PDA

View Full Version : In It Or Out / Tribune


Lip Man 1
08-11-2004, 02:08 AM
From Dave Van Dyke's story in the Tribune. Food for thought for the rest of this season and more importantly the massive changes that are on tap for next year. Ozzie apparently is going to get what he wants after all. It will be an interesting off season.

"Doing the math

Numbers normally have a way of telling a story, so let's look at the miraculous mathematics—at the start of the series against the Royals—that would enable the Sox to make the playoffs.

To win the division, let's say that the Twins fall on hard times and finish their final 51 games with a 25-26 record. The White Sox would have to finish 32-21 in their final 53 games (which includes six games against Minnesota) just to tie—and they have never been 11 games over .500 this season, even with Thomas and/or Ordonez.

To win the wild card, the same numbers are true. If Anaheim played at a .500 pace, the Sox would still need that 32-21 record in their final 53 games (which include three each against Boston, Oakland and Anaheim and four against Texas) for a tie. And that would assume that Boston, Texas, and Cleveland also meander into mediocrity.

In essence, it would be mathematically easier for the Sox to win the division than the wild card. In truth, neither is going to happen.

Wait 'til next year

In reality, this is not news to Guillen or Williams, who realize they are stuck with what they have and what they have is not enough. They already are mapping out plans to finish converting this team from an American League to a National League lineup.

Guillen keeps talking about how "solid our pitching staff is" and that's what next year's team will be built around—the starting arms of Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras and Jon Garland.

That is the National League way. On a tight budget, it will be easier to assemble a "little ball" lineup than it will one consisting of big thumpers from top to bottom."

Are you listening Gimm??????????

Lip

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 02:15 AM
Well, I'm still optimistic about this year. But I definitely want a national league type team, but that's just me.

Aidan
08-11-2004, 02:17 AM
If we can get within 3 games back, the 6 games against the Twins will be huge. However, if the Sox play like they did the past two weeks (minus tonight's game) the season is most definately over. The funny thing is that you are listening to the Cubbune's opinion of whether the White Sox are still in contention. :rolleyes:

I am excited that KW and Ozzie will look to sign another ace-type pitcher this off-season though. This #5 starter crap is still killing us. It's time to end it.

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 02:20 AM
If we can get within 3 games back, the 6 games against the Twins will be huge. However, if the Sox play like they did the past two weeks (minus tonight's game) the season is most definately over.

I am excited that KW and Ozzie will look to sign another ace-type pitcher this off-season though. This #5 starter crap is still killing us. It's time to end it.Aidan, where does it say they're going to try and sign another ace pitcher?

Aidan
08-11-2004, 02:25 AM
Aidan, where does it say they're going to try and sign another ace pitcher?It doesn't say that but isn't it assumed? If the Sox go with a small-ball squad for next season, they would have the money for another "ace" quality pitcher. And if you haven't noticed, we still need a 5th starter. The Marlins win with the small-ball method but they have a solid rotation 1 through 5. Small-ball doesn't work without a solid 1 through 5 rotation. We have Garcia, Buehrle, Contreras, and Garland but Garland is probably a good #5. We still need another ace to complete the solid rotation so the small-ball method can work for us.

SomebodyToldMe
08-11-2004, 02:31 AM
as much as i can't stand the national league, i guess i wouldn't mind seeing this team be converted into one. at least our pitchers don't have to bat.

whatever it takes to win, i'm all for it.

Aidan
08-11-2004, 02:46 AM
as much as i can't stand the national league, i guess i wouldn't mind seeing this team be converted into one. at least our pitchers don't have to bat.

whatever it takes to win, i'm all for it.Yep, small-ball with Frank Thomas as your extra hitter sounds pretty good to me.

JB98
08-11-2004, 02:46 AM
as much as i can't stand the national league, i guess i wouldn't mind seeing this team be converted into one. at least our pitchers don't have to bat.

whatever it takes to win, i'm all for it.
I'd hate to see us start playing National League ball. That style is obsolete. If you play for one run, you get one run. And in today's offensive-minded game, that doesn't cut it. The 2001 Diamondbacks are the only recent World Series champion that played small ball, and they got away with it because they had two dominant starting pitchers. Even Florida last year, they had the jackrabbits at the top of the order, but they had some guys who could flat out mash in I-Rod, Cabrera, Lowell, Conine and D. Lee. I don't know why Ozzie would be against having right-handed thumpers everywhere. That formula worked right before his very eyes last year. The key is you just have to have two tablesetters to get on base for them. That's the area where our offense has failed this year. Earlier this year, we were scoring at will when Harris and Uribe were getting on. Then, they slumped and it all went to hell.

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 02:48 AM
I'd hate to see us start playing National League ball. That style is obsolete. If you play for one run, you get one run. And in today's offensive-minded game, that doesn't cut it. The 2001 Diamondbacks are the only recent World Series champion that played small ball, and they got away with it because they had two dominant starting pitchers. Even Florida last year, they had the jackrabbits at the top of the order, but they had some guys who could flat out mash in I-Rod, Cabrera, Lowell, Conine and D. Lee. I don't know why Ozzie would be against having right-handed thumpers everywhere. That formula worked right before his very eyes last year. The key is you just have to have two tablesetters to get on base for them. That's the area where our offense has failed this year. Earlier this year, we were scoring at will when Harris and Uribe were getting on. Then, they slumped and it all went to hell.Ever heard of Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo? They played small ball and those hitters in the middle of the order aren't exactly all thumpers, they're all good contact hitters as well.

Aidan
08-11-2004, 02:49 AM
Well, small-ball or not, we need another starting pitcher. This #5 starter crap has killed us for the past three seasons. A 5th starter amounts to 20% of a season's games. We can't continue to lose those games and expect to win the division. This is why the Sox are currently contemplating a four-man rotation.
Ever heard of Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo? They played small ball and those hitters in the middle of the order aren't exactly all thumpers, they're all good contact hitters as well.You're right. I don't consider I-Rod and Conine to be "power-hitters". They are more "contact-hitters" to me. Miguel Cabrera, Mike Lowell, and Derek Lee are "power-hitters" though. The thing is, every guy on the Marlins last season could hit.

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 02:51 AM
A 5th starter amounts to 20% of a season's games. That's not necessarily true but your right we definitely need another starter, I think that starter could be cotts but the sox organization seems to want to keep him in the pen for next year, so we'll see how that works out.

pinwheels3530
08-11-2004, 02:52 AM
I'd hate to see us start playing National League ball. That style is obsolete. If you play for one run, you get one run. And in today's offensive-minded game, that doesn't cut it. The 2001 Diamondbacks are the only recent World Series champion that played small ball, and they got away with it because they had two dominant starting pitchers. Even Florida last year, they had the jackrabbits at the top of the order, but they had some guys who could flat out mash in I-Rod, Cabrera, Lowell, Conine and D. Lee. I don't know why Ozzie would be against having right-handed thumpers everywhere. That formula worked right before his very eyes last year. The key is you just have to have two tablesetters to get on base for them. That's the area where our offense has failed this year. Earlier this year, we were scoring at will when Harris and Uribe were getting on. Then, they slumped and it all went to hell.

He's right!!

Aidan
08-11-2004, 02:55 AM
That's not true but your right we definitely need another starter, I think that starter could be cotts but the sox organization seems to want to keep him in the pen for next year, so we'll see how that works out.Yeah, I guess it isn't 20%, maybe more like 10% - 15% since off days mean you can skip the 5th starter. Still, a team can't afford to just throw away 10% - 15% of its games in the course of a season.

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 02:58 AM
Yeah, I guess it isn't 20%, maybe more like 10% - 15% since off days mean you can skip the 5th starter. Still, a team can't afford to just throw away 10% - 15% of its games in the course of a season.Agreed.

JB98
08-11-2004, 03:15 AM
Ever heard of Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo? They played small ball and those hitters in the middle of the order aren't exactly all thumpers, they're all good contact hitters as well.
Yes, I have heard of Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo. Go back and read my original post. I made a direct reference to the "jackrabbits at the top of the order." If you look at the numbers from last year, I think you'll find that I-Rod, Lowell, D. Lee and especially Cabrera struck out quite a bit. That was OK, though, because they were big-time RBI men. The Marlins did not win the championship by laying down a bunch of bunts and winning 3-2. Sure, they won some pitchers' duels with Beckett, but by and large, THEY OUTSLUGGED THE CUBS IN THE NLCS. Remember Game 1, Game 6 and Game 7? The Marlins won those games with HRs and big innings, not stolen bases and bunts.

I agree that we need some tablesetters, some guys who can bunt and steal a base, to bat first and second in our lineup. But you guys are all talking about purging ALL of our power hitters and replacing them with Frank Catalanotto. Quite frankly, that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life. We need to add more pitching, and we need to find some speed guys to balance out our lineup. However, I couldn't be more opposed to any plan that involves getting rid of Thomas, Konerko or Lee. A lineup needs balance, both speed and power. We have the power in place. We just need to add some speed, preferably in the form of a new SS, 3B or CF. (Rowand can play RF next year).

Aidan
08-11-2004, 03:31 AM
...A lineup needs balance, both speed and power. We have the power in place. We just need to add some speed, preferably in the form of a new SS, 3B or CF. (Rowand can play RF next year).I don't think SS or 3B are a problem. We have Uribe who can play both those positions and he has some power and speed; he just needs to work on the contact. Crede has no speed and needs to start hitting consistently; he would be good trade bait if the organization decides to give up on him (which I don't think they will). We also have the option of resigning Valentin. He has a ton of power and decent speed but he strikes out way too much and has a horrible OBP. We really need a speedy CF like Beltran that can steal bases and hit for power but there aren't many guys out there that can do that. You're right, Rowand could always play RF if we got ourselves a good CF.

JohnBasedowYoda
08-11-2004, 07:27 AM
I'd hate to see us start playing National League ball. That style is obsolete. If you play for one run, you get one run. And in today's offensive-minded game, that doesn't cut it. The 2001 Diamondbacks are the only recent World Series champion that played small ball, and they got away with it because they had two dominant starting pitchers. Even Florida last year, they had the jackrabbits at the top of the order, but they had some guys who could flat out mash in I-Rod, Cabrera, Lowell, Conine and D. Lee. I don't know why Ozzie would be against having right-handed thumpers everywhere. That formula worked right before his very eyes last year. The key is you just have to have two tablesetters to get on base for them. That's the area where our offense has failed this year. Earlier this year, we were scoring at will when Harris and Uribe were getting on. Then, they slumped and it all went to hell.
as opposed to playing for 15 runs and getting 3?

SOXSINCE'70
08-11-2004, 08:14 AM
Yep, small-ball with Frank Thomas as your extra hitter sounds pretty good to me.If it sounds so damn good,why are the Sox allegedly building a
"home run deck" to be opened in 2005??:dunno: :dunno:
A "small ball" team doesn't build a "home run deck",IMHO.

gosox41
08-11-2004, 09:07 AM
If it sounds so damn good,why are the Sox allegedly building a
"home run deck" to be opened in 2005??:dunno: :dunno:
A "small ball" team doesn't build a "home run deck",IMHO.
THe problem with this team isn't the home run hitters (other then the fact tahat 2 are injured). The problem is KW didn't surround his boppers with enough guys who can get on base quickly.

Next year I'd like to see PK traded . But I would think you'd need at least 2 power hitters to go next to Frank. Lee can be one of them. When I mean a power hitter I also want a guy who can get on base decently (at least a .320 OBP if not higher, no more Valentin) But I do think another bopper is necessary.

If you look around the line up the problem is guys aren't getting on base enough. These small ball players are more utility types. Outside of Harris who has a .350 + OBP, guys like Gload, Perez, Crede, Valentin, S. Alomar, and even Everett don't get on base enough.

Rowand has played well, but I think he's hitting over his head. Even so, if he falls back to .280-.290 with HR's and SB's I could see him in CF.

It would be nice, if any small ball player can consistently lay down a bunt to.

But the most important thing is to have a mixture of power and players who can play small ball--getting on base and laying down bunts. Not one or the other quality, but both in the same player. That's what the 2004 Sox are lacking.



Bob

samram
08-11-2004, 09:31 AM
THe problem with this team isn't the home run hitters (other then the fact tahat 2 are injured). The problem is KW didn't surround his boppers with enough guys who can get on base quickly.

Next year I'd like to see PK traded . But I would think you'd need at least 2 power hitters to go next to Frank. Lee can be one of them. When I mean a power hitter I also want a guy who can get on base decently (at least a .320 OBP if not higher, no more Valentin) But I do think another bopper is necessary.

If you look around the line up the problem is guys aren't getting on base enough. These small ball players are more utility types. Outside of Harris who has a .350 + OBP, guys like Gload, Perez, Crede, Valentin, S. Alomar, and even Everett don't get on base enough.

Rowand has played well, but I think he's hitting over his head. Even so, if he falls back to .280-.290 with HR's and SB's I could see him in CF.

It would be nice, if any small ball player can consistently lay down a bunt to.

But the most important thing is to have a mixture of power and players who can play small ball--getting on base and laying down bunts. Not one or the other quality, but both in the same player. That's what the 2004 Sox are lacking.



Bob
I agree about two power guys surrounding Frank, but one should be left-handed, IMO. I also wonder if Boston could be talked into trading Johnny Damon, who doesn't steal as many bases as he used to, but has an OBP of .375 and has lead off for one of the best offenses for the last couple of years.

idseer
08-11-2004, 10:56 AM
it's all well and good that ozzie wants grinders and a so-called 'national league style team (btw ... i hate this referrence. i guess the sox were a national league style team in '59 huh?) but my concern is fast becoming ... what will he do with it? i've seen him make some pretty stupid moves with what he has. is he suddenly going to make all the right moves with these grinders? is he going to know when to pull his pitchers or when to pinch hit etc?

no matter what kind of team he ends up with i'm more concerned about his being able to learn from his mistakes. i just haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

vegyrex
08-11-2004, 11:49 AM
The Sox should study the 1990 Sox. That team did the little things teams need to do. They finished second but had 94 victories which would be good enough most years and with the wild card should be more than enough to get to the play-offs.

Hangar18
08-11-2004, 01:05 PM
THEY OUTSLUGGED THE CUBS IN THE NLCS. Remember Game 1, Game 6 and Game 7? The Marlins won those games with HRs and big innings, not stolen bases and bunts.

I agree that we need some tablesetters, some guys who can bunt and steal a base, to bat first and second in our lineup. But you guys are all talking about purging ALL of our power hitters and replacing them with Frank Catalanotto. Quite frankly, that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life. We need to add more pitching, and we need to find some speed guys to balance out our lineup. However, I couldn't be more opposed to any plan that involves getting rid of Thomas, Konerko or Lee. A lineup needs balance, both speed and power. We have the power in place. We just need to add some speed, preferably in the form of a new SS, 3B or CF. (Rowand can play RF next year).
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY! This is the exact kind of small-minded, Re-active, Rationalistic thinking that has kept the SOX from being in the WOrld Series since 1959. This is the team that throws a big contract out to a Pitcher name Jaime Navarro (instead of Roger Clemens) and when it blows up in their face, they Decide Never Again to sign pitchers to long term deals.
Thats just Stupid. The problem with this team is that they dont have ENOUGH table-setting, multi-dimensional players here. A power guy like Jose Valentin is great, but the team suddenly wants Defense only, and goes for a guy like Royce Clayton. Conventional Thinking would say Why Not get a guy who can DO BOTH! like a Nomar Garciaparra for instance.

GOOD TEAMS are teams that can Adapt. Teams that can SLUG with the big-boppers, or when theyre in a tight game 1-1, can BUNT and MFR a RUN at the drop of a hat. Thats the team to build. This team is so stupid sometimes

duke of dorwood
08-11-2004, 01:11 PM
We play HALF our schedule in a home run haven. To completely play NL Ball the way they interpret it, would be suicide.


:reinsy

But CHEAP Suicide

JB98
08-11-2004, 01:11 PM
as opposed to playing for 15 runs and getting 3?
We scored nine last night by playing long ball. The reason is Harris and Rowand were on base when Lee homered, and Harris was on again when Konerko homered. I didn't hear anyone complaining about swinging for the fences last night. Reason: Men were on base when we homered. The same was true the other night when we tried to make the comeback vs. the Tribe.

Look guys, there's nothing wrong with having a home run hitting team. People have won championships by playing long ball before. If you have good pitching, you can play any style of offense you want. I just think people on this board are very misguided in their quest to get rid of Paulie and CLee. They have been providing this team with extra-base power all year. THAT'S THEIR JOB, and they do it very well. This team has not failed because of the middle of the lineup. It has failed because the guys who were hitting 1-2 in the lineup (Harris, Uribe, Valentin) all slumped at once. The result was a lot of solo home runs from the middle of the lineup. I just don't see why we should blame the power hitters for that.

MisterB
08-11-2004, 01:13 PM
Yes, I have heard of Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo. Go back and read my original post. I made a direct reference to the "jackrabbits at the top of the order." If you look at the numbers from last year, I think you'll find that I-Rod, Lowell, D. Lee and especially Cabrera struck out quite a bit. That was OK, though, because they were big-time RBI men. The Marlins did not win the championship by laying down a bunch of bunts and winning 3-2. Sure, they won some pitchers' duels with Beckett, but by and large, THEY OUTSLUGGED THE CUBS IN THE NLCS. Remember Game 1, Game 6 and Game 7? The Marlins won those games with HRs and big innings, not stolen bases and bunts.
Check the regular season stats on the Marlins. They were in the bottom half of the NL in HRs and strikeouts but were tops in SB's and 2nd in sacrifice bunts. Their power outburst in the playoffs was just opposite their regular season.

Brian26
08-11-2004, 01:17 PM
Let's look at this a bit further, because this article made me boiling mad when I read it on the train this morning.

I agree with the author that the Sox have a better chance to win their division than the wild card. That's a no-brainer. That's were I stop agreeing though.

Being 5 games out on August 11 is NOT a bad situation at all.

He states that the Sox have to go 32-21 if the Twins go 25-26. Those appear to be tough odds if the two teams weren't scheduled to play each other anymore. However, with 6 contests left, those numbers can be manipulated a bit, because for every White Sox victory against the Twins, the records proportionally decrease. Let's say the Sox win both series against the Twins, taking 4 out of 6. The Sox would then have to go 28-19 in their remaining games (a .596 winning percentage, 9 games over .500, not impossible by any stretch of the imagination). The Twins would then have to go 23-22 in their remaining games for the Sox to tie (playing 1 game over .500 the rest of the way.). Is this impossible? The Twins just went on a run of 13 wins in 15 games. Before that streak started, they were hovering right around .500 or just a game below. So, we're assuming the Twins hit their one SUPER hot streak for the year at the end of July and will come back to earth for the next 6 weeks and play like they played for the first three months of the season. If the Twins went on a 13 and 2 run, could the Sox do the same? Hell yeah they could. The Twins are NOT that much better than the Sox, if they're as good as them at all.

I'm making an assumption that the Sox will win 4 out of 6...not unreasonable at all considering they have already swept the Twins at home this year once. Of course if the Sox fall flat in those two series in September, it's all for naught. But, the point I'm making is that it's not over mathematically by a longshot. It's not even close.

All of this aside, why the hell does everyone have to be so negative? Let's root for the Sox to make this thing happen. It's not impossible, and much greater comebacks have occurred in the past (maybe the author remembers the 1969 season). I think the article was completely out of line and a jab at the White Sox organization. Let's not be simple-minded as to believe such nonsense written in the paper.

owensmouth
08-11-2004, 01:29 PM
We play HALF our schedule in a home run haven. To completely play NL Ball the way they interpret it, would be suicide.


:reinsy

But CHEAP Suicide
But think how much fun it'll be for those 10,000 or less fans who do show up to watch the other teams beat the **** out of the small ball White Sox.

pudge
08-11-2004, 01:57 PM
The Sox should study the 1990 Sox. That team did the little things teams need to do. They finished second but had 94 victories which would be good enough most years and with the wild card should be more than enough to get to the play-offs.
In my 29 years on the planet, that was my all-time favorite white sox team, they were a bunch of scrappers. Too bad the Wild Card didn't exist back then, I would have loved to see that team in the post-season.

MRKARNO
08-11-2004, 02:41 PM
Here's the big problem with trying to turn this into a little ball team: US Cellular Field.

The Cell is one of the most offensive parks in baseball and pretty good pitchers run into trouble playing half their games their. Mark Buehrle, who currently owns a 3.8 ERA might have a 3.3 ERA in a league average park. There aren't many parks in baseball that give up the long ball as much as the Cell. In fact only Wrigley Field has seen more and that has a lot to do with the huge outburst last night. It's top 5 in hits yielded and top 3 in runs.

Home/Away splits for various Sox pitchers:

Garland: 5.27/4.21
Buehrle: 4.81/2.76
Schoeneweis: 5.98/5.14
Marte: 3.76/2.55
Garcia: 4.35/3.16
Loaiza: 5.94/3.80

How the hell can you expect to build a team primarily on pitching when their ERAs are 1-2 runs higher at home? I mean, you can do it, but you also have to your strength and our strength is playing in a bandbox. Mark Buehrle is the best pitcher in the AL and maybe in baseball away from this park.

Even if you try to bring in guys to play NL style baseball, if they have any power at all they'll probably end up with 20 homers. A home run oriented team is a fact of life for the White Sox. We should take advantage by still signing good pitchers with the knowledge that their ERA might rise by a run while also signing mediocre power guys who can increase their 15 homers to 25 by playing here. Look at Jose Valentin before and after he started playing here for proof.

CWWTWS1
08-11-2004, 02:57 PM
What Guillen is telling KW is that this team is not BASEBALL SMART. KW most likely agree's with this and is willing to make the changes Guillen feels are imperative. The Sox have one playoff appearance in the last 9 years with a team built around the homerun. I'd say changing the make-up of this team is long overdue.

Look for Crede to be dealt in the off season as well as Garland. Guillen is past the point of being tired of Crede. John Garland never has and never will have the mental make-up to be a great pitcher. Ozzie can see that if many of us can.

Gimm
08-11-2004, 04:11 PM
I agree that we need some tablesetters, some guys who can bunt and steal a base, to bat first and second in our lineup. But you guys are all talking about purging ALL of our power hitters and replacing them with Frank
Sure, they won some pitchers' duels with Beckett, but by and large, THEY OUTSLUGGED THE CUBS IN THE NLCS
I know, these "small-ball" fanatics and assorted 1960's nostalgiacs are hilarious. And mind you, I am very much pro-having Kenny Lofton and Willie Harris atop the order.....

As if the reason Sox failed to win in 2003 was because they didn't steal or bunt enough. There were 4 reasons Sox failed to win 95 games and possibly the WS: 5th starter, Koch, White and CrazyKonerko.

This year, we'd be running away with the division if Frank and Magglio were healthy. We'd win even more games if we didn't try to steal and bunt so much.

OEO Magglio
08-11-2004, 04:19 PM
I know, these "small-ball" fanatics and assorted 1960's nostalgiacs are hilarious. And mind you, I am very much pro-having Kenny Lofton and Willie Harris atop the order.....

As if the reason Sox failed to win in 2003 was because they didn't steal or bunt enough. There were 4 reasons Sox failed to win 95 games and possibly the WS: 5th starter, Koch, White and CrazyKonerko.

This year, we'd be running away with the division if Frank and Magglio were healthy. We'd win even more games if we didn't try to steal and bunt so much.No, we lost last year because we had a complete offensive shutdown the last 5 games we played the twins. Granted, I agree with you that the sox would be running away with the division this year if Maggs and Frank were around but I've always prefered a small ball team and that's what I'd like to see.

MRKARNO
08-11-2004, 04:23 PM
The best thing the Sox could do is look at what cost them wins this year:

1. Not having a closer from the beginning of the year
2. Not having 5 starters
3. Missing Frank and Maggs

What we need to do in 2005 to fix these problems:

1. Keep Shingo and acquire 2 more arms to shore up the bullpen
2. Acquire a 1st, 2nd or 3rd starter to fill that hole
3. Keep Thomas and Acquire a .300 average hitter (3B or OF) with mediocre power to fill the hole as that players power should rise at the Cell

Gimm
08-11-2004, 04:43 PM
No, we lost last year because we had a complete offensive shutdown the last 5 games we played the twins.
No.

If the aformentioned 4 problems were dealt with in a prompt manner befitting a 1st rate organization, we'd be 10 up with 5 games to go with the Twins.

But let's pretend we lost because we didn't bunt enough...or because we were too right-handed if it makes some feel better.:rolleyes:

jordan23ventura
08-11-2004, 05:03 PM
We scored nine last night by playing long ball.
We scored nine runs last night by playing Kansas City.