PDA

View Full Version : Walk Walk Walk Walk Walk


A.T. Money
06-19-2003, 01:13 PM
What is it with Wright walking everyone all the time? Is this guy ever going to have a game without walking at least one?

He's going to let the Red Sox finish us off in the first inning. :angry:

A.T. Money
06-19-2003, 01:16 PM
Every time Wright pitches, it's an automatic loss.

1-0 Boston on 0 hits.

balz1472
06-19-2003, 01:19 PM
25 pitches with only 1 out! WHEW that's impressive.

WALK

ERR

WALK

WALK

WALK

And here comes another...

RUN... basehit ... 3-0.

mandmandm
06-19-2003, 01:19 PM
Suck Suck Suck Suck Suck

A.T. Money
06-19-2003, 01:21 PM
Why do we put up with this loser?

balz1472
06-19-2003, 01:24 PM
At least he consistently sucks... wouldn't want him to show signs of greatness so we might expect something out of him. Maybe we should move Sanders or Glover into the rotation... at least they'd get to pitch that way.
:angry:

balboner
06-19-2003, 01:25 PM
Wright needs to be sent down to AAA. We cant keep consistently pitching him w/an ERA over 5.5. We've put up with his horrible control and gopher pitches for too damn long.

valposoxfan
06-19-2003, 01:27 PM
Wright gave Lowe a three run lead. Chalk up another loss in a game that the Sox needed to win. I can't see any good coming of this.

A.T. Money
06-19-2003, 01:27 PM
With a 3-0 lead, and Derek Lowe, I feel like we're already buried in this game.

Thanks for nothing Wright you bum.

CHISOXFAN13
06-19-2003, 01:30 PM
The only consolation I can take right now is that Lowe's ERA on the road is atrocious. The again, Wright is still on the bump.

If Rowand is a 4A outfielder, then what exactly is Wright?

Randar68
06-19-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
The only consolation I can take right now is that Lowe's ERA on the road is atrocious. The again, Wright is still on the bump.

If Rowand is a 4A outfielder, then what exactly is Wright?


To be frank, he's never proven himself to be a very good AAA pitcher yet.

50 pitches in 2 innings, good thing the bullpen got a rest yesterday.

Tragg
06-19-2003, 01:57 PM
Not to make excuses, but okay I will. That first walk was total BS, with most of those pitches being strikes. If the ump calls the game like he called the top of the 1st, you'll need 6 runs to win this game.
Wright will be okay - the ability to handle situations like today are the difference between a career Johnny Ruffin and a player who makes the big leagues. He'll work through it.

balz1472
06-19-2003, 02:11 PM
Tragg... I know that it was only the first inning, but it is not like this is an outing that is out of the ordinary for him. The numbers cannot lie...

0-3
6.00 ERA
36.0 IP
37 H
6 HR
18 BB
24 K

Fridaythe13thJason
06-19-2003, 03:13 PM
Well, you guys all need to slow down a second, because Wright had an excellent outing. The first was BS. Bad first walk, error, then some unnecessary pressure.

maurice
06-19-2003, 03:29 PM
6 IP, 2 ER, 1 H, 4 BB, 4 SO

That's damn good. He got jobbed by this crappy umpiring crew and the defense in the first inning and was lights out thereafter.

Blueprint1
06-19-2003, 03:37 PM
Why was JM thrown out of the game?

A.T. Money
06-19-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by SoCalUIC
Well, you guys all need to slow down a second, because Wright had an excellent outing. The first was BS. Bad first walk, error, then some unnecessary pressure.

Excellent outing, sure, if games start in the 2nd inning. Too bad there is such a thing as a first inning.

3 runs on 1 hit. Three walks in that inning.

The Sox should be winning this game with a 1 hitter.

valposoxfan
06-19-2003, 03:39 PM
A high strike was called on Crede and someone in the Sox dugout said something, then the home plate umpire said something back to the dugout prompting Manuel to go out there and argue and get tossed. This crew hates the Sox for some reason. Inconsistent plate, two miscalls on home runs, and a missed call at the plate last nite.

FJA
06-19-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
Excellent outing, sure, if games start in the 2nd inning. Too bad there is such a thing as a first inning.

3 runs on 1 hit. Three walks in that inning.

The Sox should be winning this game with a 1 hitter.

If Crede had his head in the game in the first inning, Wright would have been out of the inning with 0 runs. This was a very good outing for him.

maurice
06-19-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by FJA
This was a very good outing for him.

Right. I hate walks, but if Wright pitched like that every game, he'd have an excellent 3.00 ERA and sub-1.00 WHIP.

Gumshoe
06-19-2003, 04:04 PM
what was the second miscalled homer? I saw the Maggs foul pole one ...

Not even Willie can sac bunt. Thomas still chokes when it really matters, it seems ...

Gumbo

Blueprint1
06-19-2003, 04:04 PM
wait is this trend about Koch now.

valposoxfan
06-19-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
what was the second miscalled homer? I saw the Maggs foul pole one ...

Not even Willie can sac bunt. Thomas still chokes when it really matters, it seems ...

Gumbo


This is the same crew that did the Baltimore series where Crede's HR was called foul.

Lip Man 1
06-19-2003, 05:46 PM
Folks:

First off I am NOT trying to jump on anybody or attack anyone (unlike some of my favorite critics) but I am really getting tired of all the 'excuses" that seem to be posted lately...

it's the bad umpires...
it's the bad fans...
it's the bad weather...
it's the bad / anti- Sox media...
it's bad luck...

etc...

Folks, GOOD teams adapt, improvise and overcome. GOOD teams WIN, period.

The Sox have had four losing years out of the last six since the White Flag Deal promised a brighter future. One of those seasons had all of 83 wins.

Let's face reality here and STOP making excuses.

This is a mediocre to bad team with a bad front office under the leadership of a terrible owner.

Let's call a spade a spade and hope that in the near future circumstances will cause a massive overhaul, till then PLEASE stop blaming everyone and everything for the problems caused by the Sox themselves.

Lip

valposoxfan
06-19-2003, 06:29 PM
What do you think we've been doing for the last four months, Lip!!??? We know the team is bad. All of these things contribute to our frustration though...I don't think any of us are making excuses.

dougs78
06-19-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

First off I am NOT trying to jump on anybody or attack anyone (unlike some of my favorite critics) but I am really getting tired of all the 'excuses" that seem to be posted lately...

it's the bad umpires...
it's the bad fans...
it's the bad weather...
it's the bad / anti- Sox media...
it's bad luck...

etc...

Folks, GOOD teams adapt, improvise and overcome. GOOD teams WIN, period.

The Sox have had four losing years out of the last six since the White Flag Deal promised a brighter future. One of those seasons had all of 83 wins.

Let's face reality here and STOP making excuses.

This is a mediocre to bad team with a bad front office under the leadership of a terrible owner.

Let's call a spade a spade and hope that in the near future circumstances will cause a massive overhaul, till then PLEASE stop blaming everyone and everything for the problems caused by the Sox themselves.

Lip


Lip, this is something I've been wondering and this post made me think of it again. Obviously you have been saying this for quite some time and were prognosticating that the Sox would be mediocre again this year. However, if I do recall correctly you were constantly harping about how this team was built on power hitting and had horrible pitching (hence your wish to add Kenny Rogers).

I'll certainly agree with you that you were correct that the Sox are mediocre to bad this season. But what I really want to know is this:

Do you think this White Sox team is a good hitting team? Not this year so far, but as this team is assembled personnel-wise...shouldn't they be a good hitting team?


Obviously where i'm going with this is; wouldn't you agree that if the entire team was having even an average season offensively don't you believe we'd all be sitting here talking about how well this season had gone so far??

Lip Man 1
06-19-2003, 11:24 PM
Folks:

Two points (actually three...)

For the record I said in the WSI pre season poll that the Sox would win 88 games and come in 2nd.


For Valpo there are people on this thread talking about the bad umpiring in the first inning being a factor in the Sox loss and how many columns and threads are being used to denounce the media for the Sox problems? (again I'm not taking shots at anybody in particular)

Doug as for the Sox themselves the pitching has been better statisticly if you believe in those things, but take a closer look, the pitching isn't as good as you think. Sorry the "quality start" stat does nothing for me. A starter who gives up three runs in six innings, which would qualify as a quality start, can still be putting his team in a hole especially with the Sox bullpen. I always felt that stat should be changed to three runs in seven innings or two runs in six innings.

Loazia's shocking season has been off set by Buehrle's shocking season. Colon and Garland are somewhere in the middle. Wright is a disaster much like the bullpen.

If the Sox hitters were capable of doing what their career stats say they should be doing, in my opinion we'd still be right around where we are now. Scoring eight runs per game doesn't matter if you allow nine. The pitching still would have their off days (like anyone) but the constant terrible defense, base running and fundamentals would still come into play. As well as Manager Gandhi. Remember the Sox hit the ball fairly well in 2001 didn't they? It got us all of 83 wins.

Finally I guess after 42 years of closely following this team when all is said and done these are still the White Sox. They'd find someway, somehow to screw it up, hitting or no hitting. Not very scientific but a fact of life none the less.

Lip

voodoochile
06-20-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If the Sox hitters were capable of doing what their career stats say they should be doing, in my opinion we'd still be right around where we are now. Scoring eight runs per game doesn't matter if you allow nine. The pitching still would have their off days (like anyone) but the constant terrible defense, base running and fundamentals would still come into play. As well as Manager Gandhi. Remember the Sox hit the ball fairly well in 2001 didn't they? It got us all of 83 wins.

Finally I guess after 42 years of closely following this team when all is said and done these are still the White Sox. They'd find someway, somehow to screw it up, hitting or no hitting. Not very scientific but a fact of life none the less.

Lip

Now see, this doesn't make sense. The Sox are averaging UNDER 4 runs per game (On a pace to score less than 640 for the year (OUCH)). If they were at the 5-5.5 runs per game everyone expected, they would probably be in first place in the division.

Your statements are clearly shaded by your belief that the team is cursed/badly managed/whatever that you describe so well in the second paragraph.

But, it isn't hard to see that if the offense were having a career average year, this team would probably be in first or in a dogfight for first at this stage of the season.

jeremyb1
06-20-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Doug as for the Sox themselves the pitching has been better statisticly if you believe in those things, but take a closer look, the pitching isn't as good as you think. Sorry the "quality start" stat does nothing for me. A starter who gives up three runs in six innings, which would qualify as a quality start, can still be putting his team in a hole especially with the Sox bullpen. I always felt that stat should be changed to three runs in seven innings or two runs in six innings.

Loazia's shocking season has been off set by Buehrle's shocking season. Colon and Garland are somewhere in the middle. Wright is a disaster much like the bullpen.

If the Sox hitters were capable of doing what their career stats say they should be doing, in my opinion we'd still be right around where we are now. Scoring eight runs per game doesn't matter if you allow nine. The pitching still would have their off days (like anyone) but the constant terrible defense, base running and fundamentals would still come into play. As well as Manager Gandhi. Remember the Sox hit the ball fairly well in 2001 didn't they? It got us all of 83 wins.

Finally I guess after 42 years of closely following this team when all is said and done these are still the White Sox. They'd find someway, somehow to screw it up, hitting or no hitting. Not very scientific but a fact of life none the less.

well, you must agree there are statistics capable of measuring pitching right? cause regardless of which you choose, our pitching has been as good or better tham most predicted. we're 5th in the al in era (only 0.01 from 4th) in addition to being tied for the league lead in quality starts.

personally, i'd argue that quality starts is one of the best indicators of how well a team or player is pitching because whether or not the guidlines are perfect, it measures how many games in which our starters' have given our team a solid chance to win if buehrle gives up 10 runs in 5 ip, we still have just as good a chance as winning most likely if he gave up only 5 or 6 runs. we've had some atrocious starts this season but since we don't score runs there's no way we're going to win those. the number of qulity starts we've had shows how much more often we should be winning games. this clubs strength is supposed to be our offense.

dougs78
06-20-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If the Sox hitters were capable of doing what their career stats say they should be doing, in my opinion we'd still be right around where we are now.

Lip


I'm a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that if the hitting was better this year then the pitching would be worse?? Perhaps you could better explain what you mean.

Lip Man 1
06-20-2003, 10:11 AM
Guys:

I'm saying that if the hitting were better our problems in the field, on the bases and in baseball intelligence overall would still costs us the same number of games.

Couple that with our "inconsistent" (perhaps that's a better word) pitching and we'd still, in my opinion, be right around the .500 mark trailing the Twins in the worst division in baseball.

To many other issues would cancel out the hitting just as all the other issues are canceling out the pitching in real life.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a pitcher who throws six innings and gives up three earned runs have an ERA of something like 4.50. To me that's not a quality start.

Just my opinion.

Lip

maurice
06-20-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm saying that if the hitting were better our problems in the field, on the bases and in baseball intelligence overall would still costs us the same number of games.

:?:

What you're describing is mathematically impossible. Wins and losses for Team X obviously are determined solely by the number of runs Team X scores and the number of runs Team X gives up. If the number of runs scored increases while the number of runs given up stays constant, the number of wins over the course of a season necessarily increases.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a pitcher who throws six innings and gives up three earned runs have an ERA of something like 4.50. To me that's not a quality start.

I think your math here is correct, but 4.50 is the median AL team ERA this season. A quality start (3 runs or less) essentially amounts to an AL average start or better. That's a pretty handy stat. Since there's a 50%+ chance that the opposing pitcher will do worse, a pitcher with a quality start is definitely giving his team the proverbial "chance to win."

BTW: the Sox team ERA is a very solid 4.23. Only one Sox starter has an ERA over 5.00. I'll agree that an ERA over 5.00 is not a good thing, but that principle applies to lots of "trusty vets" like Rogers, Helling, Daal, Leiter, Lidle, Pettitte, Estes, Graves, Mays, Burkett, Weaver, Radke, etc., etc.

The bottom line is that the Sox pitching staff has been good. The Sox are losing because the offense is playing way below its potential. Trusty vet Paul Konerko is Exhibit A.

voodoochile
06-20-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Guys:

I'm saying that if the hitting were better our problems in the field, on the bases and in baseball intelligence overall would still costs us the same number of games.

Couple that with our "inconsistent" (perhaps that's a better word) pitching and we'd still, in my opinion, be right around the .500 mark trailing the Twins in the worst division in baseball.

To many other issues would cancel out the hitting just as all the other issues are canceling out the pitching in real life.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a pitcher who throws six innings and gives up three earned runs have an ERA of something like 4.50. To me that's not a quality start.

Just my opinion.

Lip

In psychological terms this is called "piling on". You are so down on the Sox from years of frustration that you believe that if something good happens then something will automatically come along to offset it.

While I understand the frustration, I cannot subscribe to the outlook...

TheRockinMT
06-20-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by FJA
If Crede had his head in the game in the first inning, Wright would have been out of the inning with 0 runs. This was a very good outing for him.

Wright has a lot of talent, but is inconsistent. Today, he said that Josh Paul made an adjustement to his pitches and made the target the middle of the plate. Wright's pitches have tremendous movement and placing the glove target inside or outside results in borderline pitches, which these umps never give us, or balls right over the plate. Wright needs to have faith in his stuff and it seems Josh Paul helped him do that on Thursday. If he can do this same thing next outing I predict a winner for Danny Wright.

dougs78
06-20-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by maurice
:?:

What you're describing is mathematically impossible. Wins and losses for Team X obviously are determined solely by the number of runs Team X scores and the number of runs Team X gives up. If the number of runs scored increases while the number of runs given up stays constant, the number of wins over the course of a season necessarily increases.



I think your math here is correct, but 4.50 is the median AL team ERA this season. A quality start (3 runs or less) essentially amounts to an AL average start or better. That's a pretty handy stat. Since there's a 50%+ chance that the opposing pitcher will do worse, a pitcher with a quality start is definitely giving his team the proverbial "chance to win."

BTW: the Sox team ERA is a very solid 4.23. Only one Sox starter has an ERA over 5.00. I'll agree that an ERA over 5.00 is not a good thing, but that principle applies to lots of "trusty vets" like Rogers, Helling, Daal, Leiter, Lidle, Pettitte, Estes, Graves, Mays, Burkett, Weaver, Radke, etc., etc.

The bottom line is that the Sox pitching staff has been good. The Sox are losing because the offense is playing way below its potential. Trusty vet Paul Konerko is Exhibit A.


All great points Maurice. That first paragraph sums up my feelings on the matter as well. I think Voodoo hit it on the head, Lip truly believes there is a "curse" or something on the White Sox franchise so that success is to him a zero-sum game. In his mind any time one good thing happens, there is surely a negative thing about to cancel it out.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-20-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
All great points Maurice. That first paragraph sums up my feelings on the matter as well. I think Voodoo hit it on the head, Lip truly believes there is a "curse" or something on the White Sox franchise so that success is to him a zero-sum game. In his mind any time one good thing happens, there is surely a negative thing about to cancel it out.

Actually, that sounds a bit like H. Vickery's Law:

"Anytime things start to go right for the Sox, disaster is about to strike."

Make sure to check out the WSI Dictionary.

:smile:

voodoochile
06-21-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Actually, that sounds a bit like H. Vickery's Law:

"Anytime things start to go right for the Sox, disaster is about to strike."

Make sure to check out the WSI Dictionary.

:smile:

Yeah, but Lip actually lives that law... Hal at least has hope...

Lip Man 1
06-21-2003, 12:12 PM
Guys:

Can't argue with your logic, obviously some of you took a class in logic in college.

All I know is what I see and the Sox past as well as their immediate future "logically" doesn't look promising does it?

As far as the "curse", I honestly don't believe in such things but have mentioned that tongue in cheek as a way to explain the totally bizarre, amazing, million to one shot things that have happened to this franchise at seemingly the most inopportune times. (See my column Great Expectations...)

If anybody out there has a rational explination to answer the question of why this franchise hasn't won a World Series in 86 years or even been to a series since 1959, please I'd love to hear it! (especially when you see how many other teams HAVE, including PHG's favorite the Minnesota Twins...)

Lip