PDA

View Full Version : Finally, BP gives Kenny Props


infohawk
02-08-2005, 02:07 PM
Baseball Prospectus has a somewhat positive piece on the wider ramifications of the Carlos Lee trade. The author examined the trade from the perspective of all the subsequent moves it made possible. The link is below:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745

petekat
02-08-2005, 02:08 PM
not a bad pickup if Iguichi can replicate Hudson numbers....

www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745)



The Import/Export Business: Claiming to fulfill his vow to reinvest the salary saved when Carlos Lee (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/leeca01.shtml) was traded to Milwaukee, GM Kenny Williams signed Tadahito Iguchi from the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks of Japan. Iguchi is a 30-year old right-handed hitting second baseman with impressive power numbers. Using Iguchi's statistics through 2003, Davenport translated Iguchi to a .269/.337/.446 hitter stateside--essentially Orlando Hudson (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/hudsoor01.shtml) (who hit .270/.339/.438 in 2004). Like Hudson, Iguchi also has a golden defensive reputation, and in addition he also steals 30-40 bases a season. If Iguchi plays like Hudson did in 2004, the Sox can expect a nice boost from the new second baseman, a jump from Harris's VORP of 5.2 to around Hudson's 27.4, or about two wins.


The Sox have claimed that they are using the roughly $8 million saved by sending Lee to Milwaukee on several of their recent free-agent signings, including Iguchi, A.J. Pierzynski (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pierzaj01.shtml) ($3.5 million), and Orlando Hernandez (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/hernaor01.shtml) ($3.5 million in 2005). Because Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/podsesc01.shtml)'s defense has been lauded as one of his strong suits, WARP3--a stat that combines both batting and defense into one stat--is a better measure of what the Sox have gained. Here's everyone's 2004 numbers with Hudson's WARP3 substituted for Iguchi's.

Add in Luis Vizcaino (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/vizcalu01.shtml) (acquired in the Lee deal) and Hernandez and the Sox do look to have come out on top so far this offseason. But there are quite a few variables in play as well. Hernandez pitched well in 2004, but he missed all of the previous season and will likely grab a red light in the upcoming Team Health Reports (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3743). Likewise, Iguchi may not prove to be the gloveman that Hudson is and will fall short of that 6.7 WARP3. Toss in Pierzynski's well-rumored clubhouse troubles and there are a few more question marks than normal. But give Williams credit: he appears to have taken the Lee money and put it back in the team rather than just passing it along to ownership. Whether or not the team could have afforded to keep Lee while bringing in Hernandez, Iguchi and Pierzynski is anyone's guess, but it makes for a nice rationale for shipping out one of the team's best hitters.

santo=dorf
02-08-2005, 02:14 PM
Whether or not the team could have afforded to keep Lee while bringing in Hernandez, Iguchi and Pierzynski is anyone's guess,
Just ask Hangar. :rolleyes:

doublem23
02-08-2005, 02:23 PM
Someone's head over there must have exploded. :rolleyes:

depy48
02-08-2005, 03:56 PM
is there a team or player option on pierzynski's contract for 2006?

OEO Magglio
02-08-2005, 03:59 PM
is there a team or player option on pierzynski's contract for 2006?
He's arbitration eligible for 06 meaning the sox still hold his rights for next year.

gf2020
02-08-2005, 03:59 PM
is there a team or player option on pierzynski's contract for 2006?


The sox control his rights in 2006.

Flight #24
02-08-2005, 04:05 PM
The sox control his rights in 2006.

Actually, in an interesting development, the Sox are fairly well positioned for 2006 based on this offseason, with a number of regulars locked in at decent rates: Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Hernandez, Pods, ARow, Dye, Crede, Uribe, Iguchi, AJP, Marte, Politte, Hermanson, Vizcaino. Not sure on Garland, but I think he's still arb eligible after 2005 as well.

No one takes a huge jump (i.e. more than 1-2mil), and they have the potential to shed a bunch in Carl, Koney, Frank, Shingo (about $26mil by my count).

Thus, if this team can make the playoffs, they might even be able to add an impact player at around 8-10mil, keep Frank at around the same in an extension, and fill a couple of minor holes. Add in the likely arrival of 1-3 of the Fields, BMac, Anderson, Sweeney group and they'll have a lot of flexibility.

But enough jumping ahead - there's games to be played in 2005 yet. Man, can ST start already?????

Tragg
02-08-2005, 10:23 PM
Actually, in an interesting development, the Sox are fairly well positioned for 2006 based on this offseason, with a number of regulars locked in at decent rates: Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Hernandez, Pods, ARow, Dye, Crede, Uribe, Iguchi, AJP, Marte, Politte, Hermanson, Vizcaino. Not sure on Garland, but I think he's still arb eligible after 2005 as well.

No one takes a huge jump (i.e. more than 1-2mil), and they have the potential to shed a bunch in Carl, Koney, Frank, Shingo (about $26mil by my count).

Thus, if this team can make the playoffs, they might even be able to add an impact player at around 8-10mil, keep Frank at around the same in an extension, and fill a couple of minor holes. Add in the likely arrival of 1-3 of the Fields, BMac, Anderson, Sweeney group and they'll have a lot of flexibility.

But enough jumping ahead - there's games to be played in 2005 yet. Man, can ST start already?????

We don't want to tie ourselves up too much. It's good we have, what, 2 year deals with Contreras and Duque - by that time, some youngsters may be ready (like Adkins, Cotts, et al). Same with Dye - we're supposedly loaded in the outfield. Kenny shored us up for 2 years, and in 2 years if we can get just two contributions from youngsters, we'll have enough cash to put us over the top. I'm looking for real contention in 2007 onward, while fielding a division winning-worthy club for the next 2 years.

Brian26
02-08-2005, 10:52 PM
I guess the big question is whether or not PK comes back for 2006.

NSSoxFan
02-08-2005, 10:54 PM
I guess the big question is whether or not PK comes back for 2006.

I remember reading that PK wants to stay here, but he won't make it a big issue like Maggs' situation this past season. Also, in the same article he said that he won't be in a rediculous price range.

MRKARNO
02-08-2005, 11:05 PM
I guess the big question is whether or not PK comes back for 2006.

If that's the only question we have to deal with (and it is), then the next offseason will probably be uneventful. The 2006 offseason might end up being a circus though.

SoxFan48
02-09-2005, 06:23 PM
For those of you who like statheadds (me among them), Baseball Propectus did a statistical analysis of the moves made by Kenny Williams over the winter and concluded on the whole the moves did advance the team. If you are interested in VORP and WARP3 and why these number favor the winter moves, check out:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745

I don't believe it is restricted to suscribers, but I a may be wrong.

rdivaldi
02-09-2005, 06:28 PM
Hmmm. I'm surprised that they include Dye vs. Ordonez/Borchard/Everett in that article.

Ol' No. 2
02-09-2005, 08:59 PM
For those of you who like statheadds (me among them), Baseball Propectus did a statistical analysis of the moves made by Kenny Williams over the winter and concluded on the whole the moves did advance the team. If you are interested in VORP and WARP3 and why these number favor the winter moves, check out:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745

I don't believe it is restricted to suscribers, but I a may be wrong.The trouble with VORP is that it's very heavily weighted by OPS. If you're in the camp that believes OPS is the overriding statistic, you'll put a lot of stock in VORP. I don't.

They project Iguchi at .269/.337/.446 and compare that to Harris at .262/.337/.323. Almost identical BA and OBP. They assign a VORP to Iguchi of 27.4 and Harris 5.2. So Iguchi is FIVE TIMES BETTER than Harris just because his slugging numbers are a little better? :kukoo:

BigFrankRetard
02-09-2005, 09:17 PM
I guess the big question is whether or not PK comes back for 2006.

It would be disasterous if he didn't. With Maggs and Carlos gone and with Frank nearing retirement, who would be able to replicate his power numbers? Jermaine Dye, who is never healthy anymore? Carl Everett, who is also often injured and isn't even that great of a hitter when healthy? Aaron Rowand, who looked promising last year, but still has to prove it over the long haul?

KW would be wise to re-sign Paulie ASAP.

SoxBoy14
02-09-2005, 11:17 PM
Am I the only Sox fan thrilled that I don't have to pray for 3 run jacks every game? I liked Caballo. But for what KW brought home in return, there's no question about it. We'll see what happens. I like what KW did.







Go see the best college baseball players in America, right around the corner. www.dupagedragons.com (http://www.dupagedragons.com)

Ol' No. 2
02-09-2005, 11:30 PM
It would be disasterous if he didn't. With Maggs and Carlos gone and with Frank nearing retirement, who would be able to replicate his power numbers? Jermaine Dye, who is never healthy anymore? Carl Everett, who is also often injured and isn't even that great of a hitter when healthy? Aaron Rowand, who looked promising last year, but still has to prove it over the long haul?

KW would be wise to re-sign Paulie ASAP.Excuse me, but I've been hearing this claptrap all winter, and I'm going to spout off.


Dye has had a few freak injuries. Didn't you ever break a bone? These are NOT nagging injuries. Past broken legs and thumbs do NOT constitute "not healthy".
Often injured Everett? When? Once last year? That's often? He's .277 lifetime, which is not HOF material, but not chopped liver, either. Neither is a career OPS of .821.
Now my favorite: Aaron Rowand has NOTHING to prove. He hit .293 in his rookie year (really sucks, doesn't it?). He struggled at the beginning of 2002 when he wasn't playing regularly (most young players do) but managed to hit .380 or so once Lofton got traded and he started playing every day. And he struggled at the beginning of 2003 when he was less than 100% from his shoulder injury (must make him "never healthy", huh?) So every time he's been healthy and had regular playing time he's hit no worse than .293. Unless you think he's going to be riding the bench a lot this year or that a meteor is going to hit him, it seems like pretty much a lock he'll hit .290 at the very least.

Just because people keep repeating this crap doesn't make it so. If you're going to persist in the chicken little stuff, at least come up with something credible and/or original instead of repeating the same trite garbage you hear from Rob Neyer.

Jabroni
02-09-2005, 11:41 PM
Yep, both Dye and Everett are good producers when healthy and in shape. Everett even moreso than Dye...

Carl Everett (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=5073)
.277 career AVG
.348 career OBP
.473 career SLG
.821 career OPS

Jermaine Dye (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=5610)
.272 career AVG
.334 career OBP
.463 career SLG
.797 career OPS

FarWestChicago
02-10-2005, 02:25 AM
Baseball Prospectus has a somewhat positive piece on the wider ramifications of the Carlos Lee trade.This must be a truly dark day for the FOBB's. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 07:23 AM
Excuse me, but I've been hearing this claptrap all winter, and I'm going to spout off.

Dye has had a few freak injuries. Didn't you ever break a bone? These are NOT nagging injuries. Past broken legs and thumbs do NOT constitute "not healthy".
Often injured Everett? When? Once last year? That's often? He's .277 lifetime, which is not HOF material, but not chopped liver, either. Neither is a career OPS of .821.
Now my favorite: Aaron Rowand has NOTHING to prove. He hit .293 in his rookie year (really sucks, doesn't it?). He struggled at the beginning of 2002 when he wasn't playing regularly (most young players do) but managed to hit .380 or so once Lofton got traded and he started playing every day. And he struggled at the beginning of 2003 when he was less than 100% from his shoulder injury (must make him "never healthy", huh?) So every time he's been healthy and had regular playing time he's hit no worse than .293. Unless you think he's going to be riding the bench a lot this year or that a meteor is going to hit him, it seems like pretty much a lock he'll hit .290 at the very least.
Just because people keep repeating this crap doesn't make it so. If you're going to persist in the chicken little stuff, at least come up with something credible and/or original instead of repeating the same trite garbage you hear from Rob Neyer.

So, is this some sort of rookie hazing ritual?

1. Dye hasn't played anything resembling a full season since '01. Yet, I can't give him the "injury prone" label? Sorry, but the facts suggest otherwise.

2. Everett's numbers have fallen since his days with Houston and Boston. He hasn't hit .300 since 2000. He did hit .287 in '03, but also hit .257, .267, and .260 in '01, '02, and '04, respectively. And he hasn't had a 30 HR/100 RBI season since 2000. In terms of injuries, Carl's played 102, 105, 147, and 82-game seasons over the past four years. He may not be Ken Griffey Jr., but he's only been playing about 2/3 of a season lately. Unless I'm mistaken and Carl was actually benched for 50+ games in '01 and '02, I don't see how one can't call his durability into question.

3. Rowand appears to be developing into a good player, but he's still a long way away from Maggs or Carlos. As you stated, his BA has been pretty respectable. But I didn't see good power numbers until last sesason. I'd like to think that Aaron will be able to repeat that, but I'm still not confident that he's going to be a Maggs- or Carlos-type hitter over the long run. Only time will tell.

You'll have to excuse me for my "chicken little garbage" and lack of a Sox cheerleading uniform, but our lineup has taken some serious hits in the offseason with the losses of Maggs, Carlos, and Frank potentially missing the beginning of the season. And you'll have to excuse me if I'm not convinced that aging journeymen like Dye and Everett will be sufficient patchwork. If you're not at least somewhat concerned by that, you're nothing short of a blind, delusional homer. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic.

That said, I feel quite optimistic about our starting rotation and am confident that they'll keep us in the race this year.

voodoochile
02-10-2005, 10:20 AM
Excuse me, but I've been hearing this claptrap all winter, and I'm going to spout off.



Dye has had a few freak injuries. Didn't you ever break a bone? These are NOT nagging injuries. Past broken legs and thumbs do NOT constitute "not healthy".
Often injured Everett? When? Once last year? That's often? He's .277 lifetime, which is not HOF material, but not chopped liver, either. Neither is a career OPS of .821.
Now my favorite: Aaron Rowand has NOTHING to prove. He hit .293 in his rookie year (really sucks, doesn't it?). He struggled at the beginning of 2002 when he wasn't playing regularly (most young players do) but managed to hit .380 or so once Lofton got traded and he started playing every day. And he struggled at the beginning of 2003 when he was less than 100% from his shoulder injury (must make him "never healthy", huh?) So every time he's been healthy and had regular playing time he's hit no worse than .293. Unless you think he's going to be riding the bench a lot this year or that a meteor is going to hit him, it seems like pretty much a lock he'll hit .290 at the very least.
Just because people keep repeating this crap doesn't make it so. If you're going to persist in the chicken little stuff, at least come up with something credible and/or original instead of repeating the same trite garbage you hear from Rob Neyer.


In addition, Kurk doesn't even take into account the possibility that Everett might be healthy enough to outplay Pods and take the LF spot from him. I bet that makes that WARP3 stat even better.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 10:30 AM
It would be disasterous if he didn't. With Maggs and Carlos gone and with Frank nearing retirement, who would be able to replicate his power numbers? Jermaine Dye, who is never healthy anymore? Carl Everett, who is also often injured and isn't even that great of a hitter when healthy? Aaron Rowand, who looked promising last year, but still has to prove it over the long haul?

KW would be wise to re-sign Paulie ASAP.

You'd be right if they were to let Paulie go and do nothing. But letting him go would free up about 9mil in payroll, add in Everett's 4.5mil and you have a nice little chunk of change to go get a hitter. This year, that could have gotten you in the running for Carlos Delgado, JD Drew, or a number of other guys.

I'm not sure who the 2005 FAs are, but a look at that list would be key to deciding how aggressively you want to go after resigning Paulie. In an ideal situation, you resign Frank at a small paycut ($8mil), and then take the 15.5mil and target a franchise-type player to replace Paulie. Or you resign him at say $7mil and try to do the same with the remaining 8.5mil.

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 11:13 AM
1. Dye hasn't played anything resembling a full season since '01. Yet, I can't give him the "injury prone" label? Sorry, but the facts suggest otherwise.

:?: I'm sorry, do 137 games and 532 at bats in 2004 not constitute a full season? You also have to admit that Dye's injuries were for the most part flukes. Fouling a pitch off your leg and breaking it really doesn't make someone "injury prone".

3. Rowand appears to be developing into a good player, but he's still a long way away from Maggs or Carlos. As you stated, his BA has been pretty respectable. But I didn't see good power numbers until last sesason. I'd like to think that Aaron will be able to repeat that, but I'm still not confident that he's going to be a Maggs- or Carlos-type hitter over the long run. Only time will tell.

:?: You haven't seen good power numbers from Rowand until last season? Have you checked out his minor league numbers? Have you also looked at his power numbers from 2001 and 2003? All translate to 20+ home runs. Also, you say he's a long way from CLee? Um, his 2004 season was better than ANY season CLee has put together at the plate. As good as CLee is, he's never topped .900 for his OPS, as where Rowand did last year.

You'll have to excuse me for my "chicken little garbage" and lack of a Sox cheerleading uniform, but our lineup has taken some serious hits in the offseason with the losses of Maggs, Carlos, and Frank potentially missing the beginning of the season. And you'll have to excuse me if I'm not convinced that aging journeymen like Dye and Everett will be sufficient patchwork. If you're not at least somewhat concerned by that, you're nothing short of a blind, delusional homer. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic.

:?: We lost Maggs? I'm sorry, if I'm not mistaken we really didn't have Maggs last year either, nor did we really have Frank. Dye is an aging journeyman? Do you also realize that he's the same age as Magglio? Is Maggs an aging journeyman?

If you're going to be "realistic" at least be worried about "real" things. I understand your concern about Everett, but the rest of your worries don't seem to hold water.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 11:21 AM
So, is this some sort of rookie hazing ritual?

1. Dye hasn't played anything resembling a full season since '01. Yet, I can't give him the "injury prone" label? Sorry, but the facts suggest otherwise.

2. Everett's numbers have fallen since his days with Houston and Boston. He hasn't hit .300 since 2000. He did hit .287 in '03, but also hit .257, .267, and .260 in '01, '02, and '04, respectively. And he hasn't had a 30 HR/100 RBI season since 2000. In terms of injuries, Carl's played 102, 105, 147, and 82-game seasons over the past four years. He may not be Ken Griffey Jr., but he's only been playing about 2/3 of a season lately. Unless I'm mistaken and Carl was actually benched for 50+ games in '01 and '02, I don't see how one can't call his durability into question.

3. Rowand appears to be developing into a good player, but he's still a long way away from Maggs or Carlos. As you stated, his BA has been pretty respectable. But I didn't see good power numbers until last sesason. I'd like to think that Aaron will be able to repeat that, but I'm still not confident that he's going to be a Maggs- or Carlos-type hitter over the long run. Only time will tell.

You'll have to excuse me for my "chicken little garbage" and lack of a Sox cheerleading uniform, but our lineup has taken some serious hits in the offseason with the losses of Maggs, Carlos, and Frank potentially missing the beginning of the season. And you'll have to excuse me if I'm not convinced that aging journeymen like Dye and Everett will be sufficient patchwork. If you're not at least somewhat concerned by that, you're nothing short of a blind, delusional homer. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic.

That said, I feel quite optimistic about our starting rotation and am confident that they'll keep us in the race this year.I don't know how bouncing a ball off your shin makes you "injury prone". Maybe you don't understand the concept of freak injury, but it's no more likely to happen to him than to any of the other 749 players on MLB rosters. Everett's case is similar. He had some nagging hammie pulls which, if you've ever had one, just never goes away during the season. But an off-season of rest gets you back to 100%. EVERY MLB player has had them at one time or another, so to say that Everett is any more "injury prone" than anyone else because he's had them is nuts. :kukoo:

And no one ever said that Rowand was going to put up Thomas or Ordonez numbers. All he does is get on base and drive in runners, and he's proven that he can do that consistently. Heaven forbid we should have a player who's a good hitter without putting up monster power numbers.:(:

By all means be realistic. But worrying that Dye is going to break his leg again is not being realistic. It's being silly. There is no doubt this team has question marks. So does every other team. That's just not one of them.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 01:03 PM
:?: We lost Maggs? I'm sorry, if I'm not mistaken we really didn't have Maggs last year either, nor did we really have Frank. Dye is an aging journeyman? Do you also realize that he's the same age as Magglio? Is Maggs an aging journeyman?

Dye had a great run from '99-'01, but hasn't had a 25-HR/.270 season since. Obviously, he isn't the same hitting talent as Maggs, who has averaged about .310 and 30 HRs over the past seven seasons. I realize that re-signing Maggs was a long shot and that KW did about as good a job as could be expected in finding a replacement. But that isn't going to change the fact that we're going to take a hit in losing Maggs' offensive production.

And I'm still not sold on Everett returning to his pre-'01 numbers. Sure, I think he's capable of playing 100-120 games, hitting .280 with 20 HRs, and driving in 80. But that's still a step down from Carlos and, at age 34, it's not like Everett's going to get much better. Plus, Carl's as slow as molasses. I never thought of Carlos as a defensive liability, but I can't say the same about Everett. Given that and the fact that our two best hitters are our DH and first baseman, I don't even know where Carl will fit into our lineup and, therefore, if he'll even be able to contribute more than 350 ABs this season.

As for Rowand, I agree that he's on his way to becoming a very good center fielder. He's been a high average hitter for a few years now and showed that he could combine that with power at the major league level last year. But he also had a rather weak 7 HRs in 302 ABs in '02. Because of that, I'm still not completely sold on him at this point. I'd like to see him do it more than once. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's still my opinion.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 01:07 PM
Dye had a great run from '99-'01, but hasn't had a 25-HR/.270 season since. Obviously, he isn't the same hitting talent as Maggs, who has averaged about .310 and 30 HRs over the past seven seasons. I realize that re-signing Maggs was a long shot and that KW did about as good a job as could be expected in finding a replacement. But that isn't going to change the fact that we're going to take a hit in losing Maggs' offensive production.

And I'm still not sold on Everett returning to his pre-'01 numbers. Sure, I think he's capable of playing 100-120 games, hitting .280 with 20 HRs, and driving in 80. But that's still a step down from Carlos and, at age 34, it's not like Everett's going to get much better. Plus, Carl's as slow as molasses. I never thought of Carlos as a defensive liability, but I can't say the same about Everett. Given that and the fact that our two best hitters are our DH and first baseman, I don't even know where Carl will fit into our lineup or if he'll be able to contribute more than 350 ABs this season.

As for Rowand, I agree that he's on his way to becoming a very good center fielder. He's been a high average hitter for a few years now and showed that he could combine that with power at the major league level last year. But he also had a rather weak 7 HRs in 302 ABs in '02. Because of that, I'm still not completely sold on him at this point. I'd like to see him do it more than once. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's still my opinion.What? Rowand had only 7 HR in '02??? Get rid of the bum!!! EVERYBODY has to hit at least 25 HR. Bring back Jose!!!

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 01:12 PM
What? Rowand had only 7 HR in '02??? Get rid of the bum!!! EVERYBODY has to hit at least 25 HR. Bring back Jose!!!

Outfielders who can't hit at least 15-20 HRs had better have a .380+ OBP or be able to steal 30+ bases if they expect to start at the Major League level. I didn't see that from Rowand in '02. I did see it last year, though, so I'm optimistic about his future. But, at this point, Carlos Lee is still the better hitter because he's actually done it more than once.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Outfielders who can't hit at least 15-20 HRs had better have a .380+ OBP or be able to steal 30+ bases if they expect to start at the Major League level.Says who? Where are these rules written down? There are many ways to be a productive player. I can't see why any player has to fit someone's model of what an outfielder has to be.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 01:24 PM
Says who? Where are these rules written down? There are many ways to be a productive player. I can't see why any player has to fit someone's model of what an outfielder has to be.

Says me. If you don't like what I have to say, don't reply to my posts. :whatever:

SoxxoS
02-10-2005, 01:27 PM
But that isn't going to change the fact that we're going to take a hit in losing Maggs' offensive production.


For the 4th time...we DID NOT HAVE MAGGS LAST YEAR.


And I'm still not sold on Everett returning to his pre-'01 numbers. Sure, I think he's capable of playing 100-120 games, hitting .280 with 20 HRs, and driving in 80. But that's still a step down from Carlos and, at age 34, it's not like Everett's going to get much better. Plus, Carl's as slow as molasses. I never thought of Carlos as a defensive liability, but I can't say the same about Everett. Given that and the fact that our two best hitters are our DH and first baseman, I don't even know where Carl will fit into our lineup and, therefore, if he'll even be able to contribute more than 350 ABs this season.

Nobody is sold that Everett is going to return to his pre-'01 numbers. I am not sold Frank is going to return to his pre-2000 numbers, either. What does that mean?
Carl was fat and out of shape when we acquired him last season. He isn't as slow as you think, if you watched/remember the 2003 season. He actually played CF adaquately. Ozzie is going to play the right guys at the right time. He may only get 350, he may not. All I know is he is great depth at the corner outfield spot and the DH position if Frank has problems.

As for Rowand, I agree that he's on his way to becoming a very good center fielder. He's been a high average hitter for a few years now and showed that he could combine that with power at the major league level last year. But he also had a rather weak 7 HRs in 302 ABs in '02. Because of that, I'm still not completely sold on him at this point. I'd like to see him do it more than once. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's still my opinion.

And this isn't really worth my time to talk about what someone did in 2002 when it isn't anything near a valid point.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 01:43 PM
For the 4th time...we DID NOT HAVE MAGGS LAST YEAR.


Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. :nuts:

My point was that, until he got hurt in a freak collision last season, Maggs put up consistent stud numbers (at least 530 ABs, while averaging 30+ HRs, a .310 BA, and ~110 RBIs). It's likely that Maggs will put up very good numbers again this year (at least the Tigers were willing to bet $75 million that he will). For some reason, I don't see Dye completely making up for that loss.

jabrch
02-10-2005, 01:46 PM
It's likely that Maggs will put up very good numbers again this year


Your WHAT hurts?

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 02:00 PM
Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. :nuts:

My point was that, until he got hurt in a freak collision last season, Maggs put up consistent stud numbers (at least 530 ABs, while averaging 30+ HRs, a .310 BA, and ~110 RBIs). It's likely that Maggs will put up very good numbers again this year (at least the Tigers were willing to bet $75 million that he will). For some reason, I don't see Dye completely making up for that loss.I don't see Pierzynski making up for not having Carlton Fisk, either.:o: He's gone. Get over it.

The fact is, the Sox got about .239 out of RF last year. Pods should be able to replace that, easy. Dye (the aging journeyman :rolleyes:) can equal or at least come close to matching Lee's numbers. Defensively, the OF is much better.

SoxxoS
02-10-2005, 02:01 PM
Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed. :nuts:

My point was that, until he got hurt in a freak collision last season, Maggs put up consistent stud numbers (at least 530 ABs, while averaging 30+ HRs, a .310 BA, and ~110 RBIs). It's likely that Maggs will put up very good numbers again this year (at least the Tigers were willing to bet $75 million that he will). For some reason, I don't see Dye completely making up for that loss.

#2 and rdivaldi both said it, and you still didn't get it, so I figured I would point it out again.

You are picking and choosing your arguments. "Well Rowand hit on 7 HR's in 2002" and "Maggs was great the year before last, when he was healthy" Then you are comparing Dye to the pre-2004 Maggs production, even though he didn't play in 2004. That makes no sense. It makes sense to compare Dye to LAST SEASON's Maggs (and the fill in RF-Gload/Everett), not the 2003 Maggs...Dye doesn't need to make up for the loss of the pre-2004 Maggs. He needs to surpass what Maggs and the RF fill in produced last year in order for it to be an improvement, which should happen.

Edit:Which No 2 just clarified-stating the RF position hit .239 last year.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 02:17 PM
#2 and rdivaldi both said it, and you still didn't get it, so I figured I would point it out again.

You are picking and choosing your arguments. "Well Rowand hit on 7 HR's in 2002" and "Maggs was great the year before last, when he was healthy" Then you are comparing Dye to the pre-2004 Maggs production, even though he didn't play in 2004. That makes no sense. It makes sense to compare Dye to LAST SEASON's Maggs (and the fill in RF-Gload/Everett), not the 2003 Maggs...Dye doesn't need to make up for the loss of the pre-2004 Maggs. He needs to surpass what Maggs and the RF fill in produced last year in order for it to be an improvement, which should happen.

Edit:Which No 2 just clarified-stating the RF position hit .239 last year.

So, I'm not allowed to project what Maggs would've likely done this season in USCF vs. what Dye will likely do this season in USCF? :?:

Whichever stats you choose to argue, the outfield has essentially gone from Carlos and a (now healthy) Maggs to Dye and Posednik. My point was that Dye/Posednik will likely be less productive at the plate than Maggs/Carlos would've been had they still played with the Sox this season. That's all.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 02:21 PM
So, I'm not allowed to project what Maggs would've likely done this season in USCF vs. what Dye will likely do this season in USCF? :?:

Whichever stats you choose to argue, the outfield has essentially gone from Carlos and a (now healthy) Maggs to Dye and Posednik. My point was that Dye/Posednik will likely be less productive at the plate than Maggs/Carlos would've been had they still played with the Sox this season. That's all.

You also assume that Maggs is helthy....given that he's still only at a reported 70-80% 5-6 monhts post-surgery, and the fact that this is potentiall a degenerative condition - I doubt highly that Maggs is going to be 100% healthy this year.

In fact, I'll go as far as to say that Dye will hit more HR than Maggs in 2005. I know there are park effects involved, but if Dye beats him inclusive of those, then at the very worst, the dropoff from Maggs to Jermaine can't be all that significant.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 02:23 PM
You also assume that Maggs is helthy....given that he's still only at a reported 70-80% 5-6 monhts post-surgery, and the fact that this is potentiall a degenerative condition - I doubt highly that Maggs is going to be 100% healthy this year.

That's right. I am assuming that and I could be wrong. I'm also assuming that the Tigers' doctors gave him an extentive examination before handing him $75 million. But, yes, it's possible that Detroit's doctors could not see evidence of a degenerative condition and that Maggs may not ever revert to his pre-'04 form.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 02:35 PM
That's right. I am assuming that and I could be wrong. I'm also assuming that the Tigers' doctors gave him an extentive examination before handing him $75 million. But, yes, it's possible that Detroit's doctors could not see evidence of a degenerative condition and that Maggs may not ever revert to his pre-'04 form.

They didn't conduct anything more than a physical and "talk to his doctors". They're banking on the 25 DL day thing being insurance enough, but as we in Chicago know, Maggs isn't necessarily going to be 100$ forthright regarding this.

Mickster
02-10-2005, 02:44 PM
They didn't conduct anything more than a physical and "talk to his doctors". They're banking on the 25 DL day thing being insurance enough, but as we in Chicago know, Maggs isn't necessarily going to be 100$ forthright regarding this.

Actually, Domboowski watched him run on a treadmill. No "cutting", no sliding. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Where do I sign? :redneck

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 03:28 PM
So, I'm not allowed to project what Maggs would've likely done this season in USCF vs. what Dye will likely do this season in USCF? :?:

Whichever stats you choose to argue, the outfield has essentially gone from Carlos and a (now healthy) Maggs to Dye and Posednik. My point was that Dye/Posednik will likely be less productive at the plate than Maggs/Carlos would've been had they still played with the Sox this season. That's all.So your big argument is that Dye isn't as good as a healthy pre-2004 Ordonez? What's the next revelation, that Crede isn't as good as Robin Ventura?

You can compare one player to another till he cows come home, and never learn anything. It's a team game. What matters is the team, not the collection of individuals. You could have a collection of the 9 best players in the game and still not have a winning team. That's the fallacy in comparing VORP and WARP and THORP and whatever ORP you can think of. That's been the Sox problem for the last several years. They didn't have the offensive balance and wound up with a very inconsistent offense. That and their pitching stunk, but that's another issue altogether.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 03:37 PM
So your big argument is that Dye isn't as good as a healthy pre-2004 Ordonez? What's the next revelation, that Crede isn't as good as Robin Ventura?

You can compare one player to another till he cows come home, and never learn anything. It's a team game. What matters is the team, not the collection of individuals. You could have a collection of the 9 best players in the game and still not have a winning team. That's the fallacy in comparing VORP and WARP and THORP and whatever ORP you can think of. That's been the Sox problem for the last several years. They didn't have the offensive balance and wound up with a very inconsistent offense. That and their pitching stunk, but that's another issue altogether.

Well, I certainly won't disagree with that. Are you saying that the '05 Sox are a better team than the previous incarnations? If so, what is your evidence?

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 03:41 PM
Well, I certainly won't disagree with that. Are you saying that the '05 Sox are a better team than the previous incarnations? If so, what is your evidence?

Simple. The team is better at almost every position on the field: CF, SS, 2B, 1B, C. Compared to 2004, they're also better in RF.

Pitching staff - the same can be said: this is the best rotation top to bottom that we've had in a long time, possibly since the Blackjack-Alex-Bere-Alvarez days.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 03:50 PM
Well, I certainly won't disagree with that. Are you saying that the '05 Sox are a better team than the previous incarnations? If so, what is your evidence?Depends on which incarnation you're talking about. Comparing to '04, I don't think too many people would argue the pitching isn't a whole lot better, and IMO, that difference is enough to even them up with the Twins.

Offensively, it shapes up like this:

Dye vs. Lee: Not as big a difference as you might think. And when you translate Dye's numbers to Coors East, it's even closer.
Pods vs. Ordonez/Perez/Borchard: The three-headed monster hit .239 last year. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Pods will improve on that. The SB are a bonus.

Overall, I say the OF is at least equal to 2004. If you want to say it's not quite as good, I won't argue the point. If you want to say it's a huge downgrade, I think you're crazy.

Uribe vs. Valentin: No contest. Uribe by a mile
Iguchi vs. Harris: Tough to tell when Iguchi has never seen a MLB pitch, but I think the odds favor Iguchi.

So overall, the IF is significantly better than 2004.

Pierzynski/Davis vs. Davis/Burke: Next.

DH-Thomas/Everett vs. Thomas/Everett: Thomas is a big question mark, but we had him for only 74 games last year. I think there's little doubt Everett will be at least as good as last year, and probably better. I give the edge to 2005, especially if Frank comes back in form.

Bench: Much better in 2005, especially with Everett as a PH.

When you add everything up, I can't see how they will not be better offensively in 2005 than 2004. Unless you measure everything by power output.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 03:54 PM
Simple. The team is better at almost every position on the field: CF, SS, 2B, 1B, C. Compared to 2004, they're also better in RF.


CF is the same as last year (Rowand)
1B is the same as last year
SS is only better because Uribe moved over, so that's somewhat misleading
2B is definitely better
C is definitely more talented, although Pierzynski is reportedly a cancer
RF has improved only because just about anybody is better than Borchard

Agreed about the starting rotation, although I question how much El Duque has left in the tank. Contreras is also relatively old and didn't have a good season last year. Those two a still question marks, IMO.

That said...
LF takes a hit going from Lee to Posednik
Frank is a year older and still not healthy
Takatsu is a year older

I do see some overall improvement, but mostly on the pitching side. Thankfully, that's what this team needed the most.

SoxxoS
02-10-2005, 03:56 PM
And #2 didn't mention that instead of:

Buerhle-Loiaza-Garland-Wright-Show :o:

it's

Buerhle-Garcia-El Duque-Contreras-Garland

HUGE upgrade...especially since Loiaza was awful almost the entire year. Even if one of the 3-4 or 5 gets hurt, we are still much better off than last season.

The bullpen with Takatsu, Marte, Vizcaino, Hermanson and Cotts looks to be much better than the 2004 version. Everyone has concerns that MLB might have caught up with Takatsu last season, but he is solid until proven otherwise. Plus, most importantly, we are KOCH-LESS.

This team is much improved if you look at the individual players that were replaced and what they were replaced with.

I wish spring training would just start already...

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 03:57 PM
When you add everything up, I can't see how they will not be better offensively in 2005 than 2004. Unless you measure everything by power output.

I don't think they'll drive in as many runs as last year, but relying on the long ball isn't the way to go anyway. I do like Posednik's speed. This squad has been in need of a guy who can steal 40 bases for some time.

As I've said before, most of their improvement was in the starting pitching/long relief, which is what really needed to be addressed.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:00 PM
CF is the same as last year (Rowand)
1B is the same as last year
SS is only better because Uribe moved over, so that's somewhat misleading
2B is definitely better
C is definitely more talented, although Pierzynski is reportedly a cancer
RF has improved only because just about anybody is better than Borchard

That said...
LF takes a hit going from Lee to Posednik
Frank is a year older and still not healthy

I do see some overall improvement, but mostly on the pitching side. Thankfully, that's what this team needed the most.

So you agree that there's improvement at all positions but LF. At DH, we got less than half a season from Frank in 2004, and a bunch from out of shape Everett. Now we have in-shape Everett and probably more than half a season from Frank. That's an improvement. Bottom line, you'd have to be going from Bonds in LF to you or I to outweight that type of improvement elsewhere on the field. And that's without even considering the pitching.

The fact is that this team is better in almost every way than the 2004 team. The fact that they're not better than the mythical fantasy team in which 2003 Maggs is transported into 2005 is irrelevant. You might as well complain that they're not better than they would have been had they traded Borchard for Pujols in the offseason.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 04:05 PM
And #2 didn't mention that instead of:

Buerhle-Loiaza-Garland-Wright-Show :o:

it's

Buerhle-Garcia-El Duque-Contreras-Garland

HUGE upgrade...especially since Loiaza was awful almost the entire year. Even if one of the 3-4 or 5 gets hurt, we are still much better off than last season.

The bullpen with Takatsu, Marte, Vizcaino, Hermanson and Cotts looks to be much better than the 2004 version. Everyone has concerns that MLB might have caught up with Takatsu last season, but he is solid until proven otherwise. Plus, most importantly, we are KOCH-LESS.

This team is much improved if you look at the individual players that were replaced and what they were replaced with.

I wish spring training would just start already...I thought the pitching improvement was pretty generally agreed and didn't need to be pointed out. Pitching wins. It's been that way for 100 years. If they had changed nothing else, I think the pitching improvement would be enough to get them even with the Twins.

Offensively, I think the better balance will result in just as much offense, even with a small decline in power production.

Of course, predictions are just so much hot air. But with six days to go until pitchers and catchers report, we don't have much else to do.:tongue: It's really going to come down to who has a good year and who has a poor one, and there's no way of predicting that. Jeez, I wish they would just get started, already.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 04:06 PM
The fact is that this team is better in almost every way than the 2004 team. The fact that they're not better than the mythical fantasy team in which 2003 Maggs is transported into 2005 is irrelevant. You might as well complain that they're not better than they would have been had they traded Borchard for Pujols in the offseason.

The pitching is definitely better, assuming that Contreras has a decent year (he didn't last year) and El Duque doesn't experience any more elbow problems.

In terms of offense, they let two very good outfielders go for two lesser players and to free up money for Tad, AJ, and the Cubans. It's a good overall strategy, but I still don't think their offense will be as potent as in previous years.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 04:08 PM
I thought the pitching improvement was pretty generally agreed and didn't need to be pointed out. Pitching wins. It's been that way for 100 years. If they had changed nothing else, I think the pitching improvement would be enough to get them even with the Twins.

Agreed and agreed about Spring Training not coming soon enough. I think we're all sick of this hypothetical discussion. :D:

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:13 PM
In terms of offense, they let two very good outfielders go for two lesser players to free up money for Tad, AJ, and the Cubans. It's a good overall strategy, but I still don't think their offense will be as potent as in previous years.

That's the point: They let ONE go. The other one is a)highly likely not to return to being the player he was and 2)wasn't part of the 2004 team anyway.

The Sox were the 3d best scoring team in MLB last year with a generally horrendous situation in RF, SS, C and a pretty bad DH situation. All of those positions should be better in 2005, so it's highly unlikely that they take a major step back in overall run-scoring.

Jabroni
02-10-2005, 04:16 PM
CF is the same as last year (Rowand)
1B is the same as last year
SS is only better because Uribe moved over, so that's somewhat misleading
2B is definitely better
C is definitely more talented, although Pierzynski is reportedly a cancer
RF has improved only because just about anybody is better than Borchard

Agreed about the starting rotation, although I question how much El Duque has left in the tank. Contreras is also relatively old and didn't have a good season last year. Those two a still question marks, IMO.

That said...
LF takes a hit going from Lee to Posednik
Frank is a year older and still not healthy
Takatsu is a year older

I do see some overall improvement, but mostly on the pitching side. Thankfully, that's what this team needed the most.Why is our improvement of Uribe over Valentin at SS misleading because we moved him over? We also replaced Willie Harris/Robbie Alomar with Iguchi at 2B who has more upside than both of them. Also, Podsednik will replace the collective numbers of our carousel of RF starters (Magg$, Borchard, Timo, Gload) and Dye will come close to replacing Carlos Lee's numbers but he probably won't be able to match him. Everett won't be able to match Frank's numbers if he misses the start of the season. So the only losses that I see us having are:

Jermaine Dye < Carlos Lee (not a HUGE loss of production)
Carl Everett < Frank Thomas (if Frank is not healthy for the start of the season)

And the thing is that Pierzynski over Davis and Iguchi over Harris/Alomar will probably make up for the losses of offensive production above.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 04:18 PM
The other one is a)highly likely not to return to being the player he was

That's purely speculation at this point.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:22 PM
That's purely speculation at this point.

All available factual information leads one to that conclusion. It is only inferences that could possibly lead one to another conclusion.

Facts regarding Maggs:
- He had a serious knee injury requiring an experimental treatment not approved in the US
- Said treatment is associated with degenerative conditions
- Despite his own comments & claims of health, Maggs still hasn't conducted any baseball workouts
- All reports say that right now, almost 6 months post-surgery, he's only at about 70%
- Maggs himself told the doctor that he was worried this was career-ending
- Most damning of all - Maggs didn't conduct any workouts or allow any medical exams despite that costing him money

Inferences not supported by fact:
- Tigers must have conducted extensive workouts/exams
- Maggs says he's healthy, so he must be

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 04:23 PM
Why is our improvement of Uribe over Valentin at SS misleading because we moved him over? We also replaced Willie Harris/Robbie Alomar with Iguchi at 2B who has more upside than both of them. Also, Podsednik will replace the collective numbers of our carousel of RF starters (Magg$, Borchard, Timo, Gload) and Dye will come close to replacing Carlos Lee's numbers but he probably won't be able to match him. Everett won't be able to match Frank's numbers if he misses the start of the season. So the only losses that I see us having are:

Jermaine Dye < Carlos Lee (not a HUGE loss of production)
Carl Everett < Frank Thomas (if Frank is not healthy for the start of the season)

And the thing is that Pierzynski over Davis and Iguchi over Harris/Alomar will probably make up for the losses of offensive production above.Thomas only played 74 games last season and they had Everett for most of the rest. I think it's a cinch FT will play in more than that this year. And Everett is more likely to be better than the 2004 version than worse. So overall, I'd say 2005 should be a net improvement at DH over 2004.

Jabroni
02-10-2005, 04:27 PM
Thomas only played 74 games last season and they had Everett for most of the rest. I think it's a cinch FT will play in more than that this year. And Everett is more likely to be better than the 2004 version than worse. So overall, I'd say 2005 should be a net improvement at DH over 2004.True, I forgot about that. If Frank gets healthy quick and plays more than last season and an in shape Everett at DH, that should be an improvement over last season depending on how soon Frank gets back of course.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 04:27 PM
All available factual information leads one to that conclusion. It is only inferences that could possibly lead one to another conclusion.

Facts regarding Maggs:
- He had a serious knee injury requiring an experimental treatment not approved in the US
- Said treatment is associated with degenerative conditions
- Despite his own comments & claims of health, Maggs still hasn't conducted any baseball workouts
- All reports say that right now, almost 6 months post-surgery, he's only at about 70%
- Maggs himself told the doctor that he was worried this was career-ending
- Most damning of all - Maggs didn't conduct any workouts or allow any medical exams despite that costing him money

Inferences not supported by fact:
- Tigers must have conducted extensive workouts/exams
- Maggs says he's healthy, so he must be

It could be. Then again, I remember people in the media saying that Isaac Bruce was washed up after he tore his hammy in '98. The following season, he caught 77 balls for 1165 yds and 12 TDs. Not to mention the winning TD pass in the Super Bowl where he blew right by two defenders.

I agree that Maggs may be done. Then again, I'm just as sure that he isn't done. Like I said before, it's all speculation at this point.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:27 PM
Thomas only played 74 games last season and they had Everett for most of the rest. I think it's a cinch FT will play in more than that this year. And Everett is more likely to be better than the 2004 version than worse. So overall, I'd say 2005 should be a net improvement at DH over 2004.

A brief comparison

Podsednik v. Maggs/Borchard/Perez/Gload -->Advantage 2005
Dye v. Lee -->Advantage 2004
Iguchi v. Valentin -->Advantage 2005
AJP/Davis v. Olivo/Davis/Burke -->advantage 2005
>74 game Frank/in-shape Carl v. 74-game Frank/out of shape Carl -->advantage 2005
Konerko, Rowand, Crede, Uribe -->Push

So in effect, you're weighing the difference between Carlos Lee's 31HR / 99RBI and Dye's 2--5 #s against a number of other improvvements. Dye's highly likely to put up at least 25HR & 80RBI in USCF, so the net is likely to be an improved offense over 2004.

kempsted
02-14-2005, 03:02 PM
Since most people on this board seems convinced that Baseball Prospectus never gives KW any credit

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3745

If you look at who KW got for his money he saved from CLEE, the trade comes out as a winner according to BP. They of course question, as we should as well, weather the Sox could have made the signings they did without the trade but that is a JR problem.

DrCrawdad
02-14-2005, 04:59 PM
Excuse me, but I've been hearing this claptrap all winter, and I'm going to spout off.


Dye has had a few freak injuries. Didn't you ever break a bone? These are NOT nagging injuries. Past broken legs and thumbs do NOT constitute "not healthy".
Often injured Everett? When? Once last year? That's often? He's .277 lifetime, which is not HOF material, but not chopped liver, either. Neither is a career OPS of .821.
Now my favorite: Aaron Rowand has NOTHING to prove. He hit .293 in his rookie year (really sucks, doesn't it?). He struggled at the beginning of 2002 when he wasn't playing regularly (most young players do) but managed to hit .380 or so once Lofton got traded and he started playing every day. And he struggled at the beginning of 2003 when he was less than 100% from his shoulder injury (must make him "never healthy", huh?) So every time he's been healthy and had regular playing time he's hit no worse than .293. Unless you think he's going to be riding the bench a lot this year or that a meteor is going to hit him, it seems like pretty much a lock he'll hit .290 at the very least.

Just because people keep repeating this crap doesn't make it so. If you're going to persist in the chicken little stuff, at least come up with something credible and/or original instead of repeating the same trite garbage you hear from Rob Neyer.

I don't know if you caught this in the Cubune the other day:
...(KW) was the one who signed aging and oft-injured outfielder Jermaine Dye...

The same day the Cubune hinted at Burnitz having the Coors effect last year but failed to mention that IF Dye at 31 years old Dye is "aging" what about 36 year old Burnitz?

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:03 PM
I don't know if you caught this in the Cubune the other day:


The same day the Cubune hinted at Burnitz having the Coors effect last year but failed to mention that IF Dye at 31 years old Dye is "aging" what about 36 year old Burnitz?Same old same old. I'd post the tag of the guy barfing, but I'm tired of seeing it. It's not the fact that they don't pick the Sox. But these lazy-asses that don't do their homework just honk me off. I don't know how they get away with it. If I did my job that poorly, I'd be living in a cardboard box.

DrCrawdad
02-14-2005, 05:23 PM
Same old same old. I'd post the tag of the guy barfing, but I'm tired of seeing it. It's not the fact that they don't pick the Sox. But these lazy-asses that don't do their homework just honk me off. I don't know how they get away with it. If I did my job that poorly, I'd be living in a cardboard box.

It's same old, but IMHO it's not error or laziness. Calling 31 year old Dye "aging" and NOT calling 36 year old Burnitz aging is an editorial bias, IMO. IF Dye is "oft injured" what about Hairston? Hairston has played 122, 58 & 86 games over the last 3 years. Has the Cubune called Hairston "oft injured" or have they explained the nature of his injuries?

Ol' No. 2
02-14-2005, 05:28 PM
It's same old, but IMHO it's not error or laziness. Calling 31 year old Dye "aging" and NOT calling 36 year old Burnitz aging is an editorial bias, IMO. IF Dye is "oft injured" what about Hairston? Hairston has played 122, 58 & 86 games over the last 3 years. Has the Cubune called Hairston "oft injured" or have they explained the nature of his injuries?To some extent the bias is a form of laziness. It's easier to go with the popular opinion and the popular team. As long as everybody's drinking the blue Kool-Aide everybody will think you're smart. No real effort required. And besides, who doesn't love them Cubbies?

DrCrawdad
02-14-2005, 07:03 PM
To some extent the bias is a form of laziness. It's easier to go with the popular opinion and the popular team. As long as everybody's drinking the blue Kool-Aide everybody will think you're smart. No real effort required. And besides, who doesn't love them Cubbies?

I see your point.

FYI Average games over the last three years:
Dye 111
Hairston 89