PDA

View Full Version : 2006 = 2004?


woodsdavid
05-31-2006, 09:55 PM
It's a recurring dream and I always wake up screaming:
Our 3, 4 and 5 hitters combine for 13 RBIs one day, then go 0-for for days in a row.
Our right fielder muffs what should be a routine play.
Our SS fires one over Paulie's head into the seats.
Garland is struggling to find the strike zone.
Politte is lacking confidence in his fast ball.
I catch my breath and remind myself that Valentin, Maggs and El Caballo are long gone.
I relax.

But the panic returns.
It's not 2004, I think to myself. It's 2006. And I'm not dreaming.
I'm awake watching a road series against Tampa. A uninspired showing causes us to lose the series.
It's playing indoors in that crappy Tropicana Field atmosphere I tell myself.
And then against Toronto. We're playing indoors -- or indoor/outdoor -- or something -- I remind myself.
And against Cleveland. Oh ****, we're outside I think to myself.

OK, it's not 2004, but is anyone noticing a completely different vibe from this 2006 squad: Rarely seeing runs manufactured from the patented Ozzie-ball? Seeming to swing for the fences, waiting for the long-ball?
No lights-out relief from Hermie or Cotts.

Not panicking, but even with the 2nd best record in baseball this year feels different.

Or am I just spoiled?

MadetoOrta
05-31-2006, 09:57 PM
We need a reliable #2 hitter who doesn't swing at the first pitch with the stolen base leader at first base. We are also no longer the hunters. We are now the hunted. It'll work out. In KW I trust.

Chips
05-31-2006, 09:58 PM
:whoflungpoo


A two game losing streak, get a hold of yourself man.

Jerko
05-31-2006, 09:59 PM
I think we got spoiled.

IlliniSox4Life
05-31-2006, 10:02 PM
:rolleyes:

Jjav829
05-31-2006, 10:05 PM
We didn't play smallball last year. The difference between last year's team and this year's team are:

- Our bullpen was lights out last year. Hermy was great early on. Politte was the best reliever we had. Cotts was dominant. This year, not so much.

- Garland got off to a great start. This year, he's been awful. Of course Contreras was bad at this time last year, so it kind of evens out.

- Last year we didn't have an automatic out in the lineup. 1-9, every hitter was capable of hitting. That's not to say they always did. Crede had his bad moments. Ditto for Uribe. Everett had some slumps. But in the end, you knew every hitter was capable of hitting. When you have 9 capable hitters, your offense doesn't have as many off nights because even when the middle of your order is off, the bottom of the order is capable of picking them up. This year we have two automatic outs at the bottom of our lineup. You guys can make whatever excuses you want, but this isn't the NL. Automatic outs are not acceptable. Right now we have a lineup that consistently features two guys that are basically automatic outs. You can try to downplay the fact that they bat at the bottom of the order, but that is still 22% of our everyday lineup that doesn't produce offensively. Obviously when Mackowiak is in there the lineup is a little improved.

Edit: BTW, this isn't even close to 2004. This team has holes, but it's not 2004 bad.

getonbckthr
05-31-2006, 10:06 PM
We need a reliable #2 hitter who doesn't swing at the first pitch with the stolen base leader at first base. We are also no longer the hunters. We are now the hunted. It'll work out. In KW I trust.
ICHIRO?

JUribe1989
05-31-2006, 10:06 PM
Don't ever compare our pitching this year to our pitching in 2004. That's a disgusting comparison. And the only bright spot in our bullpen in 2004 was Shingo. No one else in the bullpen was even close to being under 3 in ERA. The offense was incredibly streaky in 2004, and Buehrle had our best ERA for starters in 3.89. THIS IS NOT 2004!!!

thomas35forever
05-31-2006, 10:08 PM
Don't ever compare our pitching this year to our pitching in 2004. That's a disgusting comparison. And the only bright spot in our bullpen in 2004 was Shingo. No one else in the bullpen was even close to being under 3 in ERA. The offense was incredibly streaky in 2004, and Buehrle had our best ERA for starters in 3.89. THIS IS NOT 2004!!!
That's just what I was going to say. Our offense isn't one-demensional anymore either.

getonbckthr
05-31-2006, 10:08 PM
Obviously when Mackowiak is in there the lineup is a little improved.
Ya but the defensive is greatly hurting proof tonight with Sizemore's triple.

Jjav829
05-31-2006, 10:10 PM
Ya but the defensive is greatly hurting proof tonight with Sizemore's triple.
Of course. And therein lies the problem. Right now Ozzie is in a poor position where he has to decide on a daily basis whether to sacrifice offense in one spot of the order for defense, or sacrifice defense in one fielding position for offense.

getonbckthr
05-31-2006, 10:15 PM
Of course. And therein lies the problem. Right now Ozzie is in a poor position where he has to decide on a daily basis whether to sacrifice offense in one spot of the order for defense, or sacrifice defense in one fielding position for offense.
Thats why I say the simple fact of prospects being prospects. True guys we have in the minors might someday become superstars but in the past deals we've made one has yet to reach its promise. I say we make a big move some where. Try hard at Ichiro or someone similar who can take care of both offense and defense and are on teams going no where. I understand Ichiro makes the Mariners alot of money however so does winning dynasties. Ichiro on their team isn't the piece however Ichiro could lead to gathering those pieces.

MRKARNO
05-31-2006, 10:30 PM
Yes, our 103 win pace makes this seem eerily like 2004.

Frontman
05-31-2006, 10:42 PM
ICHIRO?

Is this being half sarcastic? j/k Well, if we could get ICHIRO, where would you play him? Center? Dye is fine in right.

Personally, if the Yanks gave up on him very quickly (highly unlikely) I'd love Johnny Damon. Or else, move some folks and get Crash back in Center. Rowand batting from the 6th or 7th slot, benching Anderson, then Uribe's faults wouldn't be so obvious.

Front

Huisj
05-31-2006, 10:45 PM
Yes, our 103 win pace makes this seem eerily like 2004.

The Sox were 29-20 heading into June that year. That's a 96 win pace if my math is right.

Chips
05-31-2006, 10:49 PM
Is this being half sarcastic? j/k Well, if we could get ICHIRO, where would you play him? Center? Dye is fine in right.

Personally, if the Yanks gave up on him very quickly (highly unlikely) I'd love Johnny Damon. Or else, move some folks and get Crash back in Center. Rowand batting from the 6th or 7th slot, benching Anderson, then Uribe's faults wouldn't be so obvious.

Front

Yankees aren't giving up on Damon

Rowand is gone. HE IS NOT COMING BACK.

If we need anything, it is bullpen help.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 10:54 PM
First of Ichiro plays RF, secondly we already have a lead off hitter. His name is Scott Podsednik. We need a complete CF, not bullpen help and not a SS.

Cliff Politte makes the bullpen look BAD!, Matt Thornton has had how many scoreless appearances now? and as that recent article has stated hes now in phase two of his project with Coop soon he will be putting hitters away with regularity. Jenks has been great when used in the appropriate situations, Cotts has been good hes posting a 2.91 ERA. I think McCarthy needs to be moved into the right handed set up man role and get more consistant work. Jeff Nelson is the ROOGY, and Politte needs to be moved into the mop up role.

Uribe has proven himself at the ML level hes getting better at the plate these past two games he hasn't been swinging at the first pitch as much and yesterday he actually had hit, up until today he was batting .265 in his last ten days.

Anderson just looks lost and outmatched right now. He's an amazing defender but as I've stated time and time again we need a complete CF, Mackowiak appears to be cooling off a bit, and i really don't feel comfortable with him in CF case and point tonight on Sizemore's triple.

The Answer: Corey Patterson. He went 1-3 today with a single, SO, BB, SB. hes still batting .290 and has 19SB/1CS. I would be willing to give up whatever it takes to get him (Anderson/Broadway/Lumsden/Harrell/Haeger/Rogo/Fields) whatever. Its just a shame we could have had him for nothing and given him Gloads spot on the roster, Mackowiak can play 1B. I want another world series parade come October and i don't want to have to wait through growing pains at the plate to get it. Patterson is a 5-tool player we've heard it plenty of times from the cubune but its true, the cubs are just a crappy organization look how well Nomar is doing, look how the aforementioned Patterson is doing. Pull the trigger Kenny.

MadetoOrta
05-31-2006, 11:01 PM
ICHIRO?

I'd still take Vizquel for that reason.

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:07 PM
The Answer: Corey Patterson. He went 1-3 today with a single, SO, BB, SB. hes still batting .290 and has 19SB/1CS. I would be willing to give up whatever it takes to get him (Anderson/Broadway/Lumsden/Harrell/Haeger/Rogo/Fields) whatever.
:tealpolice:



Holy ****!!!!!!!! You can't be serious!

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:12 PM
:tealpolice:



Holy ****!!!!!!!! You can't be serious!

i second and third this!

Corey Patterson?!?!? You've got to be kidding!!!

HomeFish
05-31-2006, 11:16 PM
The problem in 2004 was not so much streakyness as Frank and Magglio getting injured. That and the 5th starter problem.

If anything, I'd compare 2006 to 2002 -- the Sox start off hot and then fade in late spring/early summer. In both 2006 and 2002, we started off 1-3, then jumped into first place, then fell into second shortly thereafter and never went back.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:17 PM
:tealpolice:



Holy ****!!!!!!!! You can't be serious!

Yeah, im dead serious. Stop with your flubsession hate-or-ade. He's only 26 and at the very least hes proven at the ML level he can hit at .255, you really think hes going to bat that for the rest of his career?

And another thing they're prospects you know what the % of prospects that are drafted actually make it to the show and not just for a cup of coffee? 4% that means that out of the 50 we draft every year were lucky to have 2 make it to the show, and out of those two how many are impact players? how are Joe Borchard & Jeremy Reed doing?

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:20 PM
...how are Joe Borchard & Jeremy Reed doing?

I supported the Borchard and Reed trades.

Ol' No. 2
05-31-2006, 11:22 PM
It's a recurring dream and I always wake up screaming:
Our 3, 4 and 5 hitters combine for 13 RBIs one day, then go 0-for for days in a row.
Our right fielder muffs what should be a routine play.
Our SS fires one over Paulie's head into the seats.
Garland is struggling to find the strike zone.
Politte is lacking confidence in his fast ball.
I catch my breath and remind myself that Valentin, Maggs and El Caballo are long gone.
I relax.

But the panic returns.
It's not 2004, I think to myself. It's 2006. And I'm not dreaming.
I'm awake watching a road series against Tampa. A uninspired showing causes us to lose the series.
It's playing indoors in that crappy Tropicana Field atmosphere I tell myself.
And then against Toronto. We're playing indoors -- or indoor/outdoor -- or something -- I remind myself.
And against Cleveland. Oh ****, we're outside I think to myself.

OK, it's not 2004, but is anyone noticing a completely different vibe from this 2006 squad: Rarely seeing runs manufactured from the patented Ozzie-ball? Seeming to swing for the fences, waiting for the long-ball?
No lights-out relief from Hermie or Cotts.

Not panicking, but even with the 2nd best record in baseball this year feels different.

Or am I just spoiled?I wouldn't say panic exactly, but they're playing like a .500 team, which, just by coincidence, is exactly what they are over the last few weeks. In the entire month of May they've won exactly three games scoring fewer than 5 runs. It's back to feast of famine offense. No manufacturing runs...nobody can bunt anymore...running themselves out of innings. Yeah, it reminds me of 2004, too.

:boston Ozzie, what do you think about your team's execution?

:ozzie I'd be in favor of it.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:26 PM
I supported the Borchard and Reed trades.
So then why are you against giving up prospects including Anderson to get proven MLB talent?

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:30 PM
Yeah, im dead serious. Stop with your flubsession hate-or-ade. He's only 26 and at the very least hes proven at the ML level he can hit at .255, you really think hes going to bat that for the rest of his career?


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Patterson being a former Cub. This has more to do with his terrible attitude and inability to be a team player when he was on the Cubs. The Sox DO NOT have time for that crap.

I think you're jumping to conclusions by assuming chisoxmike and I didn't support this ridiculous idea because of his former allegiances. Perhaps it's YOU who is the one focusing on his past team.

Chisox003
05-31-2006, 11:30 PM
So then why are you against giving up prospects including Anderson to get proven MLB talent?
Because Corey Patterson isn't ****ing proven MLB talent after 1 good month maybe?

CLR01
05-31-2006, 11:31 PM
Yeah, im dead serious. Stop with your flubsession hate-or-ade. He's only 26 and at the very least hes proven at the ML level he can hit at .255, you really think hes going to bat that for the rest of his career?


Why not? Your numbers show that a younger player has a very small chance of getting to and making an impact on a ML team. Corey Patterson has shown over and over again that he is not an impact player. I'll take my chances with the rookie.

MRKARNO
05-31-2006, 11:33 PM
The Sox were 29-20 heading into June that year. That's a 96 win pace if my math is right.

A 29-20 record that was due in large part to Magglio and Frank. So this season would be analagous to 2004 if Thome and Konerko were to suddenly be lost for the season. Even then, we are in a stronger position than in 2004, but we probably wouldn't make the playoffs.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:34 PM
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Patterson being a former Cub. This has more to do with his terrible attitude and inability to be a team player when he was on the Cubs. The Sox DO NOT have time for that crap.

I think you're jumping to conclusions by assuming chisoxmike and I didn't support this ridiculous idea because of his former allegiances. Perhaps it's YOU who is the one focusing on his past team.

Then why all this disdain for Patterson? i believe a certain catcher from the giants got a bad rep too, and he seemed to work out just fine. Further more i think Patterson did whatever was asked of him including bat leadoff. Its not his fault the cubs are an incompetent organization.

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:36 PM
Our pitching is simply not where it should be right now. It really hasn't been all year.

Our starting five is arguably the best in baseball and they've certainly not pitched like it all season. On the flip side, our bullpen is utter **** and can't hold a lead. I think of the 19 losses we have this season 7 of them have come after the 7th inning. Thats pathetic.

Offense is streaky, but all offenses are. They will go in slumps. Also, the defense is not playing up to the level of 2005. Anderson is a better CF than Mackowiak and Rowand, and in my opinion you dont sacrifice defense for offense, and with this lineup I think Anderson is fine in the 9 hole.

The 2004 team had no pitching. They had 3 starting pitchers to start the season and banged their way through the first half and through most of July. I wouldn't compare the two teams. But we'll see how this season shapes up.

GO SOX!!!!!!

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:37 PM
Then why all this disdain for Patterson? i believe a certain catcher from the giants got a bad rep too, and he seemed to work out just fine. Further more i think Patterson did whatever was asked of him including bat leadoff. Its not his fault the cubs are an incompetent organization.

The most blatent difference between Pierzynski and Patterson is that A.J. consistently got the job done and was a winner. A.J. has proven himself, Patterson hasn't.

It's really that simple.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:39 PM
Because Corey Patterson isn't ****ing proven MLB talent after 1 good month maybe?

Once again I'm pretty sure he proven MLB talent, hes been in the bigs since 2002 on and as i previously stated he is a career .255 hitter. Did you see his catch last night robbing someone of a two run homerun and saving the game for his team or were you too busy posting in "whats the score?"

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:41 PM
Then why all this disdain for Patterson? i believe a certain catcher from the giants got a bad rep too, and he seemed to work out just fine. Further more i think Patterson did whatever was asked of him including bat leadoff. Its not his fault the cubs are an incompetent organization.

All AJ knows is winning and how to win. Corey doesn't. This has and will not HAVE ANYTHING to do with the Cubs.

Corey Patterson is NOT the answer in CF. I'll take my chances with Anderson thank you very much.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:42 PM
The most blatent difference between Pierzynski and Patterson is that A.J. consistently got the job done and was a winner. A.J. has proven himself, Patterson hasn't.

It's really that simple.

I think you would concur its kinda hard to be a winner on the cubs, thats an oxymoron. How has Patterson not proven himself? please list examples.

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:43 PM
Did you see his catch last night robbing someone of a two run homerun and saving the game for his team or were you too busy posting in "whats the score?"

Have you seen Brian Anderson playing a solid centerfield, or have you been too busy accusing everyone of being "flubsessed"?

Seriously dude, what's the deal? Corey Patterson is not the answer, whether he played for the Cubs or the Rockies...it just doesn't matter.

Chips
05-31-2006, 11:44 PM
So then why are you against giving up prospects including Anderson to get proven MLB talent?

Proven?

His career numbers (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=279913&statType=1)

Proven to be usless.

Anderson is no longer a prospect. He's a starting centerfielder, err platooning centerfielder. His defense is stellar and he needs to work on his bat. A trip to AAA might help that.



http://mlb.mlb.com/images/trans.gif http://mlb.mlb.com/images/trans.gif

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:46 PM
I think you would concur its kinda hard to be a winner on the cubs, thats an oxymoron. How has Patterson not proven himself? please list examples.

Derek Lee is a winner. Greg Maddux is a winner.

Patterson blows. Jesus Christ. He makes one ****ing web gem on Baseball Tonight and people start creaming themsevles. This is the dumbest argument on these boards, and thats saying a lot. Corey Patterson is not the answer. We have two CF. Brian Anderson and Rob Mackowiak.

****

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:47 PM
I think you would concur its kinda hard to be a winner on the cubs, thats an oxymoron. How has Patterson not proven himself? please list examples.


Proven?

His career numbers (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=279913&statType=1)

Proven to be usless.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/trans.gif

thanks Chips...I owe you.

chisoxmike
05-31-2006, 11:48 PM
As the great poster "chips" would say...

"Corey Patterson is a busted leg!"

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:48 PM
All AJ knows is winning and how to win. Corey doesn't. This has and will not HAVE ANYTHING to do with the Cubs.

Corey Patterson is NOT the answer in CF. I'll take my chances with Anderson thank you very much.

i won't Anderson isn't even batting his weight, by the way hes listed at 215. Between Uribe and Anderson any semblance of a rally is immediately killed, you can hide one automatic out in a line up like this but two? come on this isn't the NL.

Chips
05-31-2006, 11:50 PM
As the great poster "chips" would say...

That I am.

"Corey Patterson is a busted leg!"

And that he is.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:50 PM
We have two CF. Brian Anderson and Rob Mackowiak.

Are you serious? Rob Mackowiak isn't a CF never has been never will be hes more of a LF/RF player at best. Rob Mackowiak in CF is Ozuna bad and thats saying something.

hi im skot
05-31-2006, 11:51 PM
i won't Anderson isn't even batting his weight, by the way hes listed at 215. Between Uribe and Anderson any semblance of a rally is immediately killed, you can hide one automatic out in a line up like this but two? come on this isn't the NL.

Uribe is streaky and Anderson is a rookie. These are facts that we knew coming into the season.

I'm just as frustrated as everyone else, trust me. But Uribe will come around, and I honestly believe that Anderson will be a respectable hitter by the time the season is over.

Chips
05-31-2006, 11:55 PM
i won't Anderson isn't even batting his weight, by the way hes listed at 215. Between Uribe and Anderson any semblance of a rally is immediately killed, you can hide one automatic out in a line up like this but two? come on this isn't the NL.

Anderson is a ****ing rookie. This is the first time he has seen many of these pitches. Give him some time or send him to AAA for a while to get his confidence back as well as his eye. His defense is stellar, etc.

Beautox
05-31-2006, 11:58 PM
Uribe is streaky and Anderson is a rookie. These are facts that we knew coming into the season.

I'm just as frustrated as everyone else, trust me. But Uribe will come around, and I honestly believe that Anderson will be a respectable hitter by the time the season is over.

I'm not denying the fact that Uribe is streaky, i never claimed other wise, infact i accept it. But Rookie or not a .164 AVG is not acceptable at this level no matter how good his glove is. Mackowiak is cooling off he too is the definition of a streaky hitter, and hes not a CF. Soon Brian will have to serve a 5 game suspension and Mackowiak will be out there everyday you dont think hes going cost us some more games? much like that Barett triple? the ball has a way of finding people. We need an everyday complete CF one whom can both hit and defend Corey Patterson is exactly that.

hi im skot
06-01-2006, 12:02 AM
We need an everyday complete CF one whom can both hit and defend Corey Patterson is exactly that.

Put him on your fantasy team, then.

Beautox
06-01-2006, 12:03 AM
Anderson is a ****ing rookie. This is the first time he has seen many of these pitches. Give him some time or send him to AAA for a while to get his confidence back as well as his eye. His defense is stellar, etc.
I understand hes a rookie but he should be able to hit above the Mendoza line and while hes in AAA were going to have Mackowiak in CF and occasionally have Ross Gload spell him? is that going to work with this white sox philosophy of pitching and defense? cause last i checked Mackowiak is a super sub who was brought here to back up Crede and Gload is a 1B who is rotting on our bench.

Beautox
06-01-2006, 12:04 AM
Put him on your fantasy team, then.

already done. :smile: while your at it why dont you put Brian on yours? oh wait thats right they dont give points for defense.

Chips
06-01-2006, 12:08 AM
I'm not denying the fact that Uribe is streaky, i never claimed other wise, infact i accept it. But Rookie or not a .164 AVG is not acceptable at this level no matter how good his glove is. Mackowiak is cooling off he too is the definition of a streaky hitter, and hes not a CF. Soon Brian will have to serve a 5 game suspension and Mackowiak will be out there everyday you dont think hes going cost us some more games? much like that Barett triple? the ball has a way of finding people. We need an everyday complete CF one whom can both hit and defend Corey Patterson is exactly that.

While Anderson is doing his time, Sweeney or another prospect can be brought up to fill in. Pods (although his arm is too weak) can play center for a few games, if need be.

And on top of all this. Why would Baltimore trade Patterson?

Beautox
06-01-2006, 12:23 AM
While Anderson is doing his time, Sweeney or another prospect can be brought up to fill in. Pods (although his arm is too weak) can play center for a few games, if need be.

And on top of all this. Why would Baltimore trade Patterson?

Sweeney would be worse than Mackowiak, hes freshly off the DL and has barely logged any innings in CF @ AAA and why start the clock on another one of our prospects? all though to his credit he does have a compact swing. Podsednik can't play CF hes bad enough in LF just because he has decent make up speed doesn't mean he reads the ball well, and your asking him to play a position he hasn't played in well over a year and a half.

Now onto Baltimore giving up Patterson.

1.) They're already out of contention and will be fighting it out with the D-Rays for last in the AL East.

2.) Patterson only signed a one year deal, and will be a FA after this season.

3.) They need more homegrown pitching/talent Penn is on the DL and Adam Loewen is little ways away, Bedard and Cabrera are unpolished.

4.) They can't attract marquee FA talent (Paul Konerko), and FA pitching is at a ridiculous price even medicore sub .500 pitchers are getting way overpaid(A.J. Burnett). I realize money talks but Tejada has made a pretty big stink about playing on a medicore team.

5.) Were not in their division, this wont come back to haunt either team that much.

monkeypants
06-01-2006, 12:36 AM
I'm reading some replies from this thread and it feels like I'm taking crazy pills!

Yes I'd love to get Ichiro but Seattle IS NOT trading him. And if they were considering it we still have people here asking where would he play? You know where he'd play? Any ****ing place he wants! It reminds me of when there were rumors of when the Sox were possibly interested in getting Griffey Jr. and Hawk stupidly asked "but where would he play?"

And then we get someone that wants to replace Anderson with Corey Patterson. I'm not going to touch that because it's already been adequately said how crazy that would be.

This team is nothing like 2004. This team is like 2005 with a worse bullpen.
Our offense has gone into a drought right now. Just like last year.
Our starting pitching has been pretty good so far. Just like last year.
Our defense is pretty good but spotty at times. Just like last year.
Our bench is better than last year's team while our bullpen is worse than last year's team.

Settle down people, it's June 1. We have 4 months of baseball left and the law of averages will come about. We have the second best record in baseball and yet people are pissing in their pants? :rolleyes:

Mr. White Sox
06-01-2006, 12:51 AM
already done. :smile: while your at it why dont you put Brian on yours? oh wait thats right they dont give points for defense.

Thank God fantasy baseball isn't Real baseball then.

-BRIAN ANDERSON HAS BEEN IN THE MAJORS FOR ALL OF A MONTH AND A HALF.

-HE'S ONLY GETTING MAJOR PT AGAINST LHP, AND DAMN GOOD ONES AT THAT

-GIVE HIM TIME! JEEZ!

-NO, NEVER MIND, LET'S TRADE RYAN SWEENEY, RAY LIOTTA AND BRANDON MCCARTHY FOR COREY PATTERSON. MUCH BETTER IDEA.

That's the first time I used all caps in, like, forever. It felt good, kinda.

The Dude
06-01-2006, 01:08 AM
While Anderson is doing his time, Sweeney or another prospect can be brought up to fill in. Pods (although his arm is too weak) can play center for a few games, if need be.

And on top of all this. Why would Baltimore trade Patterson?

Ok first off, Patterson WAS a busted leg with his former team. Now that he has the boo-asses off his own ass and is in a different environment....he's playing much better and is a solid player all around. Time will tell if its not just a hot streak, but his potential coming through.

That being said, you're right, why would Baltimore trade Patterson now that hes "found it" ???

Beautox
06-01-2006, 01:10 AM
And then we get someone that wants to replace Anderson with Corey Patterson. I'm not going to touch that because it's already been adequately said how crazy that would be.


How is that crazy? Patterson is batting .290 7HR 20RBI 19SB/1CS, 9BB/24SO and playing dare i say gold glove caliber defense? and I'm suggesting we have him replace our current CF who is batting .164 4Hr 11RBI 2SB/1CS, 16BB/36SO and also playing gold glove caliber defense along with his platooning mate who has no right playing CF and has only logged one inning in the infield.

I don't understand why some of you guys are willing to settle for mediocrity, and no its not May 1st, its June 1st, 1/3 of the season is already over with. why be complacement? Anderson will be lucky to sniff .200 by seasons end. Your right we do have the second best record in baseball but if we had a complete CF we would have already buried the competion.

QCIASOXFAN
06-01-2006, 01:47 AM
It's a recurring dream and I always wake up screaming:
Our 3, 4 and 5 hitters combine for 13 RBIs one day, then go 0-for for days in a row.
Our right fielder muffs what should be a routine play.
Our SS fires one over Paulie's head into the seats.
Garland is struggling to find the strike zone.
Politte is lacking confidence in his fast ball.
I catch my breath and remind myself that Valentin, Maggs and El Caballo are long gone.
I relax.

But the panic returns.
It's not 2004, I think to myself. It's 2006. And I'm not dreaming.
I'm awake watching a road series against Tampa. A uninspired showing causes us to lose the series.
It's playing indoors in that crappy Tropicana Field atmosphere I tell myself.
And then against Toronto. We're playing indoors -- or indoor/outdoor -- or something -- I remind myself.
And against Cleveland. Oh ****, we're outside I think to myself.

OK, it's not 2004, but is anyone noticing a completely different vibe from this 2006 squad: Rarely seeing runs manufactured from the patented Ozzie-ball? Seeming to swing for the fences, waiting for the long-ball?
No lights-out relief from Hermie or Cotts.

Not panicking, but even with the 2nd best record in baseball this year feels different.

Or am I just spoiled? Settle down buddy we have great pitching this year, a lead off hitte,r and a shut down closer. Not to mention the best offense in the league basically.

rowand33
06-01-2006, 02:02 AM
If I was the Sox GM, and I knew that Patterson would play for me as well as he's playing in Baltimore, I'd bring him over.

He's always had the tools. He's doing great right now (a proud Corey Patterson fantasy owenr here), I don't think him coming here would be ridiculous like some people are saying. But you have to wonder if the reason he's playing so well is because he's under no pressure over there. Would a playoff race/being back in Chicago be too much for the guy? there's a good possibility.

The only way I'd want Patterson is if we got him for next to nothing.

I'd love Griffey. I'd love Ichiro (do you really think he couldn't play a decent CF?).

And as far as all the people saying "Give Anderson time. Remember Joe Crede? Everybody wanted to replace him and now we all love him."

True... but when Crede was struggling we weren't the offseason favorites to win the World Series. If we could repeat by trading for a marquee player, so be it. And if Anderson goes on to become great and we get rid of him for somebody that's only an above average regular? so be it. for every John Smoltz that you give away there's 100s of Joe Borchards and Jeremy Reeds.

Not trying to be a dark cloud here... we have a good baseball team. But this time last year, I felt like the White Sox could win the world series no matter what anybody said because of the way we played. I realize the record is comparable this year but this year I feel like the intangibles aren't there.

The sky isn't falling yet, but something certainly needs to change for the White Sox. and the sooner the better.

Beautox
06-01-2006, 02:59 AM
If I was the Sox GM, and I knew that Patterson would play for me as well as he's playing in Baltimore, I'd bring him over.

He's always had the tools. He's doing great right now (a proud Corey Patterson fantasy owenr here), I don't think him coming here would be ridiculous like some people are saying. But you have to wonder if the reason he's playing so well is because he's under no pressure over there. Would a playoff race/being back in Chicago be too much for the guy? there's a good possibility.

The only way I'd want Patterson is if we got him for next to nothing.

I'd love Griffey. I'd love Ichiro (do you really think he couldn't play a decent CF?).

And as far as all the people saying "Give Anderson time. Remember Joe Crede? Everybody wanted to replace him and now we all love him."

True... but when Crede was struggling we weren't the offseason favorites to win the World Series. If we could repeat by trading for a marquee player, so be it. And if Anderson goes on to become great and we get rid of him for somebody that's only an above average regular? so be it. for every John Smoltz that you give away there's 100s of Joe Borchards and Jeremy Reeds.

Not trying to be a dark cloud here... we have a good baseball team. But this time last year, I felt like the White Sox could win the world series no matter what anybody said because of the way we played. I realize the record is comparable this year but this year I feel like the intangibles aren't there.

The sky isn't falling yet, but something certainly needs to change for the White Sox. and the sooner the better.

I'm Glad I'm not the only proud Patterson owner and not the only one who feels this way. I ask everyone here whats more important: Having a 5-tool perennial all-star but not winning the WS again in the form of Anderson(note: I'm not saying we can't make a run in the post season with him, but lets not kid ourselves when was the last time a team won the WS with a CF hitting below the Mendoza line and was simply around for defense)? or Getting what could equate to a medicore/above average/possibly great CF in Corey Patterson who also has all 5-tools and would make us strong up the middle?

and further more would you be willing to give up top prospects/Rookie e.g. Anderson & Broadway/Lumsden/Harrell/Haeger? To acquire the likes of Patterson.

i would because your right most prospects don't pan out and there exactly that, prospects; how many "can't miss" and 1st round prospects have gone bust?

Personally i would rather acquire proven ML talent in the form of Patterson yes he is a career .255 hitter but at least hes got a track record, and he's only 26 years old. I remember a certain Dodger catcher who was supposed to be a ROY that alot of people wrote of, and he's currently playing 1B for this team.

Here comes the Corey Patterson Love Train

::Turns on Quad City Dj's "Come on and Ride It (the Train)"::

http://www.wallpapersworld.com/imgpv/transport/miscellaneous/trains/trains_009.jpg

"come on ride the train, and ride it".....to another world series championship:bandance:

Bobbo35
06-01-2006, 07:13 AM
Did everyone give up on Rowand this easy? Come on, he is a good player that needs to step it up a bit in the batting area. If he hits anywhere over .200 I think will be alright considering he has a good glove. The rest of the team should pick him up with hits.

The Immigrant
06-01-2006, 07:14 AM
:?:

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue"

ewokpelts
06-01-2006, 07:39 AM
2006 is not like 2004.
We're coming off a world championship.
In 04, we're coming off yet another disapointing season, AND the near death experience of the cubs almost making the WS.

We're still in the driver's seat, and we still have the tools, skills, and guts to take down detroit rock city.


Gene

ewokpelts
06-01-2006, 07:43 AM
T o all you guys talking about Anderson and Uribe's low number.....look at Thome's numbers.....AND the effect his bat has on Konerko the DP King, Dye, Crede, AJ, ect......

Thome alone cancels out Anderson and Uribe's bats.
Thier fielding will win more ball games this year than thier bats. And that's ok with me.

Gene

Jurr
06-01-2006, 08:36 AM
Scott Schoeneweis and Danny Wright do not equal Javier Vazquez and Jon Garland. Oh, yeah....WE'RE 33-19!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last year, the entire league was on the Sox beanbags because they were 35-17 and running wild. Ummmm...the Sox are TWO GAMES OFF THAT PACE, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2004?????

Wow. Just wow.

polishsoxfan23
06-01-2006, 08:45 AM
i think we are going through a small rough pacth right now i think we will start to level out again soon enough.

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 08:47 AM
There are so many pissed pants posts for me to reply to, so I'm not going to quote any of them, but rather address a few points:

The Sox were not "favorites" to win the World Series last year, and they did OK with a third baseman kept on the team simply for his defense. Half of WSI was screaming for Joe Randa. The Sox won it all, and Joe Crede's glove AND bat played a huge role.

Last year, half of WSI was screaming for Ken Griffey, Jr. This year, most of that same half is screaming to get Aaron Rowand back, the same guy who would have been benched in favor of Griffey.

Sure, adding Ichiro, Vernon Wells or Johnny Damon would be a fantastic upgrade. But get real, people. None of them are coming to the White Sox in 2006.
:kukoo:

Benching a Gold Glove-caliber CF who bats ninth for a career National League utility player who hits .265 is the magic cure-all? :rolleyes: What a positive affect that has had in the last two weeks! The Sox actually had a better record when Anderson was the full-time starting CF. He got the overwhelming majority of starts in CF during April and early May, when the Sox were playing much better. Coincidence? I think not. Even Mackowiak has said the Sox are best when he's coming off the bench and being the "super sub."

The lack of production from the #9 hole is more than offset by:

1. Thome replacing Carl Everett as the #3 hitter/DH;
2. Crede's significant improvement;
3. Pierzynski's high batting average.

The bottom line for me is that if the Sox heed the call of legions of pants pissers on here and bench/demote Anderson in favor of someone who hits slightly better but plays far worse defense, they will end up like the 2000 White Sox, who pissed away their chemistry by making a trade for Charles Johnson, just to get more offense from the #9 hole, and who quietly were swept in the ALDS.

The bullpen didn't lose yesterday's game, either, although I do agree that it needs to get better, especially in right-handed middle relief (here the 2004 comparison is apt). Politte is not getting it done (like in 2004). Hermanson's gone. Cotts has not been as good as he was in 2005, but still has been OK.

Here is where the blame (if we have to call it that) lies for the inability of the Sox to match last year's pace, IMHO:

1. A few bad games from Garcia (two against Cleveland, one against Toronto);

2. A few bad outings by the bullpen (particularly Logan and Politte, also Thornton very early, who since has become an excellent addition, and Jenks one blown save);

3. The decision to bench Anderson (cost us the sweep against the Cubs);

4. A few defensive miscues at inopportune times (Dye on Tuesday, Uribe and Paulie against the Cubs);

5. The very, very few times when the opposing team has been able to shut down Thome, Konerko and Dye (like last night);

6. The Sox undisputed best starter (by ERA) - Contreras - missing two games as a precautionary move against further injury.

Guess what. These things happen to every team. The first five, plus the opposing pitcher having the game of his life, had to happen last night for the Sox to suffer their first shutout of the year.
:o:

If not for Detroit having padded their record against the back end of Cleveland's rotation and against Kansas City, they wouldn't have played .900 ball for a two-week strech, and the Sox wouldn't be in second place. We're seeing right now how the Tigers fare against more stout competition. They're not playing .900 ball against good teams! Detroit is good, but they are not .900 winning percentage good.

Step off the ledge and change your underpants, people! It's starting to stink in here!
:rolleyes:

SoxFan78
06-01-2006, 08:55 AM
There are so many pissed pants posts for me to reply to, so I'm not going to quote any of them, but rather address a few points

MY EYES!!! WHAT COLOR IS THAT???

Seriously though, get off of the ledge people. Yes, the Sox aren't playing the best ball now, and they need to make some minor changes.

But they have the SECOND BEST RECORD IN THE LEAGUE!! They are only one or two games off from last years pace. Get a grip people. Ozzie will motivate these guys.

Jurr
06-01-2006, 08:56 AM
i think we are going through a small rough pacth right now i think we will start to level out again soon enough.
33-19. 14 games over. Relax.

As Don Cooper said in the WS video. "People said we were struggling...we won 99 games. How bad a struggle could it be????"

Baby Fisk
06-01-2006, 09:05 AM
2006 = 2006.


Pissed Pants Posts: I love it! (that sums up the entire WSI career of Homefish) :cool:

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 09:05 AM
MY EYES!!! WHAT COLOR IS THAT???

Urine yellow, to mark all the pants pissing that's going on around here.

Pants Pissers are somewhat different than the Dark Clouds.

Dark Clouds seem to enjoy adversity.

Pants Pissers don't like adversity and think everything needs to be changed when just a little adversity strikes (the only thing that needs to be changed is their diapers).

Dark Clouds often only seem to be happy when they can criticize something that has led to adversity.

Pants Pissers think that anything less than 162-0 is reason to piss their pants. In fact, pants pissing is their reaction to anything adverse. "Number nine hitter goes 0-4 with two strikeouts? Time to piss my pants!"

Many Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers and vice versa. But not all Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers, and not all Pants Pissers are Dark Clouds.

Baby Fisk
06-01-2006, 09:09 AM
Urine yellow, to mark all the pants pissing that's going on around here.

Pants Pissers are somewhat different than the Dark Clouds.

Dark Clouds seem to enjoy adversity.

Pants Pissers don't like adversity and think everything needs to be changed when just a little adversity strikes (the only thing that needs to be changed is their diapers).

Dark Clouds often only seem to be happy when they can criticize something that has led to adversity.

Pants Pissers think that anything less than 162-0 is reason to piss their pants. In fact, pants pissing is their reaction to anything adverse. "Number nine hitter goes 0-4 with two strikeouts? Time to piss my pants!"

Many Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers and vice versa. But not all Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers, and not all Pants Pissers are Dark Clouds.
I'm hip to your jive, padre. The A.J. Pierzynski batting average projections chart was the ultimate pants pissing moment.

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 09:11 AM
2006 = 2006.


Pissed Pants Posts: I love it! (that sums up the entire WSI career of Homefish) :cool:

Actually, I disagree. HomeFish is the epitome of Dark Cloud. Just look at his sig. He's eternally downcast, like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. HomeFish doesn't piss his pants when the Sox lose or when Anderson goes 0-4. Rather, he feel vindicated when the Sox lose. He's a Dark Cloud.

OTOH, Pants Pissers believe the Sox will go 162-0 and piss their pants when they lose a game, or when the #9 hitter goes 0-4 with three strikeouts.

:)

credefan24
06-01-2006, 09:21 AM
I think we all need to just take a deep breath.

This is what happens when a team that was on a tear last year and in the post-season loses 2 games in a row. Hey, it happens! The Tigers lost 3 in a row, so I don't think it's time to call the '06 team the '04 Sox.

And when I see these "get rid of Anderson" posts, it reminds of me when Crede was struggling. Give him some time. We can afford to do so. His glove is fantastic, and he just needs the ABs to get in the groove. Anderson will be fine.
It's a long season, it's only June 1, and the Sox are still one of the best teams in the league. It will all be fine.

And one last parting note:
My cat's breath smells like cat's food.

Baby Fisk
06-01-2006, 09:31 AM
Actually, I disagree. HomeFish is the epitome of Dark Cloud. Just look at his sig. He's eternally downcast, like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. HomeFish doesn't piss his pants when the Sox lose or when Anderson goes 0-4. Rather, he feel vindicated when the Sox lose. He's a Dark Cloud.

OTOH, Pants Pissers believe the Sox will go 162-0 and piss their pants when they lose a game, or when the #9 hitter goes 0-4 with three strikeouts.

:)
Homefish perpetually forecasts disaster on the horizon, and nothing pleases him more than defeat and ruin. Lamest poster here. I guess you made the correct call.

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 09:31 AM
Long diatribe...You're missing the point. The Sox are only a couple of games off last year's pace. But it's the direction the team is taking that isn't good. They're playing like a .500 team, which is just what they've been over the last few weeks. What I see is not a slump, but a systemic problem.

1. A return to feast-or-famine offense. They've fallen into a bad habit of waiting for the big hit instead of manufacturing runs, which was a large part of their success last year. Look at the last month's scores. If they're not scoring 7+ runs they can't manage more than 3. They're trying to mash the ball instead of taking what the pitcher is giving. Lilly was hittable last Friday if they'd only reached out and punched that curveball into RF instead of trying to pull it. And they're not putting pressure on the defense. They're making mediocre pitchers look like Cy Young.

2. General lack of concentration (not unrelated to #1). Pierzynski running into an easy out last night was a textbook case. Many of the defensive lapses also look like a lack of concentration.

If you don't think these things are true, why do you think Ozzie was so PO'd last weekend?

No one is saying they're doomed. All these problems are fixable. But it's not going to happen by itself.

woodsdavid
06-01-2006, 09:44 AM
:?:

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue"

LOL for about 5 minutes

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 09:47 AM
somewhat shorter diatribe...

:tongue:

If this is, as you say, a "systemic problem," then every single team in the history of MLB has suffered at least occasional "systemic problems," even last year's World Champions. Last August, the Sox had a LOSING record for the month while Cleveland played .900 ball. Yet they still turned it around and the rest is history. This year, they're having a bad month in May. Last season, they played "small ball" in April and May and then again in October. During June (when Frank Thomas was healthy), when they really padded their lead, they were mashing the ball.

Incidentally, it's also a FACT that the Sox have a better record when Brian Anderson plays center field.

I agree that the problems you listed, and those that I listed, are fixable. Ozzie has demonstrated his ability to wake up a team. In fact, I belive he would have done so in 2004 if not for the two best hitters getting hurt and missing 60% of the season.

The only difference is that some people on here are calm in the face of comparatively mild adversity - confident that Ozzie will have them work on fundamentals when they return home and clear up their mental errors. Meanwhile, others on here are pants-pissing in their posts, worried that the Sox won't be able to win another game unless they trade for Ichiro, Vernon Wells, Ken Griffey Junior or Aaron Rowand to get more offense out of the #9 hole.

spiffie
06-01-2006, 09:55 AM
People are so quick to give up on someone when obviously there must be reasons to believe in him. Do we think Kenny and Ozzie would put someone out there who is overmatched? Of course not. Brian Anderson has the ability to be a perennial all-star one day, and by one day I mean very soon. He just needs some more breaking in. It wouldn't surprise me if in the second half of the year Brian puts up a line like 280/360/480. He just needs to relax and do the same thing he has done at every level he's ever played at.

Out of all the trade prospects mentioned the only one I would consider would be the pipe dream of Ichiro. For him I would move Anderson. But otherwise you cannot stunt the development of a 5-tool absolute stud like BA. When he's winning Gold Gloves and making all-star teams year after year later this decade we'll be glad we went through this.

Jjav829
06-01-2006, 09:56 AM
Incidentally, it's also a FACT that the Sox have a better record when Brian Anderson plays center field.

This means nothing. Please do not point to the Sox record with Anderson in the lineup and act like Anderson is the reason for the record. It's quite simple why the record with Anderson is so good: Jim Thome. Anderson started most games early on and Jim Thome was red hot, single-handedly winning games for us. Now Thome has cooled down and Mackowiak is playing more. It has nothing to do with Anderson.

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 10:07 AM
If this is, as you say, a "systemic problem," then every single team in the history of MLB has suffered at least occasional "systemic problems," even last year's World Champions. Last August, the Sox had a LOSING record for the month while Cleveland played .900 ball. Yet they still turned it around and the rest is history. This year, they're having a bad month in May. Last season, they played "small ball" in April and May and then again in October. During June (when Frank Thomas was healthy), when they really padded their lead, they were mashing the ball.It's no coincidence that their August slide coincided with the time Podsednik was hurt. Their offense was tuned to that style of play, and when they couldn't do it, production fell off precipitously. Timo Perez is no substitute for Scott Podsednik. But that's really my point. They're not playing the kind of baseball that made them successful last year. They started this season with hot bats and fell into the trap of waiting for one of the 3-4-5 hitters to mash the ball. When those hitters cool off, they've got nothing left. That kind of offense is inherently streaky. When they're mashing the ball, everything is great. But they've forgotten how to produce when they're not mashing the ball. They'd better remember if they hope to reproduce last year's success.

Incidentally, it's also a FACT that the Sox have a better record when Brian Anderson plays center field.Come on. You know better than that. Correlation is not cause and effect. But while we're on the subject of Anderson, how poor would his hitting have to get before you'd agree that he needs to be sent down? .150? .100? .050?

Meanwhile, others on here are pants-pissing in their posts, worried that the Sox won't be able to win another game unless they trade for Ichiro, Vernon Wells, Ken Griffey Junior AND Aaron Rowand to get more offense out of the #9 hole.Fixed that for ya.:tongue:

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 10:25 AM
This means nothing. Please do not point to the Sox record with Anderson in the lineup and act like Anderson is the reason for the record. It's quite simple why the record with Anderson is so good: Jim Thome. Anderson started most games early on and Jim Thome was red hot, single-handedly winning games for us. Now Thome has cooled down and Mackowiak is playing more. It has nothing to do with Anderson.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

First, I never, ever wrote or even hinted that Anderson "is the reason" for the better record when he plays. However, I think it is unfair to say he had "nothing to do" with the Sox having a better record when he plays. To ignore a fact (better record with Anderson starting in CF) because it doesn't fit with one's theory (want more offense at the bottom of the order) or cannot be easily assessed by quantitative measurement (there are no reliable stats to measure defense, especially range) is intellectually dishonest.

If you want to weigh the relative levels of contribution of Thome and Anderson to the better record in April and early May, fine. I agree that Thome played a HUGE role, perhaps even larger than Anderson's. But I will not underestimate - or discount entirely - the significance of Anderson's excellent CF defense, either.

His superior range and skills in center field allow him to get to more fly balls. Because he plays close (because he's good enough to do so), many balls that other CFs would allow to fall for soft singles become outs with Anderson. Because he can get back quickly and cover more territory in the gaps, many would-be extra base hits become outs or singles. This results in fewer baserunners, fewer scoring opportunities and fewer runs for the opposition. Don't underestimate the psychological effect, either. A great defensive play often motivates a pitcher to attack the next hitter. A failure to record a putout similarly can cause the pitcher to be distracted AND can cause him to be more tentative with the next hitter. Distracted, tentative pitchers often get hammered.

Isn't preventing a run as good as scoring or knocking in a run? Just because we can't measure it with numbers doesn't mean it's insignificant.

elrod
06-01-2006, 10:32 AM
Sox record after 52 games:
June 1, 2006: 33-19

June 1, 2005: 35-17

June 4, 2004: 30-22

Not as good as last year. Better than 2004. But it's early.

For the last 110 games:

After June 1, 2005: 64-46
After June 1, 2004: 53-57

After June1, 2006: ??-??

In 2004, the White Sox fell apart after losing Maggs and Frank to injury. Without knowing the health situation, it's hard to see this team falling apart and going under .500 the rest of the way.

1951Campbell
06-01-2006, 10:44 AM
2006 = 2006.


Pissed Pants Posts: I love it! (that sums up the entire WSI career of Homefish) :cool:

Naughty By Nature: You down with PPP?

Homefish: Yeah, you know me!

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 10:54 AM
Come on. You know better than that. Correlation is not cause and effect. But while we're on the subject of Anderson, how poor would his hitting have to get before you'd agree that he needs to be sent down? .150? .100? .050?

I never, ever said that Anderson was the sole reason, or the most important reason, for the Sox winning more games when he's been in the game. However, "correlation" always plays a role in determining how good a pitcher is, even though a pitcher can't win a game when his offense scores zero runs.

As I replied to Jjav above, I never, ever said that Anderson alone, or even most significantly, caused the Sox to have a better record when he starts. But it's foolish to completely ignore the fact that they have a better record when he plays and then argue that he played no role whatsoever, relying on the argument that "correlation is not cause and effect." (It seems to me the best way to say it would be "correlation is not necessarily cause and effect.")

Since you asked, if Anderson had an OBP of .200 or less (I don't care if he gets on base via a hit or a walk), even I would agree that his defense would not be sufficient. But he's taking walks (especially on the road, which ironically is where he has hit very poorly). If he's taking walks, it means he's seeing the ball well. In fact, he's taken more walks than Iguchi, Crede, Pierzynski and Uribe.

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 10:57 AM
Nothing? Nothing at all?

First, I never, ever wrote or even hinted that Anderson "is the reason" for the better record when he plays. However, I think it is unfair to say he had "nothing to do" with the Sox having a better record when he plays. To ignore a fact (better record with Anderson starting in CF) because it doesn't fit with one's theory (want more offense at the bottom of the order) or cannot be easily assessed by quantitative measurement (there are no reliable stats to measure defense, especially range) is intellectually dishonest.

If you want to weigh the relative levels of contribution of Thome and Anderson to the better record in April and early May, fine. I agree that Thome played a HUGE role, perhaps even larger than Anderson's. But I will not underestimate - or discount entirely - the significance of Anderson's excellent CF defense, either.

His superior range and skills in center field allow him to get to more fly balls. Because he plays close (because he's good enough to do so), many balls that other CFs would allow to fall for soft singles become outs with Anderson. Because he can get back quickly and cover more territory in the gaps, many would-be extra base hits become outs or singles. This results in fewer baserunners, fewer scoring opportunities and fewer runs for the opposition. Don't underestimate the psychological effect, either. A great defensive play often motivates a pitcher to attack the next hitter. A failure to record a putout similarly can cause the pitcher to be distracted AND can cause him to be more tentative with the next hitter. Distracted, tentative pitchers often get hammered.

Isn't preventing a run as good as scoring or knocking in a run? Just because we can't measure it with numbers doesn't mean it's insignificant.Let's look back at his last 11 starts going back to the Anaheim series:

May 30 v. CLE: L 4-3, Anderson 0-2
May 29 v. CLE: W 11-0, Anderson 0-3, I'd hardly say he had much to do with this one.
May 26 v. TOR: L 8-2, Anderson 0-2
May 22 v. OAK: W 5-4, Anderson 0-2, It was Mackowiak's HR in the 9th that tied the game.
May 18 v. TB: L 5-4, Anderson 0-3
May 16 v. TB: L 10-7, Anderson 0-3
May 15 v. MIN: W 7-3, Anderson was 0-3, Widger was the big story in this game
May 14 v. MIN: W 9-7, Anderson 2-4
May 12 v. MIN: L 10-1, Anderson 0-2
May 10 v. ANA: L 12-5, Anderson 2-4
May 9 v. ANA: W 9-1, Anderson 0-3, Another mashing that had little to do with BA

So in his last 11 starts, the Sox were 5-6, and at least two of those wins were blowouts which he had little to do with winning. How come his defense was only instrumental in winning games early in the season?

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2006, 11:07 AM
Let's look back at his last 11 starts going back to the Anaheim series:

May 30 v. CLE: L 4-3, Anderson 0-2
May 29 v. CLE: W 11-0, Anderson 0-3, I'd hardly say he had much to do with this one.
May 26 v. TOR: L 8-2, Anderson 0-2
May 22 v. OAK: W 5-4, Anderson 0-2, It was Mackowiak's HR in the 9th that tied the game.
May 18 v. TB: L 5-4, Anderson 0-3
May 16 v. TB: L 10-7, Anderson 0-3
May 15 v. MIN: W 7-3, Anderson was 0-3, Widger was the big story in this game
May 14 v. MIN: W 9-7, Anderson 2-4
May 12 v. MIN: L 10-1, Anderson 0-2
May 10 v. ANA: L 12-5, Anderson 2-4
May 9 v. ANA: W 9-1, Anderson 0-3, Another mashing that had little to do with BA

So in his last 11 starts, the Sox were 5-6, and at least two of those wins were blowouts which he had little to do with winning. How come his defense was only instrumental in winning games early in the season?

You're only looking at:

A. A selected period of time in which the Sox have played .500 ball;

B. Anderson's offensive stats, which I agree are not that great.

You are not examining:

A. The Sox record with Mackowiak as the starting CF;

B. The differences between Anderson's and Mackowiak's respective abilities in CF (I understand defense cannot be easily or reliably quantified, but that doesn't mean defense is meaningless).

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 11:16 AM
You're only looking at:

A. A selected period of time in which the Sox have played .500 ball;

B. Anderson's offensive stats, which I agree are not that great.

You are not examining:

A. The Sox record with Mackowiak as the starting CF;

B. The differences between Anderson's and Mackowiak's respective abilities in CF (I understand defense cannot be easily or reliably quantified, but that doesn't mean defense is meaningless).That time period covers 21 games. They're 6-4 in the other 10. The point is that your assertion that the Sox have a better record when Anderson starts has little to do with Anderson. It's not even true over the last few weeks (probably farther back but I got tired of looking over the numbers) and it's pure coincidence before that. It's as Jjav pointed out. He just happened to be starting more games earlier in the season when the rest of the team was playing better. There's no reason to infer a cause and effect.

Lip Man 1
06-01-2006, 11:45 AM
I tend to agree with the points No.2 has been making about the overall impressions of the club.

I really dislike the number of errors that are being made by people perfectly capable of catching the ball. A club that focuses on defense so much should not be what, 10th in the league, in that capacity. There's no excuse for that.

Just as there is no excuse for the lack of concentration and stupid baserunning mistakes that have been happening.

The Sox have legit issues with the bullpen, center field and the lower half of the batting order. They don't need to compound the issues with problems of their own making that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Keep in mind folks this is not the National League.

This is a stacked, and loaded league.

I'm not only talking about Boston, New York, Detroit and us. You have good clubs like Cleveland and Minnesota hovering around the .500 mark. Hell right now, bad teams like Baltimore and Tampa Bay are nearly at .500.

You could easily see a team with 93-95 wins get shut out from post season play...there's to much riding on this season for that club to be the White Sox.

As good as 33-19 is, the fact is, that in the A.L., apparently they simply have to play better.

Lip

jandm859
06-01-2006, 01:07 PM
It's a recurring dream and I always wake up screaming:
Our 3, 4 and 5 hitters combine for 13 RBIs one day, then go 0-for for days in a row.
Our right fielder muffs what should be a routine play.
Our SS fires one over Paulie's head into the seats.
Garland is struggling to find the strike zone.
Politte is lacking confidence in his fast ball.
I catch my breath and remind myself that Valentin, Maggs and El Caballo are long gone.
I relax.

But the panic returns.
It's not 2004, I think to myself. It's 2006. And I'm not dreaming.
I'm awake watching a road series against Tampa. A uninspired showing causes us to lose the series.
It's playing indoors in that crappy Tropicana Field atmosphere I tell myself.
And then against Toronto. We're playing indoors -- or indoor/outdoor -- or something -- I remind myself.
And against Cleveland. Oh ****, we're outside I think to myself.

OK, it's not 2004, but is anyone noticing a completely different vibe from this 2006 squad: Rarely seeing runs manufactured from the patented Ozzie-ball? Seeming to swing for the fences, waiting for the long-ball?
No lights-out relief from Hermie or Cotts.

Not panicking, but even with the 2nd best record in baseball this year feels different.

Or am I just spoiled?

no you're not spoiled, you hit it right on the head. But its still early, we have lots of time to turn it around. And please nobody come back with "dont panic, we have the second best record in baseball" we're playing like crap, lets not kid ourselves

INSox56
06-01-2006, 03:13 PM
We have to play better and we WILL play better. Look, I see us right now playing pretty much the worst we can POSSIBLY play right now. I really find it hard to believe that we could play worse. And we're still tops in the league...would be THE top if it weren't for the point I and others have made in the past week that Detroit has been hammering some pretty poor spots in teams' rotations.

As for relating back to the ORIGINAL topic....I think the main diff from last year is with our leadoff guy, Mr. Pods. Last season, 304 BA, 26 SB at the end of May. This season, 274 BA (not horrible, but noticeably smaller) and 18 SB. Everyone remember last year when Pods got on we were PRETTY MUCH guaranteed a run. Hell, in the first inning alone it was practically guaranteed he'd get in. This year...I would be shocked if anyone claimed he's doing just as good a job. I can hardly remember the last time (IF AT ALL) he's gotten on and stolen a base in the first inning. That first inning, automatic run is REALLY tough for opposing teams to deal with I'd say. Especially in the manner at which we'd score them of one guy rampaging around on the bases.

RockyMtnSoxFan
06-01-2006, 03:30 PM
It's no coincidence that their August slide coincided with the time Podsednik was hurt. Their offense was tuned to that style of play, and when they couldn't do it, production fell off precipitously. Timo Perez is no substitute for Scott Podsednik. But that's really my point. They're not playing the kind of baseball that made them successful last year. They started this season with hot bats and fell into the trap of waiting for one of the 3-4-5 hitters to mash the ball. When those hitters cool off, they've got nothing left. That kind of offense is inherently streaky. When they're mashing the ball, everything is great. But they've forgotten how to produce when they're not mashing the ball. They'd better remember if they hope to reproduce last year's success.

I think this is the heart of the problem right now. I've been saying all year that the offense is more like the pre-2005 version that Ozzie used to dislike. For evidence, just look at the last three games: an 11-0 blowout followed by a 1-run loss. The close games are where this team has declined relative to last year, and I believe that it is due to the type of offense. When there was only one guy who was really considered a slugger (Konerko), there was more of a team effort to manufacture runs. Now, with Thome in the lineup, everybody thinks they're a slugger.

I've tried not to let my personal dislike (to put it mildly) of Thome into my previous posts, but I think he's the main reason the Sox score 11 runs one day and three the next two combined. His impact on the lineup has changed the whole offensive approach. You don't want to run yourself out of a chance for a 3-run HR by attempting to steal or bunt, so you end up sitting around an waiting. The thing that I liked most about last year's team was the way that they could scrape together just enough runs to win. I'm afraid that those days are gone.

The Wimperoo
06-01-2006, 03:53 PM
I think this is the heart of the problem right now. I've been saying all year that the offense is more like the pre-2005 version that Ozzie used to dislike. For evidence, just look at the last three games: an 11-0 blowout followed by a 1-run loss. The close games are where this team has declined relative to last year, and I believe that it is due to the type of offense. When there was only one guy who was really considered a slugger (Konerko), there was more of a team effort to manufacture runs. Now, with Thome in the lineup, everybody thinks they're a slugger.

I've tried not to let my personal dislike (to put it mildly) of Thome into my previous posts, but I think he's the main reason the Sox score 11 runs one day and three the next two combined. His impact on the lineup has changed the whole offensive approach. You don't want to run yourself out of a chance for a 3-run HR by attempting to steal or bunt, so you end up sitting around an waiting. The thing that I liked most about last year's team was the way that they could scrape together just enough runs to win. I'm afraid that those days are gone.

Why is it the offenses fault? If we are going to sit here and compare this year to last year why not put the blame on the pitching.

Last year we won games 2-1, 2-0, 3-2 because the offense sucked and the pitching was awesome. This year we lose games 4-5, 8-9 and it's because we aren't manufacturing runs.

If you are going to complain about something not being up to par with last year. Then you should complain about the pitching not doing its job.

Mohoney
06-01-2006, 04:13 PM
They've fallen into a bad habit of waiting for the big hit instead of manufacturing runs, which was a large part of their success last year.

The thing is, they ARE trying but FAILING, to move runners over.

It's not that Uribe is hitting like crap, it's that Uribe is hitting like crap AND can't bunt to save his life.

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 04:18 PM
The thing is, they ARE trying but FAILING, to move runners over.

It's not that Uribe is hitting like crap, it's that Uribe is hitting like crap AND can't bunt to save his life.I wasn't referring just to bunting. When's the last time you saw someone hit behind the runner?

GOGOGOPODS
06-01-2006, 04:21 PM
its not the same as 2004... two words make it not the same- Starting Pitching. Our starting pitching is better than it was it 2004. Dont worry, we will be fine.

Mohoney
06-01-2006, 04:23 PM
I wasn't referring just to bunting. When's the last time you saw someone hit behind the runner?

Hitting behind a runner is not that easy to do, though. Bunting a runner over is a play with a higher probability of success, at least it should be anyway.

The inability to get the bunt down and the inability to get the sac flies are what is hurting us.

Ol' No. 2
06-01-2006, 04:29 PM
Hitting behind a runner is not that easy to do, though. Bunting a runner over is a play with a higher probability of success, at least it should be anyway.

The inability to get the bunt down and the inability to get the sac flies are what is hurting us.It's not easy to do, but they did it with some regularity last year. This year everybody seems to be trying to mash the ball. It's a mindset. They had it last year. They don't this year.

Britt Burns
06-01-2006, 04:34 PM
It's probably been said upthread, but are we really complaining that the Sox have the 2nd best record in the AL and 3rd best in the majors on june 1? Did the 2004 club ever reach that level?

spiffie
06-01-2006, 04:36 PM
We could solve both the "too many people trying to hit HR instead of bunt" problem and fix the possible hole in CF by trading Thome for Aaron Rowand.

Britt Burns
06-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Yes! And let's get Timo back and play him ahead of Dye!

Frontman
06-01-2006, 05:15 PM
Yankees aren't giving up on Damon

Rowand is gone. HE IS NOT COMING BACK.

If we need anything, it is bullpen help.

Totally agree with that. Figured give the Rowand fans some hope. Forgot to apply my own teal. ;)

Bullpen help and we need to send like a dozen extra large pizza's the CC Sabathia the night before pitching against the Sox. Too much cheese my do him in, the tubbo.

I like the idea of starting Machowiak, then bringing Anderson in if the game warrants either tougher defense or else we're blowing them out, and giving the kid some more plate appearances.

SBSoxFan
06-01-2006, 05:20 PM
Bullpen help and we need to send like a dozen extra large pizza's the CC Sabathia the night before pitching against the Sox. Too much cheese my do him in, the tubbo.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/CCC.jpg



:roflmao:

Frontman
06-01-2006, 06:01 PM
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/CCC.jpg



:roflmao:

Oh that was good. Classic.

Front

jongarlandlover
06-01-2006, 08:10 PM
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/CCC.jpg



:roflmao:

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

FarWestChicago
06-01-2006, 08:28 PM
Urine yellow, to mark all the pants pissing that's going on around here.

Pants Pissers are somewhat different than the Dark Clouds.

Dark Clouds seem to enjoy adversity.

Pants Pissers don't like adversity and think everything needs to be changed when just a little adversity strikes (the only thing that needs to be changed is their diapers).

Dark Clouds often only seem to be happy when they can criticize something that has led to adversity.

Pants Pissers think that anything less than 162-0 is reason to piss their pants. In fact, pants pissing is their reaction to anything adverse. "Number nine hitter goes 0-4 with two strikeouts? Time to piss my pants!"

Many Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers and vice versa. But not all Dark Clouds are Pants Pissers, and not all Pants Pissers are Dark Clouds.Viva is to pants pissers what Lip is to Dark Clouds, the Master. HomeFish is just a poor man's Lip, a week caricature. :redneck

santo=dorf
06-01-2006, 08:31 PM
Naughty By Nature: You down with PPP?

Homefish: Yeah, you know me!

:whiner: <---from laughter

chisoxfanatic
06-01-2006, 10:47 PM
I'm not gonna read through seven pages of stuff in this thread; but, a GLARING difference between this club and that 2004 club is that we have this thing known as a DEFENDING WORLD SERIES CHAMPION that calls home on the south side!

rowand33
06-02-2006, 03:24 AM
I'm not gonna read through seven pages of stuff in this thread; but, a GLARING difference between this club and that 2004 club is that we have this thing known as a DEFENDING WORLD SERIES CHAMPION that calls home on the south side!

Well the GLARING difference with that is that we are the DEFENDING WORLD CHAMPIONS and the way we are playing is unacceptable. I mean, c'mon, it isn't time to give up yet, but we sure should be a little worried.

miker
06-02-2006, 10:17 AM
Well the GLARING difference with that is that we are the DEFENDING WORLD CHAMPIONS and the way we are playing is unacceptable. I mean, c'mon, it isn't time to give up yet, but we sure should be a little worried.
Some will take advantage of your worry to show off their impressive "insterting a dark cloud graphic" skills.

I, on the other hand, also find our performance unacceptable and would like to see an attempt at improvement or change...soon.

woodsdavid
06-02-2006, 10:59 AM
After last night, would anyone like to take another stab at what the Sox' biggest problem is right now?

I was at my niece's graduation and had to follow the game on MLB.com on my cell phone. I couldn't believe the see-saw, then the late inning dump the Sox took.

Ugly.

:puking:

The Wimperoo
06-02-2006, 11:04 AM
After last night, would anyone like to take another stab at what the Sox' biggest problem is right now?

I was at my niece's graduation and had to follow the game on MLB.com on my cell phone. I couldn't believe the see-saw, then the late inning dump the Sox took.

Ugly.

:puking:

I'm pretty sure it's still Jim Thome's fault.

mattymsu
06-02-2006, 11:06 AM
I'm pretty sure it's still Jim Thome's fault.

lolz

Frater Perdurabo
06-02-2006, 12:03 PM
After last night, would anyone like to take another stab at what the Sox' biggest problem is right now?


Why, it's Brian Anderson, of course!
:puking:

JB98
06-02-2006, 12:39 PM
After last night, would anyone like to take another stab at what the Sox' biggest problem is right now?

I was at my niece's graduation and had to follow the game on MLB.com on my cell phone. I couldn't believe the see-saw, then the late inning dump the Sox took.

Ugly.

:puking:

The Sox biggest problem right now is the same problem they've had all season: Unreliable and sometimes horrendous middle relief. The bullpen also sucked in 2004 with Jon Adkins, Mike Jackson, et al. I'd say lousy middle relief is the one area where this year's team is comparable to 2004.

woodsdavid
06-05-2006, 11:38 AM
Has anyone noticed that you never see Politte and Marte in the bullpen together?

Has Marte become Politte?!
Politte become Marte??!



Don't make me use teal. It takes the fun out of it.

Lip Man 1
06-05-2006, 11:46 AM
From Toni Ginnetti's story in the Sun-Times Monday:

"The collective relief ERA climbed from 4.17 in April to 4.41 in May and now is at 4.59. Sox relievers went 24-19 with a 3.25 ERA last season."

I don't see how anyone can say it's not the bullpen.

Lip

Madscout
06-09-2006, 12:30 AM
From Toni Ginnetti's story in the Sun-Times Monday:

"The collective relief ERA climbed from 4.17 in April to 4.41 in May and now is at 4.59. Sox relievers went 24-19 with a 3.25 ERA last season."

I don't see how anyone can say it's not the bullpen.

Lip

Word. With a 4.59 era, there is a 50/50 chance of giving up a run in one inning, a definate in two innings of work, and about a 1 out of 4 chance of giving up two in two innings, and that is just middle relief.