PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie's email to the fans...


daveeym
02-10-2004, 11:12 AM
I don't even know where to begin, discuss.

WHITE SOX INSIDER
February 10, 2003

A MESSAGE FROM OZZIE GUILLEN
================================================== ===============

Dear White Sox Fan -

It was great to see so many of you at SoxFest. I love the
passion White Sox fans have for their team.

I'm so excited to be back in Chicago with the White Sox. When
Kenny Williams asked me to be the next manager of the team, it
was a dream come true. Besides my family, baseball is my life.
To come back and try to bring a World Series championship to
White Sox fans is unbelievable.

I wish Spring Training started today!

We're going to have a lot of fun this year. I like to have fun,
and I want my players to enjoy the game, too. But we also are
going to respect the game and play the game the right way. We
are going to bunt, move runners along and run the bases hard.
Little things win ballgames, like driving guys in from third base
with less than two outs. No matter what, I promise you this -
We are going to play good, fundamental baseball and have fun
doing it every single day.

I don't have a lot of patience. I want to win, and I want to win
with the White Sox and with these players. If we play the game
the right way, you wait - in June and July - we're going to
surprise a lot of people.

We all share a passion for the White Sox, and I hope you are as
excited as I am about the upcoming season. We're going to work
hard, have fun and play good baseball. See you at the ballpark.

Ozzie Guillen
Manager, Chicago White Sox

Randar68
02-10-2004, 11:17 AM
He must have forgotten the one part in the middle of his e-mail...

:ozzie:

"and we are going to be nailed by the hidden ball trick at least twice a game, you wait and see, talk about exciting!"

jabrch
02-10-2004, 11:17 AM
You beat me too it...

The line that surprised me most was "If we play the game
the right way, you wait - in June and July - we're going to
surprise a lot of people. "

So Ozzie is saying I shouldn't bother coming to the park until June?

Baby Fisk
02-10-2004, 11:18 AM
Does that mean that in August and September the Sox won't surprise anyone?

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
The line that surprised me most was "If we play the game
the right way, you wait - in June and July - we're going to
surprise a lot of people. "

IF? IF?!??! IF?????!????!??!!

Isn't that exactly why he was hired? I mean emphasis on training and doing the little thing? Teamwork and doing whatever it takes to win?

I guess Ozzie doesn't trust his ability to hold the players attention and teach them proper techniques either...

daveeym
02-10-2004, 11:23 AM
"I don't have a lot of patience."

Great, not that I want Meditating Manuel back but that's not really what I want to hear from my manager.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 11:24 AM
I got the same e-mail by the way. All you had to do was be registered with the official White Sox site and you got it.

jabrch
02-10-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by daveeym
"I don't have a lot of patience."

Great, not that I want Meditating Manuel back but that's not really what I want to hear from my manager.

I guess I'd rather have someone modest enough to admit their (publicly known) faults rather than someone who thinks they are perfect. That one doesn't both me much. He can only teach, instruct and coach. It ultimately is up to the players to execute.

sas1974
02-10-2004, 11:37 AM
I have yet to bash Ozzie as a manager. I am willing to give him a chance before I start that. But is anyone else tired of hearing the same lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER? I wish spring training started today as well, so we wouldn't have to keep hearing these same cliches. As I mentioned, I am willing to give him a chance to walk the walk that he's been talking, but he better remember one thing....We are also not very patient.

hold2dibber
02-10-2004, 11:38 AM
I don't think it's a particularly good idea to dig too deep into the meaning of this e-mail, or to parse it out, word by word. I'm sure Galas told Ozzie they wanted to send an e-mail from him to the fans to generate a little excitement, Ozzie went on a rambling 20 minute diatribe about playing the game right, hustling, having fun, yada, yada, yada, Galas wrote a little e-mail based on that, and voila, instant excitement! Don't put too much stock into the particulars, is my point ("if" and "june and july" etc.).

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 11:38 AM
Man, that Soxogram came out better than I was expecting. I love the hidden meaning in those words.

I wonder if Ozzie will be one of the ones surprised if the Sox play the game the right way...

hold2dibber
02-10-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
I have yet to bash Ozzie as a manager. I am willing to give him a chance before I start that. But is anyone else tired of hearing the same lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER? I wish spring training started today as well, so we wouldn't have to keep hearing these same cliches.

It's going to get even worse during spring training when he's quoted every day saying the same things over and over instead of just once in a while.

Nick@Nite
02-10-2004, 11:40 AM
"We are going to bunt, move runners along and run the bases hard."

I know that the above is a generic-disposable baseball cliche'. But last year, I don't remember a whole lot of small ball... especially down the stretch.

I remember everyone screaming for CLee, Frank, Maggs, Jose, etc, to stop swinging for downtown... until the next bomb exploded... then everyone was all smiles, at least for awhile.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Nick@Nite
"We are going to bunt, move runners along and run the bases hard."

I know that the above is a generic-disposable baseball cliche'. But last year, I don't remember a whole lot of small ball... especially down the stretch.

I remember everyone screaming for CLee, Frank, Maggs, Jose, etc, to stop swinging for downtown... until the next bomb exploded... then everyone was all smiles, at least for awhile.

That's because that team's best offense was walk, error 3-run bomb.

No worries, I am sure Ozzie can get them to generate tons off offense with small ball...

thezeker
02-10-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by daveeym
I don't even know where to begin, discuss.

It's a wonderful message and one that should inspire all White Sox fans, no matter how cynical.

Isn't great to have a guy who's dream is to be manager of the White Sox? Not a stepping stone to bigger and better things. He loves this franchise and loves it's fans.

I read the comments of many of the players about having Ozzie as manager and they seem to like the direction he is pointing this team. They know they were underachievers under Manuel and welcome the change.

I really believe KW when he said Ozzie's interview blew his socks off and he had to hire him. KW has made many mistakes but unlike many of us he seems to be learning from his mistakes. He could have hired another Manuel (Gaston) or he could try and right the ship wth someone with passion and a real plan to make the White Sox a team we can all feel good about.

Let's give them both a chance this year. 2004 might be the start of a new era that brings pride back to the South Side. Sometimes the best moves are the one's that weren't made. See you at the "cell' in October at the playoffs.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by thezeker
Let's give them both a chance this year. 2004 might be the start of a new era that brings pride back to the South Side. Sometimes the best moves are the one's that weren't made. See you at the "cell' in October at the playoffs.

Let's hope that you are correct. I am skeptical about whether Ozzie can actually do what he says and honestly am not impressed by an e-mail full of cliches.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Nick@Nite
"We are going to bunt, move runners along and run the bases hard."

I know that the above is a generic-disposable baseball cliche'. But last year, I don't remember a whole lot of small ball... especially down the stretch.

I remember everyone screaming for CLee, Frank, Maggs, Jose, etc, to stop swinging for downtown... until the next bomb exploded... then everyone was all smiles, at least for awhile.

In my opinion it wasn't completely a lack of trying to play *small ball*. Nobody could lay down a bunt to save their lives last season. Nobody. It was a poor fundamental team. I think Manuel just gave up. Either he wasn't teaching it or no one was listening, but it wasn't working last year. At some point you have to abandon the philosophy and concentrate on *strengths* be they real or percieved.

pearso66
02-10-2004, 11:52 AM
Don't worry, if Ozzie fails, there will be more coaches we can take from the Marlins.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
In my opinion it wasn't completely a lack of trying to play *small ball*. Nobody could lay down a bunt to save their lives last season. Nobody. It was a poor fundamental team. I think Manuel just gave up. Either he wasn't teaching it or no one was listening, but it wasn't working last year. At some point you have to abandon the philosophy and concentrate on *strengths* be they real or percieved.

What can anyone do? You going to teach players who are 28-37 how to bunt? That's something you learn how to do in HS and in the minor leagues.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 11:58 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the PR dept wrote this and Ozzie signed off on it? I think we are paying too much attention the email, it was just fluff sent out to excite the fan base.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
What can anyone do? You going to teach players who are 28-37 how to bunt? That's something you learn how to do in HS and in the minor leagues.

So do we just resign ourselves that we can never bunt? Come on, these guys are professionals. It's not FUN practicing bunting, everybody just wants to crush the ball in BP. You can't tell me that with practice and the proper instruction they cannot improve. That is a lame excuse. It's called PRACTICE.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:05 PM
Man, most of you guys have too much negativity in you. He hasn't even had a chance to do anything, and when he comes out with a positive email, you knit pick it to death. You can do that with anything. He wants to play hard, have fun, and play good fundamental baseball. What's the problem with you guys. Give him a chance.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Am I the only one who thinks the PR dept wrote this and Ozzie signed off on it? I think we are paying too much attention the email, it was just fluff sent out to excite the fan base.

I personally think Ozzie wrote this himself

Randar68
02-10-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
So do we just resign ourselves that we can never bunt? Come on, these guys are professionals. It's not FUN practicing bunting, everybody just wants to crush the ball in BP. You can't tell me that with practice and the proper instruction they cannot improve. That is a lame excuse. It's called PRACTICE.

Here is what you do:

If you are going to play small ball, you draft and sign players that can do just that! If you have 25 players who are NOT good at playing small ball, you DO NOT hire a manager who comes in and insinuates he is going to make Frank and Maggs bunt!!! It's absolute lunacy.

In today's game, you have to have a plan and build your team accordingly. You can't have a group of veterans who can't get on bae, can't run, aren't great situational hitters, and can't bunt, and then hie a manager who wants to do all those things. In fairy-fantasy-land, when you want to bunt, your players learn how to. The reality is that HR's make SportsCenter and millionaire players who have had success in the vain in the past aren't going to start bunting runners from 1st to second.

It's reality, not negativity. I hope Ozzie succeeds, but he's in for a rude awakening if he thinks he's going to walk into that clubhouse on the first day of Spring Training and suddenly these guys who he's mouthed off about are going to run through walls for him and bunt and steal bases.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here is what you do:

If you are going to play small ball, you draft and sign players that can do just that! If you have 25 players who are NOT good at playing small ball, you DO NOT hire a manager who comes in and insinuates he is going to make Frank and Maggs bunt!!! It's absolute lunacy.

In today's game, you have to have a plan and build your team accordingly. You can't have a group of veterans who can't get on bae, can't run, aren't great situational hitters, and can't bunt, and then hie a manager who wants to do all those things. In fairy-fantasy-land, when you want to bunt, your players learn how to. The reality is that HR's make SportsCenter and millionaire players who have had success in the vain in the past aren't going to start bunting runners from 1st to second.

It's reality, not negativity. I hope Ozzie succeeds, but he's in for a rude awakening if he thinks he's going to walk into that clubhouse on the first day of Spring Training and suddenly these guys who he's mouthed off about are going to run through walls for him and bunt and steal bases.

He's not asking for them to take a bullet for him. He's saying you might need to lay down a bunt. It's not like it's going to be man on first, next guy has to bunt. He'll mix it up. And the reason these million dollar players will do it, is because they want to win too. They are all in agreesome that there wasn't enough aggressiveness last year. Ozzie is preaching aggressive baseball, and these guys will do their best to play that way, or they simply won't play. It won't come to that though. The majority of the team isn't interested in stats, they're interested in winning. They got punched in the gut last season, and they didn't like how it felt. If they can sacrifice some personal goals to help the team win, they'll do it. Is there any team that wins that doesn't have that approach? No.

jabrch
02-10-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
if he thinks he's going to walk into that clubhouse on the first day of Spring Training and suddenly these guys who he's mouthed off about are going to run through walls for him and bunt and steal bases.


If they wont - they are welcome to go elsewhere. I am not saying I want Frank bunting. But I want Frank doing what the manager tells him to do. I know the though of asking Frank to do anything that Frank doesn't want doesn't always sit well with people, but Players should Play and Managers shoudl Manage.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
If they wont - they are welcome to go elsewhere. I am not saying I want Frank bunting. But I want Frank doing what the manager tells him to do. I know the though of asking Frank to do anything that Frank doesn't want doesn't always sit well with people, but Players should Play and Managers shoudl Manage.

I agree, but I also think any manager who asks Frank to bunt should be fired the next day.

Jerko
02-10-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
So do we just resign ourselves that we can never bunt? Come on, these guys are professionals. It's not FUN practicing bunting, everybody just wants to crush the ball in BP. You can't tell me that with practice and the proper instruction they cannot improve. That is a lame excuse. It's called PRACTICE.


I agree. Why bother having spring training then if everybody on the team should already know everything. Why even have a manager for that matter if nobody needs to be taught anything.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I agree. Why bother having spring training then if everybody on the team should already know everything. Why even have a manager for that matter if nobody needs to be taught anything.

game time decisions and managing the bullpen come to mind? :D:

Randar68
02-10-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I agree. Why bother having spring training then if everybody on the team should already know everything. Why even have a manager for that matter if nobody needs to be taught anything.

These guys have been playing baseball, most of them, for over 20 years and are veterans of the game. If a veteran doesn't know how to bunt, HE ISN'T GOING TO HAVE A REVELATION AND SUDDENLY FIGURE IT OUT...

Those things take years of practice, and I'm guessing Konerko, Thomas, Maggs, etc haven't even practiced it in 5+ years if not longer.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
If they wont - they are welcome to go elsewhere. I am not saying I want Frank bunting. But I want Frank doing what the manager tells him to do. I know the though of asking Frank to do anything that Frank doesn't want doesn't always sit well with people, but Players should Play and Managers shoudl Manage.

This is exactly why hiring Ozzie may turn out to be a terrible move. It's a lot easier to hire a manager to fit your team than to replace 25 guys who don't fit the style your new manager decideds he wants to play.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 12:31 PM
I don't think anyone expects Frank and Maggs to bunt two or three times a game. But they have to be able to adapt to a situation.

The problem is, guys don't get $15 mil a year because they can lay down a mean sac bunt. That is obvious...I am not that stupid. My point is in the late innings when you are playing for an insurance run or a game tying run you have to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the good of the team if it is called for. Let the sluggers swing, I agree 100%. But don't tell me that they shouldn't ever have to bunt. It is a team game, and what happens with these guys is that they just want to try and pad their stats. IMO Jimenez was the biggest offender anyway, and he is gone. Harris may suck, but he HAS to be more coachable than that other hardhead.

What happens is they figure...hey, I' not getting PAID to bunt...let someone else do it...and then they ground into a rally killing or inning ending DP. Sound familiar, or do we need to revisit the thread about the league leaders in GIDP's??

Ozzie is a parrot. I don't care what he says. Let's see how we perform. Manuel said the same crap.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 12:38 PM
Wow. I think some of you will never be happy. I do believe that Ozzie wrote that...it sounds like him (without the accent). Regarding his comment about June and July, I think he means that people will be surprised that the Sox are in first at that time. Teams can start off hot and then slip in the mid-summer months and vice-versa. I didn't take it as "this team isn't going to start playing until june and July). I also read the "if" as the players has to execute. I don't see that as a negative. Also, I think Ozzie will use players properly. I believe that he does know that the middle of the order are not the ones to bunt, but as he stated in the initial press conference if those guys are having problems moving runners over then he is going to do something different (hit and run maybe?). Last year the Sox were one of the worst teams at playing "small ball". Even the guys that were supposed to be able to lay down bunts didn't execute. So yes, he will have to make them practice and look at film (My hitting and bunting in college increased significantly when we had to go into the film room and analyze what we were and weren't doing.) So many people complain about the Sox not being a fan-friendly organization, so here the manager sends an e-mail to the fans (an obviously fan-friendly move) and people still aren't happy...

Randar68
02-10-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I don't think anyone expects Frank and Maggs to bunt two or three times a game. But they have to be able to adapt to a situation.

The problem is, guys don't get $15 mil a year because they can lay down a mean sac bunt. That is obvious...I am not that stupid. My point is in the late innings when you are playing for an insurance run or a game tying run you have to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the good of the team if it is called for. Let the sluggers swing, I agree 100%. But don't tell me that they shouldn't ever have to bunt. It is a team game, and what happens with these guys is that they just want to try and pad their stats. IMO Jimenez was the biggest offender anyway, and he is gone. Harris may suck, but he HAS to be more coachable than that other hardhead.

What happens is they figure...hey, I' not getting PAID to bunt...let someone else do it...and then they ground into a rally killing or inning ending DP. Sound familiar, or do we need to revisit the thread about the league leaders in GIDP's??

Ozzie is a parrot. I don't care what he says. Let's see how we perform. Manuel said the same crap.


I don't care what the situation is, if any manager calls for Frank or Maggs to bunt in the late innings, I, as well as all of the Chicago media, will be calling for Ozzie's head on a platter. Why would Frank or Maggs bunt? So Konerko can pop out to end the game? So Lee can line into a DP? Those are your best hitters...

YOU NEVER GIVE UP OUTS WITH YOUR BEST HITTERS. Basic fundamentals of the game, folks. You ask those guys to hit the ball the other way, or sac fly, ok, because you are not removing all possibility of them getting a hit, double, HR, etc. When you ask those guys to bunt, the BEST thing that can happen is they move the guy over and make an out.

Folks, it ain't rocket science, but if Ozzie asks Frank or Maggs to bunt, I sure as heck hope they just laugh in his face.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
game time decisions and managing the bullpen come to mind? :D:

That's in addition to.

sas1974
02-10-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
YOU NEVER GIVE UP OUTS WITH YOUR BEST HITTERS. Basic fundamentals of the game, folks. You ask those guys to hit the ball the other way, or sac fly, ok, because you are not removing all possibility of them getting a hit, double, HR, etc. When you ask those guys to bunt, the BEST thing that can happen is they move the guy over and make an out.

Folks, it ain't rocket science, but if Ozzie asks Frank or Maggs to bunt, I sure as heck hope they just laugh in his face.

I agree 100%. If you're going to ask Frank to bunt, you might as well pitch hit Uribe for him. At least he might be able to beat it out.

How many times has anyone seem Manny, A-Rod, Bonds, Thome or Sosa bunt? You just don't do it w/ those guys.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I don't care what the situation is, if any manager calls for Frank or Maggs to bunt in the late innings, I, as well as all of the Chicago media, will be calling for Ozzie's head on a platter. Why would Frank or Maggs bunt? So Konerko can pop out to end the game? So Lee can line into a DP? Those are your best hitters...

YOU NEVER GIVE UP OUTS WITH YOUR BEST HITTERS. Basic fundamentals of the game, folks. You ask those guys to hit the ball the other way, or sac fly, ok, because you are not removing all possibility of them getting a hit, double, HR, etc. When you ask those guys to bunt, the BEST thing that can happen is they move the guy over and make an out.

Folks, it ain't rocket science, but if Ozzie asks Frank or Maggs to bunt, I sure as heck hope they just laugh in his face.

Some of you guys don't know anything about baseball. It's not like they are going to have Thomas lay down a sacrifice bunt in the first inning. There will be hit and runs, sacrifice flies, ect... But to say they are the best hitters and they shouldn't lay down a bunt is ridiculous. You know how many DP's Maggs hits into? A lot. He's a great hitter, but to say there isn't going to be times where he should bunt is ignorant. Derrick Lee and Pudged bunted, why are our guys more special. Besides, you guys are missing the fact that when a bunt is a possibility, it keeps the pitcher guessing. Maybe he'll throw a couple out of the zone so a terrible bunt will be laid down. Next thing you know, the bunt call sign is off and Frank or Maggs has a 2-0 hitter count. Baseball is strategy, and all this plays into it. But no one in the game, except maybe Bonds, is too good to bunt.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I don't care what the situation is, if any manager calls for Frank or Maggs to bunt in the late innings, I, as well as all of the Chicago media, will be calling for Ozzie's head on a platter. Why would Frank or Maggs bunt? So Konerko can pop out to end the game? So Lee can line into a DP? Those are your best hitters...

YOU NEVER GIVE UP OUTS WITH YOUR BEST HITTERS. Basic fundamentals of the game, folks. You ask those guys to hit the ball the other way, or sac fly, ok, because you are not removing all possibility of them getting a hit, double, HR, etc. When you ask those guys to bunt, the BEST thing that can happen is they move the guy over and make an out.

Folks, it ain't rocket science, but if Ozzie asks Frank or Maggs to bunt, I sure as heck hope they just laugh in his face.

I will ask again...WHO lead the league in GIDP last year? Sure your premise is GREAT...if it is executed properly. Two men on, nobody out, down 1 or two runs in the 9th...I would rather have guys on 2nd and 3rd with one out than one guy on 3rd with two outs. Bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game, if done properly should give reliable predictable results. 3-run bombs, while obviously more desirable, are much less predictable. You will win more games by moving guys over in the above scenario than swinging for the fences every time, I virtually guarantee it.

I don't disagree with what you are essentially trying to say, and I don't think we should only focus on Maggs and Frank. What about the other 7 guys? None of them could bunt last year. Konerko--when he wasn't hitting the LEAST he could do would have been lay down a nice bunt. Beats a DP. Again I understand your point and I respectfully disagree. No one should be excused from being able to perform a simple fundamental task inherent to baseball. No one person comes before the team. A great hitter is successful 30% of the time.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I will ask again...WHO lead the league in GIDP last year? Sure your premise is GREAT...if it is executed properly. Two men on, nobody out, down 1 or two runs in the 9th...I would rather have guys on 2nd and 3rd with one out than one guy on 3rd with two outs. Bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game, if done properly should give reliable predictable results. 3-run bombs, while obviously more desirable, are much less predictable. You will win more games by moving guys over in the above scenario than swinging for the fences every time, I virtually guarantee it.

I don't disagree with what you are essentially trying to say, and I don't think we should only focus on Maggs and Frank. What about the other 7 guys? None of them could bunt last year. Konerko--when he wasn't hitting the LEAST he could do would have been lay down a nice bunt. Beats a DP. Again I understand your point and I respectfully disagree. No one should be excused from being able to perform a simple fundamental task inherent to baseball. No one person comes before the team. A great hitter is successful 30% of the time.

Exactly.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Some of you guys don't know anything about baseball. It's not like they are going to have Thomas lay down a sacrifice bunt in the first inning. There will be hit and runs, sacrifice flies, ect... But to say they are the best hitters and they shouldn't lay down a bunt is ridiculous. You know how many DP's Maggs hits into? A lot. He's a great hitter, but to say there isn't going to be times where he should bunt is ignorant. Derrick Lee and Pudged bunted, why are our guys more special. Besides, you guys are missing the fact that when a bunt is a possibility, it keeps the pitcher guessing. Maybe he'll throw a couple out of the zone so a terrible bunt will be laid down. Next thing you know, the bunt call sign is off and Frank or Maggs has a 2-0 hitter count. Baseball is strategy, and all this plays into it. But no one in the game, except maybe Bonds, is too good to bunt.

You don't get it. No one is saying don't try to move the runner, but asking guys like Frank to bunt is silly. Have him hit the other way or try to hit a deep fly. That way you might get lucky and end up with more than you bargained for AND you won't be asking him to do something that is completely foreign to him. The same can be said for Maggs, though at his age with his bat skills, it might be easier.

How many times did Barry Bonds get asked to bunt last year? Giambi?

It's really more of a "the way the game should be played" issue. Sluggers don't get asked to bunt. This rule goes back as far as the game itself. Put your players in a situation where they can succeed. Asking guys like Frank to bunt is just plain stupid...

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You don't get it. No one is saying don't try to move the runner, but asking guys like Frank to bunt is silly. Have him hit the other way or try to hit a deep fly. That way you might get lucky and end up with more than you bargained for AND you won't be asking him to do something that is completely foreign to him. The same can be said for Maggs, though at his age with his bat skills, it might be easier.

How many times did Barry Bonds get asked to bunt last year? Giambi?

It's really more of a "the way the game should be played" issue. Sluggers don't get asked to bunt. This rule goes back as far as the game itself. Put your players in a situation where they can succeed. Asking guys like Frank to bunt is just plain stupid...

But you're wrong.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 01:13 PM
Maybe we should just keep playing the same style of ball we played last year. It was so successful.

I am sorry but I do get it. Problem is some players' egos get in the way of doing things the right way. Laying down a bunt may be a less-reward option but it also comes at much less risk. But hey, I'm not the manager so nobody cares what I think.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND what the anti-bunters are saying...I just disagree. That doesn't make either side right or wrong. Bunting should be like good defense...reproducible, reliable results. There is a time and a place for a bunt. Guys go into slumps...they can still help the cause, not to mention the element of surprise and getting the defense back on their heels. I respect the opposing viewpoints but my opinion remains the same.

ChiSox7
02-10-2004, 01:26 PM
I, for one, got EXTREMELY tired of the team being unable to get a runner in from third with less than two outs. We were down right horrible. I'm not getting into all that bunting stuff, because I really don't think Ozzie means to have Frank or Maggs bunt, but the point he's trying to make is they will be team players, and put personal records (500 HR) aside. If Frank needs to go the other way to move a runner, he better not be trying to pull the ball out of the yard. I think thats what Ozz means.

But I love the statement about gettin runners in from third with less than two outs. Nothing infuriated me more last year than our inability to do that. If ozz only solves taht problem this year i'll be happy.

JasonC23
02-10-2004, 01:41 PM
So, basically, if I'm reading this thread correctly, Konerko, Maggs, et al, should learn to bunt because at least they'll only make one out instead of two?

Wow, and people think Lip is cynical...

SpringfldFan
02-10-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
These guys have been playing baseball, most of them, for over 20 years and are veterans of the game. If a veteran doesn't know how to bunt, HE ISN'T GOING TO HAVE A REVELATION AND SUDDENLY FIGURE IT OUT...

Those things take years of practice, and I'm guessing Konerko, Thomas, Maggs, etc haven't even practiced it in 5+ years if not longer.

Um, when I was ten years old I was taught sacrifice bunting fundamentals and was able to do it successfully after just a couple of sessions.

1. Square up

2. Loosely hold the bat level and in front of you.

3. Without stabbing, just "catch" the ball with the bat.


What about this is rocket science??

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by ChiSox7
I, for one, got EXTREMELY tired of the team being unable to get a runner in from third with less than two outs. We were down right horrible. I'm not getting into all that bunting stuff, because I really don't think Ozzie means to have Frank or Maggs bunt, but the point he's trying to make is they will be team players, and put personal records (500 HR) aside. If Frank needs to go the other way to move a runner, he better not be trying to pull the ball out of the yard. I think thats what Ozz means.

But I love the statement about gettin runners in from third with less than two outs. Nothing infuriated me more last year than our inability to do that. If ozz only solves taht problem this year i'll be happy.

I agree that Ozzie wants the middle of the order guys to be team players, but I also believe we will see the middle of the order guys bunt once or twice a season. When Jeff Torborg was here (Ozzie's mentor, BTW), he would infrequently ask the middle of the order guys to bunt or hit and run. Bunting once or twice a year with a star hitter in a key series is not a bad idea because it catches the other team off guard. Similarly, Torborg used to frequently ask Thomas to hit and run when he would be in a slump. The reason for this is that it creates a hole in the infield, and Thomas had great bat control which made him able to find that hole. This was a great approach because guys typically come out of slumps with singles rather than bombs, and I hope Ozzie can get this team back to those tendencies.

However, I do expect to see a lot more bunts, hit-and-runs, and steals out of the rest of the order. In the early nineties the Sox used to be great at manufacturing a key run or two a game out of the top or bottom of the order. Early in the season last year, the production at the top and bottom was woefully inadequate, and they need to be more productive next year. None of those guys will hit 40+ homers next year, so they need to play more small ball to contribute. This does not only include bunting, stealing, etc., but small ball also includes hitting behind the runner and being able to pick up a sacrifice fly.

I sincerely hope that Ozzie can get this team to buy into those philosophies because teams that play that way tend to overachieve (1990-1991 Whites Sox) rather than underachieve (2003 White Sox).

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
So, basically, if I'm reading this thread correctly, Konerko, Maggs, et al, should learn to bunt because at least they'll only make one out instead of two?

Wow, and people think Lip is cynical...

I don't understand how that is cynical, but anyway...

Scenario: Bottom of the ninth Sox down by one. Konerko is up and is leading the team in GIDP's, the closer for the opposing team is a ground ball pitcher. Runner is on first, no outs.

Options:
1. Have Konerko swing away and risk a DP resulting in 2 outs, no one on.

2. Have Konerko bunt putting a runner in scoring position with one out.

3. Put on a hit and run creating the possibilites of either runners on first and third, no outs or runner on second, one out.

Out of the following scenario, I like options 2 and 3 best. Of course, I am not in support of having all of our hitters bunt more. However, there can be situations where it is the best option.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
Um, when I was ten years old I was taught sacrifice bunting fundamentals and was able to do it successfully after just a couple of sessions.

1. Square up

2. Loosely hold the bat level and in front of you.

3. Without stabbing, just "catch" the ball with the bat.


What about this is rocket science??

It's not, but don't forget to hold the bat at the top of the strike zone and pull it back if the pitch is above the bat. By placing the bat at the top of the zone significantly decreases the chances of popping the ball up. *sigh* I yelled that soooooo many times last season....

hold2dibber
02-10-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
And the reason these million dollar players will do it, is because they want to win too. They are all in agreesome that there wasn't enough aggressiveness last year. Ozzie is preaching aggressive baseball, and these guys will do their best to play that way, or they simply won't play. It won't come to that though. The majority of the team isn't interested in stats, they're interested in winning. They got punched in the gut last season, and they didn't like how it felt. If they can sacrifice some personal goals to help the team win, they'll do it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the White Sox. :D: Seriously, what makes you think that any of this stuff is true? "The majority of the team isn't interested in stats"? Why do you say that? "They got punched in the ugt last season and they didn't like how it felt." Where does that come from? This core has been together for four seasons now, and in each of the last three they've basically appeared to me to be absolutely lacking any competitive fire or passion for the game. I don't know what team you've been watching, but I have no faith that the players on the current roster (with an exception or two) have the thirst to win that you are suggesting.

sas1974
02-10-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
I don't understand how that is cynical, but anyway...

Scenario: Bottom of the ninth Sox down by one. Konerko is up and is leading the team in GIDP's, the closer for the opposing team is a ground ball pitcher. Runner is on first, no outs.

Options:
1. Have Konerko swing away and risk a DP resulting in 2 outs, no one on.

2. Have Konerko bunt putting a runner in scoring position with one out.

3. Put on a hit and run creating the possibilites of either runners on first and third, no outs or runner on second, one out.

Out of the following scenario, I like options 2 and 3 best. Of course, I am not in support of having all of our hitters bunt more. However, there can be situations where it is the best option.

You forgot the scenerio where Konerko lays down a crappy bunt, the catcher picks it up fires to 2nd for one and over to 1st for the double play.

-or-

Where Konerko pops the bunt up to the pitcher for one and he fires back to 1st for the double play.

-or-

Where Konerko, swinging away, ropes a double into the gap bringing the tying run home.

-or-

Where Konerko launches a bomb into the seats for a game-winning home run.

duke of dorwood
02-10-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Am I the only one who thinks the PR dept wrote this and Ozzie signed off on it? I think we are paying too much attention the email, it was just fluff sent out to excite the fan base.

I dont think he composed it either. And I wonder if Frank was copied on this?

thepaulbowski
02-10-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I agree 100%. If you're going to ask Frank to bunt, you might as well pitch hit Uribe for him. At least he might be able to beat it out.

How many times has anyone seem Manny, A-Rod, Bonds, Thome or Sosa bunt? You just don't do it w/ those guys.

Haven't you seen the end of Major League? :D:

Seriously though, Do I think Thomas should be up there bunting: no. But don't you think all players should be able to do this to some degree to be effective enough to advance a runner? Maybe guys should be able to do this once or twice a season to keep people honest and for the element of suprise. For any of the guys mentioned above, they would not have to lay down a great bunt to get a guy over and/or beat one out. Just get it past the pitcher on the third base line and the third baseman would probably fall down with shock!

sas1974
02-10-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the White Sox. :D: Seriously, what makes you think that any of this stuff is true? "The majority of the team isn't interested in stats"? Why do you say that? "They got punched in the ugt last season and they didn't like how it felt." Where does that come from? This core has been together for four seasons now, and in each of the last three they've basically appeared to me to be absolutely lacking any competitive fire or passion for the game. I don't know what team you've been watching, but I have no faith that the players on the current roster (with an exception or two) have the thirst to win that you are suggesting.

This team hasn't shown any life since The Brawl Game w/ Detroit.

Jerko
02-10-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
game time decisions and managing the bullpen come to mind? :D:


I don't know; I haven't seen any good ones of either for about, 6 seasons!?!?! :)

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Some of you guys don't know anything about baseball. It's not like they are going to have Thomas lay down a sacrifice bunt in the first inning. There will be hit and runs, sacrifice flies, ect... But to say they are the best hitters and they shouldn't lay down a bunt is ridiculous. You know how many DP's Maggs hits into? A lot. He's a great hitter, but to say there isn't going to be times where he should bunt is ignorant. Derrick Lee and Pudged bunted, why are our guys more special. Besides, you guys are missing the fact that when a bunt is a possibility, it keeps the pitcher guessing. Maybe he'll throw a couple out of the zone so a terrible bunt will be laid down. Next thing you know, the bunt call sign is off and Frank or Maggs has a 2-0 hitter count. Baseball is strategy, and all this plays into it. But no one in the game, except maybe Bonds, is too good to bunt.

I think the situation where Frank or Maggs bunt should be VERY RARE. 1st and 2nd with no outs, tie game in the bottom of the ninth inning is the only situation I can think of. Any other situation Frank Thomas needs to be hitting doubles in the gap...

sas1974
02-10-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Haven't you seen the end of Major League? :D:

Seriously though, Do I think Thomas should be up there bunting: no. But don't you think all players should be able to do this to some degree to be effective enough to advance a runner? Maybe guys should be able to do this once or twice a season to keep people honest and for the element of surprise. For any of the guys mentioned above, they would not have to lay down a great bunt to get a guy over and/or beat one out. Just get it past the pitcher on the third base line and the third baseman would probably fall down with shock!

That's funny! But don't forget Frank has to point his bat toward center field to "call his shot" first.

In all of this, I really think that is the point that Ozzie was trying to make. If someone is up there w/ a chance to move runners over and they don't do it (or selfishly don't try), then they will be up there bunting next time they are in that position, to increase the odds a little. The issue here is really about situational hitting as a whole, not just bunting. They should NEVER ask Frank, Maggs or Paulie to bunt. Asking them to move the running over is another story. That should be a given.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
You forgot the scenerio where Konerko lays down a crappy bunt, the catcher picks it up fires to 2nd for one and over to 1st for the double play.

-or-

Where Konerko pops the bunt up to the pitcher for one and he fires back to 1st for the double play.

-or-

Where Konerko, swinging away, ropes a double into the gap bringing the tying run home.

-or-

Where Konerko launches a bomb into the seats for a game-winning home run.

Of course there are many scenarios, but I was assuming that Konerko knows how to bunt in that situation. First and foremost, a coach should know his players and if the guy can't bunt, you don't bunt him. Regarding the double and Homer scenario, I specifically stated that it was a "ground ball pitcher". Of course any scenario could happen, but I was trying to portray a situation where bunting could make sense. Like many have said I don't want the heart of the line up consistently bunting, but I don't want it ruled out as a possibility. I hope that we can all agree on one thing:
Whatever it takes to win!!!

If that means the big guys lay down a bunt or two in the season, so be it.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the White Sox. :D: Seriously, what makes you think that any of this stuff is true? "The majority of the team isn't interested in stats"? Why do you say that? "They got punched in the ugt last season and they didn't like how it felt." Where does that come from? This core has been together for four seasons now, and in each of the last three they've basically appeared to me to be absolutely lacking any competitive fire or passion for the game. I don't know what team you've been watching, but I have no faith that the players on the current roster (with an exception or two) have the thirst to win that you are suggesting.

That starts with managment. Guillen isn't going to allow these guys to be unmotivated, whether anybody here believes so or not. Of course the players want to win. You don't get frustrated when you lose unless you really wanted to win. Even at Sox Fest the players showed excitement about playing under Guillen and his style of play. They want to play aggressive baseball. The other way obviously doesn't work for this club.

sas1974
02-10-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Of course there are many scenarios, but I was assuming that Konerko knows how to bunt in that situation. First and foremost, a coach should know his players and if the guy can't bunt, you don't bunt him. Regarding the double and Homer scenario, I specifically stated that it was a "ground ball pitcher". Of course any scenario could happen, but I was trying to portray a situation where bunting could make sense. Like many have said I don't want the heart of the line up consistently bunting, but I don't want it ruled out as a possibility. I hope that we can all agree on one thing:
Whatever it takes to win!!!

If that means the big guys lay down a bunt or two in the season, so be it.

As it was mentioned before, that's part of the problem. I am not sure these guys (any of them, but especially the sluggers) know how to bunt. If our sluggers could bunt, then maybe I would try it once or twice over the course of a season, but probably only w/ Maggs because with the element of surprise he might be able to leg out a single. And yes I understand that a sac bunt means just giving yourself up, which is part of the problem w/ the guys on this team. They didn't seem willing to give themselves up. They got a sac bunt confused w/ bunting for a single.

In the end though, I just don't believe in taking the bat out of the hands of 3-4-5. Even if he's facing a ground ball pitcher, pitchers make mistakes. You would be in no position to take advantage of a mistake if you were trying to bunt.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
I think the situation where Frank or Maggs bunt should be VERY RARE. 1st and 2nd with no outs, tie game in the bottom of the ninth inning is the only situation I can think of. Any other situation Frank Thomas needs to be hitting doubles in the gap... No doubt. Those guys could still be put in aggressive situations with hit and runs and such. My point was that some people here think they should never bunt and that's not the case. I too think it will be fairly rare, but to think it should never happen is absurd in my opinion.

ChiSox65
02-10-2004, 02:47 PM
I agree with alot Ozzie has to say. We need to be a smarter, better executing team. Now do I expect Frank to start laying down bunts for hits????........No.........but start playing as a TEAM not as 9 individuals. I saw Everett laying down bunts last year to advance guys and he is a power guy. We need to be a smarter less selfish team. I think aggressive guys like Willie and Rowand will improve under Ozzie. I think some will be worse under Oz............Lee........Thomas. Lets hope it all comes together.

:gulp:

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But you're wrong.

I would go with what the greatest manager in the history of Baseball said about bunting. See my sig if you need to.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I would go with what the greatest manager in the history of Baseball said about bunting. See my sig if you need to. But bunting is considered a fundamental. The "greatest manager" didn't manage the White Sox. You know how many times we lost 1-0 because we didn't get the one run needed. Ozzie isn't going to have Frank bunting all the time. He just wants it to be clear that every player will do what's best for the team in any situation. And there will be certain situations where a bunt is the best thing. Three run homeruns are great, but they don't win divisions by themselves. We proved that last year.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I will ask again...WHO lead the league in GIDP last year? Sure your premise is GREAT...if it is executed properly. Two men on, nobody out, down 1 or two runs in the 9th...I would rather have guys on 2nd and 3rd with one out than one guy on 3rd with two outs. Bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game, if done properly should give reliable predictable results. 3-run bombs, while obviously more desirable, are much less predictable. You will win more games by moving guys over in the above scenario than swinging for the fences every time, I virtually guarantee it.

I don't disagree with what you are essentially trying to say, and I don't think we should only focus on Maggs and Frank. What about the other 7 guys? None of them could bunt last year. Konerko--when he wasn't hitting the LEAST he could do would have been lay down a nice bunt. Beats a DP. Again I understand your point and I respectfully disagree. No one should be excused from being able to perform a simple fundamental task inherent to baseball. No one person comes before the team. A great hitter is successful 30% of the time.

If you build a team full of slow guys who can't bunt and who all aren't great situational or contact hitters, this is what you get.

PERIOD.

END OF STORY.

You aren't going to transform a team full of veterans. Welcome to reality, folks.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Some of you guys don't know anything about baseball.

This coming from a guy wanting to bunt every so often with his 3-4-5 hitters!

HILLARIOUS!

Buddy, some people know how to think for themselves instead of buying the new slogan, or cliche, or excuse, or "plan" hook line and sinker. Try it some time.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But bunting is considered a fundamental. The "greatest manager" didn't manage the White Sox. You know how many times we lost 1-0 because we didn't get the one run needed. Ozzie isn't going to have Frank bunting all the time. He just wants it to be clear that every player will do what's best for the team in any situation. And there will be certain situations where a bunt is the best thing. Three run homeruns are great, but they don't win divisions by themselves. We proved that last year.

Pal, if you want those guys to be better situational hitters, fine, I agree whole-heartedly. If you want a 3-4-5 hitter to bunt, PINCH HIT FOR THEM! At least then there's a chance they'll be able to put down a good bunt.

If you want Maggs or Frank to bunt, you might actually be the least knowledgeable or intelligent baseball fan in the history of baseball.

ChiSox65
02-10-2004, 03:03 PM
Any manager is only as good as his team. I saw the "genius" Tony LaRussa look pretty bad with a bad Sox team. And look pretty average with some very good Oakland teams. Phil Jackson couldn't get back to the finals till MJ came back..........coincidence?????????????............ .. I think not.

:gulp:

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
If you build a team full of slow guys who can't bunt and who all aren't great situational or contact hitters, this is what you get.

PERIOD.

END OF STORY.

You aren't going to transform a team full of veterans. Welcome to reality, folks.
Slow guys- Paulie, Crede, and Frank. That's 3 of the starting 9.

Maggs and Lee don't have blinding speed, but they have shown that they can steal a base. I don't think this team is full of slow guys that can't do the "little things". I am hoping that Ozzie's style of managing will bring out the little things in guys that can do them, but haven't done them. I would LOVE to see a few more hit and run plays this season. I believe this team can have a great balance of speed, defense, and power and I think teams that have that balance are the ones that win and go deep into the playoffs.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But bunting is considered a fundamental. The "greatest manager" didn't manage the White Sox. You know how many times we lost 1-0 because we didn't get the one run needed. Ozzie isn't going to have Frank bunting all the time. He just wants it to be clear that every player will do what's best for the team in any situation. And there will be certain situations where a bunt is the best thing. Three run homeruns are great, but they don't win divisions by themselves. We proved that last year.

To Earl bunting, hit and runs and what not were not fundamental. He was talking about defense there.

Iwritecode
02-10-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
If you build a team full of slow guys who can't bunt and who all aren't great situational or contact hitters, this is what you get.

PERIOD.

END OF STORY.

You aren't going to transform a team full of veterans. Welcome to reality, folks.

Randar, I'm just curious what kind of plan of attack you would take if you were the manager of this team?

Also, what would you do if, like last year, all the bats all of a suddenly went cold?

Or do you think that it's next to impossible for this team to do anything and they need to start getting guys that CAN bunt and are good situational or contact hitters and fast runners?

Randar68
02-10-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Slow guys- Paulie, Crede, and Frank. That's 3 of the starting 9.

Maggs and Lee don't have blinding speed, but they have shown that they can steal a base. I don't think this team is full of slow guys that can't do the "little things". I am hoping that Ozzie's style of managing will bring out the little things in guys that can do them, but haven't done them. I would LOVE to see a few more hit and run plays this season. I believe this team can have a great balance of speed, defense, and power and I think teams that have that balance are the ones that win and go deep into the playoffs.

How many DP's did Maggs hit into? You think he has a chance in hell to beat out a bunt? Rowand?? Average speed at best. Valentin??? Not much left in the tank in terms of speed or SB's. Lee? Probably about average speed, good speed for his size, but size doesn't get you on base or from first to second.

The only 3 players on this team clearly with above average speed are Harris, Uribe and Olivo, and only 2 of those guys will likely be in the lineup at the same time.

That leaves you with 7 of 9 with average or below speed.

Paulwny
02-10-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
If you build a team full of slow guys who can't bunt and who all aren't great situational or contact hitters, this is what you get.

PERIOD.

END OF STORY.

You aren't going to transform a team full of veterans. Welcome to reality, folks.

Agree, if these guys were never taught or never learned situational hitting in the minors, they'll never learn it in the majors.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
How many DP's did Maggs hit into? You think he has a chance in hell to beat out a bunt? Rowand?? Average speed at best. Valentin??? Not much left in the tank in terms of speed or SB's. Lee? Probably about average speed, good speed for his size, but size doesn't get you on base or from first to second.

The only 3 players on this team clearly with above average speed are Harris, Uribe and Olivo, and only 2 of those guys will likely be in the lineup at the same time.

That leaves you with 7 of 9 with average or below speed.
I read "slow guys" as guys with below average speed. I agree that Maggs, Rowand, Lee, and Valentin have average speed and nowhere did I suggest that any of these guys were going to beat out a bunt. However, I think a guy with average speed can play the type of aggressive baseball that Ozzie wants to play (hit & run, when on first be able to get to third on a single, be able to get to second without being doubled up when a bunt is laid down, etc.). I don't think this team is as slow as you initially stated.

I don't believe that the conversation was about initially getting on first base. I think most of the line up has demonstrated at one time or another that they can do that. The ones in question about getting to first are most likely Harris, Uribe, Olivo, and Rowand. Each player has different things that they need to focus on to improve their game. Some need to get on case, some need to take more pitches, some need to become "team" hitters in certain situations, others need to be smarter on the bases. I believe that Ozzie will accentuate the strength of each player and attempt to improve the areas in which they are lacking. IMHO, if he can do that we can be a great team in 2004.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Agree, if these guys were never taught or never learned situational hitting in the minors, they'll never learn it in the majors.

Just like pitchers can't learn new pitches once they get to the majors. Oh wait...nevermind.

Paulwny
02-10-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Just like pitchers can't learn new pitches once they get to the majors. Oh wait...nevermind.

LOL, pitchers are always looking for a new pitch or experimenting with different grips, the mind set is different. This team has guys who want to smash the ball they don't want or don't know anything about situational hitting or we would have seen it prior to this year.

Palehose13
02-10-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
LOL, pitchers are always looking for a new pitch or experimenting with different grips, the mind set is different. This team has guys who want to smash the ball they don't want or don't know anything about situational hitting or we would have seen it prior to this year.

Yes, but I think this can change. IIRC, didn't many of these guys win tight games in 2000 in the late innings because of situational hitting? We have gotten away from that. I want to get back to it. I would think that it isn't that difficult to make mental adjustments at the plate to hit the opposite way instead of swinging for the fences. Frank seems to shift mindsets a couple of times a year.

Paulwny
02-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Yes, but I think this can change. IIRC, didn't many of these guys win tight games in 2000 in the late innings because of situational hitting? We have gotten away from that. I want to get back to it. I would think that it isn't that difficult to make mental adjustments at the plate to hit the opposite way instead of swinging for the fences. Frank seems to shift mindsets a couple of times a year.

I'm not sure we saw situational hitting in 2000. Maybe we saw a team that was lucky with balls hit just out of an infielders reach where now those hit balls are turned into dp's.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Maybe we should just keep playing the same style of ball we played last year. It was so successful.

I am sorry but I do get it. Problem is some players' egos get in the way of doing things the right way. Laying down a bunt may be a less-reward option but it also comes at much less risk. But hey, I'm not the manager so nobody cares what I think.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND what the anti-bunters are saying...I just disagree. That doesn't make either side right or wrong. Bunting should be like good defense...reproducible, reliable results. There is a time and a place for a bunt. Guys go into slumps...they can still help the cause, not to mention the element of surprise and getting the defense back on their heels. I respect the opposing viewpoints but my opinion remains the same.

The team last year won 87 games with no 5th starter, Jerry's incessent tinkering and a clubhouse atmosphere that was looking forward to off season golfing - and no one knew how to bunt. Somehow, I don't think the lack of bunting skills were the main problem and honestly can't see how anyone is saying that "fixing" this problem to the extent that some of you are talking about is going to make us a better team.

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
I don't understand how that is cynical, but anyway...

Scenario: Bottom of the ninth Sox down by one. Konerko is up and is leading the team in GIDP's, the closer for the opposing team is a ground ball pitcher. Runner is on first, no outs.

Options:
1. Have Konerko swing away and risk a DP resulting in 2 outs, no one on.

2. Have Konerko bunt putting a runner in scoring position with one out.

3. Put on a hit and run creating the possibilites of either runners on first and third, no outs or runner on second, one out.

Out of the following scenario, I like options 2 and 3 best. Of course, I am not in support of having all of our hitters bunt more. However, there can be situations where it is the best option.



PR with Willie Harris and tell him to steal second. If he fails, have Konerko swing for the fences...

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This coming from a guy wanting to bunt every so often with his 3-4-5 hitters!

HILLARIOUS!

Buddy, some people know how to think for themselves instead of buying the new slogan, or cliche, or excuse, or "plan" hook line and sinker. Try it some time. If the situation calls for it. Lol, do you think you know more about baseball than Guillen. You think he's an idiot or something? I don't let anyone do my thinkiong for me, I just have enough sense to know what it takes to win Major League games.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
To Earl bunting, hit and runs and what not were not fundamental. He was talking about defense there.

I don't know what Earl is talking about, but if he doesn't realize that bunting and hit and runs are a fundamental aspect to baseball, he can't possibly be the best manager in baseball.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Pal, if you want those guys to be better situational hitters, fine, I agree whole-heartedly. If you want a 3-4-5 hitter to bunt, PINCH HIT FOR THEM! At least then there's a chance they'll be able to put down a good bunt.

If you want Maggs or Frank to bunt, you might actually be the least knowledgeable or intelligent baseball fan in the history of baseball.

Listen here Pal, it's not like Guillen said we're going to be nonstop bunting team, but there will be situations where it will be ideal for one of these guys to lay down a bunt. If you can't realize that, I guess I just feel sorry for you.

Mickster
02-10-2004, 04:06 PM
This is, possibly, the worst thread that I have ever read.

Wow!

Randar68
02-10-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Randar, I'm just curious what kind of plan of attack you would take if you were the manager of this team?

Also, what would you do if, like last year, all the bats all of a suddenly went cold?

Or do you think that it's next to impossible for this team to do anything and they need to start getting guys that CAN bunt and are good situational or contact hitters and fast runners?

Koch, Konerko have to go purely based on contract. It's too much of a burden. This team needs speed and OBP. I build the team around Frank and his very manageable contract and OBP, Crede, Olivo, and hopefully try to sign Maggs in the 12-13 million per year range.

Then, I go out and try to deal. Frankly, had I been GM, I would have done everything in my power to get Castillo. His hip will be 100% this year and I expect him to be a terror on the basepaths again.

SS? I would have done whatever it took to get Guillen from Seattle.

You have an infield of Crede, Guillen, Castillo, and Frank/Platoon. An outfield of Lee, and Maggs at the corners and Reed in CF if I could not get a more capable and ready CF now (Mike Cameron).

Reed(or Cameron), Guillen and Castillo give you much better speed and OBP out of thse positions than what is currently in place.

As for the rotation and bullpen? Based on the previous moves, some of which hinged upon the moving of Konerko, Koch and Valentin (never would have picked up that option), I don't have a TON of money here to work with.

I also would have offerred Sullivan arbitration.

We'd be looking at:
Loaiza
Buehrle
Garland
??
??

With the bullpen of:
Marte
Wunsch
Ginter
Schoeneweis
Munoz
Possibly Sullivan
and a RH'ed need here.

It's not much different in terms of pitching than what we have now, but we have an order of:

1) Castillo at 2B
2) Guillen SS
3) Frank 1B/DH
4) Maggs RF
5) Lee LF
6) Reed or Cameron at CF
7) Crede 3B
8) Olivo C

With a 1B/DH you find like Daubach, Karros, Gload, etc, maybe you find something in one of your other trades...

I see MUCH better speed, fundamentals, defense, OBP in those few changes to the order. We're still not a speed-demon team, but guys like Castillo more than make up for it, and he fits Ozzie's style perfectly.


However, more likely than not, we're going to have to wait out the final year of the Koch deal and at least one of Konerko's years, making most of what I showed nearly impossible.

I still would have declined Jose's option in favor of Guillen via trade, and perhaps you could have had Freddie Garcia for the right price...


There were a lot of deals to be made out there this offseason, but Konerko, Koch and the whole Nomar/A-rod/Maggs thing really had us in a bind.

Looking ahead, following this season, as it now stands, Maggs, Valentin, Koch, Loaiza, and Sandy all come off the books (may be forgetting someone, but that's 30 million bucks to try to do something with, hopefully.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I don't know what Earl is talking about, but if he doesn't realize that bunting and hit and runs are a fundamental aspect to baseball, he can't possibly be the best manager in baseball.

Yeah, guess the brozen plaque in Cooperstown means you know nothing about managing.

Will Ozzie get a plaque? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yeah, guess the brozen plaque in Cooperstown means you know nothing about managing.

Will Ozzie get a plaque? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Where did it say in your quote of Earl that he didn't mean the offensive side of fundamentals. Did you make that up?

TheRockinMT
02-10-2004, 04:14 PM
I am willing to forgive Ozzie and his bubbling excitement and his ability to speak the obvious, if he wins. Maybe he can and I guess adding some pizzzazzz in the dugout can't do anything but help the Sox. I say GO FOR IT, OZZIE.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Listen here Pal, it's not like Guillen said we're going to be nonstop bunting team, but there will be situations where it will be ideal for one of these guys to lay down a bunt. If you can't realize that, I guess I just feel sorry for you.

That's something I fully understand. But, if I see Frank or Maggs square around to sac bunt, I will be heading for the exit, another channel to watch, or out of that bar faster than a fly on ****.

I am WILLING to give Ozzie a shot and to see what he will do before I form an opinion, but I'm more than willing to sit here and defend the fundamentals of this game at the risk of you saying I know nothing about baseball as you sit there in your own mess preaching how fantastic it will be if Ozzie has a bunch of 10-year slow veterans suddenly laying down sacrifice bunts!

UGH!

We lost 1-run games more often than not because we couldn't GET ON BASE and we're a strike-out team! IIRC, Maggs and Frank were the only guys on the team for the whole season with OBP's higher than .350?

Carl Everett and DogBag both had 350+ OBP's but they effectively played less than half the season for the Sox each.

K's and low OBP make it pretty tough to score.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Where did it say in your quote of Earl that he didn't mean the offensive side of fundamentals. Did you make that up?

1) Knowing the type of manager Earl Weaver was
2) The 3-run homer reference to offense
3) "Fundamentals" in those days referred almost exclusively to defense.

If he thought bunting was a key facet of the game, do you think he would have said the 3-run homer was one of the 3 keys to winning ballgames?


Hello!?!?!?!? McFly!?!?!?!?

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
1) Knowing the type of manager Earl Weaver was
2) The 3-run homer reference to offense
3) "Fundamentals" in those days referred almost exclusively to defense.

If he thought bunting was a key facet of the game, do you think he would have said the 3-run homer was one of the 3 keys to winning ballgames?


Hello!?!?!?!? McFly!?!?!?!?

Ya because what I took from that was if you play fundamental baseball (offense and defense) you will put yourself over the top with a three run blast. If that's not what he meant, that's fine, and I know he was great. But we broke our record last year for homeruns, and we took second in the division. That strategy is wrong if you don't also play fundamental baseball on the offensive end.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That's something I fully understand. But, if I see Frank or Maggs square around to sac bunt, I will be heading for the exit, another channel to watch, or out of that bar faster than a fly on ****.

I am WILLING to give Ozzie a shot and to see what he will do before I form an opinion, but I'm more than willing to sit here and defend the fundamentals of this game at the risk of you saying I know nothing about baseball as you sit there in your own mess preaching how fantastic it will be if Ozzie has a bunch of 10-year slow veterans suddenly laying down sacrifice bunts!

UGH!

We lost 1-run games more often than not because we couldn't GET ON BASE and we're a strike-out team! IIRC, Maggs and Frank were the only guys on the team for the whole season with OBP's higher than .350?

Carl Everett and DogBag both had 350+ OBP's but they effectively played less than half the season for the Sox each.

K's and low OBP make it pretty tough to score.

We lost 1-0 for a lot of reasons. Getting on base was a problem, but when we got on we hit into DP and couldn't advance runners. That's where bunting sometimes can be more effective.

JasonC23
02-10-2004, 04:36 PM
It's amazing it took this long for someone to hit on the real problem with the White Sox offense. Thank you to Randar for pointing out that the Sox just don't get on base enough for all of this bunting/situational hitting/etc stuff to matter at this point. The only 2 guys in the entire lineup that get on base at an acceptable level are Maggs and Frank. That's it. (And KW is looking to dump one or both of them...but I digress.)

If the lineup doesn't get on base enough as it is, why are you all so eager to give away outs by bunting? This lineup gives away far too many outs as it is. And, again, I don't buy the "well, at least they'd only make one out, not two" argument because it's just silly. If PK grounds into a double play 20% of the time he's up with a man on first, that would mean 80% of the time he doesn't. And while some of that 80% will be outs, of course, not all will. If he bunts, he will make an out 100% of the time. Is that what we want???

The White Sox are OBP challenged, and until that changes, this argument is pointless.

daveeym
02-10-2004, 04:42 PM
Wasn't Earl the creator/driving force behind the Baltimore Chop?

For those who haven't heard of it he'd teach his speedy batters to chop down on the ball driving it into the astroturf to have the ball either bounce over infielders heads or high enough to get an infield hit.

Any guy that is a proponent of this can't possibly be against the bunt or fundamental offensive baseball.

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 04:44 PM
:hawk

"Mercy............yessir.............Ol' Earl Weaver.........Now DJ, that man just loved to bunt........matter fact one time he sent Boog Powell up to the plate seventeen straight times at ol' Ebbets Field, and ordered him to bunt on every single pitch. Powell struck out every time - and you should have heard the hootin' and hollerin' from the Browns bench..........mercy........wel the eighteenth time Powell went up there Weaver put on the bunt sign..........but Ol' Bob Gibson threw right at Powell, and put him right on his fanny...........now you may not know this - not many people who haven't been around this game for forty plus years llike I have do DJ, but Ol' Boog Powell was quite the break dancer....yessir.............I love Boog Powell."

:DJ

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ ......"

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
It's amazing it took this long for someone to hit on the real problem with the White Sox offense. Thank you to Randar for pointing out that the Sox just don't get on base enough for all of this bunting/situational hitting/etc stuff to matter at this point. The only 2 guys in the entire lineup that get on base at an acceptable level are Maggs and Frank. That's it. (And KW is looking to dump one or both of them...but I digress.)

If the lineup doesn't get on base enough as it is, why are you all so eager to give away outs by bunting? This lineup gives away far too many outs as it is. And, again, I don't buy the "well, at least they'd only make one out, not two" argument because it's just silly. If PK grounds into a double play 20% of the time he's up with a man on first, that would mean 80% of the time he doesn't. And while some of that 80% will be outs, of course, not all will. If he bunts, he will make an out 100% of the time. Is that what we want???

The White Sox are OBP challenged, and until that changes, this argument is pointless.

The problem with your argument is that you assumed that they would be bunting all the time. I said in certain situations it would be ideal. And another problem with the argument is that you just pulled that 20% double play/ 80% not, out of thin air. And even if that were accurate, what percent of the 80% is a simple pop fly where nothing good came out of the at bat. It's probably 80% of the 80%. And the OBP only helps the argument to bunt. You want to make the most of the runners you do have on. If we had runners on all the time, it wouldn't really matter what we did, because we would chances to score every inning. That's not the case, so if we get our lead off man on when a run is needed with no one out, sometimes bunting him across is the best option. You guys make it seem like it's the rule, it's still just an option. But it should be implemented on a case by case basis..

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
Wasn't Earl the creator/driving force behind the Baltimore Chop?

For those who haven't heard of it he'd teach his speedy batters to chop down on the ball driving it into the astroturf to have the ball either bounce over infielders heads or high enough to get an infield hit.

Any guy that is a proponent of this can't possibly be against the bunt or fundamental offensive baseball.

Exactly.

Baby Fisk
02-10-2004, 04:49 PM
:reinsy

"Hey Kenny, why don't you check into WSI and see if that Ozzie e-mail has sparked any buzz."

:KW

"Yes, my liege..."

"Holy Crap! They're all obsessing over bunt fundamentals! What is WRONG with these people?! I don't drink enough, really I don't."

:ozzie:

"Hey Kenny Man! Lemme write some more! I always dreamed of writing e-mail for the Sox!"

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
:reinsy

"Hey Kenny, why don't you check into WSI and see if that Ozzie e-mail has sparked any buzz."

:KW

"Yes, my liege..."

"Holy Crap! They're all obsessing over bunt fundamentals! What is WRONG with these people?! I don't drink enough, really I don't."

:ozzie:

"Hey Kenny Man! Lemme write some more! I always dreamed of writing e-mail for the Sox!" This one is pretty funny.

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
Wasn't Earl the creator/driving force behind the Baltimore Chop?

For those who haven't heard of it he'd teach his speedy batters to chop down on the ball driving it into the astroturf to have the ball either bounce over infielders heads or high enough to get an infield hit.

Any guy that is a proponent of this can't possibly be against the bunt or fundamental offensive baseball.

Again we seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on here. Unless I am sorrowfully mistaken, the "Baltimore Chop" was a term coined after the play of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team circa 1890. If I recall correctly, Willie Keeler was one of its afficiandos - not Earl Weaver.

Oh and by the way - Memorial Stadium had grass in it.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Koch, Konerko have to go purely based on contract. It's too much of a burden. This team needs speed and OBP. I build the team around Frank and his very manageable contract and OBP, Crede, Olivo, and hopefully try to sign Maggs in the 12-13 million per year range.

Then, I go out and try to deal. Frankly, had I been GM, I would have done everything in my power to get Castillo. His hip will be 100% this year and I expect him to be a terror on the basepaths again.

SS? I would have done whatever it took to get Guillen from Seattle.

You have an infield of Crede, Guillen, Castillo, and Frank/Platoon. An outfield of Lee, and Maggs at the corners and Reed in CF if I could not get a more capable and ready CF now (Mike Cameron).

Reed(or Cameron), Guillen and Castillo give you much better speed and OBP out of thse positions than what is currently in place.

As for the rotation and bullpen? Based on the previous moves, some of which hinged upon the moving of Konerko, Koch and Valentin (never would have picked up that option), I don't have a TON of money here to work with.

I also would have offerred Sullivan arbitration.

We'd be looking at:
Loaiza
Buehrle
Garland
??
??

With the bullpen of:
Marte
Wunsch
Ginter
Schoeneweis
Munoz
Possibly Sullivan
and a RH'ed need here.

It's not much different in terms of pitching than what we have now, but we have an order of:

1) Castillo at 2B
2) Guillen SS
3) Frank 1B/DH
4) Maggs RF
5) Lee LF
6) Reed or Cameron at CF
7) Crede 3B
8) Olivo C

With a 1B/DH you find like Daubach, Karros, Gload, etc, maybe you find something in one of your other trades...

I see MUCH better speed, fundamentals, defense, OBP in those few changes to the order. We're still not a speed-demon team, but guys like Castillo more than make up for it, and he fits Ozzie's style perfectly.


However, more likely than not, we're going to have to wait out the final year of the Koch deal and at least one of Konerko's years, making most of what I showed nearly impossible.

I still would have declined Jose's option in favor of Guillen via trade, and perhaps you could have had Freddie Garcia for the right price...


There were a lot of deals to be made out there this offseason, but Konerko, Koch and the whole Nomar/A-rod/Maggs thing really had us in a bind.

Looking ahead, following this season, as it now stands, Maggs, Valentin, Koch, Loaiza, and Sandy all come off the books (may be forgetting someone, but that's 30 million bucks to try to do something with, hopefully.

I like it but a few things I would do differently. One I am going to assume we would be stuck with paying Konerko and Koch even if we trade them so might as well keep them. Saying this I would have signed Brad Fullmer, he is the perfect platoon partner for Konkerko. Paul would face lefties and Brad would get righties, and for about 9 to 10 million in total that spot in the lineup would produce about 900 OPS. Frank would play first more on the road and DH more at home. One of the things Frank has said is playing in field or hitting in the cages keeps him loose. Hopefully that will get some major production form those two spots. Also as an add bonus Pauls stats would stand out and people could forget the benefits of the platoon and make it easier to unload him.

2B, would have let Alomar walked without offering him a contract in the locker room. Castillo ($16 million/3 yr) would be nice but there were other options out there. Todd Walker (1.75 to the Cubs), Pokey Reese ($1 million). Maybe a combo of Reese and Walker could have work out well at 2b.

SS, is tough. Other then Tejadea and Matsui there wasn't much out there. I probably would have kept Jose just because are Aurilia or Guzman better enough to justify acquiring them.

CF, here is were I would go away for plate production. Since we will have a low strike out staff, we will need a strong CF defensively. Due to finite resources, I think Cameron couldn't be afforded, so I bring back slow swing. And have him and Aaron compete for the job, grab a Rosary and say a few Hail Marys. If it doesn't work I would buy stock in Jameson. Jose Cruz Jr?

1> Walker/ ?
2> C. Lee
3> F. Thomas
4> Mags
5> Fullmer/Konerko
6> J Crede
7> Reese/ Jose SS
8> C. Singleton/A. Rowland
9> M. Olivo


Staff

1> E Lo
2> MB
3> JG
4> FA
5> Wright/Cotts/Someone Else

Maybe a Pat Hentgen, Redman, make a run at Wilson Alvarez. Fill the pen with guys we have in the minors.

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:02 PM
Tomato time no?

Randar68
02-10-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Ya because what I took from that was if you play fundamental baseball (offense and defense) you will put yourself over the top with a three run blast. If that's not what he meant, that's fine, and I know he was great. But we broke our record last year for homeruns, and we took second in the division. That strategy is wrong if you don't also play fundamental baseball on the offensive end.

Yeah, but they aren't three-run home runs when NOBODY GET'S ON BASE!

ARGH!

MRKARNO
02-10-2004, 05:05 PM
:tomatoaward

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Again we seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on here. Unless I am sorrowfully mistaken, the "Baltimore Chop" was a term coined after the play of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team circa 1890. If I recall correctly, Willie Keeler was one of its afficiandos - not Earl Weaver.

Oh and by the way - Memorial Stadium had grass in it.

Anybody?..........................Bueller?........ ...............Bueller?...............Bueller?.... ..............

Randar68
02-10-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
2B, would have let Alomar walked without offering him a contract in the locker room. Castillo ($16 million/3 yr) would be nice but there were other options out there. Todd Walker (1.75 to the Cubs), Pokey Reese ($1 million). Maybe a combo of Reese and Walker could have work out well at 2b.

SS, is tough. Other then Tejadea and Matsui there wasn't much out there. I probably would have kept Jose just because are Aurilia or Guzman better enough to justify acquiring them.

CF, here is were I would go away for plate production. Since we will have a low strike out staff, we will need a strong CF defensively. Due to finite resources, I think Cameron couldn't be afforded, so I bring back slow swing. And have him and Aaron compete for the job, grab a Rosary and say a few Hail Marys. If it doesn't work I would buy stock in Jameson. Jose Cruz Jr?


Ok, I don't necessarily disagree. Castillo was what, 6 million for 3 or 4 years? Easily doable considering Koch, Alomar and Maggs coming off the books after this season. Carlos Guillen could have been had for cheap, much cheaper than the 5+ million option they picked up on Jose. Carlos Guillen got on base at a .359 clip last year primarily out of the 2-hole. He isn't perfect, but he makes less than Jose, and doesn't strike out nearly as much while getting on base at a far better clip. If the money is the same, it's a virtual toss-up between the 2, IMO, but this team needs better contact hitters and OBP.

CF? No thank you to Jose Cruz. If your options are Slow-Swing and Rowand, I'm all for platooning them. I'd MUCH prefer Chris for his defense, especially between range-limited Maggs and Lee, and he's likely to take more walks and work counts better. Either way, with that option, you're talking about a bottom of the order hitter to hit in-front or behind of Olivo, and your 8-9 hitters having the Singleton/Olivo speed is a pretty nice way to turn your order over if they can get on base.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Where did it say in your quote of Earl that he didn't mean the offensive side of fundamentals. Did you make that up?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574884247/qid=1076451230/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1605376-3969720?v=glance&s=books

his book

Also you missed his first quote "if you play for one run, that's all you get." That was directed at small ball and how it is inferior in scoring runs.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Ok, I don't necessarily disagree. Castillo was what, 6 million for 3 or 4 years? Easily doable considering Koch, Alomar and Maggs coming off the books after this season. Carlos Guillen could have been had for cheap, much cheaper than the 5+ million option they picked up on Jose. Carlos Guillen got on base at a .359 clip last year primarily out of the 2-hole. He isn't perfect, but he makes less than Jose, and doesn't strike out nearly as much while getting on base at a far better clip. If the money is the same, it's a virtual toss-up between the 2, IMO, but this team needs better contact hitters and OBP.

CF? No thank you to Jose Cruz. If your options are Slow-Swing and Rowand, I'm all for platooning them. I'd MUCH prefer Chris for his defense, especially between range-limited Maggs and Lee, and he's likely to take more walks and work counts better. Either way, with that option, you're talking about a bottom of the order hitter to hit in-front or behind of Olivo, and your 8-9 hitters having the Singleton/Olivo speed is a pretty nice way to turn your order over if they can get on base.

I know, but with a low strike staff, you need better fielders or you are going to give up a lot of runs. Thus now we are at the point can Chris help out enough in the field to offset his production at the plate. I would love to have Cameron, just don't think the Sox could have pulled it off with the resources they have. Plus the free money next allows you to make a run at Beltran next year.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
:hawk

"Mercy............yessir.............Ol' Earl Weaver.........Now DJ, that man just loved to bunt........matter fact one time he sent Boog Powell up to the plate seventeen straight times at ol' Ebbets Field, and ordered him to bunt on every single pitch. Powell struck out every time - and you should have heard the hootin' and hollerin' from the Browns bench..........mercy........wel the eighteenth time Powell went up there Weaver put on the bunt sign..........but Ol' Bob Gibson threw right at Powell, and put him right on his fanny...........now you may not know this - not many people who haven't been around this game for forty plus years llike I have do DJ, but Ol' Boog Powell was quite the break dancer....yessir.............I love Boog Powell."

:DJ

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ ......"

LOL Ahhhhh classic, I can't wait to listen to Hawk's ramblings again...

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Anybody?..........................Bueller?........ ...............Bueller?...............Bueller?.... ..............

:hawk
"The Baltimore chop... Let me tell you a little story, King.... not many people know this, but I invented that play. I was up with the bases loaded playing in LA. The size of that stadium.... mercy. Why, no one ever hit a homerun there, it just didn't happen. So, there's 1 away in the ninth with the bases juiced and the skipper puts on the bunt sign. Well, the pitcher, old Jonny Wilson - man he had a mean splitter - I invented that too - just completely aces me twice in a row. So, I'm standing there 0-2 and I look over and the skip still has the bunt sign on. Now, I'm thinking, 'what is he doing? He knows that's strike three. I can't bunt this guy.' So, I think to myself, man would I love to get me a duck snort here, heck, I'd settle for a high bouncer off the pitchers foot. Then it hit me like a bolt of lightning. I step back into the box, here comes the splitter, bang, or should I say, slap - I smack the ball straight down and the ball bounces way up in the air. By the time it came down, I was standing second. Long story longer, we obviously won the game and I was widely cannonized in the local papers. Why this one columnist, John..."

:KingXerxes
"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

(Okay, call it a tribute post... okay, I admit it, I was stealing...) :D:

daveeym
02-10-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Again we seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on here. Unless I am sorrowfully mistaken, the "Baltimore Chop" was a term coined after the play of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team circa 1890. If I recall correctly, Willie Keeler was one of its afficiandos - not Earl Weaver.

Oh and by the way - Memorial Stadium had grass in it.

That's why I asked with a question. Everything I've ever heard about the Baltimore Chop was that it was used to take advantage of astroturf which wasn't around in 1890. It very well could have originated then.

First tomato thread for me :D: although it's kinda cheap and was like throwing meat to a lion I'll take it.

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:35 PM
:farmer

"Well there seems to be some confusion on this thread and by that I mean internet bulletin board - not the kind you hold a pair of pants together with - although I have seen a bulletin board with pants on it, a picture of a pair of pants - the bulletin board wan't actually wearing pants - Rooney, can you ever have a single pant like if it were just one leg, or is it always a pair of pants?"

:rooney

"I think it's always called a pair of pants Ed."

:farmer

"But if it's got only one leg, then it would be a pant, or at least a half a pair of pants, and if they were short pants - the kind my mom used to dress me in before I didn't go to Notre Dame - and they only had one leg, then it would be a half of a half of a pair of pants - which..................if my math is correct...............makes...........one thirty second of a pair of pants. Wow - thirty pairs of pants per second - that's really something."

:rooney

"1/32nd ? Huh?"

:farmer

"I think they should spell pants P-A-N-C-E like the country Frants.....well anyway...."

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 05:39 PM
*****
KingXerxes, you're on a roll dude yer killin' me over here, can't wait to listen to these guys...

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
*****
KingXerxes, you're on a roll dude yer killin' me over here, can't wait to listen to these guys...

To be honest with you mantis1212, if they would throw Rooney in the television booth with Jackson - you'd have a very good team, and then put Harrelson with Farmer on the radio side and you'd have pure surrealism.

:hawk

"Yessir...........Ol' Pants Rowland................used to manage right here at US Cellular Field...........mercy the history behind this ballpark."

daveeym
02-10-2004, 05:45 PM
KingXerxes, is correct about the 1890's being the birth of the Baltimore Chop. I swear earl rebirthed it with the introdcution of astroturf but I may just be delirious today.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
To be honest with you mantis1212, if they would throw Rooney in the television booth with Jackson - you'd have a very good team, and then put Harrelson with Farmer on the radio side and you'd have pure surrealism.

:hawk

"Yessir...........Ol' Pants Rowland................used to manage right here at US Cellular Field...........mercy the history behind this ballpark."

...or some sort of cerebral vortex, of which you could never leave, or at least not know there was a baseball going on

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574884247/qid=1076451230/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1605376-3969720?v=glance&s=books

his book

Also you missed his first quote "if you play for one run, that's all you get." That was directed at small ball and how it is inferior in scoring runs.
Inferior in the sense of winning a World Series with the Marlins. Look, it's not like we're not going to swing for the fenses, but it doesn't always work. Which leads me to the best quote from SEALgep, " Playing for the three run homerun is good, but playing to win is better."

MikeKreevich
02-10-2004, 05:52 PM
Wow, all that talk about bunting. That was only one of the things Guillen hopes to improve. The most important part of the message was his impatience with not winning. This I like. It is a 180% from our last manager who just didn't feel any urgency to win. He couldn't grasp the concept that some games are more important than others.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by MikeKreevich
Wow, all that talk about bunting. That was only one of the things Guillen hopes to improve. The most important part of the message was his impatience with not winning. This I like. It is a 180% from our last manager who just didn't feel any urgency to win. He couldn't grasp the concept that some games are more important than others.

And that's the point I should have made. The winning is important thing. Guillen isn't a stupid guy, if something isn't working he'll adjust.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by MikeKreevich
Wow, all that talk about bunting. That was only one of the things Guillen hopes to improve. The most important part of the message was his impatience with not winning. This I like. It is a 180% from our last manager who just didn't feel any urgency to win. He couldn't grasp the concept that some games are more important than others.

I'm gonna save this one for when we actually witness Big Frank lay down a bunt on the ballfield, it'll be interesting to see what people have to say then...

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by MikeKreevich
It is a 180% from our last manager who just didn't feel any urgency to win.

:farmer

"Mike what I think you mean there is 180 degrees. But I really hope you're not right because if Ozzie Guillen sits there at 278.6 degrees, assuming that Manuel didn't have a fever or a chill, then he's gonna need some of his coaches to really take the heat off of him in those tight situations."

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Guillen isn't a stupid guy, if something isn't working he'll adjust.

Do we know any of this to be true?

Man Soo Lee
02-10-2004, 06:04 PM
Can someone quote the portion of the e-mail where it says the middle of the order hitters will be bunting? I'm having trouble finding it.


Originally posted by Earl Weaver
if you play for one run, that's all you get.

Sometimes one is all you need.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
Can someone quote the portion of the e-mail where it says the middle of the order hitters will be bunting? I'm having trouble finding it.

Umm, who said anything about the e-mail saying that? It didn't have to. He covered that in his press conference. It has everything to do with the way Ozzie imagines this team being managed and run. If he thinks that is going to work EVER, he's in LA-LA-LAND.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Do we know any of this to be true? The question is do you know it to be false. Why try to discredit a guy if you don't know anything about him.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Umm, who said anything about the e-mail saying that? It didn't have to. He covered that in his press conference. It has everything to do with the way Ozzie imagines this team being managed and run. If he thinks that is going to work EVER, he's in LA-LA-LAND. And what would you do, call up JM for advice.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
The question is do you know it to be false. Why try to discredit a guy if you don't know anything about him.

He was caught by the hidden ball trick twice in the SAME GAME!

You draw your own conclusions, folks.

Man Soo Lee
02-10-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Umm, who said anything about the e-mail saying that? It didn't have to. He covered that in his press conference. It has everything to do with the way Ozzie imagines this team being managed and run. If he thinks that is going to work EVER, he's in LA-LA-LAND.

I share some of the skepticism about Ozzie as a manager, but I'll wait until I see Frank square around before I assume it will happen. Every new manager talks about playing harder and doing the little things because it plays better with his boss and fans than saying we need better players.

As you posted earlier in the thread, the problem is we have two guys that get on base. Along with the lack of starting pitching and RH relievers, that is more worrisome to me than what we think Ozzie's philosophy might be.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
He was caught by the hidden ball trick twice in the SAME GAME!

You draw your own conclusions, folks.

Actually, twice in the same week I think, but a valid point either way

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
And what would you do, call up JM for advice.

No, but I might call Cito Gaston. I'm not sure I understand your statement. I absolutely despised the way Jerry managed this team. That said, a guy to get in everyone's face about EVERYTHING and comes to this first press conference and criticizes the team's MVP and most recognizeable player is NOT what a veteran team needs.

If they are gearing up for "The Kids Can Play VII" fine, it makes a BIT more sense, but not when you have a veteran team. If they trade Frank and Maggs and let Konerko play out his contract so they can bring up all the young players over the next couple years, ok, Ozzie makes sense a little more.

IMO, them hiring Ozzie means:
1) They are rebuilding yet again
2) They are absolutely CLUELESS on how to deal with today's players
3) They wanted someone cheap and Ozzie fit the bill and was recognizeable within Chicago


Again, use that little walnut between your ears and try to come up with some critical thoughts on your own instead of pouting and running around waving your arms screaming whatever JR and KW wants you to say/think.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
I share some of the skepticism about Ozzie as a manager, but I'll wait until I see Frank square around before I assume it will happen. Every new manager talks about playing harder and doing the little things because it plays better with his boss and fans than saying we need better players.

As you posted earlier in the thread, the problem is we have two guys that get on base. Along with the lack of starting pitching and RH relievers, that is more worrisome to me than what we think Ozzie's philosophy might be.

I whole-heartedly agree. It's in hypotheticals and I actually assume Ozzie was just speaking in hyperbole, but we shall see. Every time he talks to the press, I see the train-wreck a little more clearly...

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but I just don't have a good feeling about it right now.

My biggest problem is people talking like Frank and Maggs laying down a sac bunt every now and then is a GOOD thing!?!?!?! Crazy I tell ya!

poorme
02-10-2004, 06:40 PM
Let's pick a random year..hmm. In 1974, Baltimore had 72 sac hits. We had 43 last year. Of course why let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe?

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Let's pick a random year..hmm. In 1974, Baltimore had 72 sac hits. We had 43 last year. Of course why let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe?

Great. I'm sure baseball hasn't changed in 30 years either...



ugh.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Let's pick a random year..hmm. In 1974, Baltimore had 72 sac hits. We had 43 last year. Of course why let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe?

56 of those were Sac flies.

poorme
02-10-2004, 06:48 PM
If the game has changed, why are we talking about Earl Weaver?

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
He was caught by the hidden ball trick twice in the SAME GAME!

You draw your own conclusions, folks. What does that have to do with managing. If I'm in a car accident, does that mean I am unqualified to teach someone to drive.

poorme
02-10-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
56 of those were Sac flies.

Um, sac flies aren't counted as sac hits.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Let's pick a random year..hmm. In 1974, Baltimore had 72 sac hits. We had 43 last year. Of course why let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe?

BTW, in 2004:

CWS: 43 SH, 41 SF, 132 GIDP, .331 OBP

Bos: 24 SH, 64 SF, 126 GIDP, .360 OBP
NYY: 25 SH, 35 SF, 154 GIDP, .356 OBP
Minn: 42 SH, 52 SF, 139 GIDP, .341 OBP
Oak: 22 SH, 53 SF, 118 GIDP, .327 OBP (terrific rotation carried them, not offense)


But hey, why let facts get in the way of a little random stupidity?


IT IS OBP FOLKS! WAKE UP!

Randar68
02-10-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
What does that have to do with managing. If I'm in a car accident, does that mean I am unqualified to teach someone to drive.

Ozzie, that must be you...

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 06:55 PM
[i]

Again, use that little walnut between your ears and try to come up with some critical thoughts on your own instead of pouting and running around waving your arms screaming whatever JR and KW wants you to say/think. [/B]

Lol, I never called you stupid, but if that's what it has come to then I won't try to boggle your mind with stuff you can't comprehend. I have my own opinions, and if they so happen to coincide with professionals and people who have more information than you and I, so be it. The only reason I could figure to make you this frustrated is that your argument is weak and have to resort to petty comments. That's fine by me, but maybe you should rethink your tactic if you want your point to have some validity to it.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 06:57 PM
Weaver Third Law of Baseball

The easiest way around the bases is with one swing of the bat.

Weaver's Fourth Law

Your most precious possessions on offense are your 27 outs.

He goes to explain, "This is still the most basic aspect of the game, and still on of the most misunderstood."

Weaver's Fifth Law

If you play for one run, that's all you'll get.

"If I have managed in the Astrodome my etire career, maybe I would have done things differently, but in most of today's ballparks, there is usually no reason to spend your outs on one-run strategies like the hit-and-run or the sacrifice bunt.....Brooks Robinson would hit into a lot of double plays, and some manager might have asked him to hit-and-run to avoid them, but with his power, I always felt it was worth the risk"

Weaver's Sixth Law

Don't play for one run unless you know that run will win a ballgame.

...but you had better be doing it with a player who can bunt or who can steal bases with a really good chance of success. Even then, you have better have the right combination of hitter on-deck or on your bench to drive home that runner you just spent or risked one of your outs to advance.


From Weaver on Strategy.

poorme
02-10-2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a little random stupidity?


IT IS OBP FOLKS! WAKE UP!

You're funny. You mean OBP is related to runs scored? Never heard that one before...

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 06:59 PM
Geez Randar, I just read some of your other comments. Why are you trying to make people mad by referring to your intelligence. If you really know what you're talking about you wouldn't have to do that. Grow up a little. Maybe if you were right it would easier to take your criticism.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Um, sac flies aren't counted as sac hits.

Oh, yeah some how I got mixed up and thought they were included in 50's instead of being excluded.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Lol, I never called you stupid, but if that's what it has come to then I won't try to boggle your mind with stuff you can't comprehend. I have my own opinions, and if they so happen to coincide with professionals and people who have more information than you and I, so be it. The only reason I could figure to make you this frustrated is that your argument is weak and have to resort to petty comments. That's fine by me, but maybe you should rethink your tactic if you want your point to have some validity to it.


Originally posted by SEALgep
Some of you guys don't know anything about baseball.

This was in response to something I wrote. You may not be very well versed in original thought, but hypocricy seems to be a strong point for you.

Of course, in the top statement here, you only presume to think "my own opinions, and if they so happen to coincide with professionals and people who have more information than you and I, so be it."...

You're a total joke...

poorme
02-10-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77

Don't play for one run unless you know that run will win a ballgame.

That's usually the case in a tie game in the 9th.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by poorme
If the game has changed, why are we talking about Earl Weaver?

Because he was ahead of his time. The game has moved on past stagnation of small ball in more enlighten and winning parts of baseball.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by poorme
That's usually the case in a tie game in the 9th.

How many times does that come up? Plus remember his qualifications for the tatic.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This was in response to something I wrote. You may not be very well versed in original thought, but hypocricy seems to be a strong point for you.

Of course, in the top statement here, you only presume to think "my own opinions, and if they so happen to coincide with professionals and people who have more information than you and I, so be it."...

You're a total joke...

But you have taken it to the next level. Besides some of you don't know anything about baseball, but I never said use your little walnut between your ears. That's direct and offensive. However, you can do whatever you like.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Geez Randar, I just read some of your other comments. Why are you trying to make people mad by referring to your intelligence. If you really know what you're talking about you wouldn't have to do that. Grow up a little. Maybe if you were right it would easier to take your criticism.

It has not a whole lot to do with intelligence and a lot more to do with some sort of originality. Ozzie says he might ask Frank and Maggs to bunt and you chirp up with "GREAT IDEA"...

Bunting your 3-4-5 hitters is akin to pulling a pitcher in the middle of a no-hitter after 60 pitches because you like the lefty you have warming up in the bullpen.

Take it for what you want, and I don't care the situation. If you're going to ask Frank to bunt, PH for him. Anyone who asks Frank or Maggs to bunt should be shot on site for complete stupidity and utter lunacy.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But you have taken it to the next level. Besides some of you don't know anything about baseball, but I never said use your little walnut between your ears. That's direct and offensive. However, you can do whatever you like.

You said other people don't know anything about baseball, yet you think it would be a good idea to ask your 3-4-5 hitters to lay down a bunt occassionally.

That is by FAR the funniest thing I have read on here in some time...

Thanks, I knew I was missing a little irony from my diet...

Randar68
02-10-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But you have taken it to the next level. Besides some of you don't know anything about baseball, but I never said use your little walnut between your ears. That's direct and offensive. However, you can do whatever you like.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to tell you that you're an absolute moron just the same.

Randar68
02-10-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Geez Randar, I just read some of your other comments. Why are you trying to make people mad by referring to your intelligence. If you really know what you're talking about you wouldn't have to do that. Grow up a little. Maybe if you were right it would easier to take your criticism.

BTW, just to clarify things...

Pointing out your lack of intellectual abilities says nothing about my intelligence or lack thereof.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
It has not a whole lot to do with intelligence and a lot more to do with some sort of originality. Ozzie says he might ask Frank and Maggs to bunt and you chirp up with "GREAT IDEA"...

Bunting your 3-4-5 hitters is akin to pulling a pitcher in the middle of a no-hitter after 60 pitches because you like the lefty you have warming up in the bullpen.

Take it for what you want, and I don't care the situation. If you're going to ask Frank to bunt, PH for him. Anyone who asks Frank or Maggs to bunt should be shot on site for complete stupidity and utter lunacy.

Alright Randar, whatever you say. In dream land you can GM and coach your own team. In real life though, you can't count on the homerun all the time. Sometimes you have to manufacture runs, even if it's with your better hitters. As far as me just agreeing what I'm told to, and that I really don't know what I'm saying just repeating is absurd. Your entitled to your beliefs. I still don't know why you're all frustrated, calm down and make your point. Even though it's completely wrong, it doesn't matter. I can sit with you if you like and go over point by point in order for you to gain a better understanding. I would do that with you if you like. They say you learn something new everyday, and it would be my pleasure to help you learn something for today.

Daver
02-10-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I still don't know why you're all frustrated, calm down and make your point. Even though it's completely wrong, it doesn't matter.

In your opinion he is wrong,I happen to agree with him.If Ozzie calls a bunt with the heart of the order up he should be shot,and then fired,you do not give away an out in that situation.

If your sending a AAA player like Aaron Rowand to the plate you give him the bunt sign,not one of your 3-4-5 hitters.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Daver
In your opinion he is wrong,I happen to agree with him.If Ozzie calls a bunt with the heart of the order up he should be shot,and then fired,you do not give away an out in that situation.

If your sending a AAA player like Aaron Rowand to the plate you give him the bunt sign,not one of your 3-4-5 hitters.
It depends on the situation. Ideally you would rather use the hit and run, but there will be situations, no matter how rare of a case it is, where bunting, even with one of these guys is the right thing to do.

pudge
02-10-2004, 07:29 PM
I've found Randar to be dead wrong on some occasions, but he's totally right on this account... If Frank or Maggs ever attempt to lay down a bunt, Ozzie will get attacked by just about everyone. We've got to hope Ozzie's cooler head will prevail once he's actually in the dugout, and all this pre-season jabbering is just hyperbole.

Then again, this is partly why I'm looking forward to the season - to see if the train wreck happens or not... There's no point in paying the big bucks for Cito Gaston if you're not going to pay big bucks for the players.

maurice
02-10-2004, 07:39 PM
Only a very bad manager would ask a good, middle-of-the-order hitter to sac bunt . . . ever. A good situational hitter does not need to bunt.

Bunt for a hit? Fine, if they're fast enough and a great bunter.

Hit a fly ball to the right side? Sure, if the situation calls for it.

Lay down a sac bunt? Never.

Daver
02-10-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It depends on the situation. Ideally you would rather use the hit and run, but there will be situations, no matter how rare of a case it is, where bunting, even with one of these guys is the right thing to do.

Then come up with an example of one.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Then come up with an example of one.
If Thomas is slumping, and it's a pitcher's duel, down by one in the seventh with Harris on first with no outs. You don't want to pinch hit for Thomas because he may get another at bat. Maggs would then be up with Harris on second with one out. Scoring position and no DP. Now don't confuse my words. I never said this is a rule when to bunt or not, but it should be an option.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 08:09 PM
If pitchers know it's a possibility you might bunt, by faking the bunt you can manufacture a hitters count, or produce an offspeed pitch/or out of the zone pitch possibly allowing Harris a better pitch to steal on.

mdep524
02-10-2004, 08:10 PM
Wow guys, no offense, but you are all TOTALLY overreacting to this bunting thing.

Don't you think, just maybe, it could have been Ozzie trying to overstate, for the purpose of making his point, that he wanted to have multiple agressive strategies to score runs, maybe play some small ball, etc.?

Do you really think after 20 years in professional baseball and with Joe Nossek and aken Williams advising him, he is dumb enough to actually do that 3-4-5 hitter bunting specifically? No way. He is NOT, I repeat, NOT going to have Magglio come up and square around to bunt with a runner on 1st and nobody out in the top of the 9th inning of a tie game at Kauffman Stadium.

I mean come on, the guys English is less than wonderful and you guys are picking apart every word semantically like it was a rhetoric class.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Then come up with an example of one.

first and second, nobody out, tie game in the bottom of the ninth- ONLY if Frank has shown to be a decent bunter. If maggs flies out, that one in the win column...

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It depends on the situation. Ideally you would rather use the hit and run, but there will be situations, no matter how rare of a case it is, where bunting, even with one of these guys is the right thing to do.

Why would you ask the guys who are closest to generating a base per at bat (OPS=1.0 roughly) to give themselves up when there are just so MANY other ways of getting the guy over that MIGHT not cost you an out. Frank Thomas (for example) generally walks on average .6 times a game. You stand roughly a 14% chance of advancing the runner(s) just based on that possibility ALONE. Yet, you think it is better to tell those hitters to give themselves up.

I agree with Daver. Shot 'em then fire 'em... :D:

mdep524
02-10-2004, 08:12 PM
Also, for reference, when Jerry Manuel was hired we were promised an NL-style, small ball, scrappy-style managing. That, obviously, never happened. I think Ozzie will be a bit more comitted to it than JM was, but the point is you never know what will happen.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
Wow guys, no offense, but you are all TOTALLY overreacting to this bunting thing.

Don't you think, just maybe, it could have been Ozzie trying to overstate, for the purpose of making his point, that he wanted to have multiple agressive strategies to score runs, maybe play some small ball, etc.?

Do you really think after 20 years in professional baseball and with Joe Nossek and aken Williams advising him, he is dumb enough to actually do that 3-4-5 hitter bunting specifically? No way. He is NOT, I repeat, NOT going to have Magglio come up and square around to bunt with a runner on 1st and nobody out in the top of the 9th inning of a tie game at Kauffman Stadium.

I mean come on, the guys English is less than wonderful and you guys are picking apart every word semantically like it was a rhetoric class. I agree with that. I wouldn't bunt in that situation most likely. He wants aggressive base running and aggressive tactics. Bunting is an option, a rare option, but an option nonetheless.

mantis1212
02-10-2004, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
Wow guys, no offense, but you are all TOTALLY overreacting to this bunting thing.

Don't you think, just maybe, it could have been Ozzie trying to overstate, for the purpose of making his point, that he wanted to have multiple agressive strategies to score runs, maybe play some small ball, etc.?

Do you really think after 20 years in professional baseball and with Joe Nossek and aken Williams advising him, he is dumb enough to actually do that 3-4-5 hitter bunting specifically? No way. He is NOT, I repeat, NOT going to have Magglio come up and square around to bunt with a runner on 1st and nobody out in the top of the 9th inning of a tie game at Kauffman Stadium.

I mean come on, the guys English is less than wonderful and you guys are picking apart every word semantically like it was a rhetoric class.

I'd like to take odds on Frank Thomas actually laying down a bunt ONCE this year. I do not believe it will happen. Ozzie was just blowing smoke

voodoochile
02-10-2004, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
If Thomas is slumping, and it's a pitcher's duel, down by one in the seventh with Harris on first with no outs. You don't want to pinch hit for Thomas because he may get another at bat. Maggs would then be up with Harris on second with one out. Scoring position and no DP. Now don't confuse my words. I never said this is a rule when to bunt or not, but it should be an option.

Big picture - wouldn't it be better to try and kill two birds with one stone. Give the hit and run signal which forces Frank to swing, puts Willie in motion and has a whole mess of ways things can go better than just simply bunting Willie over so they can walk Maggs to get to whoever.

Good things that can happen:

Frank gets a hit, 1st and third, nobody out and Frank is feeling better about himself.

Frank hits a grounder which still advances Harris and again makes Frank feel good about himself.

Frank swings and misses, but Willie steals second anyway (75%+ possibility with Frank swinging, IMO and that is probably low)

Bad things that can happen:

Frank pops up and Willie is doubled up.

Frank whiffs and Willie is thrown out.

Willie is picked off when breaking for second.

I like those odds....

A. Cavatica
02-10-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
Don't you think, just maybe, it could have been Ozzie trying to overstate, for the purpose of making his point

Sure. He probably was. But even if he didn't mean it when he said it, we don't trust Ozzie to refrain from flashing the bunt sign when he is faced with this situation in a game. The problem is Ozzie was a singularly stupid hitter and baserunner. How can we expect him to make decisions as manager that he wouldn't have made for himself as a player?

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Big picture - wouldn't it be better to try and kill two birds with one stone. Give the hit and run signal which forces Frank to swing, puts Willie in motion and has a whole mess of ways things can go better than just simply bunting Willie over so they can walk Maggs to get to whoever.

Good things that can happen:

Frank gets a hit, 1st and third, nobody out and Frank is feeling better about himself.

Frank hits a grounder which still advances Harris and again makes Frank feel good about himself.

Frank swings and misses, but Willie steals second anyway (75%+ possibility with Frank swinging, IMO and that is probably low)

Bad things that can happen:

Frank pops up and Willie is doubled up.

Frank whiffs and Willie is thrown out.

Willie is picked off when breaking for second.

I like those odds....

I agree that those options are better. I'm just saying to rule out a bunt regardless of the scenerio shouldn't happen. It's a case by case basis. I'm totally in favor in keeping it to a minimum with a hit and run and straight steal as primary options. However, it's also good to keep the defense on their toes. If our guys are slumping like they did last year for some period of time, I say try to manufacture some runs when the opportunity arises. As a result, pitch counts and fielders positioning will work in our favor more often.

beckett21
02-10-2004, 09:22 PM
Wow, glad I missed all of that carnage this afternoon. I especially enjoyed some of the more condescending and insulting bully-type messages. But whatever.

Far be it from me to ever try to impose my opinions on somebody in ANY regard. By the same token I don't see why people need to be mocked or ridiculed for their *stupid* opinions. Without naming any names I do understand when people bring that upon themselves, however, and in such case fight fire with fire; I have no problem with that. But because someone doesn't agree with an opinion does not automatically make them stupid. (Or wrong--that's why it's an OPINION).

I will be the FIRST person to admit my faults and tell you when I am wrong. And I think that the scenario of Maggs or Thomas bunting may happen only once or twice a year. But to say that they don't need to know how to bunt because they are going to hit a 3-run bomb every time up is fantasy. To be honest, my biggest issue is that NO ONE knew how to bunt last year. Was it our biggest problem? No. Has this been blown out of proportion? Yes. Should it be addressed in the case that it could win us an extra game or two? You betcha. I understand fully all the scenarios. It is a matter of playing percentages. Some people take more risks than others. Fine.

I apologize for the defensive tone; I don't see where I was directly insulted in any way. But the whole discussion seemed to escalate from a lively debate to namecalling and mockery. I for one have no respect for that type of behavior and will never resort to it. If I do, I would certainly expect to be called out on it, and justly so. Doesn't matter who started it; the bigger person will ignore it.

Just my two cents. Carry on as you wish.

wassagstdu
02-10-2004, 10:28 PM
If I remember correctly, the statement was, if [Frank or Maggs]fails to move the runners the NEXT time he will bunt. I.e. if they can't do it the way a slugger should they will do it whatever way they can. There is more to hitting than swinging for the fences and if our best hitters can't do it they are not good hitters and should be bunting -- until they can be dumped.

I am amazed by the tone of this thread. Manuel took so much blame for the Sox poor performance, but most of you seem to resent the idea that a whole new approach can improve things. I like Ozzie and I like what his email and his interviews say -- but then I am a Sox fan.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
If Thomas is slumping, and it's a pitcher's duel, down by one in the seventh with Harris on first with no outs. You don't want to pinch hit for Thomas because he may get another at bat. Maggs would then be up with Harris on second with one out. Scoring position and no DP. Now don't confuse my words. I never said this is a rule when to bunt or not, but it should be an option.

Nope, Runner 2nd and 1 out is worse then runner on 1st and no one out when it comes to net runs scored avg. So why give up an out to put your team in a worst position? That is horrible tactics.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Big picture - wouldn't it be better to try and kill two birds with one stone. Give the hit and run signal which forces Frank to swing, puts Willie in motion and has a whole mess of ways things can go better than just simply bunting Willie over so they can walk Maggs to get to whoever.

Good things that can happen:

Frank gets a hit, 1st and third, nobody out and Frank is feeling better about himself.

Frank hits a grounder which still advances Harris and again makes Frank feel good about himself.

Frank swings and misses, but Willie steals second anyway (75%+ possibility with Frank swinging, IMO and that is probably low)

Bad things that can happen:

Frank pops up and Willie is doubled up.

Frank whiffs and Willie is thrown out.

Willie is picked off when breaking for second.

I like those odds....

No hit and run. With Frank up there let him wait for his pitch, the results are likely to be better then forcing him to swing at what is thrown.

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
If I remember correctly, the statement was, if [Frank or Maggs]fails to move the runners the NEXT time he will bunt. I.e. if they can't do it the way a slugger should they will do it whatever way they can. There is more to hitting than swinging for the fences and if our best hitters can't do it they are not good hitters and should be bunting -- until they can be dumped.

I am amazed by the tone of this thread. Manuel took so much blame for the Sox poor performance, but most of you seem to resent the idea that a whole new approach can improve things. I like Ozzie and I like what his email and his interviews say -- but then I am a Sox fan.

BINGO!

mdep524
02-10-2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Sure. He probably was. But even if he didn't mean it when he said it, we don't trust Ozzie to refrain from flashing the bunt sign when he is faced with this situation in a game. The problem is Ozzie was a singularly stupid hitter and baserunner. How can we expect him to make decisions as manager that he wouldn't have made for himself as a player?

I do not think Ozzie will have some ultimate, dictator like control of the strategy and gameplay of the team. He has Joe Nossek, who has seen more baseball than anyone, sitting right next to him. I trust Joe's judgement, and I think Ozzie respects him too and will defer to (or at least consult) him on important decisions.

One of the main reasons, in my mind, Ozzie is here is for that scappy, firey attitude and passion. It's that fresh attitude that I am looking forward to this season.

TornLabrum
02-10-2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
If I remember correctly, the statement was, if [Frank or Maggs]fails to move the runners the NEXT time he will bunt. I.e. if they can't do it the way a slugger should they will do it whatever way they can. There is more to hitting than swinging for the fences and if our best hitters can't do it they are not good hitters and should be bunting -- until they can be dumped.

I am amazed by the tone of this thread. Manuel took so much blame for the Sox poor performance, but most of you seem to resent the idea that a whole new approach can improve things. I like Ozzie and I like what his email and his interviews say -- but then I am a Sox fan.

You need to keep in mind that Sox fans (including myself) aren't truly happy unless they have something to gripe about.

CWSGuy406
02-10-2004, 11:41 PM
Since I'm not really on either side of the argument, let me come up with a situation:

Sox are down by one, bottom of the ninth, runner on second. Magglio is the runner on second. Nobody Out. Paul Konerko is up to bat, with Crede, Olivo, and Rowand coming up to bat. It is late April and Konerko still hasn't found his stroke (I don't know if that really means anything, I'm just putting it in there.) Paulie, as well as the whole team, under new manager Ozzie, have learned to put down a bunt. Also, Crede is playing better. .270 average thus far in the year. Do you:

A.) Bunt with PK, hoping he can move the runner to third.

B.) Hit with PK, thinking that Crede and Olivo might not be able to get it done.

C.) Do something else?????


I'm all for bunting, with ANY player in the lineup, in the right situation. Let me say that I NEVER want to see Magglio or Thomas bunt just for the hell of bunting, but in a situation where we can get a runner into scoring position LATE IN THE GAME, I wouldn't mind it.

My answer is A, just because I think it's a lot more likely to lay down a bunt than for PK to be able to hit a flyball to right/grounder to right.

It was terrible last year, when guys that were supposed to be able to bunt (Graff, Valentin) not being able to do it. It made me so angry.

Finally, I hope not to start an argument with someone on this board just because of my opinion, that is so "petty". We're all Sox fans, and unless you're just nuts, we all want the same thing: A White Sox Championship, sooner rather than later.

KingXerxes
02-10-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
What does that have to do with managing. If I'm in a car accident, does that mean I am unqualified to teach someone to drive.

If you're in a car accident, does that mean you are unqualified to teach someone to drive?

Good question SEALgep, and I suppose, like all things, it depends. If you were driving cautiously and had some bad luck and bumped another car - you're probably still qualified to teach driving. Now if you were found by the police sitting in the back seat, facing the rear, and yelling directions into the stereo speakers in order to make the car turn and such - well then I don't think you're qualified to teach driving.

Getting caught by the hidden ball trick twice in the same career is getting dangerously close to barking into the speakers.

:ozzie:

"Turn left.......left........LEFT!"

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Since I'm not really on either side of the argument, let me come up with a situation:

Sox are down by one, bottom of the ninth, runner on second. Magglio is the runner on second. Nobody Out. Paul Konerko is up to bat, with Crede, Olivo, and Rowand coming up to bat. It is late April and Konerko still hasn't found his stroke (I don't know if that really means anything, I'm just putting it in there.) Paulie, as well as the whole team, under new manager Ozzie, have learned to put down a bunt. Also, Crede is playing better. .270 average thus far in the year. Do you:

A.) Bunt with PK, hoping he can move the runner to third.

B.) Hit with PK, thinking that Crede and Olivo might not be able to get it done.

C.) Do something else?????


I'm all for bunting, with ANY player in the lineup, in the right situation. Let me say that I NEVER want to see Magglio or Thomas bunt just for the hell of bunting, but in a situation where we can get a runner into scoring position LATE IN THE GAME, I wouldn't mind it.

My answer is A, just because I think it's a lot more likely to lay down a bunt than for PK to be able to hit a flyball to right/grounder to right.

It was terrible last year, when guys that were supposed to be able to bunt (Graff, Valentin) not being able to do it. It made me so angry.

Finally, I hope not to start an argument with someone on this board just because of my opinion, that is so "petty". We're all Sox fans, and unless you're just nuts, we all want the same thing: A White Sox Championship, sooner rather than later.

I agree with one exception. Once the hitter has two strikes on him Ozzie must take off the bunt. Jerry Manual had guys bunting with two strikes on several occasions last year including the second game of the season. If I had been GM, Jerry would not have seen game 3.

CWSGuy406
02-10-2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I agree with one exception. Once the hitter has two strikes on him Ozzie must take off the bunt. Jerry Manual had guys bunting with two strikes on several occasions last year including the second game of the season. If I had been GM, Jerry would not have seen game 3.

Agreed, that should be a given. PK shouldn't be bunting with two strikes, at that point you gotta just hope PK can come up big in the clutch.

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Agreed, that should be a given. PK shouldn't be bunting with two strikes, at that point you gotta just hope PK can come up big in the clutch.

It seems so obvious, yet the previous manager could not figure it out.

voodoochile
02-11-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No hit and run. With Frank up there let him wait for his pitch, the results are likely to be better then forcing him to swing at what is thrown.

He specifically stated that Frank was slumping as part of the criteria. I wouldn't mind forcing Frank to swing when he is slumping because normally that means he is watching good pitches on the inner half and jumping back. Take a chance and loof for dead red on the first pitch and tell him he has to swing. It can't be WORSE than asking him to bunt, which is the other option I was offered.

voodoochile
02-11-2004, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Since I'm not really on either side of the argument, let me come up with a situation:

Sox are down by one, bottom of the ninth, runner on second. Magglio is the runner on second. Nobody Out. Paul Konerko is up to bat, with Crede, Olivo, and Rowand coming up to bat. It is late April and Konerko still hasn't found his stroke (I don't know if that really means anything, I'm just putting it in there.) Paulie, as well as the whole team, under new manager Ozzie, have learned to put down a bunt. Also, Crede is playing better. .270 average thus far in the year. Do you:

A.) Bunt with PK, hoping he can move the runner to third.

B.) Hit with PK, thinking that Crede and Olivo might not be able to get it done.

C.) Do something else?????


I'm all for bunting, with ANY player in the lineup, in the right situation. Let me say that I NEVER want to see Magglio or Thomas bunt just for the hell of bunting, but in a situation where we can get a runner into scoring position LATE IN THE GAME, I wouldn't mind it.

My answer is A, just because I think it's a lot more likely to lay down a bunt than for PK to be able to hit a flyball to right/grounder to right.

It was terrible last year, when guys that were supposed to be able to bunt (Graff, Valentin) not being able to do it. It made me so angry.

Finally, I hope not to start an argument with someone on this board just because of my opinion, that is so "petty". We're all Sox fans, and unless you're just nuts, we all want the same thing: A White Sox Championship, sooner rather than later.

Is there a sign for hit the ball to right field? I would still rather trus a guy with decent bat skills like Konerko to hit the ball the other way. He screws up and bunts it to the pitcher and they might get Maggs at third on a tag play and still throw Slownerko out at first...

CWSGuy406
02-11-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Is there a sign for hit the ball to right field? I would still rather trus a guy with decent bat skills like Konerko to hit the ball the other way. He screws up and bunts it to the pitcher and they might get Maggs at third on a tag play and still throw Slownerko out at first...

I said PK is still in his "slump" and hasn't found his stroke yet. But, a question, please, take no offense to this, honestly:

Wasn't PK primarily a pull hitter when he was hitting the ball so well in 2002 (his all-star year, I may have the wrong year.)? The reason I bring that up is that I think it would be a lot easier for PK to lay down a bunt than to hit the ball to the right side. Then again, I could be wrong and PK could easily hit it right and not so easily lay down a bunt. Again, I'm ASSUMING that PK practiced his behind off during the offseason knowing it is a weakness of his/the teams and he's trying to get better at it.

Daver
02-11-2004, 12:27 AM
One comment on bunt decisions in late innings of a game.

The second a batter squares to bunt it takes all the pressure of the situation off the pitcher and focuses squarely on the batter.If he does not get the bunt down on the first pitch,regardless of whether it is a strike or a ball,the catcher has the green light to tell his pitcher to throw junk,knowing the batter is not going to try and drive the ball.If I am behind the plate when Frank Thomas comes to the plate I would be more than happy to know that my pitcher is off the hook.

voodoochile
02-11-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
I said PK is still in his "slump" and hasn't found his stroke yet. But, a question, please, take no offense to this, honestly:

Wasn't PK primarily a pull hitter when he was hitting the ball so well in 2002 (his all-star year, I may have the wrong year.)? The reason I bring that up is that I think it would be a lot easier for PK to lay down a bunt than to hit the ball to the right side. Then again, I could be wrong and PK could easily hit it right and not so easily lay down a bunt. Again, I'm ASSUMING that PK practiced his behind off during the offseason knowing it is a weakness of his/the teams and he's trying to get better at it.

When Paul was hitting well, prior to last season, he was driving the ball up the middle or to right on a regular basis, IIRC. He had a knack for picking up big RBI's too.

Watching Paulie try to bunt might be worth it just for the unintentional comedy it would generate. :D:

Randar68
02-11-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
If Thomas is slumping, and it's a pitcher's duel, down by one in the seventh with Harris on first with no outs. You don't want to pinch hit for Thomas because he may get another at bat. Maggs would then be up with Harris on second with one out. Scoring position and no DP. Now don't confuse my words. I never said this is a rule when to bunt or not, but it should be an option.

In this situation, you don't bunt, you send Willie Harris. I don't know why you can't get this through your thick head. If you're sending Thomas up there to sac bunt, you pinch hit for him, plain and simple.

i said it before and I'll say it again. THIS AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

Randar68
02-11-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Wow, glad I missed all of that carnage this afternoon. I especially enjoyed some of the more condescending and insulting bully-type messages. But whatever.
.

Settle down sparky. I have no problem with what Ozzie said as loing as it's HYPERBOLE. However, to actually defend or advocate bunting your 3-4-5 hitters is sheer stupidity in the face of statistics, history, and common sense.

Sorry, I call it as I see it.

chitown sox
02-11-2004, 01:27 AM
Jesus, you guys need to shut the hell up and stop trying to read between the lines on this thing.

He said "if we play good baseball..." because THAT'S THE WAY NORMAL PEOPLE TALK.

And, no, you stupid idiots, he's not saying we're not gonna surprise no one in April, May, August, or September just 'cause he said June and July.

Saying he has no patience is a GOOD THING. It means nothing other than "I'm not gonna put up with players' ****ing bull**** like some other people do."

Plus, this is absolutely nothing anyway. It's just general PR hoopla. I guarantee he didn't even write it.

Jesus.

Randar68
02-11-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by chitown sox
Jesus, you guys need to shut the hell up and stop trying to read between the lines on this thing.

He said "if we play good baseball..." because THAT'S THE WAY NORMAL PEOPLE TALK.

And, no, you stupid idiots, he's not saying we're not gonna surprise no one in April, May, August, or September just 'cause he said June and July.

Saying he has no patience is a GOOD THING. It means nothing other than "I'm not gonna put up with players' ****ing bull**** like some other people do."

Plus, this is absolutely nothing anyway. It's just general PR hoopla. I guarantee he didn't even write it.

Jesus.

After about page 2, nobody was even talking about Ozzie, more a select few who try to validate the idea of sending Frank and Maggs to the plate to give themselves up in an ATTEMPT to sacrifice bunt.

It went from a few sarcastic comments about the e-mail to a philosophical argument.

HITMEN OF 77
02-11-2004, 01:52 AM
This thread went from it's begining in left field to catcher in a matter of pages. Geez!

voodoochile
02-11-2004, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by chitown sox
Jesus, you guys need to shut the hell up and stop trying to read between the lines on this thing.

He said "if we play good baseball..." because THAT'S THE WAY NORMAL PEOPLE TALK.

And, no, you stupid idiots, he's not saying we're not gonna surprise no one in April, May, August, or September just 'cause he said June and July.

Saying he has no patience is a GOOD THING. It means nothing other than "I'm not gonna put up with players' ****ing bull**** like some other people do."

Plus, this is absolutely nothing anyway. It's just general PR hoopla. I guarantee he didn't even write it.

Jesus.


Originally posted by Randar68


After about page 2, nobody was even talking about Ozzie, more a select few who try to validate the idea of sending Frank and Maggs to the plate to give themselves up in an ATTEMPT to sacrifice bunt.

It went from a few sarcastic comments about the e-mail to a philosophical argument.

See what happens when we allow name calling fights to get out of control? People think it's acceptable behavior. Then I have to lock thread and split threads and do all sorts of nasty ugly unfun moderator crap. That is why we don't call people idiots, morons, etc. Why am I singling you out? Because you have been here longer than the person you are arguing with and should know better. :angry:

Can everybody PUH-LEEZE tone it down a bit.

Kenny, do something before Spring Training. I am not sure the fans can wait that long... :D:

Nick@Nite
02-11-2004, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Mickster
This is, possibly, the worst thread that I have ever read.

Wow!

Respectfully disagree... cuz I'm the one who mentioned "small ball" on post#13 of this thread :D:

Wouldn't if funny as hell seeing Big Frank trying to lay down a sac-bunt?

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Daver
One comment on bunt decisions in late innings of a game.

The second a batter squares to bunt it takes all the pressure of the situation off the pitcher and focuses squarely on the batter.If he does not get the bunt down on the first pitch,regardless of whether it is a strike or a ball,the catcher has the green light to tell his pitcher to throw junk,knowing the batter is not going to try and drive the ball.If I am behind the plate when Frank Thomas comes to the plate I would be more than happy to know that my pitcher is off the hook.

Unless they believe it's a fake attempt. And if they start throwing junk, at least Frank will know what's coming and be more prepared for the at bat. At the same, if someone with decent speed is on, they can use that opportunity to outright steal if they are pretty certain what the pitch is going to be. If there is someone with decent speed, I don't believe they automatically start throwing junk for that very reason. But like I said, you can use that to your advantage. You can even take the bunt sign off if Frank has a fair idea of what's coming. In order for that strategy to work though, they have to be convinced that he would indeed lay down a bunt, meaning he will have had to of done it before.

Dadawg_77
02-11-2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
Since I'm not really on either side of the argument, let me come up with a situation:

Sox are down by one, bottom of the ninth, runner on second. Magglio is the runner on second. Nobody Out. Paul Konerko is up to bat, with Crede, Olivo, and Rowand coming up to bat. It is late April and Konerko still hasn't found his stroke (I don't know if that really means anything, I'm just putting it in there.) Paulie, as well as the whole team, under new manager Ozzie, have learned to put down a bunt. Also, Crede is playing better. .270 average thus far in the year. Do you:


First off, your goal should be to score two runs in this situation.

If the pitcher is a lefty (opposing manager would be an dolt to leave in a lefty) I would have Paul swing away. If the pitcher is a righty, I am looking towards my bench for a guy to swing away. Also avg means nothing, what is the OPB and SLG for Joe?

poorme
02-11-2004, 10:05 AM
with a man on third and one out in that situation, avg means a lot more than OBP.

beckett21
02-11-2004, 10:29 AM
The premise of my argument is based on the propensity of this group of players to hit into rally killing double plays. If in fact they can drive the ball to the opposite field, into the gap, behind the runner, into the seats, etc...obviously that would be the right move. But they weren't doing that last year.

And with discretion being the better part of valor I will leave it at that.

steff
02-11-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
But you're wrong.



But of course. We're all wrong if we don't agree with you..

JasonC23
02-11-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by poorme
with a man on third and one out in that situation, avg means a lot more than OBP.

???

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by steff
But of course. We're all wrong if we don't agree with you.. Not true. So I guess you can say you're wrong. This thread has gone astray, and unless you want to comment on the original topic, I suggest we drop this behavior from all parties, including myself.

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
??? He's saying a walk isn't going to get it done, so the OBP stat by itself is useless in that scenerio.

steff
02-11-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Not true. So I guess you can say you're wrong. This thread has gone astray, and unless you want to comment on the original topic, I suggest we drop this behavior from all parties, including myself.


No thanks. I have no interest in your style of "debate".

Done.

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by steff
No thanks. I have no interest in your style of "debate".

Done. That's all I ask.

poorme
02-11-2004, 01:52 PM
I don't believe SEAL is the one who stepped out of the bounds of civility here. There seems to be some double standard as to what is acceptable behavior...not sure if it depends on how long you've been around or how much money you contribute or what.

poorme
02-11-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
???

Not sure the confusion here. A base hit scores a run while a walk doesn't.

steff
02-11-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I don't believe SEAL is the one who stepped out of the bounds of civility here. There seems to be some double standard as to what is acceptable behavior...not sure if it depends on how long you've been around or how much money you contribute or what.


IMO, when you post an opinion, and someone doesn't agree with it.. it's confrontational to "yea, but...." for the next 10 pages of a thread.

I'm not even touching the second part of your post. Voicing my "opinion" on it would get me, a long time poster and contributer, banned.

poorme
02-11-2004, 02:07 PM
See how easy it is to avoid putting nasty thoughts into words?

maurice
02-11-2004, 02:17 PM
In the Thomas hypo, any of the alternatives offered by various posters would be better than sac bunting. Everybody playing or rooting for the opponent would be very happy to see him square around.

As for the Konerko hypo, the chance of Konerko hitting behind Maggs is MUCH greater than the chance of him successfully executing a sac bunt.

beckett21
02-11-2004, 02:19 PM
Since I have probably added fuel to the fire here myself, and since this thread is already way beyond the point of no return...

SEAL : I happen to agree with you on this issue regarding strategy. However at times your messages, while perhaps not meant to insult, do come off as offensive. You can't expect to say that people here "know nothing about baseball" and not get called to the carpet on it. You do not seem to be the type of person who has malicious intentions, but your posts sometimes come off that way. I do not believe you were the worst offender in this thread, but I do seem to think that you may have instigated some of the nasty responses.

I have been posting on this board for not even a month, and acknowledge I am still learning proper etiquitte here. Some people have been posting here for years, and we are newcomers. I do not wish to speak towards your experience or knowledge of the game, nor that of anyone else for that matter. But although I may not always agree with other posters, I will say that there are a helluva lot of people here who know a lot more about baseball than me, and if I were to ever make a blanket statement that people who don't agree with me are wrong that would not be fair or correct. And I would expect people to defend themselves.

What bothers me more, however, are people who try to bully others, brow-beating them just to make their points. I am a well educated person and can come to my own conclusions, and name-calling and sarcastic comments do not impress me. In actuality they speak more of that person who makes those statements. Basically let people embarass themselves if they wish. But to insult people's intellilgence in this forum is inappropriate and uncalled for. Besides being childish, it shows immaturity and lack of self confidence. I could care less who agrees with me or not; but a well formed argument will go a lot further to proving a point than saying someone is stupid or knows nothing.

Again SEAL I don't think you tried to be offensive but it can be construed that way. But I totally disagree with how people ridiculed you. That to me was worse. But just try to be more cognizant of what you are submitting to avoid backlash and confrontation. I truly believe you are a nice guy and make some good points (at times :smile: ); just try to understand how sometimes you rub people the wrong way. But again I take less offense with you on this one than some others.

Randar68
02-11-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Since I have probably added fuel to the fire here myself, and since this thread is already way beyond the point of no return...


Since the body of this and most other posts in regards to the behavior in this thread reference myself, I will address this as concisely as I can:

Look, I can be wrong on a lot of things, and I am not all-knowing, holier-than-thou, ultra-pessimistic, and certainly not irrational. I have no problems debating real topics of discussion and valid baseball points with knowledgeable posters who have some sense of the history or fundamental basics of the game of baseball. Stats, etc etc are all welcome in discussion.

What I have a problem with, and this is typically more of a problem in the off-season and the lull associated, is posters who are complete revisionist historians, people who read an article on the WhiteSox web page and buy it hook line and sinker without thinking for themselves, people who are back-up QB apologists and eternally blind optimists or pessimists...

I expect people to have some basic sense of reality ingrained, and maybe that is too much to expect.

It doesn't take much to set me off, and comments from people trying to defend the Aaron Rowand All-Star Fan Club and Frank or Maggs bunting and then insinuating that people who disagree don't know anything about baseball or are simply wrong for their reasoning really ticks me off. In every one of these debates, I come forth with solid and universally accepted statistics to back my opinions and real-world observations based upon seeing many of the current players from A-ball through the majors develop.

Yes, I do sometimes brow-beat people or bully them, I can't deny that. However, it is always a last resort after it is clear that there is no getting through to that poster. You can only type so many long statistically-based arguments with responses like "you just don't know anything about baseball" or "How can you use observations as a basis when Bill James says so"... before the frustration boils over.

People who can't think for themselves and then argue something someone else thought of without dissecting it irritates the heck out of me. Should I just say "I guess we agree to disagree?" Probably. However, I have been here a long time and many of the other long-time posters can vouch that I have added a lot of content or information and heavily debated topics/prospects to this board. In no way does that give me extra benefits, although I may get a tad more leeway than newbie's at times.

Whatever, this got longer than I wanted to.

The basis of this discussion was that, IMO, if you believe it's a good idea to EVER bunt Maggs or Frank, you're simply wrong, and not because I think so, because the history of baseball says so, because common sense says so, because the specialization of the roles of today's players says so, because millionaire players say so, and because the great managers and coaches say so.

Because Ozzie, a man that was a fan favorite despite being a poor base-runner and situational hitter, says so, does not make it so, despite my belief that he was simply using hyperbole that has just been taken too far by all of us.

KingXerxes
02-11-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Because Ozzie, a man that was a fan favorite despite being a poor base-runner and situational hitter, says so, does not make it so

Truer words have never been posted.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 04:08 PM
I look at it this way...

If Ozzie asks Frank/Magglio/etc to move the runner, he should move the runner. If KW/JR have a problem with that strategy, they should fire their manager. But it is not Frank/Magglio/etc job to tell the manager no - or to not immediately follow their instructions. I don't know why this is becoming much an arguement. Manuel let the inmates run the asylum for his entire tenure - and we had one of the worst fundamental teams in the game. Now we all know Ozzie wasn't a fundamentally solid player when he was here, but if his plan is to bring more of that as a manager, then I am all for it. Maybe he did develop as a baseball guy and now recognizes some of the things that drove us nuts while he was here?

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Since I have probably added fuel to the fire here myself, and since this thread is already way beyond the point of no return...

SEAL : I happen to agree with you on this issue regarding strategy. However at times your messages, while perhaps not meant to insult, do come off as offensive. You can't expect to say that people here "know nothing about baseball" and not get called to the carpet on it. You do not seem to be the type of person who has malicious intentions, but your posts sometimes come off that way. I do not believe you were the worst offender in this thread, but I do seem to think that you may have instigated some of the nasty responses.

I have been posting on this board for not even a month, and acknowledge I am still learning proper etiquitte here. Some people have been posting here for years, and we are newcomers. I do not wish to speak towards your experience or knowledge of the game, nor that of anyone else for that matter. But although I may not always agree with other posters, I will say that there are a helluva lot of people here who know a lot more about baseball than me, and if I were to ever make a blanket statement that people who don't agree with me are wrong that would not be fair or correct. And I would expect people to defend themselves.

What bothers me more, however, are people who try to bully others, brow-beating them just to make their points. I am a well educated person and can come to my own conclusions, and name-calling and sarcastic comments do not impress me. In actuality they speak more of that person who makes those statements. Basically let people embarass themselves if they wish. But to insult people's intellilgence in this forum is inappropriate and uncalled for. Besides being childish, it shows immaturity and lack of self confidence. I could care less who agrees with me or not; but a well formed argument will go a lot further to proving a point than saying someone is stupid or knows nothing.

Again SEAL I don't think you tried to be offensive but it can be construed that way. But I totally disagree with how people ridiculed you. That to me was worse. But just try to be more cognizant of what you are submitting to avoid backlash and confrontation. I truly believe you are a nice guy and make some good points (at times :smile: ); just try to understand how sometimes you rub people the wrong way. But again I take less offense with you on this one than some others. I'll try harder, thanks for the concern.

In addition, I never came out and singled out that someone in particular doesn't know anything about baseball, but even by generally saying it, I can see where people get the wrong idea, and that is my fault. A lot of times things get spiralled here, one thing is said and whether it was meant to be sound a certain way or not, it gets taken that way. Another thing is said, and then another, and then 14 pages later you have this. I agree, if I can help avoid this, I will certainly try harder.

Dadawg_77
02-11-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I look at it this way...

If Ozzie asks Frank/Magglio/etc to move the runner, he should move the runner. If KW/JR have a problem with that strategy, they should fire their manager. But it is not Frank/Magglio/etc job to tell the manager no - or to not immediately follow their instructions. I don't know why this is becoming much an arguement. Manuel let the inmates run the asylum for his entire tenure - and we had one of the worst fundamental teams in the game. Now we all know Ozzie wasn't a fundamentally solid player when he was here, but if his plan is to bring more of that as a manager, then I am all for it. Maybe he did develop as a baseball guy and now recognizes some of the things that drove us nuts while he was here?

Honestly, I don't think Ozzie should tell Frank or Mags anything but "go get em." Let your big boys do their thing while at the plate, they are where they are because they know and understand hitting, probably at a higher level then the manager.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Honestly, I don't think Ozzie should tell Frank or Mags anything but "go get em." Let your big boys do their thing while at the plate, they are where they are because they know and understand hitting, probably at a higher level then the manager.



Then we should have just gone out and hired the cheapest manager we could find - if strategy and coaching aren't part of the job description?

:reinsy
"We did that, right?"

:KW
"Yes Boss, you didn't want to pay Cito - so we get a cheaper manager."

Dadawg_77
02-11-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by jabrch

Then we should have just gone out and hired the cheapest manager we could find - if strategy and coaching aren't part of the job description?


Strategy in baseball is greatly overrated esp at the manager league level. The main focuses of a manager should be to make sure position players are ready to play and how to use a bullpen. Other then those items, just put you people in the best position to succeed (with Frank and Mags, it is handing them a bat and pointing to the plate) and you will do fine.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Honestly, I don't think Ozzie should tell Frank or Mags anything but "go get em." Let your big boys do their thing while at the plate, they are where they are because they know and understand hitting, probably at a higher level then the manager.

Seriously, I want more out of my manager than just a circus clown.

:ozzie:
"But ju got me now"

:R&R
"We can manage"

:jerry
"So can I"

:hawk
"He GAWN"

poorme
02-11-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Strategy in baseball is greatly overrated esp at the manager league level. The main focuses of a manager should be to make sure position players are ready to play and how to use a bullpen. Other then those items, just put you people in the best position to succeed (with Frank and Mags, it is handing them a bat and pointing to the plate) and you will do fine.

I agree with that. Also make it look like you care, even if you have to pretend.

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Strategy in baseball is greatly overrated esp at the manager league level. The main focuses of a manager should be to make sure position players are ready to play and how to use a bullpen. Other then those items, just put you people in the best position to succeed (with Frank and Mags, it is handing them a bat and pointing to the plate) and you will do fine. If that were the case, managers wouldn't be needed, just pitching coaches. Strategy plays as much of a role as you want it to. You don't don't have to call hit and runs, bunts, and steals, but when our team didn't, it underacheived. We've tried the hand the bat to Frank and Maggs and see what you can do with Manuel. It didn't work. Let's try Guillen's way.

Dadawg_77
02-11-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
If that were the case, managers wouldn't be needed, just pitching coaches. Strategy plays as much of a role as you want it to. You don't don't have to call hit and runs, bunts, and steals, but when our team didn't, it underacheived. We've tried the hand the bat to Frank and Maggs and see what you can do with Manuel. It didn't work. Let's try Guillen's way.

It didn't fail because of what Frank and Mags did. It failed because Jerry had a habit of not taking the bat from people who couldn't use it.

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
It didn't fail because of what Frank and Mags did. It failed because Jerry had a habit of not taking the bat from people who couldn't use it. That's true, but no one was hitting the first half, and Thomas and Maggs as well had slumps. Guillen wants to get away with relying on those two to have big games in order for us to win. Last year, if Maggs and Thomas didnt smack a three run homerun, we didn't win. Guillen wants to manufacture runs when guys aren't going good, and when they are, it will be even better.

Randar68
02-11-2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
That's true, but no one was hitting the first half, and Thomas and Maggs as well had slumps. Guillen wants to get away with relying on those two to have big games in order for us to win. Last year, if Maggs and Thomas didnt smack a three run homerun, we didn't win. Guillen wants to manufacture runs when guys aren't going good, and when they are, it will be even better.

I reiterate:

You have to be able to get on base frequently enough to be able to "manufacture" a few runs a game by giving up innings and outs to do so if you want to win. It's fine in the late innings, but playing for 1 or 2 runs in the 3rd inning isn't going to win many games in the AL or with the back of the rotation and bullpen it is shaping out for us to have.

steff
02-11-2004, 05:33 PM
Randar.. my head hurts just from reading all the reiterating.. :D:

Randar68
02-11-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by steff
Randar.. my head hurts just from reading all the reiterating.. :D:

Mine too, I'm pretty spent...

Baby Fisk
02-11-2004, 05:58 PM
:reinsy

"So Kenny, how did that Ozzie e-mail work out?"

:KW

*weeping silently*

:reinsy

"Hey, Kenny? KW? You okay?"

:KW

*sniff* *snot wipe* "my god...my god...I think it's finally over..."

:ozzie:

"Hey Kenny Man! Ju wan me to write some more e-mails? Maybe I should write something about my Filosophy of Bunts?"

steff
02-11-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
:reinsy

"So Kenny, how did that Ozzie e-mail work out?"

:KW

*weeping silently*

:reinsy

"Hey, Kenny? KW? You okay?"

:KW

*sniff* *snot wipe* "my god...my god...I think it's finally over..."

:ozzie:

"Hey Kenny Man! Ju wan me to write some more e-mails? Maybe I should write something about my Filosophy of Bunts?"



OMFG.. I am literally LMAO here!!! BF, I hope you don't mind but I am copying this and passing it around the office!!

Baby Fisk
02-11-2004, 06:01 PM
Yep...women LTAO at me...story of my life... :cool:

CWSGuy406
02-11-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
That's true, but no one was hitting the first half, and Thomas and Maggs as well had slumps. Guillen wants to get away with relying on those two to have big games in order for us to win. Last year, if Maggs and Thomas didnt smack a three run homerun, we didn't win. Guillen wants to manufacture runs when guys aren't going good, and when they are, it will be even better.

I think Guillen is looking at those types of games, when we are slumping with the bats. Those are the games Guillen is going to try to get us to win, and if it takes a guy who usually doesn't bunt to lay one down to help us win, so be it. If we're hitting the cover off of the ball, I doubt Ozzie is going to give the bunt sign, especially to the likes of Big Hurt and Mags. However, in games where the bats go cold, he may do so. What I don't want to happen is the player refuses to do what Ozzie asks and we have bigger problems than just this. Let's try to stay happy this year in the clubhouse. :smile:

mantis1212
02-12-2004, 12:23 AM
HOLY $HNICKYS THIS THREAD STILL LIVES

SEALgep
02-12-2004, 12:25 AM
Lol, it was dying down until you just revived it. Nice going Lol.

JasonC23
02-13-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Not sure the confusion here. A base hit scores a run while a walk doesn't.

Sorry to revive this, but...

So? A sacrifice fly scores the run and doesn't count when computing average. My point is that OBP is always more important than average because I always want the man who is less likely to make an out at the plate.

poorme
02-13-2004, 01:14 PM
I'm not going to get into this. My philosophy is to score the tying run and then worry about the rest later. A walk doesn't score the tying run.

Actually what I'm looking for is a guy to make contact first and foremost.

Happy Felsch Fan
02-16-2004, 10:34 PM
I can't believe I just finished this whole thread.

Heaven help us all.

daveeym
02-18-2004, 01:15 PM
Just wanted to revive this for selfish reasons to try and get a triple tomato award. Bunting sucks and so does OBP at determining anything discuss. :D: