PDA

View Full Version : We must learn to manufacture runs against good pitching!!!


ChiSoxTony
06-21-2004, 11:07 PM
This team needs to learn how to manufacture runs against good pitching. Tonight, everyone was trying to play longball against Sabathia instead of making contact and getting singles. How many times were our hitters caught off guard with changeups and breaking balls? Pop ups all over the place means we were swinging for the fences. We will always face good pitching. Therefore we must learn to become a complete hitting team not just one that swings for the fences.

DSpivack
06-21-2004, 11:16 PM
This team needs to learn how to manufacture runs against good pitching. Tonight, everyone was trying to play longball against Sabathia instead of making contact and getting singles. How many times were our hitters caught off guard with changeups and breaking balls? Pop ups all over the place means we were swinging for the fences. We will always face good pitching. Therefore we must learn to become a complete hitting team not just one that swings for the fences.
Especially in the first three innings; left five on base.

Iguana775
06-21-2004, 11:28 PM
This team needs to learn how to manufacture runs against good pitching. Tonight, everyone was trying to play longball against Sabathia instead of making contact and getting singles. How many times were our hitters caught off guard with changeups and breaking balls? Pop ups all over the place means we were swinging for the fences. We will always face good pitching. Therefore we must learn to become a complete hitting team not just one that swings for the fences.
This team seems to be build on power. IMO, there's not enough speed to manufacture runs. Harris wasnt in the lineup and he's the fast guy on the team...but he still hasnt got it with swiping bases. Valentin and Uribe are good but Frank, Pauli, Crede and Sandy arent going to scare ANYONE on the bases. If that rumor was correct with Crawford, i would love to see him on the bases for the Sox.

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2004, 11:30 PM
I agree with the title of this thread.

Nard
06-21-2004, 11:36 PM
Manufacture runs? So we're supposed to be bunting around when we're down 4-0?

We got owned by a pitcher who's owned us in the past, and who got the gift of a jumbo K-zone for throwing a fit against an incompetant ****bag umpire.

It wouldn't have made any difference.

ChiSoxTony
06-21-2004, 11:44 PM
We were not down 4-0. We were down 3-0, and I'm not saying to bunt, but try and hit singles, and work the count. Sabathia was throwing curve, curve than fastball. When we got the fast ball we popped up instead of making good contact to get a single, or try and hit something in the gaps. I'm tired of the excuse that we faced great pitching, or we were owned by a pitcher. I've got news for everyone. We are going to have to score runs against great pitching to win the world series !!!

jeremyb1
06-22-2004, 12:06 AM
Manufacture runs? So we're supposed to be bunting around when we're down 4-0?

We got owned by a pitcher who's owned us in the past, and who got the gift of a jumbo K-zone for throwing a fit against an incompetant ****bag umpire.

It wouldn't have made any difference.

Agreed. I've got news for you guys, you don't "manufacture" five runs.

CubKilla
06-22-2004, 12:11 AM
We are going to have to score runs against great pitching to win the world series !!!
Are you serious or are you joking because this White Sox team, as it is now, isn't going to playing in the World Series.

Frater Perdurabo
06-22-2004, 09:53 AM
Agreed. I've got news for you guys, you don't "manufacture" five runs.

It's easier to manufacture five runs than it is to hit a five-run homer with the bases empty.

wdelaney72
06-22-2004, 12:31 PM
Manufacture runs? So we're supposed to be bunting around when we're down 4-0?

We got owned by a pitcher who's owned us in the past, and who got the gift of a jumbo K-zone for throwing a fit against an incompetant ****bag umpire.

It wouldn't have made any difference.
Well, swinging for the fences at every at bat isn't working.

jeremyb1
06-22-2004, 03:38 PM
It's easier to manufacture five runs than it is to hit a five-run homer with the bases empty.

That's one of the most illogical statements I've ever heard. If you have one runner on first base with no outs and you bunt him over to second and hit a sac fly with him on third to score him you've scored one run and have two outs meaning you're still down 3 runs and you're running out of outs in the game. If you swing away with a runner on and no outs maybe you hit a two run homer then a double then a single and so on. There's no sense in giving up outs to score one or two runs down four.

Frater Perdurabo
06-22-2004, 03:51 PM
That's one of the most illogical statements I've ever heard. If you have one runner on first base with no outs and you bunt him over to second and hit a sac fly with him on third to score him you've scored one run and have two outs meaning you're still down 3 runs and you're running out of outs in the game. If you swing away with a runner on and no outs maybe you hit a two run homer then a double then a single and so on. There's no sense in giving up outs to score one or two runs down four.

A good team can manufacture runs from the first inning on throughout the game. "Manufacturing runs" is not limited to bunting and sac flys. It's stealing bases, hitting timely singles and a few doubles to keep innings alive. It's hitting to the right side of the infield to allow the runner on first to move to third or score from second base. It's using the threat of a steal to distract the pitcher. It's being selective at the plate with the intent to make the pitcher throw more pitches and tire out earlier in the game, especially when the umpire is calling a small strike zone. It's scoring one or two runs in at least half of the innings. It's chipping away at an early deficit, or better yet it's building a lead early in the game. It's another way to score six or seven runs in a game, which is most cases is enough to win.

It's not trying to hit a home run every time up, hoping to make up a four or five run deficit with one swing.

The Sox have to stop living and dying with the long ball. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Sox did not win the division in 2001, 02 and 03 with the long-ball formula. It's time to think outside the box.

Paulwny
06-22-2004, 04:06 PM
[QUOTE=Frater Perdurabo]A good team can manufacture runs from the first inning on throughout the game. "Manufacturing runs" is not limited to bunting and sac flys. It's stealing bases, hitting timely singles and a few doubles to keep innings alive. It's hitting to the right side of the infield to allow the runner on first to move to third or score from second base. It's using the threat of a steal to distract the pitcher. It's being selective at the plate with the intent to make the pitcher throw more pitches and tire out earlier in the game, especially when the umpire is calling a small strike zone. It's scoring one or two runs in at least half of the innings. It's chipping away at an early deficit, or better yet it's building a lead early in the game. It's another way to score six or seven runs in a game, which is most cases is enough to win.
QUOTE]

Yep, this was once the typical yankmee 1st inning. Henderson on with a single or walk, steals 2nd, the next batter hits a grounder to the right side, Mattingly hits a sac fly or a ground out and the yankmees take an early lead. A very easy run to score early in the game.

Frater Perdurabo
06-22-2004, 04:15 PM
Yep, this was once the typical yankmee 1st inning. Henderson on with a single or walk, steals 2nd, the next batter hits a grounder to the right side, Mattingly hits a sac fly or a ground out and the yankmees take an early lead. A very easy run to score early in the game.

And it very well could mean more than just one run in the first inning. Easily could be two or three with a double or a couple of singles.

Dadawg_77
06-22-2004, 04:17 PM
A good team can manufacture runs from the first inning on throughout the game. "Manufacturing runs" is not limited to bunting and sac flys. It's stealing bases, hitting timely singles and a few doubles to keep innings alive. It's hitting to the right side of the infield to allow the runner on first to move to third or score from second base. It's using the threat of a steal to distract the pitcher. It's being selective at the plate with the intent to make the pitcher throw more pitches and tire out earlier in the game, especially when the umpire is calling a small strike zone. It's scoring one or two runs in at least half of the innings. It's chipping away at an early deficit, or better yet it's building a lead early in the game. It's another way to score six or seven runs in a game, which is most cases is enough to win.

It's not trying to hit a home run every time up, hoping to make up a four or five run deficit with one swing.

The Sox have to stop living and dying with the long ball. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Sox did not win the division in 2001, 02 and 03 with the long-ball formula. It's time to think outside the box.
So lets get rid of losing baseball by not bunting, and get guys on base and guys getting hits. I think we all agree on that. Smallball has cost this team more victories then it has help attain.

Frater Perdurabo
06-22-2004, 04:59 PM
So lets get rid of losing baseball by not bunting, and get guys on base and guys getting hits. I think we all agree on that. Smallball has cost this team more victories then it has help attain.

But sometimes a bunt, especially if the opposing team is at "double-play depth," can be a nice way to get a hit and keep and inning alive.

I'm not saying that the Sox have to be the latest incarnation of the 1985 Cardinals under Whitey Herzog, but they ought to at least keep the bunt as part of the arsenal of ways to move a runner over and score.

I'm not advocating going exclusively to "small ball." But I want them to be able to win using small ball when necessary. What I'm calling for is a multidimensional offensive attack, not a steadfast reliance on the three-run homer.

Dadawg_77
06-22-2004, 05:04 PM
But sometimes a bunt, especially if the opposing team is at "double-play depth," can be a nice way to get a hit and keep and inning alive.

I'm not saying that the Sox have to be the latest incarnation of the 1985 Cardinals under Whitey Herzog, but they ought to at least keep the bunt as part of the arsenal of ways to move a runner over and score.

I'm not advocating going exclusively to "small ball." But I want them to be able to win using small ball when necessary. What I'm calling for is a multidimensional offensive attack, not a steadfast reliance on the three-run homer.
I am against bunting for hits but bunting for outs is bad.