PDA

View Full Version : White Sox LVP for 2004


mweflen
10-06-2004, 09:39 AM
My gut reaction is Mike Jackson, who seemingly gave up an "unearned" grand slam in every appearance this year.

But I restricted the poll to everyday or starting rotation players, because I don't think it's fair to label a scrub the Least Valuable Player.

mweflen
10-06-2004, 11:01 AM
Interesting that Valentin gets so many votes while Crede gets so few. Their stats are pretty comparable.
Offensively:

Crede
490 AB 21 HR 69 RBI .299 OBP .418 SLG .239 AVE

Valentin
450 AB 30 HR 70 RBI .287 OBP .473 SLG .216 AVE


So Valentin had more pop, Crede more OBP, with roughly the same results.

The had identical .965 fielding percentages, which indicates that neither was a defensive standout over the other.

Baby Fisk
10-06-2004, 11:56 AM
Crede brought NOTHING to the 3B position. This is from a former Crede defender.

santo=dorf
10-06-2004, 12:24 PM
Crede:
BA W/RISP: .238
BA W/RISP and 2 outs: .189 :angry:

Brian26
10-06-2004, 12:25 PM
Willie Harris in a heartbeat. At least Crede hit some big homers in pressure situations. Willie did nothing.

JoseCanseco6969
10-06-2004, 12:45 PM
Interesting that Valentin gets so many votes while Crede gets so few. Their stats are pretty comparable.
Offensively:

Crede
490 AB 21 HR 69 RBI .299 OBP .418 SLG .239 AVE

Valentin
450 AB 30 HR 70 RBI .287 OBP .473 SLG .216 AVE


So Valentin had more pop, Crede more OBP, with roughly the same results.

The had identical .965 fielding percentages, which indicates that neither was a defensive standout over the other.
and Valentin made 5 million, Crede didnt...

Pea-Pod
10-06-2004, 12:47 PM
Willie Harris in a heartbeat. At least Crede hit some big homers in pressure situations. Willie did nothing.

Eventhough willie is my favorite player, I'd still agree with you. I thought he had finally broken through offensively when he was batting well over .300 for a good portion of the season. I think he deserved more playing time in the 2nd half of the season; his inconsistent starting opportunities hurt his play offensively. while willie showed amazing potential this season, Crede continues to be a far below average 3rd baseman (offensively) and he started nearly every game!

balke
10-06-2004, 01:03 PM
Valentin cause he struck out so much
I didn't want him on the team to begin with
He got paid WAY too much
The most losing moment of the sox season was him dropping the ball twice in critical moments in an extrememly important game (either twins or Injuns). one of which was a pop-up in foul territory.
ALso, the last few games of the season when he played, he was godawful. Had to be about the slowest runner in the league. IT was a close call between him and the Joe's. But Joe C came on late, and identified a problem in his swing. Jose was just old, and a waste of money.

mweflen
10-06-2004, 01:03 PM
I voted for Willie myself. I mean, Borchard is obviously an inferior offensive producer at this point (Which is pretty darned pathetic if you're Borchard), but his ineptitude hampered the Sox after they were out of contention. Willie bogged down the lineup when the Sox still had a chance. Crede came through in the clutch a few times, Garland was good for half the time, and Valentin was only offensively horrible after the Sox left the race.

ChiSoxRowand
10-06-2004, 01:35 PM
Gotta go with Borchard. We needed him to step up when Maggs and Frank got hurt and he hit less than .200. At least Crede played good defense.

RichFitztightly
10-06-2004, 02:07 PM
You still have to throw a mention towards Koch on this matter.

He always brought a lot to the table...

...for the other team.

batmanZoSo
10-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Interesting that Valentin gets so many votes while Crede gets so few. Their stats are pretty comparable.
Offensively:

Crede
490 AB 21 HR 69 RBI .299 OBP .418 SLG .239 AVE

Valentin
450 AB 30 HR 70 RBI .287 OBP .473 SLG .216 AVE


So Valentin had more pop, Crede more OBP, with roughly the same results.

The had identical .965 fielding percentages, which indicates that neither was a defensive standout over the other.


Valentin was actually pretty good through early June. After that it was just hell. He's gotta go.

Crede never did a thing all year. He didn't even deserve to be on the field most of the time. He wins hands down.

cornball
10-06-2004, 02:37 PM
and Valentin made 5 million, Crede didnt...
While an arguement can be made for each player on the list, Valentin gets my vote.

He is not a long term answer to anything. Made too much money for continuous sub-par performance.

MisterB
10-06-2004, 02:53 PM
Gotta go with Crede on this one. He's easily one of the least productive regular 3B in the majors right now. Valentin was damn close, but had more than his fair share of clutch hits. Borchard would have gotten my nod, but if lack of playing time figures into MVP voting, it should count in the LVP, too. :D: Harris wasn't good, but he raised his BA 30 by points over '03, was 4th on the team in walks (ahead of guys with more playing time like Crede, Manos, Uribe and Rowand) and led the team in stolen bases. Garland is a mediocrity, but wasn't even the least valuable pitcher on the staff (Koch, Jackson, Rauch, Politte, etc.)

Tekijawa
10-06-2004, 03:14 PM
Rowand isn't an option? He runs bad routes in the outfield!

bafiarocks03
10-06-2004, 03:20 PM
Ok why is Willie Harris an option! That is wrong! He's awesome! Not the least valuable player! uh! and who voted for him! Thats even worse!!

mweflen
10-06-2004, 03:31 PM
Harris is an option because of his impressive suck-a-tude, as well as his cocky, arrogant demeanor. Perhaps there is also an element of expectations being pumped too high by Hawk. Also, he was misused (if there is a use for him) 90% of the time - put into the leadoff spot, which he is incapable of filling adequately.

.262 is just unacceptable for a leadoff hitter. Rowand's OBP is nearly 20 points higher, his stolen base percentage better. It was only near the end that Ozzie realized the obvious and batted Willie 9th and Rowand 1st.

What is with a "speed demon" who won't run? Willie has to have one of the worst leans and wort jumps of a "speedster" I've ever seen. He's a lousy bunter, to boot.

He also destroyed the 2004 season by crashing into a much, much much better player, knocking him out for the year, if not multiple years.

"Pea-Pod" (or "Pee Wee", or "Pee-Yoo") was a square peg in a round hole. He should not have played as much as he did or in the lineup hole he did - his "skills' are more suited to a platoon IF/OF than an everyday 2B or CF.

In theory, he may finally be ready to bat next year (if not bunt and steal), if the upward trend in his stats continues. But I'll still groan every time he's announced.

bafiarocks03
10-06-2004, 03:48 PM
Harris is an option because of his impressive suck-a-tude, as well as his cocky, arrogant demeanor. Perhaps there is also an element of expectations being pumped too high by Hawk. Also, he was misused (if there is a use for him) 90% of the time - put into the leadoff spot, which he is incapable of filling adequately.

.262 is just unacceptable for a leadoff hitter. Rowand's OBP is nearly 20 points higher, his stolen base percentage better. It was only near the end that Ozzie realized the obvious and batted Willie 9th and Rowand 1st.

What is with a "speed demon" who won't run? Willie has to have one of the worst leans and wort jumps of a "speedster" I've ever seen. He's a lousy bunter, to boot.

He also destroyed the 2004 season by crashing into a much, much much better player, knocking him out for the year, if not multiple years.

"Pea-Pod" (or "Pee Wee", or "Pee-Yoo") was a square peg in a round hole. He should not have played as much as he did or in the lineup hole he did - his "skills' are more suited to a platoon IF/OF than an everyday 2B or CF.

In theory, he may finally be ready to bat next year (if not bunt and steal), if the upward trend in his stats continues. But I'll still groan every time he's announced.
Well you didn't have to be so nice!

mweflen
10-06-2004, 04:06 PM
I thought "Nice" and "White Sox Fan" were mutually exclusive :D:

And yes, I do miss Miguel. Sigh. D'Angelo i am indifferent towards.

Baby Fisk
10-06-2004, 04:15 PM
He also destroyed the 2004 season by crashing into a much, much much better player, knocking him out for the year, if not multiple years.
I agreed with you up until this point. You can't hang the 2004 season, or even Magglio's injury, on Willie.

markp8867
10-06-2004, 04:22 PM
Harris is an option because of his impressive suck-a-tude, as well as his cocky, arrogant demeanor. Perhaps there is also an element of expectations being pumped too high by Hawk. Also, he was misused (if there is a use for him) 90% of the time - put into the leadoff spot, which he is incapable of filling adequately.

.262 is just unacceptable for a leadoff hitter. Rowand's OBP is nearly 20 points higher, his stolen base percentage better. It was only near the end that Ozzie realized the obvious and batted Willie 9th and Rowand 1st.

What is with a "speed demon" who won't run? Willie has to have one of the worst leans and wort jumps of a "speedster" I've ever seen. He's a lousy bunter, to boot.

He also destroyed the 2004 season by crashing into a much, much much better player, knocking him out for the year, if not multiple years.

"Pea-Pod" (or "Pee Wee", or "Pee-Yoo") was a square peg in a round hole. He should not have played as much as he did or in the lineup hole he did - his "skills' are more suited to a platoon IF/OF than an everyday 2B or CF.

In theory, he may finally be ready to bat next year (if not bunt and steal), if the upward trend in his stats continues. But I'll still groan every time he's announced.
That is really lame. How can you not like Willie? He is not a bad player at all. Perhaps Aaron is a slightly better leadoff hitter but Willie plays great defense and is pretty good in the nine slot with a .364 OBP. He also hits .273 as a 2B which isn't bad at all. His defense is solid and he ranks in the top tier of second basemen in terms of defense. Blaming him for Magglio's injury is just plain ignorant! Willie will be back next year like it or not. The real LVP of this team is without a doubt the 5th starter and a close second would be Billy Koch who single handedly blew several games himself.

MisterB
10-06-2004, 04:34 PM
Harris is an option because of his impressive suck-a-tude, as well as his cocky, arrogant demeanor. Perhaps there is also an element of expectations being pumped too high by Hawk. Also, he was misused (if there is a use for him) 90% of the time - put into the leadoff spot, which he is incapable of filling adequately.

.262 is just unacceptable for a leadoff hitter. Rowand's OBP is nearly 20 points higher, his stolen base percentage better. It was only near the end that Ozzie realized the obvious and batted Willie 9th and Rowand 1st.

What is with a "speed demon" who won't run? Willie has to have one of the worst leans and wort jumps of a "speedster" I've ever seen. He's a lousy bunter, to boot.

He also destroyed the 2004 season by crashing into a much, much much better player, knocking him out for the year, if not multiple years.

"Pea-Pod" (or "Pee Wee", or "Pee-Yoo") was a square peg in a round hole. He should not have played as much as he did or in the lineup hole he did - his "skills' are more suited to a platoon IF/OF than an everyday 2B or CF.

In theory, he may finally be ready to bat next year (if not bunt and steal), if the upward trend in his stats continues. But I'll still groan every time he's announced.
I don't care about average from the leadoff spot, just OBP; and Harris had an OBP on par with Furcal and better than guys like Biggio and Eckstein (all 3 of whom are leading off for playoff teams). If Willie can get his SB total up and at least be passable against lefties, he'd be an OK leadoff man.

minastirith67
10-06-2004, 04:39 PM
Why is Willie Harris on this poll? He simply wasn't given enough ABs. I truly believe he is the future of this team at 2B, which could be a good thing. He put up decent enough numbers.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 04:41 PM
Measured strictly by dollars and cents, Valentin has to be LVP. However I don't think that's the proper measuring stick. Hell, if its just money we're focused on, Paul Konerko's role as key power hitter with a fat contract during our July/August swoon would garner plenty of LVP votes. He didn't come close to delivering the goods like Frank or Maggs would have (Frank making less money, too). Our offense SUCKED with Konerko in the middle, a fact his apologists conveniently overlook.

My vote goes to that bust at the top of our order, Willie Harris. All the solo home runs too many here complain about were the direct result of Harris never being on base. He is a utility player who was handed an everyday position because Roberto Alomar was too arrogant to accept the Sox overly-generous offer last fall. Harris did nothing the last 6 months but prove he ought to be riding the pine 120+ games every season.

One note about Jon Garland. His sub-par performance was strictly caused by the Sox being too cheap to go out and get a true #4 pitcher. Garland ought to be a #5 and he would be a significant upgrade for the Sox if they would simply pay the price to get a true #4 (and/or #3).

But let's not kid ourselves. Jon Garland will be on the 2005 Sox roster not because Williams got a better #4 or because Garland has lots of potential to someday become a #1, #2, or #3. Nope. Garland will be here next year because he still isn't an unrestricted free agent. In other words, he works CHEAP. Who here is dumb enough to believe that if Garland was a free agent this winter, the Sox wouldn't be busy right now bad-mouthing him and claiming what a relief it is to finally get him off the team.

Cheap, timid, and stupid best describes the Chicago White Sox. Jon Garland is the poster child for this fact.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 04:46 PM
Why is Willie Harris on this poll? He simply wasn't given enough ABs. I truly believe he is the future of this team at 2B, which could be a good thing. He put up decent enough numbers.
You're joking right? The reason Harris didn't get more at-bat is because he couldn't even play well enough to keep the great Timo Perez from stealing his playing time.

:kukoo:

DumpJerry
10-06-2004, 05:34 PM
I wish I could have voted for Koch and Jackson. If you count up the games they cost us, I'm sure you get close to the difference bewteen us and the Twins. Not to mention the games we lost after they blew a big one because team confiudence was down from the previous day.......

santo=dorf
10-06-2004, 06:26 PM
I wish I could have voted for Koch and Jackson. If you count up the games they cost us, I'm sure you get close to the difference bewteen us and the Twins. Not to mention the games we lost after they blew a big one because team confiudence was down from the previous day.......
I stopped keeping track at 8, and that was in the middle of May. Marte was worse than both of them at the beginning of the season. :angry:

fuzzy_patters
10-06-2004, 06:35 PM
I voted for Borchard. If he had been as good as was the hype, we would not have missed Magglio. Not having a replacement for Magglio cost us the division, so Borchard was the de facto cause of the division loss.

mweflen
10-06-2004, 09:04 PM
Fuzzy:


As I said in my first post, my initial inclination is Mike Jackson. I personally attended two games in which he came on in "relief" and gave up grand slams to his first batter, once on the first pitch.

But I thought further and cut the poll choices to starting lineup guys and rotation guys, because if playing time should restrict MVP (as I think it should), shouldn't it restrict LVP?

However, those are some good arguments above about negative impact: Koch and Jackson combined is at least 10 games. Sigh.

minastirith67
10-06-2004, 10:10 PM
You're joking right? The reason Harris didn't get more at-bat is because he couldn't even play well enough to keep the great Timo Perez from stealing his playing time.

:kukoo:

He's learned to start taking walks as well and getting on base. I really think he'll turn the corner next season. Hawk places faith in him, and so do I. He could be a real bust next year, and I'll eat crow.

CubsfansareDRUNK
10-06-2004, 10:31 PM
i voted for jose valentin. he used to be a great player but now all he does is strike out and create errors. :angry: pitching wise, def. jackson. he was so bad :angry: i thought crede was mediocre along with borchard but at least they got a hit or two once in a while. hopefully we get a better team in 2005.

mweflen
10-07-2004, 02:56 PM
I think Crede and Valentin do not rise (sink) to the level of LVP because they still had marginal production for their roles, i.e. 7 and 8 hitters. Granted, they pooped up the lineup and killed rallies left and right, but the numbers (paltry though they are) are there.

I still stick by Willie representing the most mismatched player for his role, and the paltriest production for his spot in the lineup.

Pea-Pod
10-07-2004, 07:14 PM
Valentine can't possibly be the LVP - he's the miester of the 3-run homer