PDA

View Full Version : Some nice comments from a Red Sox board


Mr. White Sox
10-05-2005, 09:33 PM
Anyone else coming to the realization that this ChiSox team is a lot better than you thought? I mean, there's not many standouts on offense (maybe Konerko) but it's a pretty solid lineup top to bottom, and a lot of guys who can do the "little things". I know I'll get killed for it, but things like Pierzynski moving a runner over, everyone being able to bunt, speed, good defense...those things aren't always visible but I think they help you win games. Very, very solid pitching and a pretty sick bullpen. They are making the Sox look very old, and very slow. Papi has had some hits, but it looks like he's pressing and trying to do too much.


Good point; they do hit a ton of bombs. Imagine if they had Frank Thomas healthy? Not only do they hit a lot of home runs, but everyone in the lineup (save for Podsednik, unless J-Gone is pitching) can hit one out.

They're just a good team that seems really focused, and the fans were pretty damn loud.

Instead of blaming our guys, I'm inclined to credit the ChiSox. They came out firing on all cylinders, and deserved these two games.

I was pissed during / right after the game, but I feel a lot better looking at it this way. Those guys / fans want it too...and they might get it. And if the Red Sox lose...it's not always because they did something wrong. It's a game; you don't always and you do get outplayed from time to time.

I actually agree that their team scores in spite of Ozzie. But he definitely knows how to manage a pitching staff. I have watched about 20 of their games this year and he seems to pull the strings of that bullpen really well. It doesn't hurt that he has several people in that bullpen having career years. But that could be because they are being used in the most ideal situations.

Ah, that'sa nice to see. They're coming around.

Pasqua's UPS Man
10-05-2005, 09:43 PM
Ah, that'sa nice to see. They're coming around.

Nice to See.

:cool:

soxfan26
10-05-2005, 09:48 PM
Imagine if they had Frank Thomas healthy?

That is the only thing that could possibly make this season any better.

SOXSINCE'70
10-05-2005, 09:48 PM
Anyone catch Johnny Damon's comment in the Cub-Une Tuesday??

To paraphrase:

"They are playing loose.If we can't win it,i'd like to see them do it.
All the players have each other's backs.":cool:

Frater Perdurabo
10-05-2005, 09:49 PM
...But he (Ozzie) definitely knows how to manage a pitching staff. I have watched about 20 of their games this year and he seems to pull the strings of that bullpen really well...

Daver = :rolleyes:

:supernana:

oeo
10-05-2005, 09:58 PM
I never understood...why would they score in spite of Ozzie? How would the team chemistry be so good and they win 101 games in spite of Ozzie? It makes no sense at all...someone please explain...

ericiii
10-05-2005, 10:05 PM
I'm not sure what Red Sox board you are checking out, but the "Sons of Sam Horn" have some really obnoxious fans on it. Count how many times they drop the F-bomb when Graffanino misses the groundball. At least "Fenway" who posts on this site is sensible and can speak without swearing in every sentence.http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=1036&st=480

Here is another great line from that same thread:

I hate losing when we get decent starting pitching because its been a premium in 2005. Friday is another day. Plus don't you hate the Chisox fans. They only sold out that dump ~20x this year. F-bomb bandwaggoners.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=1036&st=980

ATXBMX
10-05-2005, 10:09 PM
I never understood...why would they score in spite of Ozzie? How would the team chemistry be so good and they win 101 games in spite of Ozzie? It makes no sense at all...someone please explain...

A lot of people (like this guy) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/05/oct05.chatter/index.html), think giving away outs reduces scoring opportunities, especially when they see how many homeruns we hit. The problem with that thinking is that we aren't just wasting outs, and sometimes you just can't hit a homerun when you really need one.

Take this quote from the above article:

Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away.


I am forced to disagree with the notion that Ozzie was overmanaging. I think its odd that Ozzie's managerial decisions are questioned, especially when Francona left Clement in too long and relieved with Arroyo that late in the game.

pearso66
10-05-2005, 10:22 PM
A lot of people (like this guy) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/05/oct05.chatter/index.html), think giving away outs reduces scoring opportunities, especially when they see how many homeruns we hit. The problem with that thinking is that we aren't just wasting outs, and sometimes you just can't hit a homerun when you really need one.

Take this quote from the above article:

Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away.


I am forced to disagree with this though.

The problem is, you can make an argument for it either way. You can't always hit homers, so you want to make the most of every opportunity, or you have hit so many homers, so you know you can, so why play small. I prefer to play the exact way we have played all year. Screw what others think.

Mr. White Sox
10-05-2005, 10:26 PM
Quote from: Genius fan
You give the White Sox, who I despise, short shrift by saying that the fact they finished ninth in the league in runs scored is because of small ball. Small ball helps make your run production more consistent. I bet if you measured not the average runs per game, but the standard deviation, they'd be first in the AL. They didn't play many 14-2 games this season. And even if getting the first run was to set a tone, didn't they set that tone, and then clobber ex-Cub Clement? If anything, the station-to-station ball that the Sox play is an affront to any baseball fan, and proof that the DH has turned the AL into a softball league.
-Michael Martin, St. Louis

Makes sense.

Banix12
10-05-2005, 10:27 PM
A lot of people (like this guy) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/05/oct05.chatter/index.html), think giving away outs reduces scoring opportunities, especially when they see how many homeruns we hit. The problem with that thinking is that we aren't just wasting outs, and sometimes you just can't hit a homerun when you really need one.

Take this quote from the above article:

Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away.


I am forced to disagree with this though.


I understand the argument but while they see it as giving up an out for little result, I call it getting a run in without the benefit of a hit. It was still early in the game and it wasn't really clear how bad Clement was at the time and it is always good to get on the board early.

People can disagree on this point but whether it is right or wrong always depends on the individual end result.

santo=dorf
10-05-2005, 10:40 PM
Fans of a team that plays in an old ballpark that and were supposedly cursed from a Championship run bashing the White Sox's attendance; where have we heard that story before? :rolleyes:

JorgeFabregas
10-05-2005, 10:44 PM
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=1036&st=980

Would the White Sox fans be better if these games weren't sold out? No bandwagon jumping then? Hmm, or maybe, there aren't that many White Sox fans and it's much easier for them to justify taking off work or school during a playoff game.

TDog
10-05-2005, 10:57 PM
A lot of WSI posters would be surprised to read an assessment that all of the White Sox can bunt.

But if the White Sox want to save their best execution for the end, all the better.

DumpJerry
10-05-2005, 10:59 PM
Well, I'm certain the guy who posted those comments quoted at the top of this thread was instantly banned for trolling.

Hanger, nice comments!

Ol' No. 2
10-05-2005, 11:12 PM
A lot of people (like this guy) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/10/05/oct05.chatter/index.html), think giving away outs reduces scoring opportunities, especially when they see how many homeruns we hit. The problem with that thinking is that we aren't just wasting outs, and sometimes you just can't hit a homerun when you really need one.

Take this quote from the above article:

Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away.


I am forced to disagree with this though.Not to worry. One thing baseball does well is instantly copy whatever is working. If the Sox go all the way, look for every team to suddenly start copying the same approach.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-06-2005, 12:50 AM
Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away.


I am forced to disagree with the notion that Ozzie was overmanaging. I think its odd that Ozzie's managerial decisions are questioned, especially when Francona left Clement in too long and relieved with Arroyo that late in the game.

I thought Ozzie should have had Podsednik bunt int he 5th - he has trouble against Wells and didn't hit it out of the infield the first two at bats (though his shot down the line was a good hit - Olerud snagged it on the line.

Podsednik ended up fouling out but Iguchi saved the day with his Home Run!!!

jcw218
10-06-2005, 03:56 AM
I thought Ozzie should have had Podsednik bunt int he 5th - he has trouble against Wells and didn't hit it out of the infield the first two at bats (though his shot down the line was a good hit - Olerud snagged it on the line.

Podsednik ended up fouling out but Iguchi saved the day with his Home Run!!!

Pods is good at bunting, I'll agree with that. IMO however, the best pitch to try and bunt is the fastball which is not Well's best pitch. His best pitch is his curve which I believe is harder to bunt successfully.

doublem23
10-06-2005, 04:34 AM
Makes sense.

Got to love those NL-fans... Still rippin' on the DH whenever possible. :rolleyes:

elrod
10-06-2005, 08:59 AM
Clement[/b]? If anything, the station-to-station ball that the Sox play is an affront to any baseball fan, and proof that the DH has turned the AL into a softball league.
-Michael Martin, St. LouisMr. White Sox

This guy nails it. Sure, you give up potential runs over the season with sac bunts and steals. But you score consistently, and you always give yourself a chance against a great pitcher. Sitting on the 3-run homer is great when it works. But when nobody gets the big hit, you get the 2000 White Sox in the playoffs. Or the 2001-2004 White Sox. BTW, I think I know that Michael Martin, though the one I knew didn't live in St. Louis...

AZChiSoxFan
10-06-2005, 11:22 AM
I'm not sure what Red Sox board you are checking out, but the "Sons of Sam Horn" have some really obnoxious fans on it. Count how many times they drop the F-bomb when Graffanino misses the groundball. At least "Fenway" who posts on this site is sensible and can speak without swearing in every sentence.http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=1036&st=480

Here is another great line from that same thread:


http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=1036&st=980

2 comments:

1) Hilarious that people who attend games at Fenway refer to USCF as a dump.

2) They choose to talk about the "A" word, then wonder why we call them the Red Cubs.