PDA

View Full Version : Quote Of The Day 2/6


Lip Man 1
02-06-2003, 10:18 PM
Quote Of The Day:
(something to think about...)

"We have to catch the ball defensively, we have a pitching staff that's going to put the ball in play and we're going to have to catch the ball. "--Jerry Manuel

delben91
02-06-2003, 10:47 PM
So it seems that JM is deciding to not go the route of all the Champion clubs that never made a defensive putout the entire season.

Just might be crazy enough to work.

Brian26
02-06-2003, 11:07 PM
Don't forget...

The White Sox are gonna have to put some points on the board to win ballgames.

They're also going to have to play "within themselves".

And they've got to play WHITESOX BASEBALL (tm) to win games.

WhiteSox = Life
02-06-2003, 11:38 PM
How would you define White Sox Baseball™?

It seems like it has gone through different incarnations. In the early 1900's, it was all about pitching, speed and defense. Same in the 50's and 60's. In the 70's it was about killing the ball. The 80's brought back pitching and defense. In the 90's and currently, it's about hitting. Which one is White Sox Baseball™?

Actually, as long as the White Sox win the World Series, I don't care if White Sox Baseball™ consists of running the bases backwards or wearing shorts on a hot, summer day.

:smile:

Lip Man 1
02-07-2003, 01:42 AM
I certainly understand that the game has changed A LOT but I would like to see the Sox go back to the mode that produced 17 consecutive wiing seasons from 1951 through 1967.

Overall team speed, DEFENSE (with a capital D) and pitching, pitching, PITCHING. In addition having players who are baseball smart and can do the "little things" knowing what base to throw to in a run down, being able to hit behind the runner, being able to bunt, being able to execute in pressure situations.

I like offense as much as the next guy, but to me baseball isn't a beer league softball game where you win 12-7.

The Sox have tried to go the offense route since 2000 and it has produced mixed results at best.

I doubt the Sox will ever go back to their roots however as long as they retain current ownership. To get a pitching staff "second to none," you have to pay tremendous sums and offer long term deals.

God what I wouldn't give for the Sox to have a starting staff again along the lines of Wynn, Pierce, Donovan, and Shaw (59) or Peters, Horlen, Pizarro and John (63-67) or Hoyt, Dotson, Bannister, Burns and Koosman (83) or McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez, Bere and Sanderson (93-94) with a bullpen to match.

It would be interesting to see how well they would do today against free swinging teams with little idea on how to hit, other then swing for the heels.

Lip

jeremyb1
02-07-2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I doubt the Sox will ever go back to their roots however as long as they retain current ownership. To get a pitching staff "second to none," you have to pay tremendous sums and offer long term deals.

the biggest problem that is see with going the route of speed, defense, and pitching is that we already have oustanding position players that are not particularly good defensively or on the bases. do you trade paully, frank, and carlos to acquire speed and defense? i think that good pitching is by far the best commodity a team can have but you can't underestimate offense. i'd rather have one of the best hitting teams in the league over speed and defense.

jcw218
02-07-2003, 02:10 AM
You have to have a balance between pitching, defence, and hitting. Good pitching beats good hitting 90% of the time. The best way to win is to play smart, fundamentally sound baseball.

kermittheefrog
02-07-2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I certainly understand that the game has changed A LOT but I would like to see the Sox go back to the mode that produced 17 consecutive wiing seasons from 1951 through 1967.

Overall team speed, DEFENSE (with a capital D) and pitching, pitching, PITCHING. In addition having players who are baseball smart and can do the "little things" knowing what base to throw to in a run down, being able to hit behind the runner, being able to bunt, being able to execute in pressure situations.


For someone who touts "number of World Series won" all the friggin time you sure seem to neglect the fact that in those 17 seasons the Sox won 0 world series. And only appeared in one.

hose
02-07-2003, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by jcw218
You have to have a balance between pitching, defence, and hitting. Good pitching beats good hitting 90% of the time. The best way to win is to play smart, fundamentally sound baseball.


Smart fundamentally sound baseball SHOULD be a given.

Minnesota preaches it to it's players and Gardenhiemer makes them work at it ......everyday.

The Sox orginazation has to really get back to basics.

Letting Big Hurt only DH years ago was a huge mistake. He could have worked himself into a decent firstbaseman if he put the work in.

Other big guys playing first over the years put in hard work, stuck with it and made themselves into quality defenders.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2003, 12:54 PM
Andrew:

True they only were in one.... but they haven't been in one since have they?

The results of trying to bash the ball the past few years have been obvious haven't they?

The thing to me about the Sox teams of those years were that they always had a winning season (which is more then they have been able to say since oh 1995) and by proxy because of their record they were usually in the race.

Lip

jeremyb1
02-07-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Andrew:

True they only were in one.... but they haven't been in one since have they?

The results of trying to bash the ball the past few years have been obvious haven't they?

The thing to me about the Sox teams of those years were that they always had a winning season (which is more then they have been able to say since oh 1995) and by proxy because of their record they were usually in the race.

Lip

well the sox haven't had a losing record any of the last three seasons.

personally i don't feel that its clear that the sox problem the last few seasons has been having a good offense. i fail to see how scoring runs is ever a problem.

i don't think its fair to point to our record and then isolate one aspect of our team and say that that's the problem since we haven't been winning. we've had buehrle for two seasons and we haven't been winning. does that mean he's the problem and needs to be moved? of course not. by the same reasoning just because we haven't pitched particularly well last season or hit in the clutch at times, that doesn't mean that our offense is the problem.

Iwritecode
02-07-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The results of trying to bash the ball the past few years have been obvious haven't they?

I just remember in the 2000 ALDS when the Parque and Siro pitched lights out and couldn't get any run support...

Lip Man 1
02-07-2003, 09:00 PM
In Game #1 of the 2000 ALDS, the Sox scored four runs. Give a top pitcher in the post season four runs and they usually win don't they?

Who knows what might have happened had the Sox actually won Game #1.

In October when you are regularly facing pitchers the caliber of Clemens, Johnson, Schilling, Martinez et al you get four runs you better win.

I agree though that the Sox offense was non existent after Game #1. But if the Sox had a Clemens or a Schilling or Mussina on the mound in Game #1 I'd feel pretty secure with four runs.

Lip

baggio202
02-07-2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
For someone who touts "number of World Series won" all the friggin time you sure seem to neglect the fact that in those 17 seasons the Sox won 0 world series. And only appeared in one.

thats true..but remember we were constantly finishing 2nd to great yankee teams...when it was an 8 team league...under the current format we would have probably made the playsoff about half the time (8 or 9 ) during that 17 year span ...

seem like in the 50's and 60's...when the sox had to have best recod in the AL they always finished 2nd...since '69 , when the 2nd to 4th best record is good enough to get to the playoffs the sox then end up with the best record in the AL ('83 - '00 - in the 50's and 60's that an automatic world series birth)...so instead of automatically going to the world series like in the 50's and 60's they get knock out by a lessor team in the playoffs...

in know there are alot more factors involved and my logic is a little flawed, but ,reverse the era's(51-67 with '69 till now)and the sox could have been in 10 or 11 post seasons and maybe 5 or 6 world series..we just cant get it right :(:

WhiteSox = Life
02-08-2003, 01:20 AM
Blame expansion. It dilutes the pool of players, and lets more and more players that never would've been on MLB teams in the past play on teams now.

The reason behind expansion, I'm absolutely sure of it, is to make more investments by starting new franchises, to add more fans, and with all the other stuff factored into it, to create more revenue.

With more money rolling in, MLB needed to keep interest going. If there were only 8 teams in a league, you could be in it until the end (providing you didn't totally stink the whole season), but, if you didn't finish tops, you didn't go to the World Series.

In a 162 game schedule, if the New York Yankees are 90-60 going into the final 12 games of the season and the Athletics are 84-66, chances are they're not going to catch up. Now, if the Yankees played in the east division and the Athletics played in the west division where the top west team was 86-64, all three teams were in it and fan interest would not wane. So, what happened? The AL and NL were split into two divisions.

Then, when more teams came into play, a new factor came up. The Dodgers are 95-55 and the Cardinals are 90-60, but, dang it, the Cardinals, despite having a very good record, are probably not going to make it into the playoffs. The advent of three divisions came into play.

Soon, came the wild card so that a team in a division that had a very good record but couldn't stop a team that say, won 116 games, could go to the playoffs.

And the reason all of this happened? If fans don't think their team's in it anymore, why should they show up? If there's a chance their team is still going to make it, they're going to show up.

I know this doesn't apply to the die-hards who come no matter what or the Cubs fans, but MLB needs casual fans who like winning and teams that have a shot at winning, to keep the turnstiles turnin' and the cash flowin'.

I don't know how accurate of a history lesson this is, and some of it may be way off, but all I was trying to do was prove a point:

That money drives Major League Baseball, and expansion creates more outlets for money and more opportunities to keep the cash a-comin'. Also, that expansion has hurt the White Sox (of course, if management spent the money to win, it wouldn't matter, anyway), and that because of it, that's why the White Sox haven't gotten to the playoffs when they would've many years ago.

But, things change and so do the times. Therefore, you have to live in the present and hope that if MLB ever expands playoffs to 5-8 teams in a league, that the White Sox don't start finishing 6th and worse.

:smile:

hose
02-08-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
Blame expansion. It dilutes the pool of players, and lets more and more players that never would've been on MLB teams in the past play on teams now.

The reason behind expansion, I'm absolutely sure of it, is to make more investments by starting new franchises, to add more fans, and with all the other stuff factored into it, to create more revenue.

With more money rolling in, MLB needed to keep interest going. If there were only 8 teams in a league, you could be in it until the end (providing you didn't totally stink the whole season), but, if you didn't finish tops, you didn't go to the World Series.

In a 162 game schedule, if the New York Yankees are 90-60 going into the final 12 games of the season and the Athletics are 84-66, chances are they're not going to catch up. Now, if the Yankees played in the east division and the Athletics played in the west division where the top west team was 86-64, all three teams were in it and fan interest would not wane. So, what happened? The AL and NL were split into two divisions.

Then, when more teams came into play, a new factor came up. The Dodgers are 95-55 and the Cardinals are 90-60, but, dang it, the Cardinals, despite having a very good record, are probably not going to make it into the playoffs. The advent of three divisions came into play.

Soon, came the wild card so that a team in a division that had a very good record but couldn't stop a team that say, won 116 games, could go to the playoffs.

And the reason all of this happened? If fans don't think their team's in it anymore, why should they show up? If there's a chance their team is still going to make it, they're going to show up.

I know this doesn't apply to the die-hards who come no matter what or the Cubs fans, but MLB needs casual fans who like winning and teams that have a shot at winning, to keep the turnstiles turnin' and the cash flowin'.

I don't know how accurate of a history lesson this is, and some of it may be way off, but all I was trying to do was prove a point:

That money drives Major League Baseball, and expansion creates more outlets for money and more opportunities to keep the cash a-comin'. Also, that expansion has hurt the White Sox (of course, if management spent the money to win, it wouldn't matter, anyway), and that because of it, that's why the White Sox haven't gotten to the playoffs when they would've many years ago.

But, things change and so do the times. Therefore, you have to live in the present and hope that if MLB ever expands playoffs to 5-8 teams in a league, that the White Sox don't start finishing 6th and worse.

:smile:


Just to back track a bit the Boston Braves were first to break a 50 year status quo and moved to Milwaukee in 1953. The development of air travel opened up the West Coast and other cities for MLB.

The St. Louis Browns and the Philadelphia A's moved to Baltimore and Kansas City, the Giants to SF and the Dodgers to LA. MLB now had a presence in 5 additional cities where before where these teams were either 2-city or 3-city team towns.

With the Giants and Dodgers leaving New York a void of a National League team was in place in baseball's biggest market. Talk of a third major league, the Continental League ,with Branch Rickey as it's president was in the works and had it's eye on the Big Apple.
MLB owners countered this new league threat by adding the Mets and the Houston Colt 45's . The A.L. locked up Minneapolis, Washington and LA a year earlier in 1961 with a two team expansion and one team moving. The N.L. added the Mets and the Houston franchises in 1962 eliminating any hope the Continental League had on major markets. So really the expansion of MLB was to head off a possible threat of competition from a new league.

This wasn't the first League to try and compete against MLB. The Western League fought the National League and won. Thanks to Charlie Comiskey, the American League was formed in 1901.

The Federal League crashed and burned back in it's attempt leaving us with what is now known as Wrigley Field.

The American Football League led by Al Davis could be compared to the "Old Roman". One could argue that Al slayed a bigger dragon .........