he has a different mindset now and has made fundamental changes in his approach. This is nothing but positive news.