PDA

View Full Version : Neyer On ChiSox


jeremyb1
09-10-2003, 04:20 PM
Great article by Rob Neyer today with a lot of sox stuff. He even starts the article off by pondering if we're as good as any team in baseball. He also again tries to make sense of the non-sensical argument that Robbie has played any better for us than for the Mets.

Here's the link.Here's the link. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1612986)

MarqSox
09-10-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Great article by Rob Neyer today with a lot of sox stuff. He even starts the article off by pondering if we're as good as any team in baseball. He also again tries to make sense of the non-sensical argument that Robbie has played any better for us than for the Mets.
You have a right to your opinion, but I seriously can't conceive of how any Sox fan who's been watching this team closely could possibly think Robby hasn't been playing great.

pudge
09-10-2003, 04:34 PM
Yes, I agree Alomar is basically the same here as in NY.

No, I don't agree he hasn't helped us win lately. His defense and baserunning have been a major upgrade. I admit I was a little down on the Alomar trade, especially after losing Ring, but I admit we really need his glove if we're going to win this thing.

Of course his points on Crede and Konerko are spot on, we'd be nowhere without them.

pudge
09-10-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
You have a right to your opinion, but I seriously can't conceive of how any Sox fan who's been watching this team closely could possibly think Robby hasn't been playing great.

You've obviously missed the point completely. People think he's been so much better here than NY, which is simply not true.

jeremyb1
09-10-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
You have a right to your opinion, but I seriously can't conceive of how any Sox fan who's been watching this team closely could possibly think Robby hasn't been playing great.

I never said he wasn't playing great, I merely said he's been playing almost identically as he did for the Mets. I'd challenge anyone to explain what he's doing so well for us that he did poorly for the Mets. As for his overall level of play, it hasn't been poor but personally I can't think of any measurement which would deem Robbie's play outstanding or even really anything more than slightly above average for that matter.

voodoochile
09-10-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by pudge
You've obviously missed the point completely. People think he's been so much better here than NY, which is simply not true.

Yes, but he filled a void the Sox desperately needed filling (leadoff) and provided a ton of leadership and baseball smarts. His stats may not be any better, but what he brought to the team beyond his stats have filled a major void.

thepaulbowski
09-10-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As for his overall level of play, it hasn't been poor but personally I can't think of any measurement which would deem Robbie's play outstanding or even really anything more than slightly above average for that matter.

Apparently you missed the D'Angelo debacle (dropping fly balls with 2 outs and the bases-loaded, etc.) at 2nd base and the lack of range Durham had. I'll take Robbie's defense over most second baseman in the league. He is not what he used to be, but he is still an above average fielder. His past greatness is his own worse enemy (sort of like Frank at times).

LASOXFAN
09-10-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Apparently you missed the D'Angelo debacle (dropping fly balls with 2 outs and the bases-loaded, etc.) at 2nd base and the lack of range Durham had. I'll take Robbie's defense over most second baseman in the league. He is not what he used to be, but he is still an above average fielder. His past greatness is his own worse enemy (sort of like Frank at times).

As sox fans I thought we weren't supposed to care about defense, just righthanded power hitters, no?

voodoochile
09-10-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
As sox fans I thought we weren't supposed to care about defense, just righthanded power hitters, no?

All things being equal, no one said good defense was a bad thing. I for one feel that good offense is more important than good defense and a great bat with a solid glove is a better player than a great glove and a solid bat.

LASOXFAN
09-10-2003, 05:13 PM
I thought he made a great point about Konerko and Crede ...

"Basically, the White Sox have gone from having two terrible players in the lineup to having two great players. Except they're the same players."

Seems like so long ago that I wanted these two banished to Charlotte. Thank god I'm not a GM. I'd be worse than Harrelson. Okay, maybe not that bad.

pudge
09-10-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but he filled a void the Sox desperately needed filling (leadoff) and provided a ton of leadership and baseball smarts. His stats may not be any better, but what he brought to the team beyond his stats have filled a major void.

I don't disagree. I feel like I'm arguing with a girlfriend or something.

:)

maurice
09-10-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by pudge
People think he's been so much better here than NY, which is simply not true.

The difference is not Robbie's performance; it's the teams' expectations. The Mets shelled out big $$$ to bring Robbie to NY and expected him to put up big offensive numbers. The Sox gave up relatively little to bring Robbie to the S. Side and only expected him to player better D than Jimenez and be a better clubhouse presence. Robbie didn't meet expectation in NY and got ripped for it. He's met our lower expectations.

hold2dibber
09-10-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Apparently you missed the D'Angelo debacle (dropping fly balls with 2 outs and the bases-loaded, etc.) at 2nd base and the lack of range Durham had. I'll take Robbie's defense over most second baseman in the league. He is not what he used to be, but he is still an above average fielder. His past greatness is his own worse enemy (sort of like Frank at times).

Jeremy never said Alomar wasn't an upgrade over D'Angelo (though he might, given the opportunity :smile: ) - what he said was that Alomar wasn't playing any better for the Sox than he was for the Mets. Which I agree with - but from a national perspective, Alomar stunk with the Mets but has been great with the Sox. I think neither is true - he was pretty good with the Mets (taking into consideration his defense, sound fundamentals (e.g., bunting) and base running) and has been pretty good with the Sox. It's just a matter of perspective; in New York, they thought they were getting a superstar, but his superstar days are clearly over. Here, we just wanted someone who wouldn't make the boneheaded plays D'Angelo seemed to make on a nightly basis, and so Alomar seems like a savior.

jeremyb1
09-10-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but he filled a void the Sox desperately needed filling (leadoff) and provided a ton of leadership and baseball smarts. His stats may not be any better, but what he brought to the team beyond his stats have filled a major void.

He hasn't been a bad leadoff hitter but I would hardly call a .330 OBP good for a leadoff hitter. That's around league average and getting on base is the most important skill of a leadoff hitter.

jeremyb1
09-10-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Apparently you missed the D'Angelo debacle (dropping fly balls with 2 outs and the bases-loaded, etc.) at 2nd base and the lack of range Durham had. I'll take Robbie's defense over most second baseman in the league. He is not what he used to be, but he is still an above average fielder. His past greatness is his own worse enemy (sort of like Frank at times).

I'll agree with that, but you don't have any argument about how defense should be weighed. Personally, I don't see a strong reason why we're to place such a high emphasis on defense. Defense is important but I don't feel its more important than offensive production. Everyone loves to debate by saying "Player A is good, he hits .300" "No, Player B is better he plays great defense" without ever trying to make sense of which is more important. Personally I'll take the guy with a .900 OPS with decent offense over the guy the outstanding defensive player with an .820 OPS. So to talk about defense as though a good hitter with mediocre or below average defense is equivalent to a below average offensive player with outstanding defense is a waste of time in my opinion. So to summarize, if you want to argue defense should be considered anywhere near as much as offense you should explain why.