PDA

View Full Version : Rios Might Hit 3rd...


Lip Man 1
01-24-2013, 12:09 PM
So says Robin:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2013/01/ventura-considering-rios-to-ba.html

Good move skipper!

Lip

WhiteSox5187
01-24-2013, 12:15 PM
I am surprised it took two years for someone to come up with this idea.

LITTLE NELL
01-24-2013, 12:32 PM
My prayers have been answered.

Chez
01-24-2013, 12:37 PM
I guess it depends whether the 2013 version of Alex Rios looks more like the 2012 or the 2011 version. Certainly worth a try.

SephClone89
01-24-2013, 12:51 PM
I'm pretty sure there have been stretches where he's hit third in the past.

sullythered
01-24-2013, 12:57 PM
I'm pretty sure there have been stretches where he's hit third in the past.

Four games last year.

Carolina Kenny
01-24-2013, 01:05 PM
Hopefully, Dunn will not be angry if he is moved to 7th or 8th in the order.

soxfanatlanta
01-24-2013, 01:13 PM
Hopefully, Dunn will not be angry if he is moved to 7th or 8th in the order.

:thumbsup:

TheVulture
01-24-2013, 02:31 PM
A guy with a sub .300 OBP two of the last four years batting in the third spot doesn't exactly inspire much hope here. Viciedo is supposedly sub par in left field because he has poor plate discipline, yet a guy who walks less than Viciedo in the three hole is a good idea? Don't get me wrong, I like Rios and I understand we don't really have much better options, but Rios seems better suited 5th or 6th. I'd actually probably prefer Rios 4th and Konerko 3rd, presuming he's recovered from his wrist problems.

SephClone89
01-24-2013, 02:33 PM
Four games last year.

But 113 games in 2010. I knew there was some time where he was our usual three hole hitter.

Foulke You
01-24-2013, 02:49 PM
But 113 games in 2010. I knew there was some time where he was our usual three hole hitter.
He also hit .284 avg 21 HRs and 88RBIs in 2010 playing most of that season in the 3 hole. Not too shabby at all. Alex was arguably our best hitter last year too and I'd welcome him back to the 3 hole. De Aza, Keppinger, and Rios batting 1-2-3 would be a top of the order that can all put the ball in play. I'm not as "Anti-Dunn" as many on this board but I've never been a fan of him batting 3rd. I've always viewed him more as a #5 hitter. I also feel that the 3 spot should be reserved for your team's best all around hitter who has a little pop in the bat too. Alex Rios fits that description.

thomas35forever
01-24-2013, 02:54 PM
I'd actually probably prefer Rios 4th and Konerko 3rd, presuming he's recovered from his wrist problems.
Rios is the best all-around hitter in the lineup and that fact alone makes me prefer he bat third. Konerko has power and no speed, plus he's proven himself a lot more. Paulie's batted fourth for years now. Why change it up now? And if those wrist problems have cleared up, I'd trust him in the cleanup spot even more.

TheVulture
01-24-2013, 03:01 PM
Rios is the best all-around hitter in the lineup and that fact alone makes me prefer he bat third. Konerko has power and no speed, plus he's proven himself a lot more. Paulie's batted fourth for years now. Why change it up now? And if those wrist problems have cleared up, I'd trust him in the cleanup spot even more.

Just because Konerko will likely reach base more. I wouldn't agree Rios is the best all around bat, he's never been anywhere near the hitter Konerko has been. Unless of course he's fallen off the cliff, which is another concern.

TheVulture
01-24-2013, 03:04 PM
I'm not as "Anti-Dunn" as many on this board but I've never been a fan of him batting 3rd. I've always viewed him more as a #5 hitter.

Dunn without protection is a scary prospect. Note when Konerko was hitting as well as anyone in the league the first few months of the season last year, Dunn was productive. Once Konerko fell off, Dunn was worthless. I could be wrong of course, but Dunn batting where he belongs at the bottom of the order is going to be ugly.

Foulke You
01-24-2013, 03:15 PM
Dunn without protection is a scary prospect. Note when Konerko was hitting as well as anyone in the league the first few months of the season last year, Dunn was productive. Once Konerko fell off, Dunn was worthless. I could be wrong of course, but Dunn batting where he belongs at the bottom of the order is going to be ugly.
I don't think you bat a 40HR/100RBI/100BBs guy at the bottom of the order despite the high K total and low AVG. You just don't do it. He is a middle of the order power guy to me and not a 3 hitter. I think a 3-4-5 of Rios-Konerko-Dunn is the way to go. Tank or Alexei batting behind Dunn in the 6 spot would be decent enough protection. It certainly would not be as good as Paulie but the Cubans are decent enough hitters to put behind Dunn.

russ99
01-24-2013, 04:27 PM
A guy with a sub .300 OBP two of the last four years batting in the third spot doesn't exactly inspire much hope here. Viciedo is supposedly sub par in left field because he has poor plate discipline, yet a guy who walks less than Viciedo in the three hole is a good idea? Don't get me wrong, I like Rios and I understand we don't really have much better options, but Rios seems better suited 5th or 6th. I'd actually probably prefer Rios 4th and Konerko 3rd, presuming he's recovered from his wrist problems.

Spot on. Plus Rios has struggled in the three spot in the past.

I still prefer Dunn in the three spot as long as he's doing OK at the plate - for him. He draws the most walks on the team and tied Rios in OBP last year despite his Mendoza-like batting average.

Also, the back of our lineup is rough enough without adding Dunn. Running Dunn, Viciedo, Flowers and Beckham together seems like masochism.

WhiteSoxNation
01-24-2013, 04:38 PM
I'm a fan of....

DeAza<-------Best leadoff since Raines/Durham IMO
Beckham<-----hopefully sees a lot of FBs w/ DeAza onbase.
Paulie<-----Perfect #3, good eye, power, contact, avg....
Dunn<-----"swing bat hard ball go far"
Rios<----Can knock in runs if Dunn Ks......:rolleyes:
Keppy<-----like the bat control w/ Rios in front of him.
Ramirez<----back to silver slugger form....I hope....
Viciedo<------30HR from the 8 spot.
Flowers<-------Give me .250/20/60 I'm happy :tongue:

doublem23
01-24-2013, 04:51 PM
I would have to believe Keppinger will bat 2nd. Bacon can bat 9th. He sucks.

Foulke You
01-24-2013, 04:54 PM
I would have to believe Keppinger will bat 2nd. Bacon can bat 9th. He sucks.
Yep. Everything I've read says that Keppinger will be in the 2 hole to start the year. I believe his "plus" ability in that lineup spot is one of the main reasons he was signed.

WhiteSox5187
01-24-2013, 05:59 PM
I know that Rios has a low OBP but he can hit for power and he can steal bases which might mean Konerko sees more fastballs. If he can put up numbers like he did in 2012 or 2010, I can live with a .330ish OBP from Rios coming out of the three hole if it means more fastballs for Paulie.

DonnieDarko
01-24-2013, 06:27 PM
I'm a fan of....

DeAza<-------Best leadoff since Raines/Durham IMO
Beckham<-----hopefully sees a lot of FBs w/ DeAza onbase.
Paulie<-----Perfect #3, good eye, power, contact, avg....
Dunn<-----"swing bat hard ball go far"
Rios<----Can knock in runs if Dunn Ks......:rolleyes:
Keppy<-----like the bat control w/ Rios in front of him.
Ramirez<----back to silver slugger form....I hope....
Viciedo<------30HR from the 8 spot.
Flowers<-------Give me .250/20/60 I'm happy :tongue:

No offense dude, but you always seem to come up with these hairbrained ideas on this board. This is yet another example. :tongue:

russ99
01-24-2013, 06:56 PM
I'm a fan of:

1. De Aza - good leadoff guy, better #2 - would prefer prototypical leadoff guy with more speed, walks, OBP and consistency

2. Keppinger - pretty good #2 guy, could be epic lower in the order or in a high AB supersub role like Maddon played him last year in Tampa

3. Dunn - We're stuck with him until contract is up, may as well keep him at #3, at least we'll get him on base for the RBI guys

4. Konerko - his protection is the only way Dunn has decent numbers, plus I'm old school - I like to see our best player hit 4th.

5. Rios - he did well here last year, why change it now? Plus he's lost his swing before when changed to different lineup spots.

6. Alexei - hope to see better results this year now that we're paying $7.5M this year and $9M next.

7-9. Three other guys who can hit.

Again I'll give Viciedo, Flowers and Beckham a chance. Let's see what they can do this with pressure to keep their jobs, at least long-term. It's not like we have big-league quality alternatives. If it clicks, we have a decent lineup to go with an above average pitching staff.

Also, not sure if I like two free swinging Cubans hitting back to back. Maybe give Flowers some protection and Viciedo less pressure hitting behind him in 8th as our "second cleanup guy"

DrCrawdad
01-24-2013, 08:28 PM
Rios may climb to 25 GDP next season batting 3rd.

Frater Perdurabo
01-24-2013, 08:45 PM
I like Rios hitting third. He will see more fastballs with Paulie behind him. In turn, a Paulie single to right generally will allow Rios to advance two bases.

I also like Dunn fifth, Viciedo sixth and Flowers seventh, especially later in the game, because Viciedo and Flowers crush LHP. Does the LOOGY come in only to face Dunn? Or does the opposing manager keep the RH pitcher in the game to face Dunn, and then Viciedo and perhaps Flowers? Often, the opposing manager will thus make two moves, or no move at all.

CoopaLoop
01-24-2013, 10:19 PM
I have no idea what the every year is different from the last Alex Rios is going to do batting third.

I do know I am going to miss AJ's lefty stick in that lineup.

sullythered
01-24-2013, 10:43 PM
Just took a quick look at his career splits. Kinda surprised to see he has hit 3rd more than twice as much as any other spot in the lineup.

WhiteSoxNation
01-25-2013, 01:24 PM
No offense dude, but you always seem to come up with these hairbrained ideas on this board. This is yet another example. :tongue:

I'm pretty sure this will be the lineup

DonnieDarko
01-25-2013, 02:22 PM
I'm pretty sure this will be the lineup

Considering that everything I've heard about Keppinger suggests that he'll be batting in the 2-hole, I'll agree to disagree.

TDog
01-25-2013, 02:25 PM
Dunn without protection is a scary prospect. Note when Konerko was hitting as well as anyone in the league the first few months of the season last year, Dunn was productive. Once Konerko fell off, Dunn was worthless. I could be wrong of course, but Dunn batting where he belongs at the bottom of the order is going to be ugly.

Dunn without protection behind him in the lineup will give Dunn a higher on-base percentage because he will walk more. If walks are a big part of his offense, that would be a good thing.

When a big hitter has protection in the lineup, the idea is that pitchers will pitch to them instead of walking them and they will get fewer walks. Dunn was pretty much worthless last year from late May, long before Konerko fell off, and he wasn't worth that much before that. He was only hitting .230 at the end of May.

doublem23
01-25-2013, 02:31 PM
Dunn without protection behind him in the lineup will give Dunn a higher on-base percentage because he will walk more. If walks are a big part of his offense, that would be a good thing.

When a big hitter has protection in the lineup, the idea is that pitchers will pitch to them instead of walking them and they will get fewer walks. Dunn was pretty much worthless last year from late May, long before Konerko fell off, and he wasn't worth that much before that. He was only hitting .230 at the end of May.

Konerko's slide last year began in late May as well. His BA hit its season high on May 27 at .399 and his slide began pretty rapidly after that.

EDIT - ****, I see the graph image isn't coming through... Well here's a link to the page I procured it from: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=242&position=1B&page=1&type=mini

blandman
01-25-2013, 02:40 PM
Konerko's slide last year began in late May as well. His BA hit its season high on May 27 at .399 and his slide began pretty rapidly after that.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/242_1B_daily_mini_0_20121003.png

Yeah for all intents and purposes he was really bad for most of the year last year. And it wasn't from injuries. I love Paulie, but the logical assessment is he's done. At least this is the last year we have him under contract.

kobo
01-25-2013, 02:45 PM
Yeah for all intents and purposes he was really bad for most of the year last year. And it wasn't from injuries. I love Paulie, but the logical assessment is he's done. At least this is the last year we have him under contract.
And you know this how?

edit to add: He got hit in the head in the Cubs series and missed 2 games in the middle of May and then at the beginning of June missed 3 games due to the wrist, which was right around the time when his decline started to happen. So while publicly he may have said the wrist wasn't an issue, the stats say the opposite.

dickallen15
01-25-2013, 02:46 PM
Yeah for all intents and purposes he was really bad for most of the year last year. And it wasn't from injuries. I love Paulie, but the logical assessment is he's done. At least this is the last year we have him under contract.
Not from injuries? The guy had 2 procedures on his wrist, not to mention he was hitting almost .400 on Memorial Day.

blandman
01-25-2013, 03:20 PM
And you know this how?

edit to add: He got hit in the head in the Cubs series and missed 2 games in the middle of May and then at the beginning of June missed 3 games due to the wrist, which was right around the time when his decline started to happen. So while publicly he may have said the wrist wasn't an issue, the stats say the opposite.

Not from injuries? The guy had 2 procedures on his wrist, not to mention he was hitting almost .400 on Memorial Day.

He publicly stated it wasn't bothering him guys.

Boondock Saint
01-25-2013, 03:25 PM
He publicly stated it wasn't bothering him guys.

So?

Noneck
01-25-2013, 03:32 PM
I dont know if Paul is done or not but I do know that one day everyone becomes old. Maybe his punch n judy style of hitting is because he is on his way out or because of injuries. We will find out early this year and its not a big deal, its the last year of his contract and the Sox have no other choice this year.

Nellie_Fox
01-25-2013, 03:32 PM
He publicly stated it wasn't bothering him guys.And I didn't believe him. He's never been an excuse maker.

blandman
01-25-2013, 03:36 PM
So?


Well I never looked at it that way! :cool:

blandman
01-25-2013, 03:37 PM
And I didn't believe him. He's never been an excuse maker.

Eh...he's never really had much to make excuses for before. After his first couple of seasons, he's been as consistent a player as there was in the league. If he never complained, part of it might be that there was never a reason to point fingers at him.

blandman
01-25-2013, 03:39 PM
I dont know if Paul is done or not but I do know that one day everyone becomes old. Maybe his punch n judy style of hitting is because he is on his way out or because of injuries. We will find out early this year and its not a big deal, its the last year of his contract and the Sox have no other choice this year.

Yeah, the contract is the big thing. At least its not a Dunn situation where we have to play him because of his years left on contract (though that didn't hurt us last year, just an example).

spawn
01-25-2013, 03:42 PM
He publicly stated it wasn't bothering him guys.

Yeah, because athletes ALWAYS tell the truth about injuries affecting them... :rolleyes:

spawn
01-25-2013, 03:43 PM
Yeah for all intents and purposes he was really bad for most of the year last year. And it wasn't from injuries. I love Paulie, but the logical assessment is he's done. At least this is the last year we have him under contract.

Yeah, your assessments generally ring true:

http://hoopspeak.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/derrick-rose-214a.jpg

blandman
01-25-2013, 03:47 PM
Yeah, your assessments generally ring true:

http://hoopspeak.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/derrick-rose-214a.jpg

He's still got a long way to go!

amsteel
01-25-2013, 03:54 PM
A **** sandwich is still a **** sandwich no matter which way you stack it.

WhiteSox5187
01-25-2013, 04:01 PM
Eh...he's never really had much to make excuses for before. After his first couple of seasons, he's been as consistent a player as there was in the league. If he never complained, part of it might be that there was never a reason to point fingers at him.

He had thumb and wrist injuries that nagged him throughout all of 2008 when everyone was saying he was washed up. The next year he hit 28 homers and then the year after that he was an MVP candidate.

Noneck
01-25-2013, 04:06 PM
He had thumb and wrist injuries that nagged him throughout all of 2008 when everyone was saying he was washed up. The next year he hit 28 homers and then the year after that he was an MVP candidate.

He was also 32 and 33 those years not 37. We dont know but we soon shall see.

blandman
01-25-2013, 04:10 PM
He had thumb and wrist injuries that nagged him throughout all of 2008 when everyone was saying he was washed up. The next year he hit 28 homers and then the year after that he was an MVP candidate.

He was still alright that year though. Lower numbers, but the big reason people thought he was regressing was because 2007 was also down from before and he was SO good the years prior. Take a look at his monthly splits from last year. They are...troubling...to say the least. Especially when you like at how high his Babip was in the down months.

WhiteSox5187
01-25-2013, 04:28 PM
He was still alright that year though. Lower numbers, but the big reason people thought he was regressing was because 2007 was also down from before and he was SO good the years prior. Take a look at his monthly splits from last year. They are...troubling...to say the least. Especially when you like at how high his Babip was in the down months.

His numbers started going down right after he had the procedure done on his wrist which was, I believe, the series after the first Cubs series.

TDog
01-25-2013, 04:52 PM
And I didn't believe him. He's never been an excuse maker.

If you blame injuries publicly, you're making excuses and some will label you a whiner. If you take the high road and say the injuries weren't a factor, there are some who will say the injuries weren't a factor. You're a hitter who has work done on his wrist mid-season. You miss time after being hit in the face with a pitch and later miss time because of a concussion. If you don't blame injuries for your hitting slumps, it's becuase you hve too much class to do so.

Still, when Konerko was flirting with .400, Dunn was the worst hitter with runners in scoring postion on the team. At the end of the seson, Dunn was the worst hitter with runners in scoring position on the team. It wasn't as if when Konerko was struggling, pitchers started to pitch around Dunn because he lacked protection in the lineup. Pitchers actually started getting him out more frequently.

Hit Dunn in front of Beckham and Dunn is likely to get on base more frequently.

dickallen15
01-26-2013, 05:57 AM
He publicly stated it wasn't bothering him guys.

At the time he had his procedure done he was hitting .366 with a 1.074 OPS. After, not so good, and then he had another procedure after the season to total clean it up. If you ever paid attention to Hawk, the wrist was always an issue, but again, don't let facts get away from your doom and gloom.

hawkjt
01-26-2013, 11:29 AM
PK was the best hitter in baseball the first two months,and then suddenly he is done? Ridiculous. Any objective observer knows the injuries caused his decline.

blandman
01-26-2013, 05:09 PM
At the time he had his procedure done he was hitting .366 with a 1.074 OPS. After, not so good, and then he had another procedure after the season to total clean it up. If you ever paid attention to Hawk, the wrist was always an issue, but again, don't let facts get away from your doom and gloom.

:gulp:

blandman
01-26-2013, 05:10 PM
PK was the best hitter in baseball the first two months,and then suddenly he is done? Ridiculous. Any objective observer knows the injuries caused his decline.

In general, age is not a steady decline either for sluggers. One day you're just not quick enough with the bat.

dickallen15
01-26-2013, 05:21 PM
In general, age is not a steady decline either for sluggers. One day you're just not quick enough with the bat.

OK he wasn't hurt. Disregard 2 procedures. They didn't happen. He just got old.

blandman
01-26-2013, 05:25 PM
OK he wasn't hurt. Disregard 2 procedures. They didn't happen. He just got old.

1. He played
2. The second "procedure" was an inpatient procedure lots of people get for not serious issues.
3. We don't know, but let's face it. Even if he's not "done" from age, he's certainly constantly dealing with injuries from age. There's not a lot of difference in production.

dickallen15
01-26-2013, 05:58 PM
1. He played
2. The second "procedure" was an inpatient procedure lots of people get for not serious issues.
3. We don't know, but let's face it. Even if he's not "done" from age, he's certainly constantly dealing with injuries from age. There's not a lot of difference in production.

He got that procedure done, to wash it out, because they didn't know how long he would need to recover with the surgury. He had the surgery the day after the season ended. If he wasn't hurt, and wasn't concerned about recovery time he wouldn't have needed the surgery and wouldn't have had it right away. But that would give someone optimism that Paulie could put up a nice season, and since he's wearing a White Sox uniform and not a Tigers or Royals, in your mind there is no chance for that. Your posts remind me of Glum from the Gulliver cartoons.

LITTLE NELL
01-26-2013, 06:00 PM
PK was the best hitter in baseball the first two months,and then suddenly he is done? Ridiculous. Any objective observer knows the injuries caused his decline.

Agree, PK went through hell last year with the bad wrist, getting hit in the eye by that idiot from the north side and then the concussion.
I'm OK with him or Rios batting 3rd but please no more of Dunn batting 3rd.

blandman
01-26-2013, 07:38 PM
He got that procedure done, to wash it out, because they didn't know how long he would need to recover with the surgury. He had the surgery the day after the season ended. If he wasn't hurt, and wasn't concerned about recovery time he wouldn't have needed the surgery and wouldn't have had it right away. But that would give someone optimism that Paulie could put up a nice season, and since he's wearing a White Sox uniform and not a Tigers or Royals, in your mind there is no chance for that. Your posts remind me of Glum from the Gulliver cartoons.

I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. There's no basis for this. Show me the 37 year old aging slugger on either roster with chronic wrist issues I'm talking up.

dickallen15
01-26-2013, 08:35 PM
I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. There's no basis for this. Show me the 37 year old aging slugger on either roster with chronic wrist issues I'm talking up.

At least now you are admitting he was hurt, something you absolutely refused to do earlier. You did seem impressed the Tiger spent a lot of money on 37 year old Torii Hunter. Do you even realize your post contradicted what you post earlier about Konerko not be hurt? Now you say he has chronic wrist issues. How can anyone take you seriously?

Lip Man 1
01-26-2013, 08:39 PM
Robin according to the Tribune, told the fans at Sox-Fest today that strikeouts were an issue last season, simply to many. It's now a point of emphasis in the spring to make contact as much as possible.

Now whether or not some of these "hitters" can actually do something other than try to pull the ball for an 800 foot home run remains to be seen but I like the fact that Robin recognizes the problem and is going to have him and his staff work on it.

Lip

BigKlu59
01-26-2013, 08:46 PM
Agree, PK went through hell last year with the bad wrist, getting hit in the eye by that idiot from the north side and then the concussion.
I'm OK with him or Rios batting 3rd but please no more of Dunn batting 3rd.

Amen Brother Nell.... Preach on... Robin's worried about K's. Um, who's the biggest Kelvinator with streamers in the store..

BK59

blandman
01-26-2013, 09:48 PM
At least now you are admitting he was hurt, something you absolutely refused to do earlier. You did seem impressed the Tiger spent a lot of money on 37 year old Torii Hunter. Do you even realize your post contradicted what you post earlier about Konerko not be hurt? Now you say he has chronic wrist issues. How can anyone take you seriously?

I don't believe his wrist issues affected him as much as people make them out to.

If they did, that's also part of the same problem. Aging sluggers don't age well because their bodies can't cope.

Torii Hunter is not even close to a good example of a similar player, and if Torii Hunter doesn't play a game this season, it wouldn't have the same effect on the Tigers as Konerko not having an MVP season would have on our roster.

34rancher
01-26-2013, 09:51 PM
Robin according to the Tribune, told the fans at Sox-Fest today that strikeouts were an issue last season, simply to many. It's now a point of emphasis in the spring to make contact as much as possible.

Now whether or not some of these "hitters" can actually do something other than try to pull the ball for an 800 foot home run remains to be seen but I like the fact that Robin recognizes the problem and is going to have him and his staff work on it.

Lip

But how can that be? It was preached around here how strikeouts are not that bad. I would argue its when and where the k happens along with frequency. Just can't have a 3 hitter on pace to set MLB records for k's and hope to win too many games. Nell and I both last year begged to get Alex in the 3 hole. IMO it cost us a legit shot at division leaving him there. I hope this year we get contact hitting, especially with RISP.

WhiteSox5187
01-27-2013, 02:39 PM
Robin according to the Tribune, told the fans at Sox-Fest today that strikeouts were an issue last season, simply to many. It's now a point of emphasis in the spring to make contact as much as possible.

Now whether or not some of these "hitters" can actually do something other than try to pull the ball for an 800 foot home run remains to be seen but I like the fact that Robin recognizes the problem and is going to have him and his staff work on it.

Lip

With the addition of Flowers I think strike outs are only going to be more of a problem. There might be 400 strikeouts between him and Dunn alone.

TheVulture
01-27-2013, 08:40 PM
...it wouldn't have the same effect on the Tigers as Konerko not having an MVP season would have on our roster.

I guess we're screwed then, because 2010, maayybee 2006, was the only season Konerko came close to an MVP caliber season.

russ99
01-28-2013, 03:03 PM
With the addition of Flowers I think strike outs are only going to be more of a problem. There might be 400 strikeouts between him and Dunn alone.

Don't forget about Viciedo and Beckham...

blandman
01-28-2013, 03:20 PM
I guess we're screwed then, because 2010, maayybee 2006, was the only season Konerko came close to an MVP caliber season.

Pretty much. It isn't overly negative to understand how important that kind of a season from Konerko would be to our roster. We don't really have anyone else capable.

doublem23
01-28-2013, 06:07 PM
With the addition of Flowers I think strike outs are only going to be more of a problem. There might be 400 strikeouts between him and Dunn alone.

Absolutely, strikeouts are the single worst thing in the world, definitely explains why 2 teams that made the playoffs had more K than the Sox, and the three teams that K'd the fewest times in the AL last year were the bottom feeders of the division.

mzh
01-28-2013, 06:12 PM
Absolutely, strikeouts are the single worst thing in the world, definitely explains why 2 teams that made the playoffs had more K than the Sox, and the three teams that K'd the fewest times in the AL last year were the bottom feeders of the division.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but given that Dunn and Flowers (as far as we know) don't offer much of anything other than some pop (which, as we've seen, is far from a sure thing), them striking out 400 times is a bit of an issue.

WhiteSox5187
01-28-2013, 06:17 PM
Absolutely, strikeouts are the single worst thing in the world, definitely explains why 2 teams that made the playoffs had more K than the Sox, and the three teams that K'd the fewest times in the AL last year were the bottom feeders of the division.

No you're right, strikeouts don't matter. When we have runners at second and third with one out I don't want to see guys shorten up their swing like Konkero does. I want them to hit an 800 foot home run. In fact, that's all I want to see from guys. Situation be damned! SWING HARD BABY! SWING HARD! **** your .180 batting average in high leverage situations or a .204 average with runners in scoring position, HOME RUNS! AMIRITE?!

doublem23
01-28-2013, 09:37 PM
No you're right, strikeouts don't matter. When we have runners at second and third with one out I don't want to see guys shorten up their swing like Konkero does. I want them to hit an 800 foot home run. In fact, that's all I want to see from guys. Situation be damned! SWING HARD BABY! SWING HARD! **** your .180 batting average in high leverage situations or a .204 average with runners in scoring position, HOME RUNS! AMIRITE?!

There is a better correlation between HR and success than strikeouts and lack of success, but I'm sure those numbers can't be correct because sarcasm and gut feelings are more CHICAGO TUUUUUFFFFF than nerdy math!

WhiteSoxNation
01-29-2013, 07:02 PM
Considering that everything I've heard about Keppinger suggests that he'll be batting in the 2-hole, I'll agree to disagree.



Robin has said he would like Keppy hitting down in the order to break up the low ob%

blandman
01-29-2013, 07:53 PM
There is a better correlation between HR and success than strikeouts and lack of success, but I'm sure those numbers can't be correct because sarcasm and gut feelings are more CHICAGO TUUUUUFFFFF than nerdy math!

Haha...yeah I don't get why people hate strikeouts so much. Usually it's the same people who claim it isn't a big deal when pitchers rack up a ton of them.

Strikeouts aren't a big deal if you're still productive. In some instances, they are the better option (instead of going up there just trying to poke the ball in play, which can lead to a double play). Sure, they're also the worst option in some cases, but really how bad a strikeout is versus any other out is at least situation specific.

DonnieDarko
01-29-2013, 07:53 PM
Robin has said he would like Keppy hitting down in the order to break up the low ob%

orly?

kobo
01-29-2013, 08:29 PM
Robin has said he would like Keppy hitting down in the order to break up the low ob%
Robin has said nothing of the sort. The only reference to this was from an article from ESPN Chicago where Doug Padilla said Keppinger COULD be asked to bat 6th or 7th. Nothing from Robin's mouth.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/category/_/name/robin-ventura

WhiteSox5187
01-29-2013, 08:31 PM
Haha...yeah I don't get why people hate strikeouts so much. Usually it's the same people who claim it isn't a big deal when pitchers rack up a ton of them.

Strikeouts aren't a big deal if you're still productive. In some instances, they are the better option (instead of going up there just trying to poke the ball in play, which can lead to a double play). Sure, they're also the worst option in some cases, but really how bad a strikeout is versus any other out is at least situation specific.

Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out. Groundouts and fly outs can be productive, if you're putting the ball in play you are least opening the door to the possibility of an error. A strikeout doesn't allow that. Now, obviously you can have a guy who can strikeout a ton and still be productive (Jim Thome struck out a lot but he was still productive). But Thome was at least hitting about .240 while striking out a lot, when you have a line up of low average, high strike out guys you are giving up a lot of very unproductive outs and are going to wind up struggling to score runs because of that.

My thinking is a bit jumbled right now and I can lay out a better argument later about why I dislike strikeouts so much and I will do that later.

Mohoney
01-29-2013, 08:44 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but given that Dunn and Flowers (as far as we know) don't offer much of anything other than some pop (which, as we've seen, is far from a sure thing), them striking out 400 times is a bit of an issue.

If Tyler Flowers hits the 40+ homers that Adam Dunn will hit, then I'll be more than fine with the 200+ strikeouts.

Mohoney
01-29-2013, 08:45 PM
Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out.

They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

DSpivack
01-29-2013, 08:47 PM
They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.

Mohoney
01-29-2013, 08:49 PM
I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.

Ah the magical summer of 2003.

blandman
01-29-2013, 10:57 PM
Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out. Groundouts and fly outs can be productive, if you're putting the ball in play you are least opening the door to the possibility of an error. A strikeout doesn't allow that. Now, obviously you can have a guy who can strikeout a ton and still be productive (Jim Thome struck out a lot but he was still productive). But Thome was at least hitting about .240 while striking out a lot, when you have a line up of low average, high strike out guys you are giving up a lot of very unproductive outs and are going to wind up struggling to score runs because of that.

My thinking is a bit jumbled right now and I can lay out a better argument later about why I dislike strikeouts so much and I will do that later.

Not true.

They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

Yes.

DumpJerry
01-29-2013, 11:02 PM
I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.
A guy in my office called him 6-4-3.

tstrike2000
01-30-2013, 12:17 AM
Hopefully, Dunn will not be angry if he is moved to 7th or 8th in the order.

Or to another team.

Nellie_Fox
01-30-2013, 12:54 AM
...really how bad a strikeout is versus any other out is at least situation specific.I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

sullythered
01-30-2013, 04:07 AM
Over the courses of their careers, these guys have had WAY more success with Rios 2nd,
iPaulie cleanup, and Dunn 5th. It aint even close.

blandman
01-30-2013, 08:27 AM
I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

Do you have stats to back that up?

Also, framing it as strikeout versus every other option (including non-outs) is a little unfair. Isn't a walk also an alternative to every other out then?

asindc
01-30-2013, 09:56 AM
I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

A very succinct explanation of the obvious.

Do you have stats to back that up?

Also, framing it as strikeout versus every other option (including non-outs) is a little unfair. Isn't a walk also an alternative to every other out then?

No, it is not unfair. And yes, a walk is preferable to most outs, with the exception of walks vs. outs that score a run. A consistent observation of the game is enough to know that a ball in play results in far more positive outcomes than a strikeout does, even with noted exceptions.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 10:06 AM
A very succinct explanation of the obvious.

Not neccessarily as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no correlation between the amount of times a team strikes out and how well or poorly its offense performs. Frankly speaking, teams that hit for high power and have high strike outs almost always outscore teams that hit for low power with low strikeouts.

No, it is not unfair. And yes, a walk is preferable to most outs, with the exception of walks vs. outs that score a run.

Except in the most dire of circumstances (trailing by a run in the 9th inning, for example) any play that results in an out is less desirable than one that doesn't, regardless if a run scores or not. Outs are the most precious commodity in baseball.

A consistent observation of the game is enough to know that a ball in play results in far more positive outcomes than a strikeout does, even with noted exceptions.

Observation with a bias. Any rudimentary numerical analysis of baseball CLEARLY reveals that what's important is that teams make outs more infrequently (i.e. have a high OBP) and not how they are made.

asindc
01-30-2013, 10:32 AM
Not neccessarily as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no correlation between the amount of times a team strikes out and how well or poorly its offense performs. Frankly speaking, teams that hit for high power and have high strike outs almost always outscore teams that hit for low power with low strikeouts.



Except in the most dire of circumstances (trailing by a run in the 9th inning, for example) any play that results in an out is less desirable than one that doesn't, regardless if a run scores or not. Outs are the most precious commodity in baseball.


Observation with a bias. Any rudimentary numerical analysis of baseball CLEARLY reveals that what's important is that teams make outs more infrequently (i.e. have a high OBP) and not how they are made.

1) Teams that hit for average power with low strikeouts are preferable to teams that hit for average power with high strikeouts, which is a more apples-to-apples comparison. Hitting for average or high power is not mutually exclusive to average-to-low strikeout rates.

2) That is absolutely not true. Trading an out for a run is always, always preferable to not making an out when a run does not score. RUNS are the most precious commodity in baseball.

3) Making outs infrequently is not incompatible with low stikeout rates.

Team A: 6000 PAs, 1000 SOs.

Team B: 6000 PAs, 850 SOs.

Assume that the two teams played the same number of times in the same park against the same teams and faced the same pitchers. Except for run-scoring outs and total runs, all other stats (Avg, hits, 2B, SB, HR, other teams' errors made, etc.) are the same. There is no statistical model that can be produced that will show that Team A outscored or even scored the same number of runs as Team B. Team B will have scored more runs and advanced more runners via an out or walk than Team A, resulting in more runs scored total, all else being equal.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 10:40 AM
1) Teams that hit for average power with low strikeouts are preferable to teams that hit for average power with high strikeouts, which is a more apples-to-apples comparison. Hitting for average or high power is not mutually exclusive to average-to-low strikeout rates.

That's not the argument, obviously good offensive teams are better than bad offensive teams, it's just that how often a team K's is not indicative of either.

2) That is absolutely not true. Trading an out for a run is always, always preferable to not making an out when a run does not score. RUNS are the most precious commodity in baseball.

No, a team's WPA (the probability that they will win based on in-game situation and historical data) will generally drop on plays that result in an out made and a run scored. Again, there are times when this is not true, such as in late game situations when a team is trailing, but generally speaking, for most of innings 1-8 it is never beneficial to make an out. That is a fact backed up numbers, you can choose to accept or deny it all you like. I suppose your WPA may increase on plays when you make an out and score two or three runs, but those are extremely rare. Generally speaking, in terms of win probability, it is beneficial to walk over hitting a sacrifice fly. It is better to walk than it is to ground out and score a runner from third. Outs are more precious because you only get 27 of them. Once they are gone, they are gone.

3) Making outs infrequently is not incompatible with low stikeout rates.

Team A: 6000 PAs, 1000 SOs.

Team B: 6000 PAs, 850 SOs.

Assume that the two teams played the same number of times in the same park against the same teams and faced the same pitchers. Except for run-scoring outs and total runs, all other stats (Avg, hits, 2B, SB, HR, other teams' errors made, etc.) are the same. There is no statistical model that can be produced that will show that Team A outscored or even scored the same number of runs as Team B. Team B will have scored more runs and advanced more runners via an out or walk than Team A, resulting in more runs scored total, all else being equal.

Well OBVIOUSLY if you're going to stack the deck with your little fantasy you will prevail, but over here in reality (where I am trying to steer the conversation) you will notice that K rate is a very poor way to evaluate an offense. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter how a team makes their outs. I know you guys can harp on how you can advance runners or you can hit into an error over and over and over again, but there just isn't any evidence to suggest any of that really matters in the long run. Over the course of 162 games, outs are simply outs. Teams that make them more frequently are generally worse offensively than teams that don't. It doesn't matter how they are accrued.

asindc
01-30-2013, 11:11 AM
That's not the argument, obviously good offensive teams are better than bad offensive teams, it's just that how often a team K's is not indicative of either.



No, a team's WPA (the probability that they will win based on in-game situation and historical data) will generally drop on plays that result in an out made and a run scored. Again, there are times when this is not true, such as in late game situations when a team is trailing, but generally speaking, for most of innings 1-8 it is never beneficial to make an out. That is a fact backed up numbers, you can choose to accept or deny it all you like. I suppose your WPA may increase on plays when you make an out and score two or three runs, but those are extremely rare. Generally speaking, in terms of win probability, it is beneficial to walk over hitting a sacrifice fly. It is better to walk than it is to ground out and score a runner from third. Outs are more precious because you only get 27 of them. Once they are gone, they are gone.

Runs are more precious because once you get one, it is yours to keep, and they are rarer than outs. It cannot be assumed a run will score after a walk when the same AB could have produced a SF. That's why you take the run even if you have to give up an out to do it.



Well OBVIOUSLY if you're going to stack the deck with your little fantasy you will prevail, but over here in reality (where I am trying to steer the conversation) you will notice that K rate is a very poor way to evaluate an offense. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter how a team makes their outs. I know you guys can harp on how you can advance runners or you can hit into an error over and over and over again, but there just isn't any evidence to suggest any of that really matters in the long run. Over the course of 162 games, outs are simply outs. Teams that make them more frequently are generally worse offensively than teams that don't. It doesn't matter how they are accrued.


Runs are more precious because once you get one, it is yours to keep, and they are rarer than outs. It cannot be assumed a run will score after a walk when the same AB could have produced a SF. That's why you take the run even if you have to give up an out to do it.

My example is not stacked. It compares two otherwise equal offensive teams with the only variable being SOs. Put it another way: If Team A and Team B played each other, started pitchers of equal caliber, had defenses of equal caliber, made the same type of outs, and each got 7 hits, 4 walks, and 1 reached by one-base error, which one is more likely to win, the team that SO just once, or the team that SO 7 times? Now, of course, it matters when the hits, walks, and errors happened within the game, but on average, which team would you prefer?

Striking out less is not in lieu of making less frequent outs. The two are not mutually exclusive.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 11:35 AM
Runs are more precious because once you get one, it is yours to keep, and they are rarer than outs. It cannot be assumed a run will score after a walk when the same AB could have produced a SF. That's why you take the run even if you have to give up an out to do it.

If that is what you believe, that's fine, I'm just point out that you're arguing against numbers.

Striking out less is not in lieu of making less frequent outs. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nobody has said that, you're arguing against nobody here, I am just merely pointing out that if you look at a team over the course of 162 games, it generally does not matter how often they strike out. For every good offense that strikes out rarely, there is a good offense that strikes out a lot. For every bad offense that strikes out a lot, there is a bad offense that strikes out very rarely. If you're trying to mold an offense around the concept that you don't want strikeouts, that is no guarantee you are building a successful offense.

Nellie_Fox
01-30-2013, 11:56 AM
Doub, you state that outs are the most precious commodity. So, can you argue that a player who puts the ball in play will make fewer outs than a player who strikes out? What would you estimate, a quarter to a third of those balls in play will result in a hit or error, while all the strikeouts will result in an out?

Only compare strikeouts, as indc said. You can't throw in an assumption that higher strikeouts lead to more power. Fewer strikeouts will result in fewer overall outs. All I was addressing was the constant incorrect arguments that strikeouts don't matter because they're no worse than any other kind of out, because that makes the incorrect assumption that the alternative to a strikeout is some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout" which is a very different thing.

SI1020
01-30-2013, 12:26 PM
If many stat gurus say strikeouts are the most important stat for a pitcher then why doesn't it matter if a player or a team strikes out a lot?

doublem23
01-30-2013, 12:31 PM
Doub, you state that outs are the most precious commodity. So, can you argue that a player who puts the ball in play will make fewer outs than a player who strikes out? What would you estimate, a quarter to a third of those balls in play will result in a hit or error, while all the strikeouts will result in an out?

Only compare strikeouts, as indc said. You can't throw in an assumption that higher strikeouts lead to more power. Fewer strikeouts will result in fewer overall outs. All I was addressing was the constant incorrect arguments that strikeouts don't matter because they're no worse than any other kind of out, because that makes the incorrect assumption that the alternative to a strikeout is some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout" which is a very different thing.

No, you are absolutely correct and I apologize if that was the argument I seemed to be presenting. I was merely addressing the notion that a high number of strikeouts are some kind of harbinger of offensive doom, because they are not. Perhaps in a game-by-game, inning-by-inning analysis you can pick out spots where an out made on a ball in play would be super beneficial over a strikeout, the only argument I'm trying to present is that when viewed over a full season's worth, is that whether or not a team strikes out a lot is inconsquential compared to other, more important aspects of offense.

blandman
01-30-2013, 03:10 PM
No, you are absolutely correct and I apologize if that was the argument I seemed to be presenting. I was merely addressing the notion that a high number of strikeouts are some kind of harbinger of offensive doom, because they are not. Perhaps in a game-by-game, inning-by-inning analysis you can pick out spots where an out made on a ball in play would be super beneficial over a strikeout, the only argument I'm trying to present is that when viewed over a full season's worth, is that whether or not a team strikes out a lot is inconsquential compared to other, more important aspects of offense.

And going a little further, what you said about sacrificing...the numbers overwhelmingly show that sacrificing an out leads to less overall runs scored. Sure, there are instances where it makes sense to do it (like late in a game for a go ahead run), but there is solid, irrefutable statistics that show giving up outs leads to less runs scored in the long run.

sullythered
01-30-2013, 04:33 PM
The top three teams in team strikeouts last season all had at least 90 wins.

Nellie_Fox
01-30-2013, 04:41 PM
The top three teams in team strikeouts last season all had at least 90 wins.It wasn't the strikeouts that did it for them.

TDog
01-30-2013, 04:55 PM
It wasn't the strikeouts that did it for them.

The team that won the World Series, in a dominating sweep, had only three more strikeouts than the team in the National League with the fewest strikeouts. The Giants, even though they didn't play in the DH league and had pitchers at the bottom of their batting order, had fewer strikeouts than all but three American League teams.

If one is going to argue that strikeouts are meaninless because winning teams struck out a lot, you could argue that home runs are meaningless because the team that won the World Series hit the fewest home runs in the majors.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2013, 05:00 PM
It all really just depends on the situation. I can think up situations where I want the walk, and other situations where I give up the out to get the sure (or high percentage) run, and other situations where I'm willing to risk the strikeout to give a hitter with a good slugging percentage and/or high career BABIP an opportunity to swing away for a big inning. This is why it is ideal to have a lineup filled with players who can do many things well with the bat. Short of that, at least give me a broad set of hitting skills throughout the lineup. And that's why a manager needs to have both the most up-to-date metrics and splits, and a good intuition, to make more calls that result in runs being scored.

Back on point, with the way the Sox roster presently is constructed, Rios is the best fit to hit third.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 05:10 PM
If one is going to argue that strikeouts are meaninless because winning teams struck out a lot, you could argue that home runs are meaningless because the team that won the World Series hit the fewest home runs in the majors.


Well, no not really because only a neanderthal would come to this conclusion for several reasons:
No one has ever said "winning teams strike out a lot." So, first and foremost, you're setting a defense against people who don't exist. The argument is that strikeouts are a meaningless indicator of offensive ouput. Sometimes teams with a good offense strike out a lot. Sometimes teams with bad offenses don't strike out very much. There just isn't a lot of correlation between the two. But that doesn't automatically assume that winning teams will always have a great offense. There are plenty of teams that win with below average offenses and plenty of teams that lose with high powered offenses. This discussion has only been framed between strikeouts and offense.
As has been hashed and rehashed over and over again, the playoffs are a general crapshoot, so if you're argument is based on playoff success, it's already a losing proposition. No one in the history of the world who understands how math and statistics work would take an 11-22 game sample size over a 162 games. So that's pointless.
Even most general rules of thumb have aberrations from time to time. It's why the Twins can beat the Tigers. It's why the career .205 hitter can hit a homer off the best pitcher in baseball (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET201109020.shtml). Crazy stuff just happens in baseball. That's what makes it so wonderful. But that doesn't mean because Crazy Thing A happens that it invalidates everything you've learned beforehand. Teams that hit more home runs generally win more games. That's just what some very basic numbers say. You can believe it not, if you like. You can think teams should all be playing 1950's-style ball with slap hitters laying down sacrifice bunts all night long if you want, but those teams, more often than not, just don't win enough games. I'm sorry.
So, therefore, you can see why no one, and certainly not anyone on these boards, I'm sure, would be silly enough to argue that point.

TDog
01-30-2013, 05:49 PM
Well, no not really because only a neanderthal would come to this conclusion for several reasons:
No one has ever said "winning teams strike out a lot." So, first and foremost, you're setting a defense against people who don't exist. The argument is that strikeouts are a meaningless indicator of offensive ouput. Sometimes teams with a good offense strike out a lot. Sometimes teams with bad offenses don't strike out very much. There just isn't a lot of correlation between the two. But that doesn't automatically assume that winning teams will always have a great offense. There are plenty of teams that win with below average offenses and plenty of teams that lose with high powered offenses. This discussion has only been framed between strikeouts and offense.
As has been hashed and rehashed over and over again, the playoffs are a general crapshoot, so if you're argument is based on playoff success, it's already a losing proposition. No one in the history of the world who understands how math and statistics work would take an 11-22 game sample size over a 162 games. So that's pointless.
Even most general rules of thumb have aberrations from time to time. It's why the Twins can beat the Tigers. It's why the career .205 hitter can hit a homer off the best pitcher in baseball (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET201109020.shtml). Crazy stuff just happens in baseball. That's what makes it so wonderful. But that doesn't mean because Crazy Thing A happens that it invalidates everything you've learned beforehand. Teams that hit more home runs generally win more games. That's just what some very basic numbers say. You can believe it not, if you like. You can think teams should all be playing 1950's-style ball with slap hitters laying down sacrifice bunts all night long if you want, but those teams, more often than not, just don't win enough games. I'm sorry.
So, therefore, you can see why no one, and certainly not anyone on these boards, I'm sure, would be silly enough to argue that point.
Looking at statistics in isolation will give you a distorted view of what it takes to win baseball games. Robin Ventura doesn't deal in the abstract fantasy world of theory. He manages in the real world and expressed concern over the high number of strikeouts, not because he isn't well-versed in sabermetrics, but because he was frustrated with the high number of strike outs last season, missed opportunities to score.

Anybody who doesn't believe you are overall better offensively by putting the ball in play, isn't watching baseball. Ultimately, hitting is about hitting the baseball.

Arguing that strikeouts are meaningless is beyond silly.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 05:54 PM
Looking at statistics in isolation will give you a distorted view of what it takes to win baseball games. Robin Ventura doesn't deal in the abstract fantasy world of theory. He manages in the real world and expressed concern over the high number of strikeouts, not because he isn't well-versed in sabermetrics, but because he was frustrated with the high number of strike outs last season, missed opportunities to score.

Anybody who doesn't believe you are overall better offensively by putting the ball in play, isn't watching baseball. Ultimately, hitting is about hitting the baseball.

Arguing that strikeouts are meaningless is beyond silly.

And I would argue anyone who watched the Sox last year and thought "man, this team strikes out too much" has no comprehension of baseball outside of the Sox (and therefore, a distorted view of the game) because the Sox didn't actually strike out that much. Not near the league lead.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2013, 05:55 PM
Again, it's all situational. It's not a big deal if Dunn strikes out with the bases empty in the first inning. It's a huge deal if he strikes out with two outs in the ninth inning with the tying run at third base.

spawn
01-30-2013, 06:14 PM
Again, it's all situational. It's not a big deal if Dunn strikes out with the bases empty in the first inning. It's a huge deal if he strikes out with two outs in the ninth inning with the tying run at third base.

Hell, it's worse when there's only one out. I hate to quote Hawk, but don't show me what you did. Show me when you did it.

doublem23
01-30-2013, 06:20 PM
Again, it's all situational. It's not a big deal if Dunn strikes out with the bases empty in the first inning. It's a huge deal if he strikes out with two outs in the ninth inning with the tying run at third base.

Exactly

TDog
01-30-2013, 07:03 PM
And I would argue anyone who watched the Sox last year and thought "man, this team strikes out too much" has no comprehension of baseball outside of the Sox (and therefore, a distorted view of the game) because the Sox didn't actually strike out that much. Not near the league lead.

The idea that the White Sox struck out too much last season came from the White Sox manager.

russ99
01-30-2013, 07:29 PM
And going a little further, what you said about sacrificing...the numbers overwhelmingly show that sacrificing an out leads to less overall runs scored. Sure, there are instances where it makes sense to do it (like late in a game for a go ahead run), but there is solid, irrefutable statistics that show giving up outs leads to less runs scored in the long run.

This is where stats are a bit to the detriment of the game. Runs are what count, and in a close/late situation, it's smarter to go for one or two more likely runs than to expect one to appear based on normal at-bats/percentages without strategy. Actions of the players and indirectly, the manager are what drive the game results, not raw percentages.

Yet we all have our preferences. I loved Earl Weaver as a manager, but thought his insistence waiting for a 3 run homer as a bit of stupidity. IMO, sometimes you have to try to make things happen to win.

As for strikeouts the issue here isn't the raw numbers, it's the skill of the players involved. We have too many 3/4 outcome hitters, with a K as one of them.
The amount of times we've struck out are middle of the league, but too often players dig a hole with poor plate patience, poor strike zone judgement and poor situational hitting that a strikeout ends up a more likely occurrence (especially when behind in the count) as a successful at-bat.

If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.

SI1020
01-30-2013, 08:29 PM
Yet we all have our preferences. I loved Earl Weaver as a manager, but thought his insistence waiting for a 3 run homer as a bit of stupidity. IMO, sometimes you have to try to make things happen to win.
I must have missed that guy because the Earl Weaver I watched and followed was anything but passive. Yes he preferred pitching, defense and the three run homer, but he also like to study stats and trends and use them accordingly. He was a hybrid, part old time baseball man, part ahead of the curve when it came to the use of stats. Earl didn't have a computer and spreadsheets, but he studied his own guys and his opponents. He wasn't above pulling a rabbit out of a hat like he did in this game against our Sox. Was I ever mad. If you weren't paying attention to what you were doing Earl would make you pay.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL197908150.shtml

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1948&dat=19790816&id=0foiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z8wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=845,137344

As a manager Earl Weaver was the total package and his personality and managing style were both forward thinking and aggressive.

blandman
01-31-2013, 09:32 AM
If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.

How long you been on this board? :tongue:

sullythered
01-31-2013, 09:59 AM
If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.
Soooo, striking out is OK, but ONLY i you're Miguel Cabrera. Got it.

SI1020
01-31-2013, 10:43 AM
Soooo, striking out is OK, but ONLY i you're Miguel Cabrera. Got it. I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

asindc
01-31-2013, 10:51 AM
I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

The point is valid. If a player's production offsets the fact that something good can happen less than 1% of the time when a strikeout occurs, as opposed to the at least 30% of the time (conservative guesstimate) when a ball is hit in play, then so be it. Very few players fall into that category, however, which is why it is beneficial for the vast majority of players to avoid striking out. It is why every single MLB organization works with developing players to reduce their strikeout rates.

doublem23
01-31-2013, 11:06 AM
I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

.300/.390/.600 is still pretty over the top expectations

russ99
01-31-2013, 04:53 PM
.300/.390/.600 is still pretty over the top expectations

Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

blandman
01-31-2013, 05:27 PM
Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

Between?!?! So you mean to say that if someone posted that slash-line, but struck out more than 150 times, they didn't have a good season?

:rolleyes:

sullythered
01-31-2013, 05:37 PM
Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

Anybody who posted a line better than that would get MVP votes, no matter how many times they struck out.

PorkChopExpress
01-31-2013, 06:23 PM
Back to the original thread topic, i.e., Rios hitting third, and/or other suggestions:

I'm a fan of....

DeAza<-------Best leadoff since Raines/Durham IMO
Beckham<-----hopefully sees a lot of FBs w/ DeAza onbase.
Paulie<-----Perfect #3, good eye, power, contact, avg....
Dunn<-----"swing bat hard ball go far"
Rios<----Can knock in runs if Dunn Ks......:rolleyes:
Keppy<-----like the bat control w/ Rios in front of him.
Ramirez<----back to silver slugger form....I hope....
Viciedo<------30HR from the 8 spot.
Flowers<-------Give me .250/20/60 I'm happy :tongue:

I'm all for this lineup. If Keppinger must bat 2nd, I would send Beckham to 8th moving the Cubans to 6th and 7th.

Frater Perdurabo
01-31-2013, 06:30 PM
Back to the original thread topic, i.e., Rios hitting third, and/or other suggestions:

I'm all for this lineup. If Keppinger must bat 2nd, I would send Beckham to 8th moving the Cubans to 6th and 7th.

I like Viciedo and Flowers right after Dunn, with Alexei and Beckham 8 and 9. Viciedo and Flowers hit LHP well. Having them follow Dunn might force opposing managers into a conundrum: Do I burn the LOOGY just to face Dunn, and then make another change, or do I keep the RHP in the game to face Dunn?

Mohoney
02-05-2013, 02:30 AM
Anybody who posted a line better than that would get MVP votes, no matter how many times they struck out.

Hell, Jim Rice made it to COOPERSTOWN with career slashlines of .298/.352/.502