PDA

View Full Version : the idea of "corpseball"


jeremyb1
04-28-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by nodiggity59
Our team is bad. This is just like corpseball.

Ozzieball = General Disarray b/c our team hasn't changed.


Originally posted by bennyw41
Can you give a definition of corpseball please.

I have to say, in the past couple season I've seen more posts about "corpseball" that any other subject and I feel it is one of the most ridiculous concepts I've ever witnessed. While it may be comforting to blame all of this team's struggles on the notion of poor attitudes/intensity by the players, there's much more to baseball than that. Ability believe it or not does factor into the equation. We're not looking at a team projected to win 110 games that has severely underperformed. We're talking about a mediocre to above average club with a an average record. Maybe when we give up six runs in an inning it is not because our players are lethargic and lack focus and intensity, maybe it's because the pitcher has a career ERA over 5 as a starter. Stranger things have happened than below average pitchers giving up runs.

samram
04-28-2004, 02:54 PM
The problem is this core won 95 games in 2000 and has played in a weak division since then and never takes advantage of it. The reason for that, many believe, is the team lacks intensity and has been plagued by a bad attitude. I agree it's not a super team and if it played in the East or West I don't think anyone would be expecting a whole lot, but when the team plays 50 some games against three bad teams whom they are clearly better than, they should be winning more than 80-83 games a year and they should have won more than 86 last year with three of the best pitchers in the second half of the season.

HebrewHammer
04-28-2004, 03:05 PM
I think corpseball just a way of describing how this club looks at times, especially under Jerry Manuel. They look dead. They hit as if they have just woken up and field as if they have oven mitts on. It seems like Paul Konerko is constantly at bat with the bases empty and Danny Wright is the only pitcher on the staff, however if the game is tied and the team goes into corpse mode Billy Koch is the only pitcher we can turn to.
It's just depressing to watch this team sometimes. I've never seen a team have the ability to look absolutely terriffic and then come the sixth or seventh they've completely lost interest and their zombie doubles are in their place stumbling around the field looking for brains.

jeremyb1
04-28-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by samram
The problem is this core won 95 games in 2000 and has played in a weak division since then and never takes advantage of it. The reason for that, many believe, is the team lacks intensity and has been plagued by a bad attitude. I agree it's not a super team and if it played in the East or West I don't think anyone would be expecting a whole lot, but when the team plays 50 some games against three bad teams whom they are clearly better than, they should be winning more than 80-83 games a year and they should have won more than 86 last year with three of the best pitchers in the second half of the season.

I don't think it is just the overall success of the team though or we wouldn't have people accusing the team of playing "corpseball" with a winning record. It gets pinned on individual games all the time. We lost Colon, Gordon, and Everett so this club doesn't exactly have the same level of talent it did last season especially on the pitching staff. At a minimum Takatsu, Koch, Schoeneweis, Wright, and Adkins lack strong track records at least in recent memory. Sometimes clubs just don't have a lot of talent or luck or a good pitcher on the mound on a given day. Sometimes your best pitcher gets hammered, it's not always because of the mental aspect of the game.

jeremyb1
04-28-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by HebrewHammer
I think corpseball just a way of describing how this club looks at times, especially under Jerry Manuel. They look dead. They hit as if they have just woken up and field as if they have oven mitts on. It seems like Paul Konerko is constantly at bat with the bases empty and Danny Wright is the only pitcher on the staff, however if the game is tied and the team goes into corpse mode Billy Koch is the only pitcher we can turn to.
It's just depressing to watch this team sometimes. I've never seen a team have the ability to look absolutely terriffic and then come the sixth or seventh they've completely lost interest and their zombie doubles are in their place stumbling around the field looking for brains.

I think a lot of this is just the product of Sox fan's typical negativity and the frustrations the team has caused the last few years. Players make errors all the time, some more than others. It's a part of baseball. Some players just are not skilled fielders and sometimes all players make mistakes. The Yankees have a terrible fielding team, did they play corpseball all the way to the series last year? I think statements about the players visibly appearing to have lost interest or lack effort are more or less entirely imagined by fans frustrated with the outcome of the game.

HebrewHammer
04-28-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think a lot of this is just the product of Sox fan's typical negativity and the frustrations the team has caused the last few years. Players make errors all the time, some more than others. It's a part of baseball. Some players just are not skilled fielders and sometimes all players make mistakes. The Yankees have a terrible fielding team, did they play corpseball all the way to the series last year? I think statements about the players visibly appearing to have lost interest or lack effort are more or less entirely imagined by fans frustrated with the outcome of the game.

I don't really consider myself a typical negative sox fan, I just observe a difference the way the team plays in innings 5-8. Terrible fielding does not equal corpseball, unproductive outs and a general lack of heads up play equals corpseball and that's how the Sox have been playing lately, it's not just errors that get counted in the box score, its mental errors too. As many errors the Yankees make, they make very few mental errors and always hustle.
Perfect example today, Juan Uribe sitting on third with one out, any kind of flyball to the outfield or ground ball to the middle and he scores, Frank pops it up to Belliard, worthless out. Next batter, Carlos Lee, needs a basehit, any kind of line drive, instead pops it up to Belliard, inning over. Corpseball.

ScottyTheSoxFan
04-28-2004, 03:25 PM
the sox usually lead the league in playing corpseball. as posted above, it is just like they are dead out there. manuel was the corpseball coach, every bit as his players...

:corpseball

mdep524
04-28-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think a lot of this is just the product of Sox fan's typical negativity and the frustrations the team has caused the last few years. Players make errors all the time, some more than others. It's a part of baseball. Some players just are not skilled fielders and sometimes all players make mistakes. The Yankees have a terrible fielding team, did they play corpseball all the way to the series last year? I think statements about the players visibly appearing to have lost interest or lack effort are more or less entirely imagined by fans frustrated with the outcome of the game.

I think you are right about the imagined lack of visable players' interest, that is probably just a result of Sox fans' frustration. (although who could forget when the team was struggling in '01 but chose to watch 'Meet the Parents' in the clubhouse instead of taking extra BP?)

But I do think Corpseball is a very accurate way to descibe this team's approach at the plate. A lot of people, especially Hawk, have been saying "win or lose, this team is going to be fun to watch under Ozze." Well, watching Carlos Lee and Paul Konerko pop up every single at bat is not fun to watch. That whole "fun to watch" statement is misleading because these players just don't understand the nuances of baseball (plus that's loser talk- the important thing is to have a team that WINS). They just step up to the plate and swing for the fences. Nobody runs, outsie of fly balls (some of tem homers) nobody does ANYTHING, thus the "corpse."

A lot of people pinned it on Jerry Manuel, and to an extent that was true, but that is too simplistic. It doesn't matter who the manager is, as long as the same slow footed right handed glut is clogging up the middle of this line up, we are going to be watching Homerunball or, more often, Corpseball every night.

jeremyb1
04-28-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by HebrewHammer
I don't really consider myself a typical negative sox fan, I just observe a difference the way the team plays in innings 5-8. Terrible fielding does not equal corpseball, unproductive outs and a general lack of heads up play equals corpseball and that's how the Sox have been playing lately, it's not just errors that get counted in the box score, its mental errors too. As many errors the Yankees make, they make very few mental errors and always hustle.
Perfect example today, Juan Uribe sitting on third with one out, any kind of flyball to the outfield or ground ball to the middle and he scores, Frank pops it up to Belliard, worthless out. Next batter, Carlos Lee, needs a basehit, any kind of line drive, instead pops it up to Belliard, inning over. Corpseball.

Personally, I don't think that's a good example at all. That's an example of performance completely unrelated to a lack of effort. First of all everyone has this idea that a player should be able to hit a fly ball to score a run at will and that is not the case at all. Players strike out, they pop out, they ground out all the time when they are not trying to. Why should they be able to execute perfectly just because it is an RBI situation? If you look at any player in baseball with less than two outs and a runner on third, he will have a ton of instances where he didn't get a hit or a sac fly. If you can get a hit or a sac fly half the time in that situation you're doing pretty well. With Carlos batting next with two outs basically what you're saying is he played corpseball because he didn't get a hit. Well the best hitters in baseball get hits less than 4 out of ten times and there and even getting on base half the time is extremely rare.

As far as obvious mental lapses on the bases, these happen to every team in some capacity. We pick guys off sometimes, we escaped a run down today, the Indians have dropped pop ups in successive games, are they playing corpseball? I don't think so. I just then that mental errors are part of the game and that it is easier to blame a lack of intensity that a lack of talent when things don't go well.

jeremyb1
04-28-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by mdep524
I think you are right about the imagined lack of visable players' interest, that is probably just a result of Sox fans' frustration. (although who could forget when the team was struggling in '01 but chose to watch 'Meet the Parents' in the clubhouse instead of taking extra BP?)

But I do think Corpseball is a very accurate way to descibe this team's approach at the plate. A lot of people, especially Hawk, have been saying "win or lose, this team is going to be fun to watch under Ozze." Well, watching Carlos Lee and Paul Konerko pop up every single at bat is not fun to watch. That whole "fun to watch" statement is misleading because these players just don't understand the nuances of baseball (plus that's loser talk- the important thing is to have a team that WINS). They just step up to the plate and swing for the fences. Nobody runs, outsie of fly balls (some of tem homers) nobody does ANYTHING, thus the "corpse."

A lot of people pinned it on Jerry Manuel, and to an extent that was true, but that is too simplistic. It doesn't matter who the manager is, as long as the same slow footed right handed glut is clogging up the middle of this line up, we are going to be watching Homerunball or, more often, Corpseball every night.

Yeah, I'm not saying that it isn't possible for a club to lose based on too much effort but most seem to think that's the difference between this club winning 100 and 80 games and I think that is extreme.

As far as our team being exciting, I agree completely that they won't be to most baseball fans. The team is built mostly on power hitters (Maggs, Frank, Paully, Carlos, Crede) and not on a ton of speed or flashy defenders but I think that is an issue of what fans find entertaining in a team not what wins baseball games.

nodiggity59
04-28-2004, 04:26 PM
When you asked me this question before, here's what I said:

Originally posted by nodiggity59
Well, covers so many things but to me it's b/c our starting lineup is full of streak hitting, slow, and poor defense players. When we're not hot, the team is "dead" hence Corpseball.

The attitude, to me, is just the result of an inherent flaw in our roster that sometimes results in Corpseball.

voodoochile
04-28-2004, 04:43 PM
It has lost all meaning, IMO.

It used to be for days when the team was playing lethargically and everyone was swinging for the fences. You could see the difference in the way they played and was as much a function of JM's approach and the team tuning him out as anything else.

Now people throw it around anytime the team is losing or even when they are just giving up a few runs to cut the lead. I actually saw someone use it the other day when the Sox had 6 runs in the first 4 inings because they were only leading 6-4.

WhiteSox = Life
04-28-2004, 04:46 PM
I'd like to say it's a thing of the past, it's kaput, no más, it gawn, but...

Can something called corpseball ever truly die?

:cool:

surfdudes
04-28-2004, 04:56 PM
Lack of effort, lifelessness, plodding down the basepaths...
When they were down by 4 runs last year it seemed like they just packed it in and gave up.

This years team is anything but that. They may give me a heart attack, but I don't think corpseball applies

FarWestChicago
04-28-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It has lost all meaning, IMO.

It used to be for days when the team was playing lethargically and everyone was swinging for the fences. You could see the difference in the way they played and was as much a function of JM's approach and the team tuning him out as anything else.

Now people throw it around anytime the team is losing or even when they are just giving up a few runs to cut the lead. I actually saw someone use it the other day when the Sox had 6 runs in the first 4 inings because they were only leading 6-4. You are absolutely correct, voodoo. Corpseball did mean something a couple years ago. Now, with the advent of Lip's Legions (we have several who can find a dark lining to every silver cloud), all meaning is gone. I'm sure one of the Legion will be tossing out "corpseball!!" soon because a Sox HR didn't go up enough rows in the bleachers while the Sox are up 11-1.

A.T. Money
04-28-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
You are absolutely correct, voodoo. Corpseball did mean something a couple years ago. Now, with the advent of Lip's Legions (we have several who can find a dark lining to every silver cloud), all meaning is gone. I'm sure one of the Legion will be tossing out "corpseball!!" soon because a Sox HR didn't go up enough rows in the bleachers while the Sox are up 11-1.

11-1???

That 1 run they gave up.....CORPSEBALL! :D:

Lip Man 1
04-28-2004, 09:37 PM
Samran asks: "The problem is this core won 95 games in 2000"

and that club was 100% fluke just like the 2001 Chicago Bears.

For once I must agree with Jeremy. This club's average record the past six seasons is 83-79. Because we are Sox fans we tend to think average, mediocre players should be superstars. Unfortunately that is not the case.

The problem is that while fans can get away with that type of thinking, (that's what being a fan is), our ownership and upper management seem to think the same thing. That average players like Wright, Garland, Harris (to name some from this year) are going to have breakthrough seasons and career years and lead the Sox to the promised land.

That may happen in fairy tales but not in real life. The management of the organization should know better since baseball is their profession.

Lip

HebrewHammer
04-28-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Personally, I don't think that's a good example at all. That's an example of performance completely unrelated to a lack of effort. First of all everyone has this idea that a player should be able to hit a fly ball to score a run at will and that is not the case at all. Players strike out, they pop out, they ground out all the time when they are not trying to. Why should they be able to execute perfectly just because it is an RBI situation? If you look at any player in baseball with less than two outs and a runner on third, he will have a ton of instances where he didn't get a hit or a sac fly. If you can get a hit or a sac fly half the time in that situation you're doing pretty well. With Carlos batting next with two outs basically what you're saying is he played corpseball because he didn't get a hit. Well the best hitters in baseball get hits less than 4 out of ten times and there and even getting on base half the time is extremely rare.

As far as obvious mental lapses on the bases, these happen to every team in some capacity. We pick guys off sometimes, we escaped a run down today, the Indians have dropped pop ups in successive games, are they playing corpseball? I don't think so. I just then that mental errors are part of the game and that it is easier to blame a lack of intensity that a lack of talent when things don't go well.

It's just a nickname, and an accurate one, what would you rather we call it "Lack-of-talent-ball" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Personally I think the worthless infield pop up guarunteeing that no runs can be scored, in a situation in which a hitter needs to execute is a fairly accurate example of lethargic baseball. Your argument bores me and you sound exactly like any Cubs apologist that I can't stand, good day sir.

batmanZoSo
04-28-2004, 11:41 PM
This team has a lot of weak-minded and neurotic guys who go into extended unexplainable slumps for months at a time and. And they're all really laid back quiet guys. Not very intense. We could use a few more Ozzie's on the field.

SSN721
04-29-2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Personally, I don't think that's a good example at all. That's an example of performance completely unrelated to a lack of effort. First of all everyone has this idea that a player should be able to hit a fly ball to score a run at will and that is not the case at all. Players strike out, they pop out, they ground out all the time when they are not trying to. Why should they be able to execute perfectly just because it is an RBI situation? If you look at any player in baseball with less than two outs and a runner on third, he will have a ton of instances where he didn't get a hit or a sac fly. If you can get a hit or a sac fly half the time in that situation you're doing pretty well. With Carlos batting next with two outs basically what you're saying is he played corpseball because he didn't get a hit. Well the best hitters in baseball get hits less than 4 out of ten times and there and even getting on base half the time is extremely rare.

As far as obvious mental lapses on the bases, these happen to every team in some capacity. We pick guys off sometimes, we escaped a run down today, the Indians have dropped pop ups in successive games, are they playing corpseball? I don't think so. I just then that mental errors are part of the game and that it is easier to blame a lack of intensity that a lack of talent when things don't go well.

You make a point that these players only get a hit 2-4 times out of ten, this is true, getting on base half the time is very rare, also true. But I think the example of popups is a good one, they do happen, yes, but I think part of it is lack of concentration. When you have 2 batters ina row pop up in a RBI situation I do beleive that is a good example of "corpseball" They dont have to get a hit, is it that difficult to ask a professional hitter to at the very least put contact on the ball to get someone in from third? I dont think so, no they may not get a hit, but for two batters in a row to hit infield pop ups with a runner on third is poor play. I see it again and again, it seems like lots of times when we are in RBI situation these hitters have to use all their power to not swing at first pitches and not pop upwithin the first 2 or 3 pitches. I just think that it is poor execution. It hasnt happened much this year but last year it happened over and over and over again. It was at the point where you could set an over under at 2 pitches for each at bat in an RBI situation. It has gotten much better this year but I still think the general plate discipline of this team is relatively poor. At least most games they have made up for lethargic play in the middle innings with motivated play in the late innings.

samram
04-29-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Samran asks: "The problem is this core won 95 games in 2000"

and that club was 100% fluke just like the 2001 Chicago Bears.

For once I must agree with Jeremy. This club's average record the past six seasons is 83-79. Because we are Sox fans we tend to think average, mediocre players should be superstars. Unfortunately that is not the case.

The problem is that while fans can get away with that type of thinking, (that's what being a fan is), our ownership and upper management seem to think the same thing. That average players like Wright, Garland, Harris (to name some from this year) are going to have breakthrough seasons and career years and lead the Sox to the promised land.

That may happen in fairy tales but not in real life. The management of the organization should know better since baseball is their profession.

Lip

Later in my post, I said that if the team were in the East or West, we wouldn't expect as much because those teams are better than the Sox. However, the frustration has built because the team plays poorly against teams, mostly in the division, that they are certainly better than, and they have often looked lethargic doing so. I don't think Dan Wright is a Cy Young winner in waiting or that Willie Harris is Juan Pierre or Ichiro at the top of the line-up. I think people would be more accepting of the results on the field from the last few years if they knew the team played with desparation and intensity everyday.

FarWestChicago
04-29-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
You make a point that these players only get a hit 2-4 times out of ten, this is true, getting on base half the time is very rare, also true. But I think the example of popups is a good one, they do happen, yes, but I think part of it is lack of concentration. When you have 2 batters ina row pop up in a RBI situation I do beleive that is a good example of "corpseball" They dont have to get a hit, is it that difficult to ask a professional hitter to at the very least put contact on the ball to get someone in from third? I dont think so, no they may not get a hit, but for two batters in a row to hit infield pop ups with a runner on third is poor play.And if a Sox pitcher induces two pop ups with an enemy runner on third it's good pitching. I'm sure you don't accuse the other team of "corpseball"... :?:

Win1ForMe
04-29-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I have to say, in the past couple season I've seen more posts about "corpseball" that any other subject and I feel it is one of the most ridiculous concepts I've ever witnessed. While it may be comforting to blame all of this team's struggles on the notion of poor attitudes/intensity by the players, there's much more to baseball than that. Ability believe it or not does factor into the equation. We're not looking at a team projected to win 110 games that has severely underperformed. We're talking about a mediocre to above average club with a an average record. Maybe when we give up six runs in an inning it is not because our players are lethargic and lack focus and intensity, maybe it's because the pitcher has a career ERA over 5 as a starter. Stranger things have happened than below average pitchers giving up runs.

The way I see it, corpseball is indicative of our team's mentality and not necessarily the results. That is, ground outs and pop outs, as you alluded to, aren't a sign of corpseball. However, swinging for the fences while down 5 runs and with 5 innings to go...that's corpseball. And that's just not understanding the situation. For example, Carlos Lee, on a 3-1 count and down by 3 runs on Sunday, swings for the fences and pops out. You can use numbers to point out the likelihood of the pop-out but just because something is likely to happen does not necessarily mean that it SHOULD happen, especially in that situation. That's like saying "numbers point to Carlos playing like an idiot, but because it's likely for him to play like an idiot, it's OK." Is that make sense?

As far as mental lapses and mental errors, it's the same thing. Yes, they happen but is that make it OK? Say a player makes 5 base running errors in a season, and if you went through his career, he makes an average of 5 errors per season. Should we accept this because of his previous history? I would hope not.

SSN721
04-29-2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
And if a Sox pitcher induces two pop ups with an enemy runner on third it's good pitching. I'm sure you don't accuse the other team of "corpseball"... :?:

I would if they come up to bat unwilling to do anything but swing for the fences and are obviously reaching to touch any ball that comes within a few feet of the strike zone and pop up within the first couple pitches. I think that is more poor execution then it is good pitching.

wdelaney72
04-29-2004, 09:32 AM
Their winning.

Let's all take some enjoyment in that.

FarWestChicago
04-29-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I would if they come up to bat unwilling to do anything but swing for the fences and are obviously reaching to touch any ball that comes within a few feet of the strike zone and pop up within the first couple pitches. I think that is more poor execution then it is good pitching. Do you have any links/examples of where you have claimed the opposition was playing "corpseball"? Or are you speaking hypothetically? :smile:

SSN721
04-29-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Do you have any links/examples of where you have claimed the opposition was playing "corpseball"? Or are you speaking hypothetically? :smile:

No I dont, I dont really use the phrase that often myself, I just felt that my explanation would just be an example of it. Thats all. :smile: