PDA

View Full Version : Oddities, Factoids & Thanks!


Lip Man 1
09-28-2003, 04:58 PM
Well another season is over and I guess for Sox fans itís a mixed bag. The Sox at least had a winning record but the Cubs grabbed the brass ring. I found some interesting stats, factoids and oddities that I'm passing along. It may help explain what went wrong (and right) this season.

Also I wanted to thank each and every one of you (even those that I strongly disagree with or who have attacked me personally) for letting me come on and talk White Sox baseball. I also appreciate the fact that you let me rant now and again. (Thatís the nature of Sox fans...at least this one!) I tend to think that even though sometimes we can't stand each other underneath it all, we are all Sox fans (a dying breed...)

2003 factoids:

The Sox lost ten games this season where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later. I donít know how this compares to other teams but to me this is not a good stat. It also shows some logic behind Kenny Williamsí recent comments that heís going to concentrate and rebuild the pitching staff this off season. Obviously the Sox hitting was dreadful the first two and a half months but think where the Sox might be today if the pitchers didnít blow these games.

Date Team Inning Lost Lead

4/3 @ KC 8th

4/15 KC 9th

4/24 @ Balt 7th

5/18 @ Minn 8th

6/1 @ Cleve. 8th

6/3 @ Ariz. 8th

6/12 SF 9th

6/22 @ Cubs 8th

7/4 @TB 9th

9/3 Bost. 8th

In 1 run games the Sox were 18-22

The Sox lost three games 1-0. Two were against Detroit, the other against San Diego.

The Sox lost six games 2-1. One of those was against Detroit.

The Sox lost a total of 16 games against Detroit (8), San Diego (1), Tampa Bay (3) and Texas (4), arguably the four worst teams in baseball.

The Sox record since the controversial Buehrle - Cotts incident was 15-14. Directly before that incident they had gone 8-1.

The combined record of Danny Wright, Neil Cotts, Mike Porzio and Josh Stewert (the 5th starters this season) was 4-11.

The White Sox had a "winning" month every month of the season except May (11-16)

The Cubs (88-74) finished with a better record then the White Sox (86-76) for only the 7th time in the 23 seasons that Jerry Reinsdorf has owned the team. (So much for not being able to compete eh Jerry?)

In his six years as manager Jerry Manuel won 500 games and lost 471.

His average seasonal record was 83.3 - 79.5 (Remember 81 - 81 is perfect mediocrity) He didnít have a lot of talent the first three years but whatís the excuse for the final three?

And finally in 23 years of ownership from Jerry Reinsdorf this is what Sox fans have to show for it: By the way the 23 years is the longest current stretch of ownership in MLB. Reinsdorf took control of the Sox a few months before Tribune Company bought the Cubs.

0 Pennants/ World Series Appearances

3 Playoff Appearances / Divisional Titles (83, 93, 00)

3-10 Playoff Record (including 0-7 in home games)

13 "Winning" Seasons (81, 82, 83, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 00, 01, 03)

4 Seasons 90+ Wins (83, 90, 93, 00)

Parting thought: According to USA Todayís baseball salary database the Sox are 22nd in MLB in team salary. The average median team salary is 70 million dollars. Wouldnít it be nice if the nationís 3rd largest market was just average ?

Lip

Hangar18
09-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Lip.....those stats are Glaring. And a chief reason we havnt been to the World Series yet. Your posts are EXCELLENT and informative, though theyre bent with a tinge of Negativity, I believe you are simply the voice of Reason among us. It takes all kinds to make up Sox Fans, you simply represent a segment. Like I represent the Media Hatred Conspiracy Segment (which you think is silly sometimes :smile: )
thanks for the stats and columns man

soxtalker
09-28-2003, 05:17 PM
When did KW talk about rebuilding the pitching staff?

Lip Man 1
09-28-2003, 05:48 PM
This past week alone there have been two published stories where he stated (and I'm paraphrasing here), the top priority is finding a manager then rebuilding the pitching staff.

He also stated that you might be able to slug your way to a divisional title but the teams that win the World Series do so with pitching not hitting.

To me those are a strong indication where this franchise is going to go (and it's about damn time they got back to their roots.)

Lip

soxtalker
09-28-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
To me those are a strong indication where this franchise is going to go (and it's about damn time they got back to their roots.)
Lip

I agree entirely. I started rooting for the Sox around 1960. (No, it was not in response to the '59 championship. I don't remember that.) So, I remember fondly the great pitching staffs of the 60's. Of course, there was terrific defense to go along with it. If only we could have had some of the hitting of today...

RichH55
09-28-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
I agree entirely. I started rooting for the Sox around 1960. (No, it was not in response to the '59 championship. I don't remember that.) So, I remember fondly the great pitching staffs of the 60's. Of course, there was terrific defense to go along with it. If only we could have had some of the hitting of today...


I always want to upgrade the Pitching...the defense I'm not sold on....but with the lineup, they need to be consistent and cost effective....that would go along way

RichH55
09-28-2003, 06:28 PM
Always fun to argue with you Lip:)

TDog
09-28-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
I agree entirely. I started rooting for the Sox around 1960. (No, it was not in response to the '59 championship. I don't remember that.) So, I remember fondly the great pitching staffs of the 60's. Of course, there was terrific defense to go along with it. If only we could have had some of the hitting of today...

I started following the Sox in 1970, when some 19-year-old kid who wasn't even born in this country made his first major league start against the Sox, giving up a single to the first hitter but not allowing another hit the rest of the way. If you want to talk about roots, the 21st century Sox do that even with kids who aren't named Blyleven, despite their hitting prowess.

The post-Manuel team philosophy should be reflected in the tendencies of the next manager -- not just how much money he demands from the team.

doublem23
09-28-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

He also stated that you might be able to slug your way to a divisional title but the teams that win the World Series do so with pitching not hitting.


I thought the '90s Braves proved that to be pretty much false.

idseer
09-28-2003, 06:56 PM
thanks right back lip. you're one of the main reasons i hang around here.

:)

MRKARNO
09-28-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
I thought the '90s Braves proved that to be pretty much false.

Well I wouldnt mind seeing the 2003 Braves proving this false either :)

Iwritecode
09-29-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox lost ten games this season where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later. I donít know how this compares to other teams but to me this is not a good stat. It also shows some logic behind Kenny Williamsí recent comments that heís going to concentrate and rebuild the pitching staff this off season. Obviously the Sox hitting was dreadful the first two and a half months but think where the Sox might be today if the pitchers didnít blow these games.

Date Team Inning Lost Lead

4/3 @ KC 8th

4/15 KC 9th

4/24 @ Balt 7th

5/18 @ Minn 8th

6/1 @ Cleve. 8th

6/3 @ Ariz. 8th

6/12 SF 9th

6/22 @ Cubs 8th

7/4 @TB 9th

9/3 Bost. 8th

In 1 run games the Sox were 18-22

The Sox lost three games 1-0. Two were against Detroit, the other against San Diego.

The Sox lost six games 2-1. One of those was against Detroit.


Originally posted by Lip Man 1
He also stated that you might be able to slug your way to a divisional title but the teams that win the World Series do so with pitching not hitting.

I really hate this saying. You have the stats right in front of you.

IIRC, the Sox lead the league in quality starts. (at least they did at one time, not sure if they finished the season that way.) They lost a combined 9 games when they only gave up 1 or 2 runs! To me that seems like the pitching staff did their job, but the offense just fell asleep. That seemed to happen way too often this year.

It's interesting that they lost 10 games after the 7th inning, but that's bound to happen to everyone. I'd be interested to see how this compares to the other 29 teams in MLB.

Anyway, my point in this is that the pitching staff doesn't really need that much work, just a little tweaking. Maybe another starter and another arm for the BP.

The defense wasn't bad either. 4th or 5th in the AL just behind the Twins I believe...

It's the offense that need to be revamped.

Pitching and defense is great but it doesn't do a damn thing when you can't score any runs...

Dadawg_77
09-29-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
This past week alone there have been two published stories where he stated (and I'm paraphrasing here), the top priority is finding a manager then rebuilding the pitching staff.

He also stated that you might be able to slug your way to a divisional title but the teams that win the World Series do so with pitching not hitting.

To me those are a strong indication where this franchise is going to go (and it's about damn time they got back to their roots.)

Lip

Yeah those were some pretty sucessful roots there. Lets get back to baseball where we finish in second place.... oh wait.

Lip Man 1
09-29-2003, 02:02 PM
Dadawg you've completely lost me.

This club hit 220 home runs, they scored a ton of runs, what do you want or think the Sox can do, get nine Barry Bonds in the lineup on a limited payroll?

Now look at the pitching:

Koch - bust
Wright - bust
5th starters - bust squared
Garland- mediocre at best
No real right hand bullpen guys outside of Gordon.

To me there's a ton of improvement that needs to be done there.

The Sox offense was bad the first 2 1/2 months but they still found a way to lead in eight games before July 4th that the same pitching staff lost.

Win half of those blown games and the Sox are in a one game playoff today.

The Sox have tried winning the past three years bashing the ball...it did not work. But it was pitching that won in 83 and 93 and kept them in races they had no business being in throughout the 50's and 60's.

Lip

hold2dibber
09-29-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg you've completely lost me.

This club hit 220 home runs, they scored a ton of runs, what do you want or think the Sox can do, get nine Barry Bonds in the lineup on a limited payroll?

Now look at the pitching:

Koch - bust
Wright - bust
5th starters - bust squared
Garland- mediocre at best
No real right hand bullpen guys outside of Gordon.

To me there's a ton of improvement that needs to be done there.

The Sox offense was bad the first 2 1/2 months but they still found a way to lead in eight games before July 4th that the same pitching staff lost.

Win half of those blown games and the Sox are in a one game playoff today.


There's plenty of room for improvement in the pitching staff, but I cannot fathom how anyone could say that the reason this team failed was because of pitching. I won't go into all the details, but the Sox did NOT score a "ton of runs" - they were 7th in the league in runs scored - and 11th in average, and 7th in on base percentage. On the other hand, they were 4th in the league in ERA, 5th in whip, 3rd in batting average against and 3rd in strikeouts. Overall, their offense was mediocre, their pitching was very good.

I agree Koch was a bust, but Gordon was a revelation. And while Wright was a bust, I do believe that the Sox had a .500 (or close to .500) record in games started by their 5th starters. I don't have time to do the research now, but I would be absolutely shocked if the ten leads the Sox lost in or after the 7th was anywhere near the bottom of the league in that category. My guess is that ten such "blown" games is probably about league average. In any event, I would venture that nearly half those leads (maybe more) were lost by Koch. If the Sox retain Gordon next year and install him as the closer from the get-go, the bullpen is better already.

I would be interested to see if any teams lost nearly as many 2-1 and 1-0 games as the Sox. Or if any team had a worse overall record against Cleveland, Detroit and Tampa Bay. The lack of hitting against those dogs lost the division.

Dadawg_77
09-29-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg you've completely lost me.

This club hit 220 home runs, they scored a ton of runs, what do you want or think the Sox can do, get nine Barry Bonds in the lineup on a limited payroll?

Now look at the pitching:

Koch - bust
Wright - bust
5th starters - bust squared
Garland- mediocre at best
No real right hand bullpen guys outside of Gordon.

To me there's a ton of improvement that needs to be done there.

The Sox offense was bad the first 2 1/2 months but they still found a way to lead in eight games before July 4th that the same pitching staff lost.

Win half of those blown games and the Sox are in a one game playoff today.

The Sox have tried winning the past three years bashing the ball...it did not work. But it was pitching that won in 83 and 93 and kept them in races they had no business being in throughout the 50's and 60's.

Lip

Lip it is your obsession with the Sox becoming a speed and pitching team while leaving behind the ability to hit the ball. You argue that this is the way for the Sox to go, since it has been successful in the past. The thing is the results are exactly what we are getting today, second ****ing place. If you are really tired of finishing second then look at the past, and you should realizeit didn't work. Who the Sox lost to, the Yankees. Which team had the better pitching and defense? Which team had the better offense?

Pitching and defense may keep you in the race, see LA this year, but hitting is what wins it for you. Name one mediocre offensive team who won it all? The last team I can think of is LA from 1988 and Orel wasn't human at the end that year. Name one team with mediocre starting pitching who won it all? Last years Angels come to mind. I am not even sure where I am going with this, but the thought process that we should focus on pitching and defense while neglecting offensive power, is just asinine and will only lead the Sox to second place at best.

As for critque of the Sox, Marte was great out of the pen, and Wunch had his moments. The biggest problem with the pen was Jerry mishandling of it and middle relief. The fifth spot in your rotation you hope to get some inning out of and would be very happy with 10 wins from it.

The Sox offense was the biggest problem of the team and fatal flaw. GIDPs and ground balls from the 4-7 hitters caused the team to sputter to mediocre performance. If the Sox hit the ball better, I would be thinking offense actually was better hitting the ball, the Sox would have won the division, as it turned out, they didn't and the Sox lost.

Dadawg_77
09-29-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg you've completely lost me.

This club hit 220 home runs, they scored a ton of runs, what do you want or think the Sox can do, get nine Barry Bonds in the lineup on a limited payroll?



How about building a team around a under value commodity like OBP? Build a team that can score 750 to 800 runs without spending a ton.

Iwritecode
09-29-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How about building a team around a under value commodity like OBP? Build a team that can score 750 to 800 runs without spending a ton.

Exactly. This team can score 10 runs two games straight, then only score one the next game and have an average of 7 RPG. That's why this team has usually been known as a good offensive club.

The only problem is that on any given day they have about as much chance at scoring 10+ runs with a bunch of homeruns as they do popping everything up and scoring only one run. For the past few seasons, they've been "all or nothing" on offense. We don't need another guy like Bonds that can mash the ball. We need more guys that can get on base, run the bases and hit with men on and less than 2 outs.

Foulke You
09-29-2003, 03:46 PM
We need to find a bunch of guys who can hit on the road. I have never seen such a night and day difference in offensive production when on the road versus at home as I have this year. It was like we watched two different teams. At home, our explosive Power offense was there and when teamed with our solid pitching produced one of the best home records in the AL. When we got on the road, except for a few stretches this year, we struggled mightily to score runs because the long ball disappeared. Perhaps a new field manager can keep the team focused on the road. I don't know the answer to the road offense riddle though.

Dadawg_77
09-29-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Exactly. This team can score 10 runs two games straight, then only score one the next game and have an average of 7 RPG. That's why this team has usually been known as a good offensive club.

The only problem is that on any given day they have about as much chance at scoring 10+ runs with a bunch of homeruns as they do popping everything up and scoring only one run. For the past few seasons, they've been "all or nothing" on offense. We don't need another guy like Bonds that can mash the ball. We need more guys that can get on base, run the bases and hit with men on and less than 2 outs.

Uhmmm..... You say we don't need Bonds and then go describe the hitter you want which is Bonds. No one in baseball gets on base as much as Bonds. While....**** it; there is no need to go into how good Bonds is, just say Bonds. If the Sox (there isn't a shape of pink vibrant enough for this statement) could get Bonds, two words, do it.

Lip Man 1
09-29-2003, 06:12 PM
Dadawg:

I'm going to tell you a story that's going to make you ill. Believe it or not, I only know that I clearly remember reading it around 1998 or so.

Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted as telling a reporter that the Sox signed Albert Belle on the recommendation of Frank Thomas.

Reinsdorf said that he asked Thomas "if you could have one player in all of baseball to get for this team (the Sox) who would you want?"

Thomas, according to Reinsdorf, said "Belle." I remember reading that Reinsdorf said he was surprised because he thought that Bonds was available since at that time the Giants were trying to get out from under his contract.

Reinsdorf closed the story by saying that if Thomas felt that way then that's the person he was going to after.

Lip

pudge
09-29-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg:

I'm going to tell you a story that's going to make you ill. Believe it or not, I only know that I clearly remember reading it around 1998 or so.

Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted as telling a reporter that the Sox signed Albert Belle on the recommendation of Frank Thomas.

Reinsdorf said that he asked Thomas "if you could have one player in all of baseball to get for this team (the Sox) who would you want?"

Thomas, according to Reinsdorf, said "Belle." I remember reading that Reinsdorf said he was surprised because he thought that Bonds was available since at that time the Giants were trying to get out from under his contract.

Reinsdorf closed the story by saying that if Thomas felt that way then that's the person he was going to after.

Lip

What Thomas should have said was "Clemens."

Daver
09-29-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by pudge
What Thomas should have said was "Clemens."

That was not an option,Ron Schueler had already told everybody that Clemens was washed up.

xil357
09-29-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
This past week alone there have been two published stories where he stated (and I'm paraphrasing here), the top priority is finding a manager then rebuilding the pitching staff.

He also stated that you might be able to slug your way to a divisional title but the teams that win the World Series do so with pitching not hitting.

To me those are a strong indication where this franchise is going to go (and it's about damn time they got back to their roots.)

Lip

Lip,

I know we sometimes disagree on what points to emphasize when it comes to media coverage discrepancies, but I agree with you 100 percent when it comes to the Sox getting back to their roots of pitching, speed and defense.

More than payroll, more than contracts, more than competition and rivalries, the one absolute constant (barring nuclear war or earthquakes, of course), is that the Sox will play exactly half of their games on one of the most cavernous fields in the AL and in one of the most inconsistent climates in the MLB.

A larger than average outfield coupled with swirling winds and a large range of temperatures (30s in April to 90s in July and August) makes it necessary for the Sox, if they want to succeed, to have great pitching (preferably ground ball or strikeout pitchers) and great defense to get to balls hit by the opposing team.

The ability to hit with great power is nice, but look at what a powerful but admittedly slow lineup did for the Sox in April and May, when the division was ripe for the taking.

I'd much rather see the Sox have a lineup like that of the 2000 Sox -- more singles and doubles and fewer homers, pop-ups and double plays.

More importantly, though, is that speed and defense do not go into slumps. When you are down 1-0 going into the 7th inning in an April night game, when its drizzling with the wind howling in and its 39 degrees, face it, you are not going to get a three-run homer. But an ability to manufacture a run with a infield single, a steal, a sac bunt to move the runner to third and a slow moving ground ball to score a run would be priceless.

Moreover, a CF who can cover all kinds of territory is going to reduce the number of runs the opposition will score over the course of the season. A run prevented from scoring is just as good as an RBI. A good CF makes catching a tricky fly ball look routine.

Instead of Carl Everett struggling to get the ball after it bounces off the wall or Aaron Rowand crashing into the wall, getting that fly out ends the inning sooner, gives the pitcher more confidence to go after that hitter (because he knows the fielders have his back) and allows the starters to pitch deeper into the game.

This also reduces the number of innings the bullpen must pitch, making it more effective at protecting leads in the 10 games in which the Sox gave up the lead after the 7th inning, or holding the opponent long enough to allow your offense to make up the deficit.

Moreover, how much more effective would a great defense be in a smaller park when the Sox are on the road?

Upgrading the defense will not be hard. The Sox statistically already have a pretty good defense. What they really need is a good defensive CF and to re-sign Alomar. (I withhold judgment on Valentin but I am intrigued with the idea of signing Matsui as a SS.)

Looking at WSI's scouting reports, it is possible Joe Borchard may be the answer in CF. Even if he has to bat #9 while he works on his swing, I'm OK with him if he plays a strong D and covers the field.

But if Borchard is not the answer in CF, the Sox need to make every possible effort to get Juan Pierre from the Marlins.

I think the offense gets fixed by putting Frank at 1B and finding a taker, any taker, for Konerko, or relegating him to DH. Lee has shown strides and he needs to be kept. Perhaps he can platoon between DH and LF with Jeremy Reed. I like Everett's attitude but he is not the answer in CF. If Konerko can be traded then Everett can be kept at a reduced price to DH and spell Lee in LF.

Now, the Sox need to make re-signing Colon the #1 priority (aside from hiring the right manager). Apart from a couple of piss poor outings, he sucked it up big time late in the season.

#2 is finding a way to bury the hatchet and sign Buehrle to an agreeable and fair long-term contract to remove this perennial distraction.

#3 is finding a veteran 5th starter.

#4 is to get the bullpen fixed.

gosox41
09-29-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg you've completely lost me.

This club hit 220 home runs, they scored a ton of runs, what do you want or think the Sox can do, get nine Barry Bonds in the lineup on a limited payroll?

Now look at the pitching:

Koch - bust
Wright - bust
5th starters - bust squared
Garland- mediocre at best
No real right hand bullpen guys outside of Gordon.

To me there's a ton of improvement that needs to be done there.

The Sox offense was bad the first 2 1/2 months but they still found a way to lead in eight games before July 4th that the same pitching staff lost.

Win half of those blown games and the Sox are in a one game playoff today.

The Sox have tried winning the past three years bashing the ball...it did not work. But it was pitching that won in 83 and 93 and kept them in races they had no business being in throughout the 50's and 60's.

Lip

Lip,
I tihnk you're being a little hard on the pitching staff. There are obvious holes (what team doesn't have them) but outside of a select few, the pitching isn't as bad as you make it seem.

This year's staff had 3 starters that you could feel confident in when they started. Garland is slowly being a solid pitcher, though not quit there yet. Marte and Gordon in the bullpen were great. Wunsch was solid. Sullivan pitched about what I'd expect. Wright pitched well out of the pen.

I don't think a pitching overhaul is needed.

The hitting is what concerns me. Hitting .245 the first half costthe Sox a lot of games. Sure they scored a lot of runs, but they scored them in bunches.

The offense problem is not the actual runs they scored (though I thought they'd score a few more), it's the lack of consistency.

Bob

gosox41
09-29-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg:

I'm going to tell you a story that's going to make you ill. Believe it or not, I only know that I clearly remember reading it around 1998 or so.

Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted as telling a reporter that the Sox signed Albert Belle on the recommendation of Frank Thomas.

Reinsdorf said that he asked Thomas "if you could have one player in all of baseball to get for this team (the Sox) who would you want?"

Thomas, according to Reinsdorf, said "Belle." I remember reading that Reinsdorf said he was surprised because he thought that Bonds was available since at that time the Giants were trying to get out from under his contract.

Reinsdorf closed the story by saying that if Thomas felt that way then that's the person he was going to after.

Lip

Then that's Jerry's fauly for listening to Frank. It's like when Michael Jordan would want to sign every Tar Heel under the sun because he thought they were all superior, but as the Wizards proved the last 2 years, MJ is not a great finder of talent. Why would we think Frank is any better? He knows one thing how to hit. Doesn't mean he should be out there drafting hitters.

On another note, did you hear the story of the multiple Cy Young Award winner who wanted to play for the Sox but the Sox felt he was too old and wouldn't last. Seems the owner refused to sign pitching to long term contracts. Six years and a couple more of Cy Youngs later and he's got a few WS rings and going to the HOF.

That makes me sicker.

Bob

Dan Gelo
09-30-2003, 03:59 AM
I can't believe nobody mentioned my favorite this year, Rick White!
I agree with shoring up the bullpen a little. I was happy with the deal for Schoenweis. Marte and Gordon did real well.

We definitely need a pitcher to fill either the fourth or fifth spot. I would be happy with:
1. Colon
2. Beurhle
3. Loaiza (Not really confident that this season wasn't an abbaration)
4. ?
5. Garland

That would be a great 5 to have. Hopefully Loaiza has a year like this year. Garland at 5 would be great, we wouldn't be put into a position to treat him like an ace. He needs 1 or 2 years to get there(hopefully).

The SS thing, I don't know about. I like Jose, his d has improved, and he is the clubhouse "guy". He slumps, but his personality is what he's there for.

CF is an issue. Carl Everett has fire, and he's clutch. Unless we can get a huge upgrade defensively, I wouldn't want to lose the bat. That goes double if Big Frank or Magglio go somewhere else.

C? Olivo? I don't know if I want to see that again. His D took a dive late in the year, and so did his bat.

1b? If Konerko is gone, and Frank's salary is gone.......? I don't know. How about Pujols and LaRussa for Konerko and Dan Wright? Anyway, just wondering what you guys were thinking.

Dadawg_77
09-30-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dadawg:

I'm going to tell you a story that's going to make you ill. Believe it or not, I only know that I clearly remember reading it around 1998 or so.

Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted as telling a reporter that the Sox signed Albert Belle on the recommendation of Frank Thomas.

Reinsdorf said that he asked Thomas "if you could have one player in all of baseball to get for this team (the Sox) who would you want?"

Thomas, according to Reinsdorf, said "Belle." I remember reading that Reinsdorf said he was surprised because he thought that Bonds was available since at that time the Giants were trying to get out from under his contract.

Reinsdorf closed the story by saying that if Thomas felt that way then that's the person he was going to after.

Lip

I know that story and it does make me ill. But who ever said Frank was a great judge in talent. So you can't blame that on Frank, I remember the stories of Jordan begging to get someone, and Kraus didn't. Well the guy Jordan wanted turns out to be a bust while the Kraus got help win some championships. While you should listen to your players, you shouldn't always follow their advice.

Iwritecode
10-01-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Uhmmm..... You say we don't need Bonds and then go describe the hitter you want which is Bonds. No one in baseball gets on base as much as Bonds. While....**** it; there is no need to go into how good Bonds is, just say Bonds. If the Sox (there isn't a shape of pink vibrant enough for this statement) could get Bonds, two words, do it.

Well, Bonds can hit homeruns and take walks. Sounds a lot like Thomas. So what does he do after he gets on base? Stands there and waits until someone hits a ball so he can run another 90 feet. If they hit the ball hard enough, he might manage to make it 180 feet.

I think that most of the time though, he would just be the front end of a GIDP. That's where the problem lies with this team. We don't have enough guys that can put the ball in play and make things happen on the base paths. Why do you think the team started playing better when Carl and Robbie came aboard?

We need more players similiar to those guys.