PDA

View Full Version : 8 run 10th should not have happened last night


MRKARNO
09-19-2004, 08:58 AM
I was watching the extended highlights from the game and I dont think that 8 run eighth should have even happened in the first place. The only Home run which didnt just barely clear the fence was Borchard's shot and that might've been a double at most parks. The Sox would have won that game 4-3 in a neutral park because I remember seeing another Tiger home run that barely cleared the wall into the right field bullpen. The lesson is this: the pitching staff hasn't been all that bad, but the fences are just too far in for them to do as good of a job as the average MLB pitcher. Cotts pitched well enough so that in most parks, that would have been a fly ball out (both of the homers he yielded). Move the fences back!

Wealz
09-19-2004, 09:22 AM
I was watching the extended highlights from the game and I dont think that 8 run eighth should have even happened in the first place. The only Home run which didnt just barely clear the fence was Borchard's shot and that might've been a double at most parks. The Sox would have won that game 4-3 in a neutral park because I remember seeing another Tiger home run that barely cleared the wall into the right field bullpen. The lesson is this: the pitching staff hasn't been all that bad, but the fences are just too far in for them to do as good of a job as the average MLB pitcher. Cotts pitched well enough so that in most parks, that would have been a fly ball out (both of the homers he yielded). Move the fences back!I think the pitching has been decidely below-average wherever they've played. To your point, the fences can't be moved back in the most important place, left-center, without losing a significant amout of seats. I think they should get rid of the centerfield fence though, making a homer have to land above the batter's eye.

With such an extreme hitter's park you have to wonder about the wisdom of trading for and signing a flyball pitcher such as Garcia.

munchman33
09-19-2004, 09:35 AM
The fences are fine. The problem is that air current out of the ballpark has increased drastically after the upperdeck renovations.

balke
09-19-2004, 10:19 AM
The fences are fine. The problem is that air current out of the ballpark has increased drastically after the upperdeck renovations.
Count it. He's right. The ball has jumped ever since.

Brian26
09-19-2004, 10:27 AM
The second Tigers homer definitely landed in the bleachers.

Would it be possible to take down the auxiliary fences and just make the outfield wall the actually wall of the bleachers? I guess that would pose the old "fan interference" problem that always happened at Old Comiskey, and the last thing I want to see is a basket put up.

LongLiveFisk
09-19-2004, 10:45 AM
The fences are fine. The problem is that air current out of the ballpark has increased drastically after the upperdeck renovations.

If that's the case, then all the more they should think about moving the fences back some. Especially if Ozzie gets his way next year of having a small-ball team. If we don't have the big HR hitters, there's no sense in making it easier for other teams who do to whup us.

balke
09-19-2004, 10:51 AM
If that's the case, then all the more they should think about moving the fences back some. Especially if Ozzie gets his way next year of having a small-ball team. If we don't have the big HR hitters, there's no sense in making it easier for other teams who do to whup us.
Does it really matter one way or the other? Every player can hit a Dinger. If stadium mattered so much, couldn't we just build around the stadium we have?

Seriously, I'm asking.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 10:59 AM
The last time I checked the fences were exactly the same height and distance for both teams. Someone will have to explain to me why the Sox get *more* an advantage moving them back than their opponents would. The advantage/disadvantage is exactly *equal* for both.

Smart teams build their teams to fit their home ballpark. As near as I can tell the Sox have no plan one way or another. Typical, really.

doublem23
09-19-2004, 11:06 AM
The last time I checked the fences were exactly the same height and distance for both teams. Someone will have to explain to me why the Sox get *more* an advantage moving them back than their opponents would. The advantage/disadvantage is exactly *equal* for both.

Smart teams build their teams to fit their home ballpark. As near as I can tell the Sox have no plan one way or another. Typical, really.What I think we need to do is install some artificial windmakers around the ballpark and have then blow out for the Sox an in for the opposition. That's legal, right?

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/1021/photo/a_kirby_i.jpg
It sure is!

batmanZoSo
09-19-2004, 11:11 AM
The last time I checked the fences were exactly the same height and distance for both teams. Someone will have to explain to me why the Sox get *more* an advantage moving them back than their opponents would. The advantage/disadvantage is exactly *equal* for both.

Smart teams build their teams to fit their home ballpark. As near as I can tell the Sox have no plan one way or another. Typical, really.

Buehrle has a 5.50 era at home or some crap, it's gotta change. Our pitchers suck at home, sometimes one or two feet of fence is the differnece between 0 runs and a 3 run homer. If it happnes four or five times, that's the difference between a 4.10 era and and 3.50 era. Another reason to avoid having a home run park like this is that it messes up the pitchers and hitters heads on our team. The pitchers try to be too perfect and lose confidence because there's just no way you can consistentely pitch well in that park....and the hitters get into home-run happy mode that doesn't translate well on the road, so they scuffle away from home. The Rockies are the perfect example. They've never won away from Coors and their hitters have hit extra bad on the road (not just the expected drop off either).

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 11:16 AM
Buehrle has a 5.50 era at home or some crap, it's gotta change. Our pitchers suck at home, sometimes one or two feet of fence is the differnece between 0 runs and a 3 run homer. If it happnes four or five times, that's the difference between a 4.10 era and and 3.50 era. Another reason to avoid having a home run park like this is that it messes up the pitchers and hitters heads on our team. The pitchers try to be too perfect and lose confidence because there's just no way you can consistentely pitch well in that park....and the hitters get into home-run happy mode that doesn't translate well on the road, so they scuffle away from home. The Rockies are the perfect example. They've never won away from Coors and their hitters have hit extra bad on the road (not just the expected drop off either).
I think the problems you've cited are more a function of problems inside someone's head (Buehrle) and lack of talent (Rockies) than any inherent problem with the ballpark. Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park couldn't be more different and yet those two teams have a fair amount of success year after year after year.
:cool:

Build your team to fit the ballpark, not the other way around. The ballpark lasts. The players don't.

balke
09-19-2004, 11:29 AM
I think the problems you've cited are more a function of problems inside someone's head (Buehrle) and lack of talent (Rockies) than any inherent problem with the ballpark. Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park couldn't be more different and yet those two teams have a fair amount of success year after year after year.
:cool:

Build your team to fit the ballpark, not the other way around. The ballpark lasts. The players don't.I had an architecture teacher who talked about Yankee Stadium as being the reason the Yankees are such a successful franchise. His rationale was the extremely short right field wall, and the way they pitch to the batters trying to hit there. Don't know if he was right, but he was a damn good architect.

I remember initially, when Belle was with the team, he hit a million flyout's to the warning track. This stadium used to be really tough to go yard in. HR's to center were highly regarded achievements, Frank could barely get it over the wall there.

I enjoy watching the ball jump more when I go to the game. JMO.

munchman33
09-19-2004, 11:31 AM
What I think we need to do is install some artificial windmakers around the ballpark and have then blow out for the Sox an in for the opposition. That's legal, right?

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/1021/photo/a_kirby_i.jpg
It sure is!
*****!:D:

batmanZoSo
09-19-2004, 11:49 AM
I think the problems you've cited are more a function of problems inside someone's head (Buehrle) and lack of talent (Rockies) than any inherent problem with the ballpark. Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park couldn't be more different and yet those two teams have a fair amount of success year after year after year.
:cool:

Build your team to fit the ballpark, not the other way around. The ballpark lasts. The players don't.

They both have their cheap areas to hit homers in, but it's not the whole park, it's only in left and directly down the RF line in Fenway and the short porches in Yankee stadium. All you reallly have to do is prevent the hitter from pulling the ball. But at our park it's just a bandbox with the wind blowing out all the time. Hitters can poke it out in pretty much any direction.

The only time I like to tailor my team to the park is if it's a park like Safeco. If you can really dominate in a pitchers park like that with speed, doubles, etc, you can play anywhere. And if you have great pitching, you won't have to worry about being outslugged when on the road in a launching pad. Being a homerun hitting team is too dependent on the ballpark. If we make the world series and play LA, we're gonna hit a ton of fly balls to the warning track. But if we have a lot of speed and hit doubles, it doesn't really matter where we play. And no I don't mean we should get rid of every power hitter we have and field nothing but Jeremy Reeds and Luis Castillos. If it weren't for injuries, right now we'd have 8 guys in our lineup with 20 homers. All you really need is one major slugger like Frank and maybe a Lee and an Everett to back him up. Then you get some pop out of a Uribe or Rowand, and you're set. The supporting part of your lineup should not be a 1/8th as talented duplicate of the middle core.

LongLiveFisk
09-19-2004, 11:59 AM
Does it really matter one way or the other? Every player can hit a Dinger. If stadium mattered so much, couldn't we just build around the stadium we have?

Seriously, I'm asking.

Yes, I think it does matter. Not necessarily from our perspective as fans but from the perspective of baseball players and managers who always want to get any advantage they can, even if it's the slightest. Look at all the righty-lefty stuff that some of us probably feel gets blown out of proportion, yet it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.

Also, considering the fact that USCF has become the #1 park for home runs (or so I hear), it wouldn't help us if we are not going to have a HR-hitting team. Sure you could build your team around your park, bur apparently since Ozzie wants a small-ball team, leaving the fences where they are would not be a step in that direction.

This, of course, is just my opinion.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 12:03 PM
.... Sure you could build your team around your park, bur apparently since Ozzie wants a small-ball team, leaving the fences where they are would not be a step in that direction.Thank you. You've put your finger on the precise reason putting together a small-ball team for Ozzie MAKES NO ****ING SENSE. Not only doesn't this fit the ballpark, but the ballplayers we have to acquire won't last. Furthermore, the manager won't last either!

This could only makes sense in the Alice in Wonderland world of Reinsdorf's front office.

This franchise is about to commit hari-kari, but only some of us are applauding the effort.

Lip Man 1
09-19-2004, 12:15 PM
George:

Just wondering...

How do you correct the Sox then? Assuming we stay with the 'power' approach can you suggest some names for the Sox to acquire who are better then what they already have. (This isn't an attack by the way...you seem very sure of yourself and I'm curious who you have in mind to solve the issues. Short of new ownership and a new G.M. Both of which aren't going to happen.)

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 12:16 PM
George:

Just wondering...

How do you correct the Sox then? Assuming we stay with the 'power' approach can you suggest some names for the Sox to acquire who are better then what they already have. (This isn't an attack by the way...you seem very sure of yourself and I'm curious who you have in mind to solve the issues. Short of new ownership and a new G.M. Both of which aren't going to happen.)

Lip
It certainly isn't waiting 40+ years for the Yankees to be down.
:gulp:

MRKARNO
09-19-2004, 12:29 PM
Well if it takes good pitching to win, then by extension we always lose because we will never have a good pitching staff in this ballpark.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 12:43 PM
Well if it takes good pitching to win, then by extension we always lose because we will never have a good pitching staff in this ballpark.
Excuse me. Did I read this right? You're blaming the Sox losing on U.S. Cellular Field????

Be sure to know what you're in for if you intend to defend this. You might want to check the "logic" behind what you wrote here.

balke
09-19-2004, 01:04 PM
Excuse me. Did I read this right? You're blaming the Sox losing on U.S. Cellular Field????

Be sure to know what you're in for if you intend to defend this. You might want to check the "logic" behind what you wrote here.
I think he's saying our pitching staff will always suck, in a cheap jerry/sox luck kinda way. Maybe not though.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 01:14 PM
I think he's saying our pitching staff will always suck, in a cheap jerry/sox luck kinda way. Maybe not though.
Since when is the name of the ballpark "jerry/sox"? Karno used the word "ballpark" as the source of blame.
:?:

MRKARNO
09-19-2004, 01:41 PM
Well the fact is that if we dont have at very least 5-6 20+ homer guys in a given year that we cant win here. We will never have great pitching in this park. I cant pin the ballpark as the entire source of blame, but clearly there's a disconnect between KW's plan for the team and the ballpark they play half of their games in. I cant see us winning the AL Central without hitting the most homers in the major leagues.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 01:42 PM
Well the fact is that if we dont have at very least 5-6 20+ homer guys in a given year that we cant win here. We will never have great pitching in this park. I cant pin the ballpark as the entire source of blame, but clearly there's a disconnect between KW's plan for the team and the ballpark they play half of their games in. I cant see us winning the AL Central without hitting the most homers in the major leagues.
Then the solution is to get rid of Kenny Williams because he is too incompetent to understand that the BALLPARK isn't causing his team to lose.

:nuts:

balke
09-19-2004, 01:51 PM
I cant see us winning the AL Central without hitting the most homers in the major leagues.
You have a seriously limited imagination. This is a good park for 2baggers as well. Good speedy hitters probably could generate a good amount of runs here. The worst innings the sox have at home are win the opposition strings together 5-6 singles, with a bases clearing double.

If this park is as easy to hit Hr's in as people say it is, every 15 HR hitter in the league should be hitting 20 here.

MRKARNO
09-19-2004, 01:58 PM
If this park is as easy to hit Hr's in as people say it is, every 15 HR hitter in the league should be hitting 20 here.
Which is why we need to go after high average, medium power guys in the offseason instead of smallball guys. (OK, now I think I have a better arguement here)

balke
09-19-2004, 02:05 PM
Which is why we need to go after high average, medium power guys in the offseason instead of smallball guys. (OK, now I think I have a better arguement here)
I'm cool with that. I'm hoping that's what Ozzie means by "small ball". I'll take maybe one speedy bunter, a bunch of medium power guys, a frank, a power SS or CF, Clee, pitching, a BP and an order of fries to go please.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 02:11 PM
Which is why we need to go after high average, medium power guys in the offseason instead of smallball guys. (OK, now I think I have a better arguement here)
Here, let me make it easy on you. We need situational hitters, i.e. guys who get on base.
:cool:

Situational hitters rarely get themselves out. They hit the pitcher's mistakes and the best of them hit those mistakes clear over the outfield wall. They aren't looking to hit homeruns but get on base by any means necessary.

Note that none of this has anything to do with run and hit or bunting, yet those are the first two things Ozzie always talks about when he starts railing about "small-ball." And that's why the Sox are doomed if anybody in the Sox front office is seriously listening to him.

We could easily end up with 3 more Willie Harris-type grinders, especially if they get paid like Willie Harris.
:bundy

Wealz
09-19-2004, 02:13 PM
You have a seriously limited imagination. This is a good park for 2baggers as well. Good speedy hitters probably could generate a good amount of runs here. The worst innings the sox have at home are win the opposition strings together 5-6 singles, with a bases clearing double.

If this park is as easy to hit Hr's in as people say it is, every 15 HR hitter in the league should be hitting 20 here.
Imagine the home field advantage the Sox could have without 4 automatic outs in the lineup. Hitters, groundball pitchers and middle infield defense are the areas they should concentrate on with the overriding philosophy that if you can't hit you can't play.

PaulDrake
09-19-2004, 03:25 PM
I agree with those that believe that the reconfigured Cell hurts both our pitchers and our hitters. Our park isn't called Coors Field east for nothing. The stats seem to bear this out, especially Buerhle's. Even when Buerhle is on he is a "hitable" pitcher. He can't and doesn't try to blow the ball by hitters on a regular basis. He's not strictly a ground ball pitcher in the Tommy John mode either. His home and away ERAs reflect that. Of course our hitters try to mash the ball out of the park while on the road, just like at home, and as many have pointed out they have no clue about situational hitting. Making a radical change in philosophy without moving back the fences some is not going to help. Apparently the Lords of Baseball think that most fans prefer baseball games that more closely resemble company picnic softball games. Consequently we have juiced balls, juiced players and parks like Coors and the Cell. In the meantime Sox management thrashes around, trying to put a winning combination on the field, without a consistent and coherent philosophy behind its actions. The next few years could be very trying.

batmanZoSo
09-19-2004, 03:38 PM
Well the fact is that if we dont have at very least 5-6 20+ homer guys in a given year that we cant win here. We will never have great pitching in this park. I cant pin the ballpark as the entire source of blame, but clearly there's a disconnect between KW's plan for the team and the ballpark they play half of their games in. I cant see us winning the AL Central without hitting the most homers in the major leagues.

That's a bunch of baloney.



http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2002/Bush-Global-Warming-BALONEY12jul02.GIF

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2004, 03:40 PM
I agree with those that believe that the reconfigured Cell hurts both our pitchers and our hitters. Our park isn't called Coors Field east for nothing. The stats seem to bear this out, especially Buerhle's. Even when Buerhle is on he is a "hitable" pitcher. He can't and doesn't try to blow the ball by hitters on a regular basis. He's not strictly a ground ball pitcher in the Tommy John mode either. His home and away ERAs reflect that. Of course our hitters try to mash the ball out of the park while on the road, just like at home, and as many have pointed out they have no clue about situational hitting. Making a radical change in philosophy without moving back the fences some is not going to help. Apparently the Lords of Baseball think that most fans prefer baseball games that more closely resemble company picnic softball games. Consequently we have juiced balls, juiced players and parks like Coors and the Cell. In the meantime Sox management thrashes around, trying to put a winning combination on the field, without a consistent and coherent philosophy behind its actions. The next few years could be very trying.Okay, so everybody agrees the Colorado Rockies are a horse**** baseball club. What any of this has to do with the fact the Chicago White Sox can't win is beyond me.

We're really grasping at straws when we start blaming the BALLPARK ahead of the players, manager, GM, and owner. This is nuts...

PaulDrake
09-19-2004, 05:11 PM
Sorry if it seemed that I was implying the ball park was the sole or even the major cause of the Sox dilemna. Back in the Stone Age when I was a kid Comiskey's ample dimensions played into the teams strengths which were of course pitching, speed and defense. Being real strong up the middle and having ball hawks in the outfield like Landis, Minoso, Herschberger, etc was a big help too. The Sox haven't won a pennant in 45 years and a WS in 87. There are 30 teams now instead of only 16. You have to maximize your chances on every level, and the Sox don't seem to do it on any. The ball park is one aspect. Half assed seat of the pants management is another. If the Sox are going to go back to the pitching, speed defense game then I would like to see them adjust the park accordingly. I don't think that's unreasonable or dumb. If they're going to unload players like Lee and Konerko to go this route then I want them to get something substantial in return too.

Foulke29
09-20-2004, 08:22 AM
Kenny needs to get some pitchers that induce the groundball - rather than flyball pitchers like Freddy G. and Contereras

SaltyPretzel
09-20-2004, 08:39 AM
Pushing back the fences worked wonders for the Royals this season.

Gosox1917
09-20-2004, 02:13 PM
The 8 runs in the 10th shouldn't have happened because if Ben Davis throws the ball to second on the tigers SB attempt he gets catcher's interference called and its the end of the inning. We win in the 10th with Borchard's HR. Unfortunatley, Jose doesn't cover the bag and Ben doesn't risk a throw to center with the possibility of the catcher's interference not being called. The fences have influenced the amount of homers down the lines at our ballpark but it's no excuse for poor pitching.