PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers Saying It's Over


Viva Magglio
05-28-2003, 11:13 PM
Gee, Phil is really optimistic!

For those of you Tribune-registered... (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-030528rogerscolumn,1,4176317.column?coll=cs%2Dhome %2Dheadlines)

Nellie_Fox
05-28-2003, 11:21 PM
The other day, the baseball writer for the little local paper here (The Mankato Free Press) made mention of Phil Rogers. He said that Phil is on his list of writers he reads to find out what not to think.

Since I've never read Phil, I can't comment further, but thought you guys might find this amusing.

jeremyb1
05-28-2003, 11:54 PM
i like phil but i do disagree with a few parts of this article. i do feel as though backman is a strong managerial candidate but phil astutely points out that the teams' biggest problem at this point is that it is pressing. i'm not sure that backman, a supposedly in your fact type of manager is the solution for that. it seems as though he would most likely provide even more pressure for this club. firing manuel would be yet another reminder that they're struggling and have failed to live up to expectations adding further pressure.

additionally, i'm still not a huge fan of the twins love fest. maybe i'm just stubborn but i just can't buy that a mediocre team can consitently reach greatness because they play as a team. i don't believe that our guys don't like each other or don't want to play hard or that the same isn't true for a number of other mediocre teams throughout baseball. i also can't believe that the twins are simply a clutch team that wills themself to victory on a regular basis. perhaps gardenhire is simply a tremendous manager and the twins have a great approach to the game so that the mental aspect of the game isn't a problem for them as it is for us. i don't know. i'm not completely sold on the twins as a 95 win team again because they've had a good month. if they've had a good month we're certainly just as capable of having one if we ever get hot.

xil357
05-29-2003, 08:26 AM
I personally believe that Phil is a good baseball writer with good ideas. However, his promotion of Wally Backman, like that of many WSI members, smells like the perpetual conviction that the backup quarterback -- whoever he is -- is the answer to the Bears' problems. That is, we always think that the guy "riding the bench" as it were will solve the problems. That's not to say that Backman wouldn't make a good manager, he very well may. But what would Backman do differently with a lineup that goes from the top of the league in production to bottom feeders with the exact same players (other than Lofton)?

Rogers has hit the nail on the head in his earlier writings -- the Sox are too right-handed, too slow and to reliant on the long ball to win games. Phil also was astute with his pre-season observation that the starting rotation would be OK. Notice that Garland is coming around in his last three starts. If Buherle can turn it around (more a matter of getting run support) and Loaiza stays hot, watch out.

As much as I don't care for Reinsdorf and as much as I question many of KW's moves, I think they too realize that this team's underperformance is not due to poor on-field management. This team has not hit to its ability, period. You can yell and kick and scream but the manager can't bat for Valentin, Konerko, Frank, Lee, Daubach, Rios, and even Maggs, all of whom have been performing at levels well under their career averages.

The only thing for which you can blame Manuel is using Rick White. But who, exactly, is keeping White on the roster in the first place? Last time I checked the manager doesn't have final say on roster decisions.

The Sox should look at re-tooling this team on the fly through trades and/or minor league call-ups for more left-handed hitters who can play defense up the middle. Borchard hasn't been the Second Coming, but he hasn't stunk up the joint, either, and he's playing a better CF than anyone else we've had in here this season. So far that move has worked. Frank at 1B worked last night, even on turf. How about a few more -- Aaron Miles to 2B. Jiminez to DH or SS. Valentin to the bench or to another team. Konerko to the DL. Lee in the 2-hole. This thing COULD be turned around with a few minor moves like this.

Firing Manuel would come back to haunt the Sox, just like firing LaRussa in 86.

34 Inch Stick
05-29-2003, 08:27 AM
Do you believe that the Twins have finished above the Sox in each of the past two years? Do you believe that after we were anhialated by the A's and Mariners, the Twins spanked both teams on the West Coast and are in the process of spanking them at home? Do you believe that we were once again swept by the Twins last week? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND AND GOES AROUND THE SUN?

Live in denial if you want. The Twins are better than the Sox and there is no way we are going to catch them this year.

MHOUSE
05-29-2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Do you believe that the Twins have finished above the Sox in each of the past two years? Do you believe that after we were anhialated by the A's and Mariners, the Twins spanked both teams on the West Coast and are in the process of spanking them at home? Do you believe that we were once again swept by the Twins last week? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND AND GOES AROUND THE SUN?

Live in denial if you want. The Twins are better than the Sox and there is no way we are going to catch them this year.

Preach on! Could not have been better-said!

Dan H
05-29-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
Gee, Phil is really optimistic!

For those of you Tribune-registered... (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-030528rogerscolumn,1,4176317.column?coll=cs%2Dhome %2Dheadlines)

It is not a matter of optimistic or pessimistic. This was a pretty objective article.

I am not a big Phil Rogers fan, but I found this to be one of his better efforts. Everyone keeps waiting for a spark, or some player to turn the corner, and before you know it the Twins are in the playoffs again.

I actually think the Sox will get better as the season progresses. But I do not think they are an upper echeleon team in any way, shape or form. There needs to be changes not only for this season but for seasons to come. Meanwhile, until we see different, the Twins are the team the beat, and the Sox still have to prove themselves.

Hangar18
05-29-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Do you believe that the Twins have finished above the Sox in each of the past two years? Do you believe that after we were anhialated by the A's and Mariners, the Twins spanked both teams on the West Coast and are in the process of spanking them at home? Do you believe that we were once again swept by the Twins last week? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND AND GOES AROUND THE SUN?

Live in denial if you want. The Twins are better than the Sox and there is no way we are going to catch them this year.

The Truth Hurts.....when spoken

Procol Harum
05-29-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Do you believe that the Twins have finished above the Sox in each of the past two years? Do you believe that after we were anhialated by the A's and Mariners, the Twins spanked both teams on the West Coast and are in the process of spanking them at home? Do you believe that we were once again swept by the Twins last week? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND AND GOES AROUND THE SUN?

Live in denial if you want. The Twins are better than the Sox and there is no way we are going to catch them this year.

I am neither hot or cold on the subject of Phil Rogers' baseball acumen, but as 34 points out above, the facts of the situation cannot be denied. Phil doesn't have to be the embodiment of baseball insight to be able to comment on the obvious...

gosox41
05-29-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
It is not a matter of optimistic or pessimistic. This was a pretty objective article.

I am not a big Phil Rogers fan, but I found this to be one of his better efforts. Everyone keeps waiting for a spark, or some player to turn the corner, and before you know it the Twins are in the playoffs again.

I actually think the Sox will get better as the season progresses. But I do not think they are an upper echeleon team in any way, shape or form. There needs to be changes not only for this season but for seasons to come. Meanwhile, until we see different, the Twins are the team the beat, and the Sox still have to prove themselves.


I'm sure the Sox will make a 2nd half run and get everyone excited about next year where we can go through the SOS again but with a much lower payroll.

This team needs to be shaken up. Eihter fire Manuel/Williams or start selling high and trading anyone having a career year before they wake up to reality (Mr. Loiza).

Bob

maurice
05-29-2003, 11:44 AM
Such a strange place to find love for the twinkies. They're not perennial contenders. They have exactly one playoff appearance in the last ten years. They started the season crappy and are on a hot streak right now. It is very likely that they will cool off soon.

These are the facts, not a river in Egypt.

fhqwhgads
05-29-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Such a strange place to find love for the twinkies. They're not perennial contenders. They have exactly one playoff appearance in the last ten years. They started the season crappy and are on a hot streak right now. It is very likely that they will cool off soon.

These are the facts, not a river in Egypt.

How many playoff appearances do the White Sox have in the last 10 years? Two, going back to '93. Both times out in the first round. This makes the White Sox somehow superior?

Cool off soon? Maybe. Enough to erase an 8-game lead? I doubt it.

GO TWINS!

34 Inch Stick
05-29-2003, 12:44 PM
They may not be perennial contenders but they have been better than the Sox for 2 1/2 years now. That is more than a trend.

As far as love for the Twins...nah. It is hard to deny that they play the game properly and it yields results for them though. Other than center field there is not a single everyday player on that team that I would say is superior to the Sox starter (over the 2 1/2 year period). Yet they win. They have capable startering pitchers, but every single one of them is beatable. Yet they win. They have no hitters that I would fear facing in innings 1-6. Yet they win.

The truth is they are clutch hitters, who pitch and play defense well. I probably would like them a lot if they were my guys. Also, no matter how much they win this team will probably be intact because very few of them will be able to command big contracts.

JUGGERNAUT
05-29-2003, 12:54 PM
GO WHITESOX!

Phil Rogers .. pull my finger :angry:

maurice
05-29-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
How many playoff appearances do the White Sox have in the last 10 years? Two, going back to '93. Both times out in the first round. This makes the White Sox somehow superior?

:?:

Well . . . yes. Two playoff appearances is in fact superior to one playoff appearance. Specifically, it's TWICE AS GOOD, as most of us learned in grammar school. The two teams' W/L records during those years is not even close. If I were a twinkies fan (god help me), I'd crow about the previous six years, marginally brag about last year, and ignore everything else since 1970. It's not pretty.

In any event, the point is not whether the Sox have been superior to the twinkies over the last ten years. (The Sox obviously have been significantly better.) The point is that the twinkies are "not perennial contenders." They've been an above-average team for exactly two seasons + May 2003. Over the past calendar year, they've been the tallest midget in the AL Central, an extremely weak division. IMHO, that shouldn't strike fear into the hearts of a reasonably talented team.

Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
They may not be perennial contenders but they have been better than the Sox for 2 1/2 years now.

They finished two games ahead of the Sox but six games behind Cleveland in 2001, after the Sox lost five of their last six games. They've clearly been better than a mediocre Sox team during the last week of the 2001 season + most of the 2002 season + May 2003 . . . which is to say that they're an above-average team. Whoopdeefreakingdo.

fquaye149
05-29-2003, 04:13 PM
there are 4 months left in the season. why in the hell wouldn't we start hitting the ball eventually? the twins are hot right now, great. we are cold right now, fabulous. GET OVER IT....it's a long season for this very reason. i'm glad we have phil rogers inour corner to throw in the towel after the first knockdown

ma-gaga
05-29-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by maurice
...They've clearly been better than a mediocre Sox team during the last week of the 2001 season + most of the 2002 season + May 2003...

Hey, don't give the Twins too much credit there. I mean only the 'last week of 2001' and 'most of 2002'???

I mean really they only outplayed the Sox by ... (87-83) + (94-81) + (31-25) = 23 games in the win column over the last two + years. That's really only ONE good month.

Nellie_Fox
05-29-2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Other than center field there is not a single everyday player on that team that I would say is superior to the Sox starter (over the 2 1/2 year period). Really? Okay, lets go position by position over the 2 1/2 year period.

catcher: Pierzynski is better than anyone who was worn the tools for the Sox over that period.

1st: Mientkiewicz: Defensively vastly superior to anyone the Sox have had over there. Had one good year offensively, and since 1st is an offensive position, advantage Sox.

2nd: Rivas is overrated, but probably only Durham has been better during that period.

SS: This is a black hole for the Sox. SS is a defensive position first, and while Guzman hasn't lived up to his early press, he's better than anybody we've got.

3rd: I think Koskie is a hell of a player. Crede may still have more upside long term, but over the period named, Koskie is better than who we've had at third.

left: Jacques Jones would be the starting center fielder on the Sox. With Hunter, that puts him in left for the Twins. He is vastly superior defensively to Lee, and his OPS is .829. Lee's is .811. Advantage: Twins.

center: The Sox don't have a center fielder. The Twins have arguably the best in the game right now.

right: The Twins have been mostly by committee. Mohr is having a pretty good season, but Maggs has been clearly superior.

So there you go. It is possible that the Twins are better at 5 or 6 positions with their every day players. Their starting pitching has been about even with the Sox, their bullpen vastly superior.

fquaye149
05-30-2003, 05:07 PM
jaque jones could not be iffier. don't quote ops, it's near worthless...how about the fact that as a leadoff hitter, jones has like 5 walks. i may be off by one or 2 walks. but seriously...

Nellie_Fox
05-30-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
jaque jones could not be iffier. don't quote ops, it's near worthless...how about the fact that as a leadoff hitter, jones has like 5 walks. i may be off by one or 2 walks. but seriously... So who said he'd be a leadoff hitter? Besides, the comparison is just to Lee. Would you have Carlos leading off? Does it really matter how they get on base? Lee has an OBP of .328, Jones .348. Okay, you say yes, it does matter. An extra base hit is preferable to a walk. Jones' slugging % is .497, CLee's is .489. So Lee has 10 more walks than Jones. Show me where that has mattered.

Concentrate on the total issue. Is Jones better defensively than CLee? I don't think there is any argument. Are they roughly equivalent offensively? I think so. And over the entire 2 1/2 years, I think it could be argued that Jones has been better offensively too. Go take a look at Jones' numbers (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/min/stats/min_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=150218) and then look at Lee's numbers (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=150324) and see if you can argue that Jones isn't at least Lee's equal offensively, if not better.