PDA

View Full Version : Paul Konerko....really bad late-innings


Hangar18
07-25-2005, 10:21 AM
I saw a stat yesterday that made me gasp, then at the same time realize this is what hes been like all season. Konerko is batting like .130 with runners in scoring position this season, if I have that written right. He is basically brutal, and one of the reasons we've lost some of the games weve lost this year. I honestly believe if we drop him in the lineup to 6th, he would be able to stop pressuring himself and making stupid outs.

MsSoxVixen22
07-25-2005, 10:23 AM
I think he did pretty well in DH though and I agree I think it took alittle pressure off him. He did come thru with some basehits this weekend. I hope he keeps up the good work.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 10:35 AM
I saw a stat yesterday that made me gasp, then at the same time realize this is what hes been like all season. Konerko is batting like .130 with runners in scoring position this season, if I have that written right. He is basically brutal, and one of the reasons we've lost some of the games weve lost this year. I honestly believe if we drop him in the lineup to 6th, he would be able to stop pressuring himself and making stupid outs.According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5908&type=batting&year=2005), he's hitting .228 with RISP for the season. I don't have his splits for the last few months, but after a brutal April and May he hit .293 in June and is hitting .301 in July, so I'd expect his RISP numbers to have improved, too.

Hangar18
07-25-2005, 10:42 AM
According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5908&type=batting&year=2005), he's hitting .228 with RISP for the season. I don't have his splits for the last few months, but after a brutal April and May he hit .293 in June and is hitting .301 in July, so I'd expect his RISP numbers to have improved, too.


Gotcha. His .138 was with RISP and 2 outs. In other words, every time theres 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs........he'll pop up Meekly to the second baseman

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 10:47 AM
Gotcha. His .138 was with RISP and 2 outs. In other words, every time theres 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs........he'll pop up Meekly to the second basemanI don't get too carried away with these kind of splits. It makes no sense to believe that someone would hit for half his overall average in a specific situation. It's usually a case of a small sample size.

Flight #24
07-25-2005, 11:07 AM
I don't get too carried away with these kind of splits. It makes no sense to believe that someone would hit for half his overall average in a specific situation. It's usually a case of a small sample size.

Unless you buy the "tightening bunghole" factor, in which case "clutch" situations could make guys perform worse.

Also, FWIW, I recall that back when Paulie was hitting .230 someone posted that he was hitting .230 with RISP (in one of the mega-Paulie threads). So while his overall average has improved, it would appear his RISP avg has not.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 11:20 AM
Unless you buy the "tightening bunghole" factor, in which case "clutch" situations could make guys perform worse.

Also, FWIW, I recall that back when Paulie was hitting .230 someone posted that he was hitting .230 with RISP (in one of the mega-Paulie threads). So while his overall average has improved, it would appear his RISP avg has not.Last year he hit .296 with RISP and 2 out. Does the bunghole tighten only with 2 outs? Sounds more like a statistical anomaly due to a small sample size.

munchman33
07-25-2005, 11:20 AM
What's the point of this thread? We all know Paulie's not good enough to be an everyday player. He's only starting because of all the money he makes.

mdep524
07-25-2005, 11:22 AM
I don't get too carried away with these kind of splits. It makes no sense to believe that someone would hit for half his overall average in a specific situation. It's usually a case of a small sample size. Yes and no... Paulie's poor RISP production has come in 92 ABs (52 w/ 2 outs) and is much lower than his overall production. Compare him to three of the Sox clutch hitters:

AJ Pierzynski .250 w/RISP in 57 ABs; .310 w/ RISP and 2 outs in 29 ABs.
Carl Everett .308 w/RISP in 65 ABs; .333 w/ RISP and 2 outs in 27 ABs.
Joe Crede .309 w/ RISP in 68 ABs; .243 w/ RISP and 2 outs in 37 ABs.

For reference:
Paul Konerko .228 w/ RISP in 92 ABs; .135 w/ RISP and 2 outs in 52 ABs.

AJ's (.203), Carl's (.194) and Joe's (.211) average with the bases empty are bruuu-tal, (compared to a respectable .267 clip for Paulie) but they have come through in the clutch in a big way.

Make your own line up conclusions.

RKMeibalane
07-25-2005, 11:28 AM
What's the point of this thread? We all know Paulie's not good enough to be an everyday player. He's only starting because of all the money he makes.

I think you might be going too far with this statement. He did hit over forty home runs last season.

munchman33
07-25-2005, 11:36 AM
I think you might be going too far with this statement. He did hit over forty home runs last season.

And if he wasn't making all the money he was, he'd have been benched in early May.

Steakpita
07-25-2005, 11:44 AM
:dtroll:


... to elaborate, if you're going to talk badly about someone, please back it up thorougly with statistics. Pauly is DEFINITELY good enough to be an everyday player for, I'd guess, 90% of MLB teams.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 11:53 AM
What's the point of this thread? We all know Paulie's not good enough to be an everyday player. He's only starting because of all the money he makes.

That's going a little too far. Shawn Green and Mike Cameron are comparable players. They are also everyday players. (granted they play tougher positions, but my point stands)

HITMEN OF 77
07-25-2005, 11:56 AM
Why does every thread turn into a bash Paulie thread? He's an every day player on any team in the majors. He's going to end up batting around .275 40 hr 110 rbi this season. A guy who leads the team in runs, hr, rbi, tb and bb isn't an everyday player? LOL give me a break.

JB98
07-25-2005, 12:47 PM
And if he wasn't making all the money he was, he'd have been benched in early May.

LOL. Do you think Guillen gives a crap how much money Konerko is making? I sure don't. If Ozzie thought it was best for the team that Konerko sit, he'd do it. Who would Ozzie have played at 1B if he decided to bench Konerko? Gload has been hurt all season, and Frank sure isn't an option. Contrary to popular belief on this board, Jermaine Dye is a RF, not a 1B. Even when Konerko was really struggling, Ozzie had no other alternative but to play him.

Paulie had 41 HR and 117 RBIs last year. To suggest he isn't an everyday player is ludicrous. We don't need to bench him or trade him. What we need is for him to regain the form he showed last season. We haven't really seen it all year. Hopefully, we'll see it in October. Despite our gaudy record, we've yet to have a stretch of games where the entire team has swung the bat well at the same time. I'd like to think that will happen before all is said and done.

munchman33
07-25-2005, 01:42 PM
The arguement that Konerko had one spectacular season which automatically gives him a reprieve is ludacris. Brady Anderson had a spectacular season. Baltimore continued to tread him out there for the next several seasons, despite terrible production. Wonder why they had trouble winning.

Sure, you could find teams that Konerko could be starting on. But most of those teams are near the bottom.

owensmouth
07-25-2005, 01:52 PM
Question: If Konerko is so horrible, both on and off the field, why has KW made absolutely no attempt to replace him?

Last year at roughly this time, the same line of crap came up about Frank being horrible after the first at bat. He was hitting around .150 in at bats after the second inning.

It's time to bury this dead horse and let the team play the second half of the season.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 01:58 PM
Question: If Konerko is so horrible, both on and off the field, why has KW made absolutely no attempt to replace him?

Last year at roughly this time, the same line of crap came up about Frank being horrible after the first at bat. He was hitting around .150 in at bats after the second inning.

It's time to bury this dead horse and let the team play the second half of the season.

Oh come on now. Konerko isn't horrible, but KW certainly tried to ship him this offseason. There was almost NO interest.

I wouldn't assume much has changed now.

MIgrenade
07-25-2005, 02:02 PM
Question: If Konerko is so horrible, both on and off the field, why has KW made absolutely no attempt to replace him?

I wouldn't go this far. Lyle Overbay's name is starting to be circulated. Overbay will be moved and right now the Sox are one team looking into getting him.

wdelaney72
07-25-2005, 02:24 PM
We need to clarify "horrible player" as opposed to "Overpaid player who's not earning his current contract." PK falls into the latter. And yes, Kenny did try and deal him this off-season for that very reason. Paulie's defense is average. His hitting is WAY too inconsistent. He's good, but he's stealing money this season.

HITMEN OF 77
07-25-2005, 02:29 PM
The arguement that Konerko had one spectacular season which automatically gives him a reprieve is ludacris. Brady Anderson had a spectacular season. Baltimore continued to tread him out there for the next several seasons, despite terrible production. Wonder why they had trouble winning.

Sure, you could find teams that Konerko could be starting on. But most of those teams are near the bottom.

One spectacular season?? ***. Since he joined the Sox in 1999, he is averaging around .280 ba, 30hr 90 rbi and is above average defensivley. The Sox wil make the biggest mistake getting rid of him IMO. I think he will sign for the same he is making now.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 02:46 PM
We need to clarify "horrible player" as opposed to "Overpaid player who's not earning his current contract." PK falls into the latter. And yes, Kenny did try and deal him this off-season for that very reason. Paulie's defense is average. His hitting is WAY too inconsistent. He's good, but he's stealing money this season.He's actually hitting about .300 for the last two months. And while we're on the subject of consistency, which would you rather have:

A) .220 BA for the first half, .300 for the second half
B) .300 BA for the first half, .220 for the second half
C) .260 all season long

Given a choice, I'd go with option A.

mdep524
07-25-2005, 02:48 PM
The Sox wil make the biggest mistake getting rid of him IMO. I think he will sign for the same he is making now. :o: Good God I hope not.

Also, owensmouth, how would you even know if KW has tried to replace Konerko? There may have been many other ideas/trades KW attempted that didn't happen... yet.

Still, to call him "not an everyday player" is going too far. He is an everyday player, and on a good team.

Frater Perdurabo
07-25-2005, 02:49 PM
Question: If Konerko is so horrible, both on and off the field, why has KW made absolutely no attempt to replace him?

According to PHG (and I'm inclined to believe him), Kenny did try to trade Konerko last offseason when his value was high. There were no GMs willing to give back what Kenny wanted. After Kenny realized he couldn't get what he wanted for Konerko, he dealt Carlos Lee for Podsednik.

I believe PHG's theory because Kenny has been pro-active about signing the players he views as a "core" to multi-year deals. He signed Buehrle and Garcia to multi-year deals. Previously, he had signed Carlos Lee to a multi-year deal. He offered Maggs a multi-year deal. Kenny hasn't offered Konerko a multi-year deal, even though he has known for a number of years that Konerko's current contract would expire after the 2005 season. Furthermore, if Ozzie viewed Konerko as an integral part, he would have said so to Kenny, and Kenny would have signed him long before this season started.

That should you all you need to know about how Kenny and Ozzie view Konerko.

Konerko doesn't fit into Ozzie's concept of how this ballclub should be constructed. Ozzie and Kenny's plan is working to perfection, evidenced by their league-best record in one of two best divisions where many of the best young pitchers are throwing.

Consequently, although he has hit a fair number of home runs and RBI hits this year, the White Sox are winning in spite of Konerko, not because of him. Many other players could do what he does for far less money with a higher average (especially with RISP), more speed and better defense at first base. The Sox are able to cover up his deficiencies (poor speed, low average, prone to very long slumps, not very good with RISP) with great starting pitching and a good bullpen.

The reality is that Konerko is a powerful home run hitter who can be a complementary role player on a World Series team. That's exactly the role he is filling right now.

maurice
07-25-2005, 02:54 PM
which would you rather have:

A) .220 BA for the first half, .300 for the second half
B) .300 BA for the first half, .220 for the second half
C) .260 all season long

C.

It also helps that Player C almost certainly has more speed and range than Konerko, probably makes fewer bone-headed statements to the media, definitely makes less than $8.75 million, and couldn't possibly be a worse situational hitter than Konerko.

Side note: "A" roughly describes Royce Clayton's White Sox career.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 03:01 PM
C.

It also helps that Player C almost certainly has more speed and range than Konerko, probably makes fewer bone-headed statements to the media, definitely makes less than $8.75 million, and couldn't possibly be a worse situational hitter than Konerko.

Side note: "A" roughly describes Royce Clayton's White Sox career.Sorry, I disagree. I'd rather have a player hot for the stretch (and post-season).

maurice
07-25-2005, 03:03 PM
Sorry, I disagree. I'd rather have a player hot for the stretch (and post-season).

Yeah, except that Player A's crappy 1st half might keep you out of the playoffs entirely, especially if he's your cleanup hitter. Besides, there's a pretty good chance that Player A goes: .220 BA for the first half, .300 for the second half, .220 for the playoffs.

Tragg
07-25-2005, 03:10 PM
He's gonna be gone next year, we need him this year (although it would be a real ballsy move to trade him, if we could find someone to take him), so I hope he does well the rest of the season.

Hangar18
07-25-2005, 03:11 PM
Why does every thread turn into a bash Paulie thread? He's an every day player on any team in the majors. He's going to end up batting around .275 40 hr 110 rbi this season. A guy who leads the team in runs, hr, rbi, tb and bb isn't an everyday player? LOL give me a break.


Say......this brings up a good question. Can Paulie REBOUND to hit .275?

mdep524
07-25-2005, 03:21 PM
He's actually hitting about .300 for the last two months. And while we're on the subject of consistency, which would you rather have:

A) .220 BA for the first half, .300 for the second half
B) .300 BA for the first half, .220 for the second half
C) .260 all season long

Given a choice, I'd go with option A. Sorry ON2, for $8.75 mil/year you shouldn't have to choose which half of the season the player decides to hit.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 03:25 PM
Sorry ON2, for $8.75 mil/year you shouldn't have to choose which half of the season the player decides to hit.You missed the point. The assumption was the same total number of hits. Would you rather have a player get most of them in the second half when you're in the stretch run, or at the same rate all year? I'd opt for getting them later in the year.

munchman33
07-25-2005, 03:40 PM
You missed the point. The assumption was the same total number of hits. Would you rather have a player get most of them in the second half when you're in the stretch run, or at the same rate all year? I'd opt for getting them later in the year.

I'd rather not my first basemen, the premiere offensive position in the game, not hit .260.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 04:04 PM
Sorry, I disagree. I'd rather have a player hot for the stretch (and post-season).

Oh you're right. It'd be much better to have the .220 first half .300 second half. The problem is, what player can you guarantee me will have a .300 second half? I'd much rather take a steady player than a mercurial player because there's no guarantee that, for instance, Paulie will have a good 2nd half, much less a .300 one. For instance, in 2002 Paulie had a great 1st half and a bad second half. In 2003 he had a pisspoor 1st half and an average 2nd half. In 2004 he had a pretty solid year. In 2005 he has had a pretty lackluster 1st half. Where's the guarantee as to what kind of second half he will have?

Flight #24
07-25-2005, 04:04 PM
You missed the point. The assumption was the same total number of hits. Would you rather have a player get most of them in the second half when you're in the stretch run, or at the same rate all year? I'd opt for getting them later in the year.

As long as that .220 first half doesn't prevent you from having a meaningful stretch run.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 04:13 PM
As long as that .220 first half doesn't prevent you from having a meaningful stretch run.In thinking about this some more, it seems to apply mainly to power hitters. For a power hitter, even when he's slumping, he's still a presence in the lineup. The opposing pitcher has to respect him and he'll get his share of walks (as PK did earlier), and the rest of the lineup can pick up the slack. When he's hot, a guy like that can carry the whole lineup. So the net effect is that half a mediocre season and half a good season is better than a whole average season. JMO

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 04:20 PM
In thinking about this some more, it seems to apply mainly to power hitters. For a power hitter, even when he's slumping, he's still a presence in the lineup. The opposing pitcher has to respect him and he'll get his share of walks (as PK did earlier), and the rest of the lineup can pick up the slack. When he's hot, a guy like that can carry the whole lineup. So the net effect is that half a mediocre season and half a good season is better than a whole average season. JMO

The problem is there is no sign so far that Paulie will have a great second half, nor is there reason to expect him to. Until he changes his approach from all-or-nothing we have to assume his second half will more or less match his first half.

Luckily, even with the first half he had, we were still able to climb to the best record in baseball. Here's hoping that the second half is likewise.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 04:23 PM
The problem is there is no sign so far that Paulie will have a great second half, nor is there reason to expect him to. Until he changes his approach from all-or-nothing we have to assume his second half will more or less match his first half.

Luckily, even with the first half he had, we were still able to climb to the best record in baseball. Here's hoping that the second half is likewise.Ummm....he hit .296 in June and is hitting .301 in July.

mdep524
07-25-2005, 04:26 PM
In thinking about this some more, it seems to apply mainly to power hitters. For a power hitter, even when he's slumping, he's still a presence in the lineup. The opposing pitcher has to respect him and he'll get his share of walks (as PK did earlier), and the rest of the lineup can pick up the slack. When he's hot, a guy like that can carry the whole lineup. So the net effect is that half a mediocre season and half a good season is better than a whole average season. JMOYou act as though Paulie is guaranteed to have a good second half with a good September and October. Just because he is hitting well in July does not in any possible way signify he will hit well in September/October. It's just as likely (some would argue more likely) that he will slump again at that point.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 04:28 PM
Ummm....he hit .296 in June and is hitting .301 in July.

um....great? He's Paul Konerko and a bad stretch is just as likely to be around the corner as a good stretch.

I don't claim he's going to have a poor second half or a great one. The point is you certainly can't predict when he's going to play well or when he's going to play poorly.

Rocklive99
07-25-2005, 04:39 PM
He is listed as "Ahead:" on ESPNEWS' the Hotlist around 3:48

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 04:41 PM
um....great? He's Paul Konerko and a bad stretch is just as likely to be around the corner as a good stretch.

I don't claim he's going to have a poor second half or a great one. The point is you certainly can't predict when he's going to play well or when he's going to play poorly.You guys are beginning to sound like ESPN analysts. No matter what he does, he's bound to be bad in the future.

:whatever:

mdep524
07-25-2005, 04:43 PM
You guys are beginning to sound like ESPN analysts. No matter what he does, he's bound to be bad in the future.

:whatever: Well, that is his track record, ON2. He is unreliable.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 04:54 PM
Well, that is his track record, ON2. He is unreliable.And the original point was, hitting for the same average every month is not necessarily better than having a mix of below-average months and above-average months, especially when the good months are in the stretch run. The original point was also a general comment about consistency, and not specifically directed at any player.

jshanahanjr
07-25-2005, 04:55 PM
They play 162 games, so you will have period of hot & cold spells in most players not on Steroids!

owensmouth
07-25-2005, 05:03 PM
Well, that is his track record, ON2. He is unreliable.

No, the most obvious and consistent statistic is that he can't hit for poop in the month of May. So, in ten months, look for his average to drop.

Rocky Soprano
07-25-2005, 05:08 PM
They play 162 games, so you will have period of hot & cold spells in most players not on Steroids!

Yes but Konerko seems to be in cold most of the time.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 05:23 PM
You guys are beginning to sound like ESPN analysts. No matter what he does, he's bound to be bad in the future.

:whatever:

man - I said specifically in that post that I am not predicting him to be either good or bad. The very nature of Konerko is you never know which Paulie you're going to get - the pre-ASG 2002 Konerko or the pre-ASG 2003 Konerko.

No matter what he does, he's bound to do something in the future. I just have no idea what it is, and hitting well in June and July has very little bearing on what he'll do in August, just as what he did in April and May had very little bearing on what he did in June and July.

therefore, yes, it's better to have someone have their best months late in the season. The problem with Paulie is that he will have a couple great months and a couple bad months. You just don't know if they're going to come early in the season, late in the season or in the middle of the season, or maybe hopefully all of the above.

mdep524
07-25-2005, 05:43 PM
And the original point was, hitting for the same average every month is not necessarily better than having a mix of below-average months and above-average months, especially when the good months are in the stretch run. The original point was also a general comment about consistency, and not specifically directed at any player. Well, this whole thread is player-specific about Konerko, but if you were talking in general that's OK. Anyway, if you could somehow guarantee me that Konerko (or Player "X") would hit .300 in October, then I would say you have some kind of point. But you can't say what he's going to do, and you won't know until after the season. So how does that excuse his poor first half performance?

Taking your original question as player unspecific, I would take the .260 all season option, as that would best keep a team in the pennant race for the whole season. Struggling at one point but "making it up" at another sounds like the 2003-04 White Sox to me. For example scoring 15 runs one night and then 1 the next. In that case, the team goes 1-1. But if you evenly distribute those 16 runs to 8 in the 1st game and 8 in the 2nd, there's a good chance you win both games. It's the formula of consistency that this whole Ozzie Guillen/Scott Podsednik/Ken Williams 2005 Sox team was built around.

HITMEN OF 77
07-25-2005, 05:43 PM
Well, that is his track record, ON2. He is unreliable.

Yeah, a .280 ba, 30 hr 90 rbi average since 1999 is pretty unreliable.

PicktoCLick72
07-25-2005, 05:56 PM
Paul Konerko could cure cancer and some people on this board would be mad that he didn't also cure AIDS. I am not saying he isn't a streaky hitter. But his current hot streak is believed to be a premonition and any 0-4 day is considered the start of month long dry spell. Some people have a disliking of him and will not change it no matter what he does.

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 06:03 PM
Yeah, a .280 ba, 30 hr 90 rbi average since 1999 is pretty unreliable.


But that encompasses having piss poor stretches and really good stretches.

If he had put up .280 30 90 hitting consistently through 2003, we probably would have won the division.

He had a great year last year, but pretty much consistently he's been on and off, off and on with no telling how long a slump or good stretch will last. It helps us when he's hot and kills us when he's cold.

Frater Perdurabo
07-25-2005, 06:04 PM
Paul Konerko could cure cancer and some people on this board would be mad that he didn't also cure AIDS. I am not saying he isn't a streaky hitter. But his current hot streak is believed to be a premonition and any 0-4 day is considered the start of month long dry spell. Some people have a disliking of him and will not change it no matter what he does.

Even among his hot and cold streaks he'll mix in an occasional 2-4 or 3-5 game among a whole bunch of 0-4, 1-5 games. We have no premonition of his failure in a specific game. But he's proven that he'll have a whole bunch of garbage games at the plate. It's his track record. He is what he is. He's more likely to have a really hot game or a hot week than a long stretch of good, solid weeks or months. Not only is he maddeningly inconsistent among long stretches in a season, but he's also hot and cold within his larger streaks and slumps. He's the antithesis of consistent.

When his fans say he's "averaged" a .280 AVG, 30 homers and 90 RBI for a season since 1999, that doesn't tell us very much. If he produced that evenly throughout the year, he'd be a much more valuable player IMHO. He's the epitome of the Sox offense from 2001-2004. On paper, the Sox offense looked great with the aggregate total stats it produced. However, we all know that within that was a good number of 10+ run games, mixed among some real stinkers where the offense scored zero, one or two runs off of solo homers. Konerko's the same way.

HITMEN OF 77
07-25-2005, 06:11 PM
But that encompasses having piss poor stretches and really good stretches.

If he had put up .280 30 90 hitting consistently through 2003, we probably would have won the division.

He had a great year last year, but pretty much consistently he's been on and off, off and on with no telling how long a slump or good stretch will last. It helps us when he's hot and kills us when he's cold.

Even in hot and cold streches for the SEASON he still averages .280 30hr 90rbi in his 6 1/2 seasons with the Sox.

maurice
07-25-2005, 06:36 PM
The point is that he's consistently inconsistent (and unpredictably so) from month to month . . . more so than many other players. Even the biggest Konerko fan must concede this point. Obviously it all averages out over a long enough period of time, but it's very telling that it requires a 6.5-year time frame to make the numbers look "consistent."

HITMEN OF 77
07-25-2005, 06:47 PM
The point is that he's consistently inconsistent (and unpredictably so) from month to month . . . more so than many other players. Even the biggest Konerko fan must concede this point. Obviously it all averages out over a long enough period of time, but it's very telling that it requires a 6.5-year time frame to make the numbers look "consistent."

His 2 WORST seasons with the Sox still calculate arpund to .260 21 hr 70 rbi

fquaye149
07-25-2005, 06:53 PM
Even in hot and cold streches for the SEASON he still averages .280 30hr 90rbi in his 6 1/2 seasons with the Sox.

Right. We've heard that before. Say it again and it still won't change the fact that like every streaky hitter, when he struggles it buries us. Case in point - how he couldn't hit a beach ball in 2003, leaving us a pretty deep hole to dig ourselves out of in the second half (and we never recovered)

The blame for that season rests squarely on Manuel's shoulders...but let's not forget that Buehrle and Konerko both bit the big one in the first half. Nothing Buehrle has done before or since that 1st half has made us think that was anything but an aberration. However, Konerko's track record indicates a half like the first of 2003 is par for the course.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 06:59 PM
The point is that he's consistently inconsistent (and unpredictably so) from month to month . . . more so than many other players. Even the biggest Konerko fan must concede this point. Obviously it all averages out over a long enough period of time, but it's very telling that it requires a 6.5-year time frame to make the numbers look "consistent."I wouldn't call myself a Konerko fan, but I try to be fair. Slumps happen to all players. If you look at most players' monthly splits you'll find one or two poor months in there most years. No doubt you'll find more consistent players, but you can certainly find lots of less consistent players, too. Konerko's slow months typically happen in the spring, but you'll also find lots of pretty good players who don't hit well early in the season. And as I've said before, I'm not the least bit bothered by a player who starts slow, as long as he makes up for it later in the season, and that's been his pattern. In fact, I think I prefer that he gets his hits later in the stretch run rather than spread out evenly through the season.

PaulDrake
07-25-2005, 08:06 PM
Konerko doesn't fit into Ozzie's concept of how this ballclub should be constructed. Ozzie and Kenny's plan is working to perfection, evidenced by their league-best record in one of two best divisions where many of the best young pitchers are throwing.

Consequently, although he has hit a fair number of home runs and RBI hits this year, the White Sox are winning in spite of Konerko, not because of him. Many other players could do what he does for far less money with a higher average (especially with RISP), more speed and better defense at first base. The Sox are able to cover up his deficiencies (poor speed, low average, prone to very long slumps, not very good with RISP) with great starting pitching and a good bullpen.

The reality is that Konerko is a powerful home run hitter who can be a complementary role player on a World Series team. That's exactly the role he is filling right now. I'll take it a step further. He is a complimentary role player on a team stacked with hitting, which is not what the White Sox are now. He fit in much better on the old White Sox with Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, etc. He is not equipped physically or mentally to be the big guy in the lineup. That being said, I hope he finds his stroke and good post as usual from you.

Frater Perdurabo
07-25-2005, 08:10 PM
I'll take it a step further. He is a complimentary role player on a team stacked with hitting, which is not what the White Sox are now. He fit in much better on the old White Sox with Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, etc. He is not equipped physically or mentally to be the big guy in the lineup. That being said, I hope he finds his stroke and good post as usual from you.

Thanks, PaulDrake. I almost always appreciate your posts, too.

JB98
07-26-2005, 02:24 AM
The arguement that Konerko had one spectacular season which automatically gives him a reprieve is ludacris. Brady Anderson had a spectacular season. Baltimore continued to tread him out there for the next several seasons, despite terrible production. Wonder why they had trouble winning.

Sure, you could find teams that Konerko could be starting on. But most of those teams are near the bottom.

LOL. Do you even realize what you are saying? Konerko would only be a starter on teams that are near the bottom? He's started 96 of our 98 games this year, and somehow, we are 65-33. Obviously, we are bottom-feeders.

Konerko is capable of more than the 22 HRs and 60 RBIs he has given us, but I wouldn't call that "terrible production."

Here is a list of teams that Konerko clearly would not start for:
Cardinals (Pujols)
Rangers (Teixeira)
Cubs (Lee)
Rockies (Helton)
Marlins (Delgado)
Phillies (when Thome is healthy)

That's about it. There are a few others you could argue about, but if you were to rank the first baseman around baseball, Konerko would be somewhere between seventh and 10th best at his position.

Letmehearya
07-26-2005, 09:58 AM
I saw a stat last weekend that stunned me. David Ortiz is hitting .410 with runners in scoring position and 2 outs. That's amazing. As much as I hate the ESPN lovefest for "Big Papi", that stat explains why the guy is the AL MVP. I don't mean to beat up on Paulie, but time after time he doesn't get it done in the clutch. The Saturday night game recently vs. Oakland. 2-1 Oakland lead, runners on 2d and 3d, 1 out, what does Paulie do? Pops it up. No more runs. Next inning, Kotsay hits 3-run bomb, game over. I wish that was the only time I've seen Paulie choke in the clutch. HIs stats are nice. The $10,000,000 can be better spent elsewhere.

maurice
07-26-2005, 12:11 PM
His 2 WORST seasons with the Sox still calculate arpund to .260 21 hr 70 rbi

And that's very very bad production for an AL 1B who bats cleanup and gets paid $8.75 million.

HITMEN OF 77
07-26-2005, 12:18 PM
And that's very very bad production for an AL 1B who bats cleanup and gets paid $8.75 million.

I don't think Konerko was batting cleanup in his 2 worst seasons, Lee, Maggs, Thomas all come to mind....

fquaye149
07-26-2005, 12:27 PM
LOL. Do you even realize what you are saying? Konerko would only be a starter on teams that are near the bottom? He's started 96 of our 98 games this year, and somehow, we are 65-33. Obviously, we are bottom-feeders.

Konerko is capable of more than the 22 HRs and 60 RBIs he has given us, but I wouldn't call that "terrible production."

Here is a list of teams that Konerko clearly would not start for:
Cardinals (Pujols)
Rangers (Teixeira)
Cubs (Lee)
Rockies (Helton)
Marlins (Delgado)
Phillies (when Thome is healthy)

That's about it. There are a few others you could argue about, but if you were to rank the first baseman around baseball, Konerko would be somewhere between seventh and 10th best at his position.

Here are teams who absolutely wouldn't need him:

The Angels
The Twins (Because Morneau needs PT)
The Indians
The Tigers
The Red Sox
The Orioles
The Royals
The Reds
The Brewers
The Mariners
The Diamondbacks
The Padres (because between Sweeney and Nevin..why?)

So that means the only teams that would really need him are mostly bottom feeders. Sure if he broke camp with the Twins, Red Sox, or Dbacks he might have beat out Morneau, Millar/Olerud, or Clark...but that doesn't mean he presents a vast improvement over any of them (especially when cash comes into the equation).

The fact that we are 30+ games over .500 while starting a first baseman that is not a far sight better than any first baseman on any decent team is a testament to how blank a position first base is. Give us Casey, Sweeney, Overbay, Sexson, Young, Erstad, Nevin, pretty much anyone from my list above and we'd get similar production to Paulie.

Give us one of the players from your list and we would almost certainly be 15+ games up. Just the way it works.

JB98
07-26-2005, 01:26 PM
Here are teams who absolutely wouldn't need him:

The Angels
The Twins (Because Morneau needs PT)
The Indians
The Tigers
The Red Sox
The Orioles
The Royals
The Reds
The Brewers
The Mariners
The Diamondbacks
The Padres (because between Sweeney and Nevin..why?)

So that means the only teams that would really need him are mostly bottom feeders. Sure if he broke camp with the Twins, Red Sox, or Dbacks he might have beat out Morneau, Millar/Olerud, or Clark...but that doesn't mean he presents a vast improvement over any of them (especially when cash comes into the equation).

The fact that we are 30+ games over .500 while starting a first baseman that is not a far sight better than any first baseman on any decent team is a testament to how blank a position first base is. Give us Casey, Sweeney, Overbay, Sexson, Young, Erstad, Nevin, pretty much anyone from my list above and we'd get similar production to Paulie.

Give us one of the players from your list and we would almost certainly be 15+ games up. Just the way it works.

You're listing off a bunch of guys who might give us "similar production" to Paulie. I was replying to a post by a guy who was saying Paulie could only start for a bottom-feeding team. Paulie is in the same class with most of the guys you listed.

The six guys I listed are the only ones that are clearly a cut above Konerko. Overbay and Sexson are pretty similar to Konerko in the run production category. Overbay had a poor first half, but has come on of late. (Sound familiar?) I'd take Konerko over Casey because Paulie hits more homers. Sweeney is a great hitter, but he's always hurt. Nevin is oft-injured and not as good as Sweeney. Erstad is a different type of hitter and not really comparable to any of these guys. And Dmitri Young? Does he even play first base anymore? I thought he lost his job to Chris Shelton. I'm not sure we would have a greater lead in our division with any of these guys.

Look, I'm not arguing that Konerko is the reason we are 12 games up. All I'm saying is, people who say we are winning in spite of him are wrong. Sometimes he comes through for us; sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, somebody else picks him up. He's a cog in the wheel, just like the rest of our everyday players. We don't have a single superstar in our lineup, yet we are fifth in the league in runs. That's indicative of good balance. We have somebody different step up every game. On Sunday, it was Iguchi. Last night, it was Dye. Tonight, it might be someone else entirely. We don't have anybody who is capable of putting up numbers like Ortiz, not even Frank at this stage of his career. But we might be better off because everyone on the team, even Crede and Uribe, has come through at different points during the year.

fquaye149
07-26-2005, 01:35 PM
You're listing off a bunch of guys who might give us "similar production" to Paulie. I was replying to a post by a guy who was saying Paulie could only start for a bottom-feeding team. Paulie is in the same class with most of the guys you listed.

The six guys I listed are the only ones that are clearly a cut above Konerko. Overbay and Sexson are pretty similar to Konerko in the run production category. Overbay had a poor first half, but has come on of late. (Sound familiar?) I'd take Konerko over Casey because Paulie hits more homers. Sweeney is a great hitter, but he's always hurt. Nevin is oft-injured and not as good as Sweeney. Erstad is a different type of hitter and not really comparable to any of these guys. And Dmitri Young? Does he even play first base anymore? I thought he lost his job to Chris Shelton. I'm not sure we would have a greater lead in our division with any of these guys.

Look, I'm not arguing that Konerko is the reason we are 12 games up. All I'm saying is, people who say we are winning in spite of him are wrong.

We're neither winning in spite of him nor because of him. But the point is that anyone from any of those teams would be just as good or better than Paulie.

Paulie might start on some of those teams, but he's not a shoo in to start for any but the worst teams because for what he can do, any number of those players can do something better (albeit for many, at the expense of power).

For instance, you'd take PK over Casey because he doesn't hit as many HR. But Casey also hits in the mid .300's, something Paulie won't dream of. It's a tradeoff and certainly not a guarantee Miley would prefer Paulie to Casey.

maurice
07-26-2005, 01:43 PM
I don't think Konerko was batting cleanup in his 2 worst seasons

It's bad production for a #5 hitter as well, especially when he's an AL 1B who gets paid $8.75 million.

JB98
07-26-2005, 01:47 PM
We're neither winning in spite of him nor because of him. But the point is that anyone from any of those teams would be just as good or better than Paulie.

Paulie might start on some of those teams, but he's not a shoo in to start for any but the worst teams because for what he can do, any number of those players can do something better (albeit for many, at the expense of power).

For instance, you'd take PK over Casey because he doesn't hit as many HR. But Casey also hits in the mid .300's, something Paulie won't dream of. It's a tradeoff and certainly not a guarantee Miley would prefer Paulie to Casey.

It doesn't matter what the hell Miley thinks because the Reds fired him. Casey is hitting .304 this year. That's good, but it's not the "mid .300's." He's a good hitter, but let's not act as if he's Tony Gwynn.

You're saying these other teams don't need Konerko because they have Casey, Overbay, Nevin, et al. That's fine, but I can just as easily turn the argument around and say we don't need Casey, Overbay, Nevin et al. because we have Konerko. And most of these guys haven't had a 40-HR season like Konerko did last year. Don't get me wrong, I realize we need more from Paulie the rest of the way if we're going to win the World Series. I'd take my chances with Konerko over a guy like Phil Nevin, however.

We have a grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side mentality on this board. Everyone seems to think guys on other teams are upgrades over what we have, and it just isn't the case. Konerko, Crede and Contreras have been the prime targets of unwarranted criticism by various posters. Would you really rather have Nevin and Burroughs as your corner infielders instead of
Konerko and Crede? I sure wouldn't.

Flight #24
07-26-2005, 02:10 PM
You're saying these other teams don't need Konerko because they have Casey, Overbay, Nevin, et al. That's fine, but I can just as easily turn the argument around and say we don't need Casey, Overbay, Nevin et al. because we have Konerko. And most of these guys haven't had a 40-HR season like Konerko did last year. Don't get me wrong, I realize we need more from Paulie the rest of the way if we're going to win the World Series. I'd take my chances with Konerko over a guy like Phil Nevin, however.



IIRC, the point is that when there are that many guys that are basically equivalent, and most of them come significantly cheaper, there's no reason to spend 9mil on Paulie. That's all.

He is eminently replaceable at much less $$$. For example, using last 3-yr averages, Kevin Millar is similar player to Paulie. Fewer HRs, but virtually identical SLG%. But Millar makes $3.5M, not $8.75M.

HITMEN OF 77
07-26-2005, 02:19 PM
You're listing off a bunch of guys who might give us "similar production" to Paulie. I was replying to a post by a guy who was saying Paulie could only start for a bottom-feeding team. Paulie is in the same class with most of the guys you listed.

The six guys I listed are the only ones that are clearly a cut above Konerko. Overbay and Sexson are pretty similar to Konerko in the run production category. Overbay had a poor first half, but has come on of late. (Sound familiar?) I'd take Konerko over Casey because Paulie hits more homers. Sweeney is a great hitter, but he's always hurt. Nevin is oft-injured and not as good as Sweeney. Erstad is a different type of hitter and not really comparable to any of these guys. And Dmitri Young? Does he even play first base anymore? I thought he lost his job to Chris Shelton. I'm not sure we would have a greater lead in our division with any of these guys.

Look, I'm not arguing that Konerko is the reason we are 12 games up. All I'm saying is, people who say we are winning in spite of him are wrong. Sometimes he comes through for us; sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, somebody else picks him up. He's a cog in the wheel, just like the rest of our everyday players. We don't have a single superstar in our lineup, yet we are fifth in the league in runs. That's indicative of good balance. We have somebody different step up every game. On Sunday, it was Iguchi. Last night, it was Dye. Tonight, it might be someone else entirely. We don't have anybody who is capable of putting up numbers like Ortiz, not even Frank at this stage of his career. But we might be better off because everyone on the team, even Crede and Uribe, has come through at different points during the year.

Best post in the thread. :thumbsup:

Deadguy
07-27-2005, 02:55 PM
He's actually hitting about .300 for the last two months. And while we're on the subject of consistency, which would you rather have:

A) .220 BA for the first half, .300 for the second half
B) .300 BA for the first half, .220 for the second half
C) .260 all season long

Given a choice, I'd go with option A.

Why should we have to settle for any of the above, under the condition that the player is your clean up hitter, the highest paid player, and plays 1B?

K-dawg is expected to be the man on this team, and he's proven time and time again that he wilts under any kind of pressure.

He's hitting .301 this month.....so what? He also has just 7 RBIs. He has just six more RBIs than Carl Crawford has had this season. How hard is it to replace 60 RBIs (31st in the ML) or 60 Runs Scored (29th in ML)? There's nothing this guy does that is special or hard to replace, at a lower price tag, no less.