PDA

View Full Version : Something to Look Forward To?


TornLabrum
09-19-2003, 06:46 PM
Believe it or not, I still have hope for 2004, despite all of the talk of gutting this club. Someone I know had a conversation with Kenny Williams not long ago. Williams was talking about improving this club, even if we didn't make the playoffs. Gutting the club doesn't improve it, and if you get right down to it, the minor leagues won't provide enough legitimate players for "The Kids Can Play III." So I'm going to hold out the hope the Williams wasn't BSing.

MRKARNO
09-19-2003, 08:24 PM
I personally wouldn't be surprised if Kenny Williams again makes a blockbuster trade or multiple trades and additions and subtractions. As a fan, I think that kenny williams is always going to allow the sox to put the best possible team on the field and that every season in the Kenny WIlliams regime we will have the talent that can take us to the playoffs. Maybe this year he will give us the manager that allows us to utilize this talent. COunt me in on the Kenny WIliams fan club

inta
09-19-2003, 08:27 PM
maybe he'll trade ordonez and lee for griffey!

yay!

gosox41
09-19-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Believe it or not, I still have hope for 2004, despite all of the talk of gutting this club. Someone I know had a conversation with Kenny Williams not long ago. Williams was talking about improving this club, even if we didn't make the playoffs. Gutting the club doesn't improve it, and if you get right down to it, the minor leagues won't provide enough legitimate players for "The Kids Can Play III." So I'm going to hold out the hope the Williams wasn't BSing.

I'd like to share your optimism about next year, especially because KW has made 2 good in season moves and 1 solid one (Sullivan). Schoeneweis was a waste.

Anyhow, there are a lot of huge decisions to be made this offseason unless KR opens his wallet big time and brings everyone back. The problem is while I like KW's effort, he has fumbled big time the last 2 winters. The Ritchie and Koch trades were so bad I get sick thinking about it.

Whose to say he won't do it again. He may try to find some B level player he can over pay for because of a cheap salary or trade a proven player for a much lesse player to save a few bucks.

While I have some confidence in KW, the Koch thing goes beyond stupid. Way beyond. I know the flaming I'll get for asking this, but where do you think the Sox would be right now if Foulke were still around??

Bob

LASOXFAN
09-20-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I know the flaming I'll get for asking this, but where do you think the Sox would be right now if Foulke were still around??

Bob

What in the world makes you think that Foulke would have 30+ saves for the Sox this year? This assumption is absurd. And to heap so much blame on KW for making the deal is a crock. I'm sure you were really bitching about when the trade was made, right?

So Koch's rocket arm fizzled. Neither Kenny nor anyone else saw it coming. And here's a newsflash: Foulke plays for a better team now. A much, much better team. If you doubt that simply look at the record we've had against Oakland the last few years.

I'm glad he made the trade for Foulke. Those games he blew last year were crucial. The Yankee game alone was a killer. He lost his mojo in Chicago and went so far as to go to the manager and ask to be taken out of the role. Say what you will about Koch, he's never done that. In fact, just the opposite. I'll take his guts and determination over Foulke any day.

And look for Koch to be back. Hell, he's had plenty of rest the second half already. Just wait until he can get stronger over the winter.

LASOXFAN
09-20-2003, 12:24 AM
I like where you're going with this, but a few issues need to be addressed in my opinion.

#1 We need to add players that will help us beat Minnesota. Stop beating around the bush; they've owned this division for the last two years and they do it with defense and timely small ball. If we're going to beat them in the dome we need to add players that can help us do that. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best and they're the best in our division. They do this in the NBA and NFL, it's time the Sox took note.

#2 Solve the West Coast mystery.
We cannot afford to come West and win 2 or 3 games. We've done this for two or three years now. Something has to change (and don't tell me a managerial change alone is the solution).

#3 Beat the addiction to power.
This is one of the few places where I find fault with KW. The long ball is too alluring. I would've liked it if we could've added Castillo and Pierre at the break in a trade with Floida rather than Everett and Alomar. Age aside, these guys hit for average, play awesome defense and put MAD pressure on the defense when they get on base (which they do with frequency). Put a few sluggers behind these guys at the top of the order and this team can't be stopped. Instead we add switch hitting power and refined defense. No way this team goes anywhere with Robbie Alomar leading off. Uh-uh.

#4 Find out why we don't win close games.
Take a long look at the games we lost and see what happened; where match ups broke down and where we didn't put the ball in play and see who we can bring in to get an edge in those situations.

#5 Re-sign Colon. This one is pretty self explanatory.

As I type I have to say my outlook is much more dire than yours unless the Sox go after some speed and defense. I'd be willing to say so long to some key players in exchange for this. I've seen what comes of waiting for power to show itself, or what happens when the power is shut off and you realize you ain't got nothing else to go to.

ncfan
09-20-2003, 06:49 AM
I agree , defense and pitching, situational hitting, with the correct
usesage of speed on the basepaths could change this team
even if it means getting rid of some key players. Putting the ball
in the seats is exciting for the fans, but it has not won games
for us. I believe we lost a ton of runs this year because of this.
We have the starting pitchers, if we can just hold on to all of
them. We are stuck with Koch, but he could come around. I
do believe however, in a change in management. JM is not the
motavation that this team needs.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-20-2003, 07:02 AM
I don't think these issues are nearly so hard to solve as you might think.

#1 We need to add players that will help us beat Minnesota.

Minnesota IS NOT that good. Nobody would confuse them with the Yankees, A's, Braves, or other championship contenders. We need an intelligent approach at the plate to deal with the slow and slower pitchers the Twinkies throw at us. That is a much easier task than dealing with power pitchers like Pedro.

A manager who requires plate discipline from his hitters solves this problem.

#2 Solve the West Coast mystery.

This has become a complete joke the last three years. There is absolutely no excuse for the ballplayers not showing up to play on the west coast. I could understand it happening once or maybe twice, but it has CONSISTENTLY happened under Manuel. That's his job to get these guys ready to play and he fails at it every year.

A new manager with a new approach to dealing with his ballplayers solves this problem.

#3 Beat the addiction to power.

We need better situational hitting, starting with teaching Magglio Ordonez how to keep the ball out of the infield with a runner at first base and less than two out. (Hopefully we'll get rid of Konerko, who is even more guilty of this.) There is nothing wrong with hitting the ball hard. However taking what the pitcher offers (like that garbage they toss in Minnesota) and advancing runners is something that can be fixed with discipline.

#4 Find out why we don't win close games.

This one is easy to solve: our manager needs to TRY winning close ballgames. By his own admission, Manuel spent the first-half trying to play everyone. He thought late-inning pinch hitting was going to hurt a ballplayer's confidence. He would rather lose than let that happen--the entire first-half! Manuel is an idiot.

New manager. Problem solved.

#5 Re-sign Colon. This one is pretty self explanatory.

Yes, we ought to do everything possible to keep the ballplayers that help us win. That is self-explanatory. The real trick is ditching the ballplayers that help us lose. Moving Paul Konerko and his outrageous salary will be very tough and we'll probably have to eat part of his salary to do it. That should be no deterent to doing the deal because every million we save launching Konerko is a million we can use to retain guys like Colon.

soxtalker
09-20-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
What in the world makes you think that Foulke would have 30+ saves for the Sox this year? This assumption is absurd. And to heap so much blame on KW for making the deal is a crock. I'm sure you were really bitching about when the trade was made, right?

So Koch's rocket arm fizzled. Neither Kenny nor anyone else saw it coming. And here's a newsflash: Foulke plays for a better team now. A much, much better team. If you doubt that simply look at the record we've had against Oakland the last few years.

I'm glad he made the trade for Foulke. Those games he blew last year were crucial. The Yankee game alone was a killer. He lost his mojo in Chicago and went so far as to go to the manager and ask to be taken out of the role. Say what you will about Koch, he's never done that. In fact, just the opposite. I'll take his guts and determination over Foulke any day.

And look for Koch to be back. Hell, he's had plenty of rest the second half already. Just wait until he can get stronger over the winter.

I don't recall being strongly for or against the Koch trade at the time it was made. What I do remember is that shortly thereafter there were some postings by people who either were A's fans or knew A's fans. I believe that there were also newspaper accounts. What they said was that Koch was always wild. Yes, he had a terrific fastball, but he'd almost always make the finish exciting. Well, what we ended up with is a Koch who had lost some speed on his fastball and still was wild.

gosox41
09-21-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
What in the world makes you think that Foulke would have 30+ saves for the Sox this year? This assumption is absurd. And to heap so much blame on KW for making the deal is a crock. I'm sure you were really bitching about when the trade was made, right?

So Koch's rocket arm fizzled. Neither Kenny nor anyone else saw it coming. And here's a newsflash: Foulke plays for a better team now. A much, much better team. If you doubt that simply look at the record we've had against Oakland the last few years.

I'm glad he made the trade for Foulke. Those games he blew last year were crucial. The Yankee game alone was a killer. He lost his mojo in Chicago and went so far as to go to the manager and ask to be taken out of the role. Say what you will about Koch, he's never done that. In fact, just the opposite. I'll take his guts and determination over Foulke any day.

And look for Koch to be back. Hell, he's had plenty of rest the second half already. Just wait until he can get stronger over the winter.

Before you make too many accusations and make yourself look silly, I suggest you go back in the archive of posts. Look back at the day the trade was made and look back a few days and t hen look ahead a week or so form that date. I was clealy 100% against the idea just on the simple fact that Foulke is better. In a later post I wrote about my concern about how Koch's workload in 2002 would effect him in 2003, even referring it as "Bobby Thigpenitis." KW should have taken Koch's workload into consideration when he made the team.

Or you could ask Daver. :)
He thinks I mentioned the trade way too much, but he knows I've been against it from Day 1 because it was just so blatantly bad at the time.

So in answer to your question, I was complaining when the trade was made becuase it was so obviously bad. Don't believe me??? Please look it up. While you're going that far back look at what I said about resigning PK for an average of $8 mill. per. I wasn't in favor of that deal either. But please look it up. As far as I'm concerned because the trade was so bad even an idiot like me saw it as a bad move AT THE TIME, I have 100% rights to complain about this deal for a long time. For the record I'd rather had seen the trade workout and Koch lead the Sox to a championship, but there's a difference between reality and fantasy.

Did you see my prediction in a thread about Koch's 2004?

Bob

hose
09-21-2003, 08:15 AM
The Sox probably would have locked up the division last month if they signed a player to a minor league contract over the winter.

Wilson Alvarez.


I know the Sox got extremely lucky with Loiza this year but hopefully KW will keep his eyes open over the off season.

TornLabrum
09-21-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by hose
The Sox probably would have locked up the division last month if they signed a player to a minor league contract over the winter.

Wilson Alvarez.


I know the Sox got extremely lucky with Loiza this year but hopefully KW will keep his eyes open over the off season.

Alvarez certainly would have done better (assuming AL hitters would be as ineffective against him as NL hitters have been) than our combination of Stewart/Wright/Cotts.

hose
09-21-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Alvarez certainly would have done better (assuming AL hitters would be as ineffective against him as NL hitters have been) than our combination of Stewart/Wright/Cotts.



http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4364

I know it was the NL , but Willie still has been one of that league's best pitcher since the All-Star break.

His overall record is 6-1 with a 1.99 era , so even if you add on 3/4 to a run to compensate pitching in the AL he still would be having a great season.

Blockbuster trades are great for Sox Fest announcements , but coming up with the diamonds in the rough is becoming more of a reality due to teams dumping contracts.

KW has been on a good roll I hope he can keep coming up with ballplayers.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2003, 02:28 PM
But remember we didn't even need a fifth starter! (The stat geeks told us so!) LOL

The "sabermetrics inverse squared proportionality theorum' stated very clearly that Danny Wright, Josh Stewart, and Jon Rauch were CLEARLY superior to the "has beens, arm dead and ancient" Kenny Rogers and Juff Suppan.....

OK...I'm still waiting for one of those know it alls to admit that they were wrong and that the God of numbers is full of ca-ca.


Lip

TDog
09-21-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
What in the world makes you think that Foulke would have 30+ saves for the Sox this year? This assumption is absurd. And to heap so much blame on KW for making the deal is a crock ...

I was one of those people who was glad to see Foulke go. Admitting this isn't the same as admitting I was wrong, but obviously he has done better with the A's than I expected he would. I agree that he wouldn't have had the sort of success he has had with the A's this year had he stayed with the Sox.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, to see Foulke pitching for different team, possibly with less success, certainly for more money, in 2004.

RichH55
09-21-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
But remember we didn't even need a fifth starter! (The stat geeks told us so!) LOL

The "sabermetrics inverse squared proportionality theorum' stated very clearly that Danny Wright, Josh Stewart, and Jon Rauch were CLEARLY superior to the "has beens, arm dead and ancient" Kenny Rogers and Juff Suppan.....

OK...I'm still waiting for one of those know it alls to admit that they were wrong and that the God of numbers is full of ca-ca.


Lip

And the non-Stat Geeks wanted to deal C. Lee for Rick Helling.....Credibility?

JRIG
09-21-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
And the non-Stat Geeks wanted to deal C. Lee for Rick Helling.....Credibility?

Not to mention the stat-geeks ripping the Koch trade the day it happened.

RichH55
09-21-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
I like where you're going with this, but a few issues need to be addressed in my opinion.

#1 We need to add players that will help us beat Minnesota. Stop beating around the bush; they've owned this division for the last two years and they do it with defense and timely small ball. If we're going to beat them in the dome we need to add players that can help us do that. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best and they're the best in our division. They do this in the NBA and NFL, it's time the Sox took note.

#2 Solve the West Coast mystery.
We cannot afford to come West and win 2 or 3 games. We've done this for two or three years now. Something has to change (and don't tell me a managerial change alone is the solution).

#3 Beat the addiction to power.
This is one of the few places where I find fault with KW. The long ball is too alluring. I would've liked it if we could've added Castillo and Pierre at the break in a trade with Floida rather than Everett and Alomar. Age aside, these guys hit for average, play awesome defense and put MAD pressure on the defense when they get on base (which they do with frequency). Put a few sluggers behind these guys at the top of the order and this team can't be stopped. Instead we add switch hitting power and refined defense. No way this team goes anywhere with Robbie Alomar leading off. Uh-uh.

#4 Find out why we don't win close games.
Take a long look at the games we lost and see what happened; where match ups broke down and where we didn't put the ball in play and see who we can bring in to get an edge in those situations.

#5 Re-sign Colon. This one is pretty self explanatory.

As I type I have to say my outlook is much more dire than yours unless the Sox go after some speed and defense. I'd be willing to say so long to some key players in exchange for this. I've seen what comes of waiting for power to show itself, or what happens when the power is shut off and you realize you ain't got nothing else to go to.

Have to disagree with the Castillo/Pierre argument....

I can even cede some of the argument over the long ball being too important here, but why go from one area of fantasy baseball to another.

A) SBs are overrated, even more so in the AL then the NL..(Castillo and Pierre's main contributions)

B) Batting Average? Come on..>Getting on base and seeing pitches is key to leadoff hitters....Castillo and Pierre don't walk, and you can't steal 1B, even if Robbie Alomar likes to make it look like he does.

Pierre and Castillo are pretty close to being honorary members of the Chris Singleton .300 hitter club ...Rey Sanchez is also a member and Mike Caruso has a lifetime achievement award

That .300+ average is more empty than a liquor store in Utah

MarkEdward
09-21-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
But remember we didn't even need a fifth starter! (The stat geeks told us so!) LOL

The "sabermetrics inverse squared proportionality theorum' stated very clearly that Danny Wright, Josh Stewart, and Jon Rauch were CLEARLY superior to the "has beens, arm dead and ancient" Kenny Rogers and Juff Suppan.....

OK...I'm still waiting for one of those know it alls to admit that they were wrong and that the God of numbers is full of ca-ca.


Lip

Are you seriously saying that Jeff Suppan has actually *helped* the Red Sox?

RichH55
09-21-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Are you seriously saying that Jeff Suppan has actually *helped* the Red Sox?


I'm still waiting for Lip to stop grasping at straws over the 5th starter question.....unless he actually thinks his idea of C. Lee for Helling was a good one.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2003, 07:53 PM
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.

Ca - Ca.

Admit it ...for once in your lives be honest with yourselves. White Sox 5th starters sucked and yes they were needed weren't they? To the tune of over 25 times.

This was 1996 all over again.

I grant you the 5th starters by no means were the entire problem area, but they were a big part of things.

As for Carlos Lee, while I didn't think he should be traded, let's see what happens next season shall we? Especially if he reverts back to his overweight, stumblebum, butcher on the bases image that we've all come to know and love so well.

One excellent season does not a career make.

Lip

shane
09-21-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
I like where you're going with this, but a few issues need to be addressed in my opinion.

#1 We need to add players that will help us beat Minnesota. Stop beating around the bush; they've owned this division for the last two years and they do it with defense and timely small ball. If we're going to beat them in the dome we need to add players that can help us do that. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best and they're the best in our division. They do this in the NBA and NFL, it's time the Sox took note.

#2 Solve the West Coast mystery.
We cannot afford to come West and win 2 or 3 games. We've done this for two or three years now. Something has to change (and don't tell me a managerial change alone is the solution).

#3 Beat the addiction to power.
This is one of the few places where I find fault with KW. The long ball is too alluring. I would've liked it if we could've added Castillo and Pierre at the break in a trade with Floida rather than Everett and Alomar. Age aside, these guys hit for average, play awesome defense and put MAD pressure on the defense when they get on base (which they do with frequency). Put a few sluggers behind these guys at the top of the order and this team can't be stopped. Instead we add switch hitting power and refined defense. No way this team goes anywhere with Robbie Alomar leading off. Uh-uh.

#4 Find out why we don't win close games.
Take a long look at the games we lost and see what happened; where match ups broke down and where we didn't put the ball in play and see who we can bring in to get an edge in those situations.

#5 Re-sign Colon. This one is pretty self explanatory.

As I type I have to say my outlook is much more dire than yours unless the Sox go after some speed and defense. I'd be willing to say so long to some key players in exchange for this. I've seen what comes of waiting for power to show itself, or what happens when the power is shut off and you realize you ain't got nothing else to go to.

#6 Play the first half of the season like we're in a penant race. Get these guys motivated to go out and win each and every game like it's the most important of the year. One of the guys needs to step it up a notch and be a team leader.

doublem23
09-21-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.

Ca - Ca.

Admit it ...for once in your lives be honest with yourselves. White Sox 5th starters sucked and yes they were needed weren't they? To the tune of over 25 times.

This was 1996 all over again.

I grant you the 5th starters by no means were the entire problem area, but they were a big part of things.

As for Carlos Lee, while I didn't think he should be traded, let's see what happens next season shall we? Especially if he reverts back to his overweight, stumblebum, butcher on the bases image that we've all come to know and love so well.

One excellent season does not a career make.

Lip

This is maybe the most concentrated form of nonsense I have ever encountered... Just shut up.

shane
09-21-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Have to disagree with the Castillo/Pierre argument....

I can even cede some of the argument over the long ball being too important here, but why go from one area of fantasy baseball to another.

A) SBs are overrated, even more so in the AL then the NL..(Castillo and Pierre's main contributions)

B) Batting Average? Come on..>Getting on base and seeing pitches is key to leadoff hitters....Castillo and Pierre don't walk, and you can't steal 1B, even if Robbie Alomar likes to make it look like he does.

Pierre and Castillo are pretty close to being honorary members of the Chris Singleton .300 hitter club ...Rey Sanchez is also a member and Mike Caruso has a lifetime achievement award

That .300+ average is more empty than a liquor store in Utah

I'm definitely glad we got Everett/Alomar over Castillo/Pierre, but I don't think stolen bases are overrated. If we were looking for a fairly cheap centerfielder, I'd love to see a young player like Crawford (TB) in a Sox uniform. No, he doesn't hit .300+, but he is able to make things happen, and he should get better.

bc2k
09-21-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.Lip

Yet another conversation about this Bill James guy. Who is he, what team did he play for? When did he play?

SoxFan76
09-21-2003, 09:06 PM
this is so depressing. cubs are winning (but they by no means have clinched that division), bears are beyond sucky, and the white sox have officially given up on the season. i might have to start watching hockey. wait, i cant. they dont televise home games, and the hawks arent even that good. chicago fire? ok, im not that desperate.

so for the first time this year, i am saying "better luck next year". usually i only have to wait for the all star game to say that.

i like the power. the coaching staff (all of them, not just manuel) has to start COACHING. like how to bunt, situational hitting, better eye at the plate (coughmiguelolivocough). those "little things" are what wins games. home runs are great. you can hit 3 home runs a game, but if no one is on base, it means nothing.

i dont know all the insider stuff, so im assuming colon, valentin, everett are all gone. rowand can play center field. plus borchard is available. no problem there. as for SS, i will pray every night that graffanino doesnt become an everyday player. he is a utility man, and a damn good one at that. so keep him there. maybe miguel tejada? i dont really know. for the pitching staff, i say bring up rauch. other than that, i really dont know. unless they pick someone up, that 5th starter spot will still be up for grabs. maybe they get another non roster invite and let him use a cut fastball. that would be sweet. but the pitching staff will be the problem next year.

StillMissOzzie
09-21-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by inta
maybe he'll trade ordonez and lee for griffey!

yay!

I HOPE that this was supposed to be in teal!

:gulp:

LASOXFAN
09-21-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Before you make too many accusations and make yourself look silly, I suggest you go back in the archive of posts. Look back at the day the trade was made and look back a few days and t hen look ahead a week or so form that date. I was clealy 100% against the idea just on the simple fact that Foulke is better. In a later post I wrote about my concern about how Koch's workload in 2002 would effect him in 2003, even referring it as "Bobby Thigpenitis." KW should have taken Koch's workload into consideration when he made the team.

Or you could ask Daver. :)
He thinks I mentioned the trade way too much, but he knows I've been against it from Day 1 because it was just so blatantly bad at the time.

So in answer to your question, I was complaining when the trade was made becuase it was so obviously bad. Don't believe me??? Please look it up. While you're going that far back look at what I said about resigning PK for an average of $8 mill. per. I wasn't in favor of that deal either. But please look it up. As far as I'm concerned because the trade was so bad even an idiot like me saw it as a bad move AT THE TIME, I have 100% rights to complain about this deal for a long time. For the record I'd rather had seen the trade workout and Koch lead the Sox to a championship, but there's a difference between reality and fantasy.

Did you see my prediction in a thread about Koch's 2004?

Bob

I'll pass on researching your previous posts and take your word for it, you were against the trade. How that makes me look "silly" I'm not really sure.

But you offer no argument to my point that Foulke plays on a much better team which is the reason he's having so much success, so I'll assume you've seen the light. Better yet, why don't you find a way to blame Koch's woes on Manuel. That would be perfect.

LASOXFAN
09-21-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't think these issues are nearly so hard to solve as you might think.



Minnesota IS NOT that good. Nobody would confuse them with the Yankees, A's, Braves, or other championship contenders. We need an intelligent approach at the plate to deal with the slow and slower pitchers the Twinkies throw at us. That is a much easier task than dealing with power pitchers like Pedro.

A manager who requires plate discipline from his hitters solves this problem.



This has become a complete joke the last three years. There is absolutely no excuse for the ballplayers not showing up to play on the west coast. I could understand it happening once or maybe twice, but it has CONSISTENTLY happened under Manuel. That's his job to get these guys ready to play and he fails at it every year.

A new manager with a new approach to dealing with his ballplayers solves this problem.



We need better situational hitting, starting with teaching Magglio Ordonez how to keep the ball out of the infield with a runner at first base and less than two out. (Hopefully we'll get rid of Konerko, who is even more guilty of this.) There is nothing wrong with hitting the ball hard. However taking what the pitcher offers (like that garbage they toss in Minnesota) and advancing runners is something that can be fixed with discipline.



This one is easy to solve: our manager needs to TRY winning close ballgames. By his own admission, Manuel spent the first-half trying to play everyone. He thought late-inning pinch hitting was going to hurt a ballplayer's confidence. He would rather lose than let that happen--the entire first-half! Manuel is an idiot.

New manager. Problem solved.



Yes, we ought to do everything possible to keep the ballplayers that help us win. That is self-explanatory. The real trick is ditching the ballplayers that help us lose. Moving Paul Konerko and his outrageous salary will be very tough and we'll probably have to eat part of his salary to do it. That should be no deterent to doing the deal because every million we save launching Konerko is a million we can use to retain guys like Colon.

Unless we bring in a LaRussa or the equivalent in terms of instant respect, I think we're all in for a big surprise next year. Let me ask you something: if a manager can be blamed for so many problems with a team, can he also be responsible for that kind of success? Yes, Manuel is an idiot in many ways. But when Robbie Alomar calls him a smart baseball man, I have to take a step back and wonder why. Robbie's one of the smartest to ever play the game. Odd that he would give such praise to Manuel, isn't it?

RichH55
09-22-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.

Ca - Ca.

Admit it ...for once in your lives be honest with yourselves. White Sox 5th starters sucked and yes they were needed weren't they? To the tune of over 25 times.

This was 1996 all over again.

I grant you the 5th starters by no means were the entire problem area, but they were a big part of things.

As for Carlos Lee, while I didn't think he should be traded, let's see what happens next season shall we? Especially if he reverts back to his overweight, stumblebum, butcher on the bases image that we've all come to know and love so well.

One excellent season does not a career make.

Lip

Lip.....I specifically remember you mentioning 5th Starter BEFORE the year...and then floating the names of C. Lee and Helling

RichH55
09-22-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by shane
I'm definitely glad we got Everett/Alomar over Castillo/Pierre, but I don't think stolen bases are overrated. If we were looking for a fairly cheap centerfielder, I'd love to see a young player like Crawford (TB) in a Sox uniform. No, he doesn't hit .300+, but he is able to make things happen, and he should get better.


He'd be cheap in terms of contract, but A). why would TB deal him? and B) If they did it would cost us

So he's not cheap:)

Able to make things happen? Is this like the "had to be there" school of history....Hell play Willie Harris if you want things to happen, or put a blindfold on a midget, get him dizzy and send him out there

Make things happen = good Hitting over .300(or other more relevant feats) = insignificant?

If a player doesn't hit for power and doesn't walk and doesn't hit .300?!?!? Then wouldn't that be a microcosm of why Stolen Bases are overrated if he is a guy that you want on your team?

RichH55
09-22-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by shane
I'm definitely glad we got Everett/Alomar over Castillo/Pierre, but I don't think stolen bases are overrated. If we were looking for a fairly cheap centerfielder, I'd love to see a young player like Crawford (TB) in a Sox uniform. No, he doesn't hit .300+, but he is able to make things happen, and he should get better.

BTW do you disagree with my theory that SBs mean even less in the AL than the NL...which would seem a significant fact when discussing your AL Central Chicago White Sox
?

kempsted
09-22-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.

Ca - Ca.

Admit it ...for once in your lives be honest with yourselves. White Sox 5th starters sucked and yes they were needed weren't they? To the tune of over 25 times.

This was 1996 all over again.

I grant you the 5th starters by no means were the entire problem area, but they were a big part of things.

As for Carlos Lee, while I didn't think he should be traded, let's see what happens next season shall we? Especially if he reverts back to his overweight, stumblebum, butcher on the bases image that we've all come to know and love so well.

One excellent season does not a career make.

Lip
Lip you keep saying this despite all the facts. We were .500 in games in which our #5 starter started. SO that CAN"T Be one of our major problems this year. It wasn't plain and simple.

As far as your comments on Bill James and Billy Beane - lets see - Oakland and the Red Sox - they both almost have a lock on the playoffs and we will be sitting at home and watching. Perhaps the stat heads are on to something.

Iwritecode
09-22-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Unless we bring in a LaRussa or the equivalent in terms of instant respect, I think we're all in for a big surprise next year. Let me ask you something: if a manager can be blamed for so many problems with a team, can he also be responsible for that kind of success? Yes, Manuel is an idiot in many ways. But when Robbie Alomar calls him a smart baseball man, I have to take a step back and wonder why. Robbie's one of the smartest to ever play the game. Odd that he would give such praise to Manuel, isn't it?

First of all, when was this comment made? Before the Cotts/Burly/NYC debacle?

Also, Robbie wasn't here the first half or even the past couple of years to see all the stupid crap Manuel has done...

maurice
09-22-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Lip.....I specifically remember you mentioning 5th Starter BEFORE the year...and then floating the names of C. Lee and Helling

Are you referring to this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17981&highlight=helling) typical thread?:

I'd consider Lee for Daal or Helling... after all the Sox have Daubach.

Lip

Dadawg_77
09-22-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
Lip you keep saying this despite all the facts. We were .500 in games in which our #5 starter started. SO that CAN"T Be one of our major problems this year. It wasn't plain and simple.

As far as your comments on Bill James and Billy Beane - lets see - Oakland and the Red Sox - they both almost have a lock on the playoffs and we will be sitting at home and watching. Perhaps the stat heads are on to something.

Come on lets not confuse Lip with fact of the present. Instead of complaining about not spending why don't we complain that the Sox don't spend there money wisely. Look at what the A's have accomplished being one of the most successful teams in the past three years with one of the lowest payrolls the past three years. True not much success in the playoffs, but I am sure we all would love to see the Sox make it to October three times in a row. Could the Sox lose Mags and win more games next year? Watch for the Jays in the next couple of years to become a powerhouse. The Red Sox have the best offense in the majors, which should help carry them in the playoffs. Every team which has meaningful employed sabermetrics is flourishing while while most of the teams stuck in thinking of the past are struggling. Whose ideas are full of ca ca?

Lip, I love your work with the historical pieces on this site. But when it comes to baseball, your strengths lie in the past.

Lip Man 1
09-22-2003, 01:11 PM
The Sox are .500 in games with the 5th starter?

Ummm then how do you explain a combined record of 3-11 from Wright, Cotts, Stewart and Porzio?

Those numbers by the way came from Phil Rogers column on the same issue.

Explain that?

"You've got lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain

Lip

voodoochile
09-22-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox are .500 in games with the 5th starter?

Ummm then how do you explain a combined record of 3-11 from Wright, Cotts, Stewart and Porzio?

Those numbers by the way came from Phil Rogers column on the same issue.

Explain that?

"You've got lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain

Lip

They are referring to the teams record in games started by the 5th starter at that point in the season.

Hangar18
09-22-2003, 02:22 PM
The REASON for the trade, was MONEY. The sox feared an arbitration eligible-used in the wrong situations KEITH FOULKE and traded for a cheaper over-used BILLY KOCH. If $$$ was no object, that trade isnt made....... And the Sox would be in the playoffs this year

Hangar18
09-22-2003, 02:25 PM
That Being Said......though IM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED, and it will be another LONG, COLD, CUB WINTER, Im excited knowing this team isnt going to FOLD UP, but WILL PURSUE KEY PEOPLE, and GET STRONGER. we'll have a new MGR, so we'll be good

soxtalker
09-22-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Come on lets not confuse Lip with fact of the present. Instead of complaining about not spending why don't we complain that the Sox don't spend there money wisely. Look at what the A's have accomplished being one of the most successful teams in the past three years with one of the lowest payrolls the past three years. True not much success in the playoffs, but I am sure we all would love to see the Sox make it to October three times in a row. Could the Sox lose Mags and win more games next year? Watch for the Jays in the next couple of years to become a powerhouse. The Red Sox have the best offense in the majors, which should help carry them in the playoffs. Every team which has meaningful employed sabermetrics is flourishing while while most of the teams stuck in thinking of the past are struggling. Whose ideas are full of ca ca?


In addition to the success of teams who have bought into the statistical approach, there is one other very good reason that it will probably dominate baseball in a few years -- it will allow the owners to reduce costs. The owners will be putting business people (e.g., MBA's) in charge of their teams, and they can use sabermetrics to replace expensive talent with more abundant and cheaper players.

Is the statistical approach perfect? No. There are variables that they just haven't captured. But more and more of those will be captured as time goes on. Also, by its very nature, there is a probability that a player will excel or do poorly (i.e., which end of the bell-shaped curve is he on during a specific period of time or compared to others with similar statistics).

RKMeibalane
09-22-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ah yes the Braniacs rushing to the defense of the "motherland", Bill James, Billy Beane and turning the entire sport into another version of a mathematical classroom.

Ca - Ca.

Admit it ...for once in your lives be honest with yourselves. White Sox 5th starters sucked and yes they were needed weren't they? To the tune of over 25 times.

This was 1996 all over again.

I grant you the 5th starters by no means were the entire problem area, but they were a big part of things.

As for Carlos Lee, while I didn't think he should be traded, let's see what happens next season shall we? Especially if he reverts back to his overweight, stumblebum, butcher on the bases image that we've all come to know and love so well.

One excellent season does not a career make.

Lip

Give it a rest, dude.

shane
09-22-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
He'd be cheap in terms of contract, but A). why would TB deal him? and B) If they did it would cost us

So he's not cheap:)

Able to make things happen? Is this like the "had to be there" school of history....Hell play Willie Harris if you want things to happen, or put a blindfold on a midget, get him dizzy and send him out there

Make things happen = good Hitting over .300(or other more relevant feats) = insignificant?

If a player doesn't hit for power and doesn't walk and doesn't hit .300?!?!? Then wouldn't that be a microcosm of why Stolen Bases are overrated if he is a guy that you want on your team?

I lost this thread, sorry about that. He's only 22 and that BA, which isn't too bad at .279 should get better as he matures. He isn't a power hitter, but a very good contact hitter. He's also got a nice strong arm in the outfield. I think he is exactly what the Sox need for a more balanced lineup. Honestly, I'm more interested in when people hit rather than how often they get a hit, so if a player isn't .300+, I'm not overly concerned with it. Crawford gets on base enough, and that's what matters. I'm sure his run count would be up if he had better hitters behind him.

Are SBs as important in the AL? I really can't answer that with any substance to support my opinion. I don't think a team needs to stock up on fast players, but I do think it's necessary to have a man you can count on in a close game to get on base and then swipe a couple. Even if it isn't a close game, the fans and the other players see that this guy is out there to win. He's doing what it takes to try and make something positive happen for his team (make something happen). I don't think that's overrated at all. It isn't just about stolen bases either. Aggressive baserunning with speed is more along the lines of what I like to see. I think the teams that are winning in the AL, have made the decision to add some speed to their team and have quit relying so much on power, yankees, seattle, hell, even KC.

I realize he wouldn't be cheap, but reasonable is not out of the question. Tampa loves him, so no, he's not going anywhere. I don't know that getting rid of Maggs for him would be worth it either, unless the money saved was significant.

I apologize for the opinionated reply, but stats really don't mean crap in a series like the one we just gave to the twins. We would have swept them had we been playing on stats alone. Maggs hits what, .321? He really didn't contribute much in the series. However, we wouldn't know how a Carl Crawford performs under pressure, would we?

hold2dibber
09-22-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by shane
I lost this thread, sorry about that. He's only 22 and that BA, which isn't too bad at .279 should get better as he matures. He isn't a power hitter, but a very good contact hitter. He's also got a nice strong arm in the outfield. I think he is exactly what the Sox need for a more balanced lineup. Honestly, I'm more interested in when people hit rather than how often they get a hit, so if a player isn't .300+, I'm not overly concerned with it. Crawford gets on base enough, and that's what matters.

Crawford, at this point, does NOT get on base nearly enough. His career OBP is .303. That's real bad. He doesn't have any power (career SLG about .362). The ONLY thing he can do offensively is steal bases. Although he is very young and he might turn out to be decent, he is a project and a bit of a long shot (IMHO) to be anything better than okay.

jeremyb1
09-22-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox are .500 in games with the 5th starter?

Ummm then how do you explain a combined record of 3-11 from Wright, Cotts, Stewart and Porzio?

Those numbers by the way came from Phil Rogers column on the same issue.

Explain that?

"You've got lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain

Lip

Lip, I must be a real idiot to try to explain the same principles to you over and over again while you repeatedly ignore what I'm saying but I'll give it a shot anyways:

Just because something happens does not mean there was a 100% chance of the event happening before the fact. For example if you tell me I should buy a lottery ticket tommorow and I don't buy one and lose, that doesn't mean you knew I was going to win the lottery. There was still a 1 in a million chance. The fact that you somehow got lucky and guess correctly doesn't mean it was completely and utterly predictable beforehand.

By the same token, just because you thought Rauch and Wright wouldn't be up to the task doesn't mean it was completely predictable or even likely that each pitcher would struggle as they did. I never heard you predict Wright's injury beforehand and I also heard you state that Garland was a huge risk and should be bumped out of the rotation. Well he did better than Kenny Rogers and a lot better than Rick Helling.

Also, for the record, I never stated we shouldn't bring in more starters. I lauded the Loaiza signing at the time. My point was that it was unwise to bring in many starters with guaranteed contracts because we'd lose the flexibility to potentially place a better young starter in the rotation. I'd love to hear you tell me how the Twins benefitted from having Santana stuck in the pen in the first half.

shane
09-22-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Crawford, at this point, does NOT get on base nearly enough. His career OBP is .303. That's real bad. He doesn't have any power (career SLG about .362). The ONLY thing he can do offensively is steal bases. Although he is very young and he might turn out to be decent, he is a project and a bit of a long shot (IMHO) to be anything better than okay.

And the OBP progressively got better as the season went on. He is definitely a prospect, but I don't think he's a long shot. It's all speculation. I think he's going to be a very solid hitter, and think the numbers back it up. You are right though, at this point he does not get on base enough. Even so, it's my opinion that him getting on base once during a must-win game, swiping a couple of bags and scoring would be much more valuable than having an OBP of say .383 and providing nothing for the team. I prefer balance, but I'm not the manager, so I can only pretend. Obviously, the all power strategy doesn't work as well as we would like, and I think someone like Crawford would make a nice addition. We aren't going to get Ichiro's speed and bat, so we can't do much more than take a chance without spending a ton of money. It's not going to happen though, so there's not much point in my trying to defend a TB outfielder's performance. Get Konerko off the field and I really don't mind what the Sox have right now, minus the manager.

RichH55
09-22-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Crawford, at this point, does NOT get on base nearly enough. His career OBP is .303. That's real bad. He doesn't have any power (career SLG about .362). The ONLY thing he can do offensively is steal bases. Although he is very young and he might turn out to be decent, he is a project and a bit of a long shot (IMHO) to be anything better than okay.

Exactly my point...If you dont hit for power and dont walk, you better hit .340

RichH55
09-22-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by shane
I lost this thread, sorry about that. He's only 22 and that BA, which isn't too bad at .279 should get better as he matures. He isn't a power hitter, but a very good contact hitter. He's also got a nice strong arm in the outfield. I think he is exactly what the Sox need for a more balanced lineup. Honestly, I'm more interested in when people hit rather than how often they get a hit, so if a player isn't .300+, I'm not overly concerned with it. Crawford gets on base enough, and that's what matters. I'm sure his run count would be up if he had better hitters behind him.

Are SBs as important in the AL? I really can't answer that with any substance to support my opinion. I don't think a team needs to stock up on fast players, but I do think it's necessary to have a man you can count on in a close game to get on base and then swipe a couple. Even if it isn't a close game, the fans and the other players see that this guy is out there to win. He's doing what it takes to try and make something positive happen for his team (make something happen). I don't think that's overrated at all. It isn't just about stolen bases either. Aggressive baserunning with speed is more along the lines of what I like to see. I think the teams that are winning in the AL, have made the decision to add some speed to their team and have quit relying so much on power, yankees, seattle, hell, even KC.

I realize he wouldn't be cheap, but reasonable is not out of the question. Tampa loves him, so no, he's not going anywhere. I don't know that getting rid of Maggs for him would be worth it either, unless the money saved was significant.

I apologize for the opinionated reply, but stats really don't mean crap in a series like the one we just gave to the twins. We would have swept them had we been playing on stats alone. Maggs hits what, .321? He really didn't contribute much in the series. However, we wouldn't know how a Carl Crawford performs under pressure, would we?


Stats over the course of a year matter and if you want to stock the team full of guys who "make things happen" and get on-base "enough"....and of course dont hit for power or walk....its going to be a long millinieum

RichH55
09-22-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by shane
And the OBP progressively got better as the season went on. He is definitely a prospect, but I don't think he's a long shot. It's all speculation. I think he's going to be a very solid hitter, and think the numbers back it up. You are right though, at this point he does not get on base enough. Even so, it's my opinion that him getting on base once during a must-win game, swiping a couple of bags and scoring would be much more valuable than having an OBP of say .383 and providing nothing for the team. I prefer balance, but I'm not the manager, so I can only pretend. Obviously, the all power strategy doesn't work as well as we would like, and I think someone like Crawford would make a nice addition. We aren't going to get Ichiro's speed and bat, so we can't do much more than take a chance without spending a ton of money. It's not going to happen though, so there's not much point in my trying to defend a TB outfielder's performance. Get Konerko off the field and I really don't mind what the Sox have right now, minus the manager.


An OBP of .383? Thats a nice little OBP and lights years away from Carl Crawford

RichH55
09-22-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox are .500 in games with the 5th starter?

Ummm then how do you explain a combined record of 3-11 from Wright, Cotts, Stewart and Porzio?

Those numbers by the way came from Phil Rogers column on the same issue.

Explain that?

"You've got lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain

Lip

If only we had a sure thing 5th starter like Rick Helling!

shane
09-22-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Stats over the course of a year matter and if you want to stock the team full of guys who "make things happen" and get on-base "enough"....and of course dont hit for power or walk....its going to be a long millinieum

Enough of Crawford. I don't have any idea what in the hell you're reading, but it's not my posts. Not once did I say stock the team full of players that make things happen and get on base enough. Read the f'ing posts. .383 is light years from .309, but that's not at all the point I was making. Sorry if I'm unclear, but I think the reading could use a little work.

RichH55
09-22-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by shane
Enough of Crawford. I don't have any idea what in the hell you're reading, but it's not my posts. Not once did I say stock the team full of players that make things happen and get on base enough. Read the f'ing posts. .383 is light years from .309, but that's not at all the point I was making. Sorry if I'm unclear, but I think the reading could use a little work.

The original guy who wanted Crawford was all about "making things happen".....If you would like me to pick a reason why he sucks more to you liking...please let me know

soxwon
09-22-2003, 10:08 PM
i predict and i am positive this will happen.
Tony Larussa is hired as mgr.
sox dump thomas-konerko-valentine
aquire A-Rod youll see we will get the A MAN.

possibly
aquire randy johnson.

save this and youll be amazed by my predictions coming true

da reverand

RichH55
09-22-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
i predict and i am positive this will happen.
Tony Larussa is hired as mgr.
sox dump thomas-konerko-valentine
aquire A-Rod youll see we will get the A MAN.

possibly
aquire randy johnson.

save this and youll be amazed by my predictions coming true

da reverand

That's It!! Home-schooling for my kids

gosox41
09-22-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
I'll pass on researching your previous posts and take your word for it, you were against the trade. How that makes me look "silly" I'm not really sure.

But you offer no argument to my point that Foulke plays on a much better team which is the reason he's having so much success, so I'll assume you've seen the light. Better yet, why don't you find a way to blame Koch's woes on Manuel. That would be perfect.

Foulke last year had better numbers then Koch. Saves are an overrated stat that means very little. Check out WHIP, K/BB ratio, and K/9 innings. Those to me are the best ways to measure a pitcher. Give me a pitcher with a low WHIP and over a period of time he should have give up fewer runs then a pitcher with a high WHIP. K's are good because it takes away the chance of a hit by not having the ball in play. On the flip side, BB's are bad since they obviously put men on base.

Check out the numbers between the two. There was no logical justification for trading Foulke for Koch considering both teams were trying to win in 2003. The fact that Koch had a heavy workload and has had arm surgery before further throws up red flags.

So I don't see how the A's being a better team make Foulke that much better, unless of course you just look at saves, which based on your statement above seems to be the case. Other then that tell me how Koch is a better pitcher then Foulke after through the 2002 season.

Bob

gosox41
09-22-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Unless we bring in a LaRussa or the equivalent in terms of instant respect, I think we're all in for a big surprise next year. Let me ask you something: if a manager can be blamed for so many problems with a team, can he also be responsible for that kind of success? Yes, Manuel is an idiot in many ways. But when Robbie Alomar calls him a smart baseball man, I have to take a step back and wonder why. Robbie's one of the smartest to ever play the game. Odd that he would give such praise to Manuel, isn't it?

It's not just knowing baseball though that is a big part of it. Managing is about maximizing the talent from your personnel and getting them to mesh together as a team. JM doesn't do this, but he seems to alienate some of the star players.

Bob

kempsted
09-23-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox are .500 in games with the 5th starter?

Ummm then how do you explain a combined record of 3-11 from Wright, Cotts, Stewart and Porzio?

Those numbers by the way came from Phil Rogers column on the same issue.

Explain that?

"You've got lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain

Lip
Because Phil Rogers does the same shabby analysis you do. There are no fancy statistics here. Here are the records of the Sox in the games the following starting pitchers started

Wright 7-7
Stewart 2-3
Porzio 1-2
Cotts 2-2

Look it up. Rogers like so many in the media ignore what happened to make a point. I assume the 3-11 is the pitchers record. But who cares. You said the 5th starter caused a significant number of our loses. As you can see that isn't true because for example 7 times when Danny Wright started the game at the end of the game we said

:winner
Again I didn't use adjusted park factors decent teams wins - I used real look 'um up wins.