PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Analysis


Lip Man 1
08-23-2006, 12:34 PM
I dislike the writer after he personally ripped me and then later attacked PHG and this site with personal insults, but I have to (regretably) recommend reading this analysis.

To me it's 100% spot-on regarding the issues with this team over the entire season not just since the All Star break.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley23.html

Lip

Fungo
08-23-2006, 12:43 PM
Something is wrong with the link...it took me to a sun-times article by Joe Cowley that seems to blame the Sox lack of fire on the absense of Carl Everett.

Playah
08-23-2006, 12:48 PM
As for Wednesdays game agaisnt the Tigers.. now im calling MY shot:
:winner
4-0 when calling it in such a manner!

Lip Man 1
08-23-2006, 12:49 PM
Fungo:

I don't think he's saying that Everett was responsible for them winning and for this season. I think he's saying the issues are what many at WSI have been talking about for a long time...a lack of killer instinct (especially against garbage teams) and the inability to do the 'little things' that served the Sox so well in 2005. Carl Everett couldn't bunt or run the bases....others could and did last season. They aren't doing that anymore.

I also think this is the first time that anyone (to my knowledge) has publicly said that Garcia and Posednik and possibly Uribe will be gone next season. The way that is written makes it sound like he knows something from someone in the organization.

Lip

pudge
08-23-2006, 12:49 PM
Something is wrong with the link...it took me to a sun-times article by Joe Cowley that seems to blame the Sox lack of fire on the absense of Carl Everett.

Thanks I needed a laugh this morning.

maurice
08-23-2006, 12:50 PM
Something is wrong with the link...

:cool:

The main difference between this year's team and last year's team . . .
Sox starter's ERA in 2005: 3.75; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 4
Sox starter's ERA in 2006: 4.76; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 0.

I seriously doubt that more "fire" would result in a full-point-lower ERA.

- - -

As for 2007 player moves, Garcia himself has said that he will be gone, Ozzie has been trying to get KW to replace Uribe since he got here (Vizquel & Furcal), and 90% of the people on this site firmly believe that Podesdnik will be gone. It's not breaking news.

Flight #24
08-23-2006, 12:56 PM
:cool:

The main difference between this year's team and last year's team . . .
Sox starter's ERA in 2005: 3.75; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 4
Sox starter's ERA in 2006: 4.76; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 0.

I seriously doubt that more "fire" would result in a full-point-lower ERA.

IMO it's not that simple. It's WHY the starters have been that way. And why the vaunted offense has approximated the hit-or-miss style of the 2004 team.

It's exactly the lack of attention to detail, the "grinder" mentality that personified last year's team. That's not getting bunts down, not being satisfied with hitting to the right side, and not executing pitches in key situations.

Is it because of the lack of a vocal Everett-like character who calls people out in the dugout? I don't know. I'd hope that Ozzie, Paulie, etc would take care of that. But it's lacking and it's been lacking all year. There is no fire or fight that I see, and that seems to lend itself to a lack of confidence.

IMO, Everett was right and it's why I advocate a trade for a guy like Wells, who while an ******* has the attitude this team lacks.

jenn2080
08-23-2006, 12:56 PM
:cool:

The main difference between this year's team and last year's team . . .
Sox starter's ERA in 2005: 3.75; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 4
Sox starter's ERA in 2006: 4.76; staters with an ERA under 4.00: 0.

I seriously doubt that more "fire" would result in a full-point-lower ERA.

- - -

As for 2007 player moves, Garcia himself has said that he will be gone, Ozzie has been trying to get KW to replace Uribe since he got here (Vizquel & Furcal), and 90% of the people on this site firmly believe that Podesdnik will be gone. It's not breaking news.


the stats dont mean jack when watching the type of baseball we all have been watching. i agree with the article. there is no fundamentals being played. swinging at balls not being able to bunt ****ty pitching. there is no life no enthusiasm. it looks like they go out there and play like oh coach do we have to.

bludupree
08-23-2006, 01:08 PM
"That'll make for some interesting faces reading this newspaper. Most of them happy."

What is this quote supposed to mean?

DaleJRFan
08-23-2006, 01:10 PM
the stats dont mean jack when watching the type of baseball we all have been watching. i agree with the article. there is no fundamentals being played. swinging at balls not being able to bunt ****ty pitching. there is no life no enthusiasm. it looks like they go out there and play like oh coach do we have to.

ERAs are up everywhere else, too (with a few exceptions) all over the AL and not just with the Sox. It's baserunning, timely hitting, Uribe not being able to turn a PD, Ozuna throwing to the wrong base, not scoring any runs with the bases loaded and no outs, etc, etc... I could go on for hours. IF the Sox make the post season, it will be by limping in like the Red Sox did last year. Winning Ugly.. or something.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 01:14 PM
Who's the bigger dope, Carl Everett or Joe Cowley?

The Sox' problems have nothing to do with chemistry. The pitching has been consistently inconsistent. Combine last year's pitching with this year's offense and the Sox would be ahead by 10 games.

This kind of tripe is all too regular with Cowley. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Fungo
08-23-2006, 01:18 PM
Fungo:

I don't think he's saying that Everett was responsible for them winning and for this season. I think he's saying the issues are what many at WSI have been talking about for a long time...a lack of killer instinct (especially against garbage teams) and the inability to do the 'little things' that served the Sox so well in 2005. Carl Everett couldn't bunt or run the bases....others could and did last season. They aren't doing that anymore.

I also think this is the first time that anyone (to my knowledge) has publicly said that Garcia and Posednik and possibly Uribe will be gone next season. The way that is written makes it sound like he knows something from someone in the organization.

LipLip:

I think it was implied that Everett was the heart of the team and the bitter comments he had at his departure made it seem like he thought he was. With the presence of Pierzynski and Guillen as vocal leaders and Konerko and Thome as leaders by example, there is plenty of leadership in the clubhouse. Pitching, pitching, pitching is the main part of the problem. This offense is constantly behind the eight ball whether it be the pitchers giving up early runs or giving runs back after the Sox have taken a lead. Hitting and the approach to hitting is different when the score is 0-4 as opposed to 4-0, then throw in the fact that the team you are chasing is 6.5 games ahead of you and another team is on your heals for the wildcard. Yes, they're professionals and should be able to handle the pressure, but they are human also and sometimes you press too much. As for playing 'garbage teams', I recall Tampa owning the Yankees a year or 2 ago. The fact is that the games aren't played on paper and that all these teams have major league players on them. Any pitcher on any given day has the ability to shut another team down. We took care of business in our division for the most part last year, but sometimes teams just have your number and give you fits. We may not appear to have the killer instinct because we haven't been in the position to step on another teams neck too often this year. We've been on a roll once this year during inter-league play where we fired on all cylinders. I'm as nervous as the next guy that a team with this much talent could possibly be excluded from the playoffs. Just hope we can weather this storm, get in and get on a roll. Stop blaming umpires.

soxinem1
08-23-2006, 01:18 PM
Cowley's arguments are not really off base. One real disturbing trait of the 2006 White Sox is, quite simply, holding a lead. We cannot even hold a lead for a half inning this year. Since June, it seems like when the Sox score, they give back three more.

I don't care how good your offense is, you cannot keep that pace. We have not played good defense either. How many DP's have been turned? Very few, and what is most disturbing is how many have been missed, especially since we played the cubs last.

When everyone was happy about the 5-6 guys hitting .325 plus through June, they should have realized that it would not hold up.

DaleJRFan
08-23-2006, 01:19 PM
Carl Everett really helped the chemistry in Seattle. After he was DFA'ed, they lost 12 straight. :D:

Frater Perdurabo
08-23-2006, 01:19 PM
I think the second half of Cowley's article - on the lack of fundamentals - was spot-on.

I think that the first part - the lack of hunger/fire - can be applied to four or five guys, but not to the team as a whole.

Here's where the "fundamentals" (or lack thereof) come into play with the pitching: This year, the Sox haven't turned as many double plays (some recent games aside) as last year, when a grounder anywhere in the infield (other than a bunt or slow roller, of course) was an "automatic" double play. Combined with Rob Mackowiak playing CF far too often and the pitchers struggling themselves, and it has made the Sox prone to giving up big innings.

southside rocks
08-23-2006, 01:20 PM
It's tough to make predictions on August 23. Windsock did it last year, and look how ridiculous, absurd, flatulent, and ludicrous those predictions appeared on October 27.

Joe Cowley can only write about what has happened; he cannot write about what is yet to happen. Nobody, not even the players, believes that the kind of play of the last 5 games will get the team to the post-season. So now, when does it change???? That's for the team to do and Joe Cowley to write about afterwards.

MadetoOrta
08-23-2006, 01:33 PM
The pitching has been hurt by poor defense in the outfield. Case in point: Game 2 last week against KC: With one out, Gathright gets a bunt single. The next guy hits a "major league" popup to short left that Podsednick misplays. Instead of there being 1 on and 2 out, there are two runners on. JC, frustrated, goosed a 2-0 pitch to Grudzelanak who promptly hit a 3-run homer. Things only got worse after that. Good defense and we're out of the inning most likely. It's the little plays like that [Mackowiak in CF has cost us 4 games+ on miscues like this] that is the difference between this year and last year.

That too is the reason why the Twins stick arounf every year. They are fundamentally sound on defense. Gardenhire will not play a 2d rate CF just for the sake of another bat in the line-up.

0o0o0
08-23-2006, 01:33 PM
Who's the bigger dope, Carl Everett or Joe Cowley?

The Sox' problems have nothing to do with chemistry. The pitching has been consistently inconsistent. Combine last year's pitching with this year's offense and the Sox would be ahead by 10 games.

This kind of tripe is all too regular with Cowley. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So how can you tell when chemistry IS the problem?

my5thbench
08-23-2006, 01:39 PM
I have assumed for awhile that Garcia & Podsenik would be gone next year...I hadn't thought about Uribe & would hate ttttttttttto see him go....I would like to see him start hitting

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 01:40 PM
So how can you tell when chemistry IS the problem?It almost never is. When you're winning the chemistry is great, when you're losing it's bad. It's just so much hokum that doofuses like Cowley throw around because they don't know anything else to write about. I'm pretty sure I've been in the clubhouse as many times as Cowley, so what he knows about the clubhouse chemistry would probably fit on a pinhead in boldface type.

southwstchi4life
08-23-2006, 01:41 PM
IMO it's not that simple. It's WHY the starters have been that way. And why the vaunted offense has approximated the hit-or-miss style of the 2004 team.

It's exactly the lack of attention to detail, the "grinder" mentality that personified last year's team. That's not getting bunts down, not being satisfied with hitting to the right side, and not executing pitches in key situations.

Is it because of the lack of a vocal Everett-like character who calls people out in the dugout? I don't know. I'd hope that Ozzie, Paulie, etc would take care of that. But it's lacking and it's been lacking all year. There is no fire or fight that I see, and that seems to lend itself to a lack of confidence.

IMO, Everett was right and it's why I advocate a trade for a guy like Wells, who while an ******* has the attitude this team lacks.

Carl Everett if not mistaken caused trouble on previous clubs before coming to the white sox. He seems to me he was being a baby cause he wanted to stay. Maybe he should take some lessons on class from a Mr. Aaron Rowand on how to leave a team properly. Everybody trying to rationalize why were loosing. You know last year, the team truely came together when the playoffs started. Before that, let see, could have been the biggest collapses in White Sox, heck baseball history. When that was happening I don't recall people talking about great chemistry and killer instinct. So what I am trying to get at is that can come along once you get closer you never know. I don't think anybody predicted a so call killer instinct and chemistry was gonna happen during the playoff stretch last year.So I don't buy this argument at all. Everyobody on the team seems to get along. But they need to pitch better. Who ever says it the pitching IS RIGHT. Whenever I hear about chemistry and killer instanct, I think back to last years almost collapse, and don't remember hearing all this retoric. Maybe this struggling will help them in the long run this year. who knowz. but they have to play better. Simple they have to pitch, hit and play defense and everything else will work its way out.

MadetoOrta
08-23-2006, 01:42 PM
I have assumed for awhile that Garcia & Podsenik would be gone next year...I hadn't thought about Uribe & would hate ttttttttttto see him go....I would like to see him start hitting

I'd take the 39 year old shortstop Omar Vizsquel for Uribe stright up right now. A perfect #2 hitter, great glove and a pain on the bases.

ode to veeck
08-23-2006, 01:47 PM
Who's the bigger dope, Carl Everett or Joe Cowley?

The Sox' problems have nothing to do with chemistry. The pitching has been consistently inconsistent. Combine last year's pitching with this year's offense and the Sox would be ahead by 10 games.

This kind of tripe is all too regular with Cowley. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Right on #2, and its the bullpen as much as the starting pitching, where we've got some good arms, but some real problems vs last year, when Politte, Cotts, and Herme really did so much

batmanZoSo
08-23-2006, 01:49 PM
Fungo:

I don't think he's saying that Everett was responsible for them winning and for this season. I think he's saying the issues are what many at WSI have been talking about for a long time...a lack of killer instinct (especially against garbage teams) and the inability to do the 'little things' that served the Sox so well in 2005. Carl Everett couldn't bunt or run the bases....others could and did last season. They aren't doing that anymore.

I also think this is the first time that anyone (to my knowledge) has publicly said that Garcia and Posednik and possibly Uribe will be gone next season. The way that is written makes it sound like he knows something from someone in the organization.

Lip

The problem with this team is not chemistry. It's pretty close to the same group of players as the WS team from one year ago in this age of trades and free agency. And the guys we brought in are fantastic clubhouse guys. I mean you have to think replacing Everett, an often dubious character, with Thome is a great move from the chemistry viewpoint (not to mention a major upgrade in talent). I think the parenthetical pinpoints the problem with this team.

Aside from the obvious 1 run differential in team ERA, this team is a little too talented for their own good. It's not chemistry and it's not small ball. The 05 team was a slugging team also, not a 1950s small ball team. But the difference with last year's squad is that they weren't overflowing with apparent talent so we saw a lotmore conservative swinging and thus more clutch hits. The 05 team got all the base hits they needed, the sac flies they needed, the grounders to the opposite side they needed. They knew they weren't the best team so they simply did what they could and played beautifully as a team. This team seems to know they are the best team and they tend to wait for things to happen, to wait for their talent to shine through, wait for the 3-run homer as the old saying goes. The 05 team knew who they were and they played with one heartbeat so to speak.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 01:54 PM
Right on #2, and its the bullpen as much as the starting pitching, where we've got some good arms, but some real problems vs last year, when Politte, Cotts, and Herme really did so muchI'd give Kenny an A for addressing the bullpen problems they had early on. Between Thornton, MacDougal and Jenks, they pretty much have the 8th and 9th innings locked down. Riske, as middle relievers go, is pretty good. McCarthy is getting the job done. Cotts...meh, who could have seen this coming?

Overall, I'd say the bullpen is not a problem right now. But I heard an interesting statement on the post-game show last night. "The starting pitching can make the bullpen look good, but the bullpen can't make the starting pitching look good." The 05 bullpen wasn't as good as people think, but the starters went deep and the bullpen weaknesses weren't exposed as much.

The question I keep coming back to is "Who, among the starters, do you have confidence in keeping for 2007?" Other than Garland, it's hard to justify having confidence in any of them. But I doubt Kenny's going to retool the entire starting rotation. So who do you keep to build around?

Shift
08-23-2006, 01:56 PM
Chemistry (I challenge anyone to define it) is BS. This team doesn't execute. They're in positions to win games, but they can't follow through. It's pandemic. Situational hitting, starting pitching, the bullpen...all performing poorly. I think some of these guys are just having bad years. That happens. What I find amazing is that they're still in a position to advance.

batmanZoSo
08-23-2006, 02:00 PM
I'd give Kenny an A for addressing the bullpen problems they had early on. Between Thornton, MacDougal and Jenks, they pretty much have the 8th and 9th innings locked down. Riske, as middle relievers go, is pretty good. McCarthy is getting the job done. Cotts...meh, who could have seen this coming?

Overall, I'd say the bullpen is not a problem right now. But I heard an interesting statement on the post-game show last night. "The starting pitching can make the bullpen look good, but the bullpen can't make the starting pitching look good." The 05 bullpen wasn't as good as people think, but the starters went deep and the bullpen weaknesses weren't exposed as much.

The question I keep coming back to is "Who, among the starters, do you have confidence in keeping for 2007?" Other than Garland, it's hard to justify having confidence in any of them. But I doubt Kenny's going to retool the entire starting rotation. So who do you keep to build around?

Agreed. I think this bullpen is better than last year's. What made last year's look good were the starters going into the 7th almost every night and some timely overachieving by Politte and Cotts.

Paulwny
08-23-2006, 02:03 PM
The question I keep coming back to is "Who, among the starters, do you have confidence in keeping for 2007?" Other than Garland, it's hard to justify having confidence in any of them. But I doubt Kenny's going to retool the entire starting rotation. So who do you keep to build around?

I don't know if KW has that choice. Agree, he can't retool the entire starting rotation however the person going may be decided by the trading team and what of value they may give up. I see gm's being a little hesitent on some of our starters, that KW may try to deal.

southside rocks
08-23-2006, 02:11 PM
The question I keep coming back to is "Who, among the starters, do you have confidence in keeping for 2007?" Other than Garland, it's hard to justify having confidence in any of them. But I doubt Kenny's going to retool the entire starting rotation. So who do you keep to build around?

My very limited view of the situation: I keep Garland; I keep Contreras; and I keep Vazquez. Yeah, I know, Vazquez is the weakest link. But he's got less trade value than Buehrle ... and he was very sought-after a few years ago, so a number of scouts have seen something in him.

Pretty much no question that Freddy goes. What I think would have been delicious: a trade (before July 31 of this year) of Freddy to the northside team for Greg Maddux. Freddy thinks that the Sox schedule isn't worth him getting his game face on for? Great, Mr. Ego, play for the Tribune's ballclub for a few years. Sometimes you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

I might also see what offers are out there after this season for Buehrle. He's got a good career record, and he's said ad nauseum that he'd like to play in St. Louis. Well, what has Tony LaRussa got that the White Sox want? (No, not Albert Pujols.)

So you keep Garland and Contreras and Vazquez; you plug McCarthy into the rotation, and you trade for a good veteran starter. :D:

soxfanatlanta
08-23-2006, 02:12 PM
Aside from the obvious 1 run differential in team ERA, this team is a little too talented for their own good.

When I first read that line Zoso, I nearly spit out my diet coke. But then I read on, and you brought up a good point - execution. You can have all the talent in the world (Vasquez), but failure to execute renders it useless. Unfortunately baseball is not like the NBA, where teams can appear to just flip a switch and rip the hearts of of their opponents with a 12-0 run in the 4th. It doesn't work like that in baseball, which is can be really harrowing when your team is playing poorly in a playoff race.

soxfanatlanta
08-23-2006, 02:17 PM
Pretty much no question that Freddy goes. What I think would have been delicious: a trade (before July 31 of this year) of Freddy to the northside team for Greg Maddux.

I cannot see trading a pitcher who has several years of service left in his arm for a guy who would get shelled facing AL hitters. As much as I respect Madux, you need to get some more talent than him.

southside rocks
08-23-2006, 02:21 PM
I cannot see trading a pitcher who has several years of service left in his arm for a guy who would get shelled facing AL hitters. As much as I respect Madux, you need to get some more talent than him.

Juan Pierre? Ozzie does like him a lot, and he could play LF...

This is all fantasy, of course. And you may be very right that Maddux is an NL only pitcher, I don't know enough about his record to comment on that.

The "several years of service" left in Freddy's arm are not going to be worth much if they are accompanied by a 5.50 ERA every year, though. :?:

batmanZoSo
08-23-2006, 02:22 PM
When I first read that line Zoso, I nearly spit out my diet coke. But then I read on, and you brought up a good point - execution. You can have all the talent in the world (Vasquez), but failure to execute renders it useless. Unfortunately baseball is not like the NBA, where teams can appear to just flip a switch and rip the hearts of of their opponents with a 12-0 run in the 4th. It doesn't work like that in baseball, which is can be really harrowing when your team is playing poorly in a playoff race.

My point was that it's the overall team attitude for which the lack of execution is merely a by-product therof. Last year I compared the team to the 90s Yankees. And strangely enough, this 06 team is a lot like the 2000 era Yankees--the lineup of big boppers with muscular numbers but can't seem to get it done on the field where it counts.

The 98-00 Yankees had Brosius, O'Neill and Martinez and three peated. The current Yankees have A-Rod, Sheffield and Giambi and get knocked out with ease.

ode to veeck
08-23-2006, 02:23 PM
I'd give Kenny an A for addressing the bullpen problems they had early on. Between Thornton, MacDougal and Jenks, they pretty much have the 8th and 9th innings locked down. Riske, as middle relievers go, is pretty good. McCarthy is getting the job done. Cotts...meh, who could have seen this coming?

Overall, I'd say the bullpen is not a problem right now. But I heard an interesting statement on the post-game show last night. "The starting pitching can make the bullpen look good, but the bullpen can't make the starting pitching look good." The 05 bullpen wasn't as good as people think, but the starters went deep and the bullpen weaknesses weren't exposed as much.

The question I keep coming back to is "Who, among the starters, do you have confidence in keeping for 2007?" Other than Garland, it's hard to justify having confidence in any of them. But I doubt Kenny's going to retool the entire starting rotation. So who do you keep to build around?

Thorton and McDougal and Riske have been big improvements in the pen to go along with Jenks and Brendan who we already knew had the stuff.

As for your last question, I think we've still got better starters than the last month and a half might say. Earlier in the season, you'd have probably put Jon on the togo list and kept Mark and Contreras off it.

I actually think the three of them are still choice SPs in the long run, even though Contreras is pertty long in the tooth. Its hard to believe Jose's over the hill given his domination of opposing teams from like Aug05-Jun06, including the playoffs

Vasquez is a bit of a mystery as he certainly still has the pitches; Ozzie's leaving him in a little too long more has perhaps hurt him mentally and maybe there is some tipping he's giving away that other teams pick up on by the 2nd or 3rd AB. Freddie was lights out in day games last year, but last year's form hasn't been seen this year.

Any of these guys are still better than our 5th starter situations of 03-04 timeframe, so I'd be inclined to figure which one to move out to make room for Brendan next season.

ode to veeck
08-23-2006, 02:25 PM
It's tough to make predictions on August 23. Windsock did it last year, and look how ridiculous, absurd, flatulent, and ludicrous those predictions appeared on October 27.

Joe Cowley can only write about what has happened; he cannot write about what is yet to happen. Nobody, not even the players, believes that the kind of play of the last 5 games will get the team to the post-season. So now, when does it change???? That's for the team to do and Joe Cowley to write about afterwards.

I'm toasting to Cowley's late Aug'06 predictions looking just as ****ing stupid as Windsocks' were last year come Oct

balke
08-23-2006, 02:28 PM
4th in AL batting AVG.
2nd in AL Runs Scored
2nd in AL RBI
1st in HR

This team is hitting the ball. The team is getting home. We have the same infield as last year, and about the same outfield as last year. We have the same catcher. The bullpen is finally where it should be, Cotts is even underacheiving... so it could get better.

the blame largely falls on the 5 starters at this point in the season, and a little bit on Pods and Gooch not being as lethal as they were last season (That is my opinion only).

I think the Sox are playing strong, I think the Tigers built a great team and are winning. I think the Twins already had a good team last season, and really got explosive with the maturing of Morneau and Mauer, and the fire lit by Liriano.

Sox are playing nearly as good as last season, but they need that spark from the 1-2 spot in the lineup again, and the pitchers have to get back to giving up 3-4 runs tops in their starts. By the law of averages, that should be feasible.

I'm surprised so many people think this team has no heart. They are playing very well. Unfortunately, they can't beat the best 2 teams in the best division in baseball consistantly. If the Sox take these next two games and play consistant, I think they'll be neck and neck with the division lead at season's end.

INSox56
08-23-2006, 02:28 PM
I have assumed for awhile that Garcia & Podsenik would be gone next year...I hadn't thought about Uribe & would hate ttttttttttto see him go....I would like to see him start hitting

We've been waiting for him to start hitting for years now...still hasn't happened. I've grown tired of it, just like Pods. Take your pick for what starter(s) leave in the offseason, but I really would think Pods and Uribe need to go. At least we're not stuck with another year of Pods and/or trying to trade what little value he has left away

balke
08-23-2006, 02:33 PM
We've been waiting for him to start hitting for years now...still hasn't happened. I've grown tired of it, just like Pods. Take your pick for what starter(s) leave in the offseason, but I really would think Pods and Uribe need to go. At least we're not stuck with another year of Pods and/or trying to trade what little value he has left away


Uribe's glove was priceless last season, it really got the Sox some wins. I dont' know if that's the case this season or not. I just don't want to see a Jose Valenstache situation ever again on this team, so if the glove works, keep using Uribe at this point. If he wants too much money, Cintron is a good enough back-up for me.

the gooch
08-23-2006, 02:38 PM
So how can you tell when chemistry IS the problem?
I'd say when the manager challenges his players to fights, there is a chemistry problem.

balke
08-23-2006, 02:41 PM
I'd say when the manager challenges his players to fights, there is a chemistry problem.

What if the manager threatens you with an elephant gun?

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 02:51 PM
Uribe's glove was priceless last season, it really got the Sox some wins. I dont' know if that's the case this season or not. I just don't want to see a Jose Valenstache situation ever again on this team, so if the glove works, keep using Uribe at this point. If he wants too much money, Cintron is a good enough back-up for me.If you look at the position players, there are only two who I think have any chance of being replaced, SS and LF. If Kenny (or any of you armchair GM's) wants to do that, you need to wind up with two things:

1. a decent leadoff hitter better than what you have, and
2. solid SS defense

It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Lip Man 1
08-23-2006, 03:17 PM
Fungo:

I don't and never have blamed umpires for the Sox issues. I think you're confusing me with someone else. My attitude has always been umpires do not win or lose games, even with a lousy call you have the chance to stop the bleeding or come back.

Regarding double plays, even Ozzie himself mentioned after that 5 DP game last Thursday with Kansas City that the Sox weren't turning a lot of them this season.

Speaking of 'garbage teams,' there's a reason the Royals, Cubs, Pirates, Mariners, Indians ect are where they're at in the standings SOMEONE is beating them and on a regular basis. 24 losses to clubs like that is totally and completely inexcusable. Yes they are 'major leaguers' (some in name only) but the talent differential is staggering. There is no excuse to lose that many games to those type of teams with their bad pitching staffs. None. And making the matter worse is that in seven games against teams with a losing record, the Sox blew a lead and lost the game when they led going into the 7th inning or later. Explain that please.

It has in my opinion been the little things...the things the 1990 and 2005 clubs did so effortlessly the 2006 White Sox find as hard to do as pulling teeth. The poster was right, they've lost a ton of games when executing one single play could have completely change the outcome.

The only word I have for that is a loss of focus and concentration. At the major league level, one minute slip, can cost you a game, and in the Sox case, it's cost them a number of games going back to spring training. That's both for the pitchers and the position players.

Lip

Fungo
08-23-2006, 03:33 PM
Fungo:

I don't and never have blamed umpires for the Sox issues. I think you're confusing me with someone else. My attitude has always been umpires do not win or lose games, even with a lousy call you have the chance to stop the bleeding or come back.

Regarding double plays, even Ozzie himself mentioned after that 5 DP game last Thursday with Kansas City that the Sox weren't turning a lot of them this season.

Speaking of 'garbage teams,' there's a reason the Royals, Cubs, Pirates, Mariners, Indians ect are where they're at in the standings SOMEONE is beating them and on a regular basis. 24 losses to clubs like that is totally and completely inexcusable. Yes they are 'major leaguers' (some in name only) but the talent differential is staggering. There is no excuse to lose that many games to those type of teams with their bad pitching staffs. None. And making the matter worse is that in seven games against teams with a losing record, the Sox blew a lead and lost the game when they led going into the 7th inning or later. Explain that please.

It has in my opinion been the little things...the things the 1990 and 2005 clubs did so effortlessly the 2006 White Sox find as hard to do as pulling teeth. The poster was right, they've lost a ton of games when executing one single play could have completely change the outcome.

The only word I have for that is a loss of focus and concentration. At the major league level, one minute slip, can cost you a game, and in the Sox case, it's cost them a number of games going back to spring training. That's both for the pitchers and the position players.

LipLip:

I'm sorry, that quote about the umps was not directed at you, just a general statement towards the team. Buehrle's comments about the umpires and ques-tec have been too much IMO. The team as a whole needs to focus and start playing smart, fundamental baseball. I know your stance on umpiring and I'm in that corner with you.

maurice
08-23-2006, 03:49 PM
I've complained about lack of fundamentals as much as anybody, and I'm certainly no stathead, but starters' ERA is extremely basic. Sox starters are giving up a full run / 9 innings more than last season. That's a huge difference. Compared to this, all the fire / chemistry / fundamentals / intangibles / etc. in the world don't amount to a hill of beans.

If the Sox starters even come close to last season's performance, this team wins 100 games easy.

caulfield12
08-23-2006, 03:52 PM
2000 ERA's going into playoffs

Sirotka, 3.79
Parque, 4.28
Baldwin, 4.65

I'm not 100% convinced we're MUCH better off with what we have now than in late September of 2000.

Of course, all of these guys were in various degrees of breaking down and would be out of baseball in any significant way within a year or two.

We've got Garland, who equates to Sirotka with better stuff.

Parque and Baldwin are not unlike Buehrle and Garcia. The only difference being what the latter two have done PRIOR to this season, in the playoffs, and their longevity in terms of success. Baldwin turned out to be a first-half fluke, many of the balls that were hit off him ended up finding holes in the second half...in that sense, you could compare him to Garland, although Jon legitimately looks to be the stopper on this staff after struggling off and on for five years to establish himself as a quality big league starter.

The main difference is the talent of Contreras and Vazquez. Both of them could go out and throw a shutout right now or give up 6-7 runs to the Royals, Tigers or practically any AL team.

socko82
08-23-2006, 03:56 PM
What happened to "Ozzie Ball"? This team has reverted back to the Jerry Manual style of play, station to station baserunning, mediocre defense and poor fundamentals. Pitchers who can't pitch over mistakes, an offense that stands around and waits for the 3 run homer and when the sluggers slump no other way to manufacture runs.
How many hits has Pablo gotten since he hurt his hamstring? The leadoff spot has become an automatic out and when you combine that with Uribe and Anderson at the bottom of the order you're basically sacraficing 3 innings per game not to mention when Alomar catches that's another automatic out in the lineup. Rob's offense does not make up for the fact he misplays at least one ball per game. The outfield defense is horrible, and we don't have a back up outfielder on the roster that is a real outfielder.
It's probably not possible but if Ichiro makes it clear to M's management he wants out I really hope Kenny does whatever it takes to get him here next year.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 03:58 PM
I've complained about lack of fundamentals as much as anybody, and I'm certainly no stathead, but starters' ERA is extremely basic. Sox starters are giving up a full run / 9 innings more than last season. That's a huge difference. Compared to this, all the fire / chemistry / fundamentals / intangibles / etc. in the world don't amount to a hill of beans.

If the Sox starters even come close to last season's performance, this team wins 100 games easy.Through 125 games the Sox have scored 692 runs. They scored 741 in 162 games last year. Just coincidentally, that's a difference of 1 run per game. Take that for whatever it's worth.

soxtalker
08-23-2006, 03:59 PM
Let me take a slightly different tack on the chemistry issue. I think that it is pretty well accepted here that the addition of Thome was a nice upgrade over Thomas/Everett. What effect does that have to the approach that the players earlier in the order take to batting? I'm not thinking so much of players being lazy. But it would seem to me that they will be much more reluctant to steal bases or move a runner along (e.g., bunting or hitting to the right side), as the other team will probably pitch around Thome.

I guess that what I'm asking here is to understand the subtle changes that the different players can have.

caulfield12
08-23-2006, 04:08 PM
I've complained about lack of fundamentals as much as anybody, and I'm certainly no stathead, but starters' ERA is extremely basic. Sox starters are giving up a full run / 9 innings more than last season. That's a huge difference. Compared to this, all the fire / chemistry / fundamentals / intangibles / etc. in the world don't amount to a hill of beans.

If the Sox starters even come close to last season's performance, this team wins 100 games easy.

In the 40 games since our pre-ASG series in Boston, we've given up five runs or more 22 times.

I'm pretty sure we are still in the bottom 3 for AL ERA since the ASG, if not the worst in the league (maybe ahead of KC). We were actually a pretty good team pitching-wise until the beginning of July, ranking somewhere between 4th-6th. Then the collapse came w/ Boston, since then...

5 runs...4X
6 runs...3X
7 runs...9X
8 runs...1X
9 runs...1X
10 runs...1X
11 runs...1X

Even with our offense, you would expect we would lose almost every time you give up 7 or more runs, which has been almost 33% of our games during that stretch. Our staff has been as likely to give up exactly 7 as to give up 3 or less runs.

The added problem has been the offense also not being consistent enough to win those 4/5/6 run games we won in the first half...

Only 25% of the time are we giving up 3 runs or less. I would guess that happened at least half of the time last year, if not closer to 60%.

maurice
08-23-2006, 04:09 PM
Despite their chemistry / fundamentals / etc., the Sox are on pace to win 94 or 95 games, while playing an unbalanced schedule in the best division in baseball. Now imagine if their starters' ERA were a full point lower or if they had 4 starters with an ERA under 4.
:o:

I'm beginning to think that "100 games" was an extremely conservative estimate.

Flight #24
08-23-2006, 04:14 PM
If you look at the position players, there are only two who I think have any chance of being replaced, SS and LF. If Kenny (or any of you armchair GM's) wants to do that, you need to wind up with two things:

1. a decent leadoff hitter better than what you have, and
2. solid SS defense

It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.One name that I believe answers that question: Omar Vizquel.

Really it's Vizquel and Fields (moving to LF). Vizquel is the solid D and a better leadoff hitter than Podsednik (less speed, but far more on-base and more consistent). By all accounts, Fields is an MLB-ready hitter, which would be an improvement over either Pods or Uribe.

The only question is what it takes to get Omar to the southside. IIRC, '07 is his walk year, and the Giants may well be looking for some pitching help in Barroids last year or some prospects if he moves on. Sox can provide Garcia+Uribe if the former or Liotta/Lumsden/Tracey if the latter.

caulfield12
08-23-2006, 04:21 PM
One name that I believe answers that question: Omar Vizquel.

Really it's Vizquel and Fields (moving to LF). Vizquel is the solid D and a better leadoff hitter than Podsednik (less speed, but far more on-base and more consistent). By all accounts, Fields is an MLB-ready hitter, which would be an improvement over either Pods or Uribe.

The only question is what it takes to get Omar to the southside. IIRC, '07 is his walk year, and the Giants may well be looking for some pitching help in Barroids last year or some prospects if he moves on. Sox can provide Garcia+Uribe if the former or Liotta/Lumsden/Tracey if the latter.

If we still had Lumsden, and I don't think many rival GM's are exactly craving for Liotta these days. Sure, he's a lefty, but that's about his only appeal right now. I would rather have Corwin Malone than Liotta.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 04:24 PM
One name that I believe answers that question: Omar Vizquel.

Really it's Vizquel and Fields (moving to LF). Vizquel is the solid D and a better leadoff hitter than Podsednik (less speed, but far more on-base and more consistent). By all accounts, Fields is an MLB-ready hitter, which would be an improvement over either Pods or Uribe.

The only question is what it takes to get Omar to the southside. IIRC, '07 is his walk year, and the Giants may well be looking for some pitching help in Barroids last year or some prospects if he moves on. Sox can provide Garcia+Uribe if the former or Liotta/Lumsden/Tracey if the latter.Vizquel scares me a bit. His numbers are decent this year, but the last two years have been rather pedestrian:

OBP: 2006/05/04 .379/.341/.353

Those 05 and 04 numbers aren't significantly better than Podsednik's. Then there's always the difficulty of converting NL numbers to the AL. So what will you get from Vizquel in 2007? What's the chances he'll really be better than Podsednik? Probably 50/50. Why make a change for those kind of odds?

Flight #24
08-23-2006, 04:50 PM
Vizquel scares me a bit. His numbers are decent this year, but the last two years have been rather pedestrian:

OBP: 2006/05/04 .379/.341/.353

Those 05 and 04 numbers aren't significantly better than Podsednik's. Then there's always the difficulty of converting NL numbers to the AL. So what will you get from Vizquel in 2007? What's the chances he'll really be better than Podsednik? Probably 50/50. Why make a change for those kind of odds?

Because it effectively lets you put Pods (or if he can repeat this year or something between 05 & 06, an improved Pods) at SS without a defensive downgrade. Then you get to effectively swap Uribe's bat for Fields.

Without being scientific about it, it's also my impression that Vizquel is more consistent/less slump-prone than Pods.

Tragg
08-23-2006, 04:53 PM
I dislike the writer after he personally ripped me and then later attacked PHG and this site with personal insults, but I have to (regretably) recommend reading this analysis.

To me it's 100% spot-on regarding the issues with this team over the entire season not just since the All Star break.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley23.html

Lip

Maybe he's right.
But on the other hand, we don't want to panic either. Last year, when slumping, we didn't panic....and especially our manager didn't panic. Are we this year? The personnel's different...are we handling it well? Is it wise to let a pitiful .150 hitter like Alomar bat in a key situation late in the game like he did last night (awfully manuelesque with clayton)?
I think it's mental...we just aren't playing as smart as we did last year - players and manager or whoever's managing at the time.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 05:03 PM
Because it effectively lets you put Pods (or if he can repeat this year or something between 05 & 06, an improved Pods) at SS without a defensive downgrade. Then you get to effectively swap Uribe's bat for Fields.

Without being scientific about it, it's also my impression that Vizquel is more consistent/less slump-prone than Pods.For all the hoopla about Fields, he'll be a rookie, so you don't really know what you're going to get. It's far from certain he'll be better than Uribe. IMO, if you're going to upgrade, don't screw around with small upgrades - make a big move.

Look around at the SS in the league. Which can give you better than about a .350 OBP?

Miguel Tejada - nice, but not a leadoff hitter
Derek Jeter - Sure
Carlos Guillen - not worth the defensive downgrade, even if it were possible

That's pretty much it.

Tragg
08-23-2006, 05:12 PM
One name that I believe answers that question: Omar Vizquel.

Really it's Vizquel and Fields (moving to LF). Vizquel is the solid D and a better leadoff hitter than Podsednik (less speed, but far more on-base and more consistent). By all accounts, Fields is an MLB-ready hitter, which would be an improvement over either Pods or Uribe.

The only question is what it takes to get Omar to the southside. IIRC, '07 is his walk year, and the Giants may well be looking for some pitching help in Barroids last year or some prospects if he moves on. Sox can provide Garcia+Uribe if the former or Liotta/Lumsden/Tracey if the latter. This is Omar Vizquel, not Johnny Damon. He has a pedestrian .340-.350 OBP, no power at all, he's 38 and his D is okay, not great. We could have signed this guy 2 years ago, for under 4 million. He's not worth anything close to Uribe plus Garcia (2 top prospects for this guy is equally outrageous)...Uribe straight up would be fair, although the Giants would be getting the better part of the deal (Uribe is a better defender and has more power). Vizquel is not as good a leadoff hitter as Pods. He's no answer - at best a small upgrade. In the offseason we traded our top prospect and 2 pitchers for a pitcher....now we want to trade a pitcher (who is better than the pitcher we got for the top prospect and 2 pitchers) and our SS for a 38 year old SS with a .341 OBP? It doesn't make any sense.
Uribe plays good D. It's hard to get a SS who plays good D and can hit (Lugo but his D is in doubt). I think we're more likely to find improvement in LF.
Further, does this team really have an OBP philosophy? Does Greg Walker preach plate patience? Does Ozzie Guillen ..he certainly didn't practice it...does he preach it? Is that what we want?

StillMissOzzie
08-23-2006, 05:16 PM
Through 125 games the Sox have scored 692 runs. They scored 741 in 162 games last year. Just coincidentally, that's a difference of 1 run per game. Take that for whatever it's worth.

Could you do a similar analysis on the opposition's scoring vs. the Sox? Just a gut feeling, with absolutely no stats or backup, but it feels like the games the Sox were winning 2-1 or 3-2 last year are the games they are losing 4-3 or 5-4 this year. Of course, I may just be full of crap.

SMO
:gulp:

StillMissOzzie
08-23-2006, 05:19 PM
I also think this is the first time that anyone (to my knowledge) has publicly said that Garcia and Posednik and possibly Uribe will be gone next season. The way that is written makes it sound like he knows something from someone in the organization.

Lip

Lip:
Garcia himself has already publicly said that he felt he was on the block, and WSCR's B&B ( I dunno which B ) have not been in Podsednik's corner for quite some time, and implied (or inferred, I can never remember who implies and who infers...) that he had inside scoopage that he won't be around next year.

SMO
:gulp:

batmanZoSo
08-23-2006, 05:20 PM
Through 125 games the Sox have scored 692 runs. They scored 741 in 162 games last year. Just coincidentally, that's a difference of 1 run per game. Take that for whatever it's worth.

Amazing. In a perfect world, that would balance out the extra run we're giving our opponents, but it doesn't work out that way.

:hawk
Don't tell me what you hit; tell me when you hit it.

Iwritecode
08-23-2006, 05:30 PM
Amazing. In a perfect world, that would balance out the extra run we're giving our opponents, but it doesn't work out that way.

:hawk
Don't tell me what you hit; tell me when you hit it.

The problem is that the offense scored all those extra runs in the first half. The pitching is giving up the extra runs in the second half.

Jurr
08-23-2006, 05:45 PM
This team's "all or nothing" hitting mentality is what's killing this season. Period.

Last year, you would see the Sox scoring runs, scoring early, and getting a cushion for the pitching staff. Every day, they'd get that swagger going early in games and carry it out to the end. When they'd get into deficits, they'd scratch and scrape and still get runners over and in to wear away at those leads.

Look at game 3 of the WS for a glowing example. That was done without any kind of fence swinging.

I love Thome, but since he's been here, it's been home run derby. This team has forgotten its identity, and thinks it can slug away to win games. That fighting and clawing mentality is gone in reverence to the three run homer craving.

Now, when this team's not hitting homers, it's prone to the slump, which TOTALLY screws with a pitcher's head. He now takes the mound totally pressed, trying to make the perfect pitch instead of calmly going about his business with confidence.

Teams embrace an attitude and a mindset. If you asked the 2005 White Sox what they were about, it was always the same thing. "Score just enough runs in whatever way possible and let the pitching dominate".
If you ask the 2006 Sox what their identity is, you'd definitely get a shrug of the shoulders. Nobody's pulling on the same rope because they don't know what the rope's made of. They don't trust it.

Now, this is all being said with the thought that THERE IS STILL A LOT OF BASEBALL LEFT, AND THE SOX HAVE A 1/2 GAME WILD CARD LEAD.

These guys need to shorten their swings (big Jim included), string together hits instead of homers, and get their pitchers in a comfort zone with some leads. Once the pitching falls back in line, it's up to Ozzie to make sure that they don't go right back to getting fat, happy, and trying to drill homers at every at bat.

This exact same lack of focus and attention to the team identity was experienced by the Sox for a month and a half of last year. They relied on their talent to win just enough to get the pressure off and get back to basics. Those basics took them to the title.

The pitching can turn it around. The hitting can turn it around. This team just needs to establish what it's going to try to do to win and stick with it. If they decide that they're going to establish a softball mentality, they're going to be playing softball (or golf, etc.) in October.

spiffie
08-23-2006, 05:46 PM
For all the hoopla about Fields, he'll be a rookie, so you don't really know what you're going to get. It's far from certain he'll be better than Uribe. IMO, if you're going to upgrade, don't screw around with small upgrades - make a big move.

Look around at the SS in the league. Which can give you better than about a .350 OBP?

Miguel Tejada - nice, but not a leadoff hitter
Derek Jeter - Sure
Carlos Guillen - not worth the defensive downgrade, even if it were possible

That's pretty much it.
Considering Juan has a ghastly .269 OBP I would say that even a .320 OBP would be quite an improvement. He's got the 3rd lowest OBP among SS in baseball, and he's way below the majority. The 15th ranked out of 30 has a .338. Even the added power he can bring doesn't move him into the top half of SS as his OPS of .705 ranks 20th.

And seriously, if you can Miguel Tejada, who brings a 334/386/517 line with him, bat anyone you damn well like at leadoff. Hell, if you can get someone like that then by all means keep Pods around so that we can have a traditional leadoff hitter.

Oh, and speaking of guys with OBP's over .350, you forgot to mention Julio Lugo, with an OBP of .370 and just acquired a few weeks back by LA for 2 prospects. Going into this close race to the end I have to say that I would have much preferred Lugo and his .843 OPS at SS over Juan and his .705.

chidonez
08-23-2006, 05:49 PM
One game at a time people. I'm hoping for a win tonight so I don't have to look at the following much longer:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5983/headlinescc0.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=headlinescc0.jpg)

Flight #24
08-23-2006, 05:57 PM
This is Omar Vizquel, not Johnny Damon. He has a pedestrian .340-.350 OBP, no power at all, he's 38 and his D is okay, not great. We could have signed this guy 2 years ago, for under 4 million. He's not worth anything close to Uribe plus Garcia (2 top prospects for this guy is equally outrageous)...Uribe straight up would be fair, although the Giants would be getting the better part of the deal (Uribe is a better defender and has more power). Vizquel is not as good a leadoff hitter as Pods. He's no answer - at best a small upgrade. In the offseason we traded our top prospect and 2 pitchers for a pitcher....now we want to trade a pitcher (who is better than the pitcher we got for the top prospect and 2 pitchers) and our SS for a 38 year old SS with a .341 OBP? It doesn't make any sense.
Uribe plays good D. It's hard to get a SS who plays good D and can hit (Lugo but his D is in doubt). I think we're more likely to find improvement in LF.
Further, does this team really have an OBP philosophy? Does Greg Walker preach plate patience? Does Ozzie Guillen ..he certainly didn't practice it...does he preach it? Is that what we want?

Like it or not, financials play a big role in baseball trades. Garcia comes with a decent $$$, although on a 1-year deal that makes it more palatable. I'm not sure what his worth is right now, but I bet it's not #1 prospect caliber. He'll almost certainly have to go to the NL and probably at a discount talent-wise unless he picks up his performance down the stretch.

As for Uribe straight up for Vizquel, I highly doubt that would fly.

2005: Uribe-.301OBP / .412SLG Vizquel-.341OBP / .350SLG
2006: Uribe-.268OBP / .435SLG Vizquel - .379OBP / .411SLG

Omar dominates him in OBP and his SLG is somewhat depressed by playing in Pac Bell whereas Juan gets to launch balls in USCF. And while he doesn't have the range of Uribe, he's a lot steadier than the 2006 version of Juan who's making more routine errors than last year (3 errors to Juan's 10, even though that's not the be-all/end-all of defensive analysis). This team doesn't need Juan's power, it needs someone who can get on base ahead of our 3-4-5 guys. If Podsednik was producing, it wouldn' be that critical. But he's not, and Omar can effectively replace him.

Juan's only advantage is that he's younger. But he's a lesser offensive player and IMO they're similar defensively with Juan making more spectacular plays but Omar not flubbing as many routine ones (and I'd argue that whatever benefit a pitcher gets from a great play, there's an equivalent subtraction from flubbing a routine one).

Like I said - it gives you the option of getting a guy like the 2005 Podsednik in terms of getting on base, but also of opening up a slot in the OF where you can usually find a better hitter than Juan has been so far (possibly Fields, or alternatively another hitter, they're not that hard to find for LF).

For the record - the reason the Sox didn't get Vizquel was the 3d year on the contract. Now he's having arguably his best year in the last 5, which makes it highly unlikely that he's going to fall off the table in '07. He'll make similar $$$ to Juan next year (or possibly less, I can't remember).

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 06:15 PM
Amazing. In a perfect world, that would balance out the extra run we're giving our opponents, but it doesn't work out that way.

:hawk
Don't tell me what you hit; tell me when you hit it.But the Sox won 99 games last year. They're on pace to win about 95 this year, which is pretty close. It just feels like they're playing a lot worse.

Ol' No. 2
08-23-2006, 06:21 PM
Considering Juan has a ghastly .269 OBP I would say that even a .320 OBP would be quite an improvement. He's got the 3rd lowest OBP among SS in baseball, and he's way below the majority. The 15th ranked out of 30 has a .338. Even the added power he can bring doesn't move him into the top half of SS as his OPS of .705 ranks 20th.

And seriously, if you can Miguel Tejada, who brings a 334/386/517 line with him, bat anyone you damn well like at leadoff. Hell, if you can get someone like that then by all means keep Pods around so that we can have a traditional leadoff hitter.

Oh, and speaking of guys with OBP's over .350, you forgot to mention Julio Lugo, with an OBP of .370 and just acquired a few weeks back by LA for 2 prospects. Going into this close race to the end I have to say that I would have much preferred Lugo and his .843 OPS at SS over Juan and his .705.The point was to get a SS who would be a leadoff hitter to replace Pods in the lineup, not to replace Uribe's bat. A .320 OBP is a downgrade from Pods.

Lugo's had only 347 AB, and his .370 OBP over that span is 27 pts above his career numbers. I don't like his chances of being any better than .350 next year in the AL.

Frater Perdurabo
08-23-2006, 06:59 PM
I don't care what kind of OPS, OBP or batting average a shortstop produces as long as he plays great defense. Now, if he hits as inconsistently as Uribe, then he needs to make up for it with unselfish hitting - taking pitches, sac flys, sac bunts, grounders to the right side of the infield to move the runner from second to third, etc. The problem with Uribe is that in addition to his low average and OBP, he also doesn't do any of the "unselfish little things" other than the sacrifice fly, and this year there are times when his defense has dropped a notch.

Pods has lost a step. If he can't get on base (the bunt and swinging bunt for a base hit seem no longer to be parts of his game) as much as 2005 and if he can't steal himself into scoring position or disrupt opposing pitchers, he has very little value other than a #8 hitter in the National League. I think that Pods still hustles, but I also think that he's lost a bit of his previous speed.

Since there aren't any other legitimate leadoff hitter types on the roster (and since none of the other positions seem to need an upgrade), the leadoff hitter will have to play left or short.

Finally, if Bobby Abreau could have been had for two prospects, why were the Sox not in the running to obtain him? He could have provided awesome OBP as the leadoff hitter and played better defense in left.

DickAllen72
08-23-2006, 07:17 PM
I like Carl.

balke
08-23-2006, 07:40 PM
Amazing. In a perfect world, that would balance out the extra run we're giving our opponents, but it doesn't work out that way.

:hawk
Don't tell me what you hit; tell me when you hit it.

it does show that the problem is with our pitching. And to me that's a good sign. Why? Because what goes up must go down with these guys, and our bullpen is better than last season. Down the stretch I think this team could just go nuts with wins. I'm not saying its going to happen, don't look for a state of shock from me if it does. Dye and Crede and Thome's positions are so much better than they were last year hitting wise. And the bench is better, with a bullpen that is looking good. So a nice string of outings from at least 4 starters could give the Sox one heck of a September

SluggersAway
08-23-2006, 08:03 PM
I thank Cowley for writing about this subject, and Lip for posting it. It is something I have mentioned in the past, but Cowley nails it.

Lip Man 1
08-23-2006, 11:09 PM
I congratulate Jurr on a well thought out post. Expresses perfectly what ails this club, tonight again Posednik can't get a bunt down to save his life...promising inning...over in a heartbeat.

Lip

StillMissOzzie
08-23-2006, 11:57 PM
I don't care what kind of OPS, OBP or batting average a shortstop produces as long as he plays great defense. Now, if he hits as inconsistently as Uribe, then he needs to make up for it with unselfish hitting - taking pitches, sac flys, sac bunts, grounders to the right side of the infield to move the runner from second to third, etc. The problem with Uribe is that in addition to his low average and OBP, he also doesn't do any of the "unselfish little things" other than the sacrifice fly, and this year there are times when his defense has dropped a notch.

Pods has lost a step. If he can't get on base (the bunt and swinging bunt for a base hit seem no longer to be parts of his game) as much as 2005 and if he can't steal himself into scoring position or disrupt opposing pitchers, he has very little value other than a #8 hitter in the National League. I think that Pods still hustles, but I also think that he's lost a bit of his previous speed.

Since there aren't any other legitimate leadoff hitter types on the roster (and since none of the other positions seem to need an upgrade), the leadoff hitter will have to play left or short.

Finally, if Bobby Abreau could have been had for two prospects, why were the Sox not in the running to obtain him? He could have provided awesome OBP as the leadoff hitter and played better defense in left.

I agree with your assessments on Uribe and Podsednik. Anyone else notice that Pods' strikeouts already exceed all of 2005's, with over 20% of the season yet to go? Only AJ can steal 1st base.

As for Abreau, interested suitors had to guarantee that his 2007 option, at $18M, would be picked up, in order for him to waive his no-trade clause. That leaves the Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, & Red Sox as real contenders for his services. Definitely not the White Sox.

SMO
:gulp:

Lip Man 1
08-24-2006, 11:09 AM
Miss Ozzie:

It's to early to get into this in depth because we have to see what develops but WHY couldn't the Sox have been in the mix for Abrau?

The Sox payroll is around 100 million right now, they will have drawn almost three million.

The bad days of claiming to be a 'small market' team are dead and gone. The Sox have no reason in the world to not act like a 'big market' franchise from now on.

For decades they said 'if you come, we'll spend it.' This season they have been true to their word. I expect them to keep their word in the future as long as the fans show up (and they have been in droves...)

Lip

caulfield12
08-24-2006, 03:54 PM
Do you think it would have been wise to "mortgage the future" for Soriano or Abreu by trading Fields/Sweeney/Broadway?

We're still going to need insurance for the rotation if one of our starters goes down. I'm not too confident in Haeger or Tracey doing that, unless we want a return to the Porzio/Stewart/D. Wright days.

Personally, I think putting that much money into offensive players goes against everything we did to be successful in 2005, proving you don't need a team of offensive All-Stars like the Yankees usually have. You just need a solid middle of the order with complementary players that execute well fundamentally and do all the little things, like the Twins have been doing all season long.

And last night was the first start in aeons that Garcia got his FB back into the 90's, that was encouraging. Now if Cooper could only figure out a way to get him to hold runners better besides simply holding onto the ball longer and putting everyone to sleep.

And there's a decent possibility we get back a leadoff/LF/SS in return for Uribe/Garcia that costs us much less than Abreu, who's not on the downside of his career and who doesn't represent a disaster to payroll flexibility if felled by injury or non-performance.

Flight #24
08-24-2006, 04:24 PM
Miss Ozzie:

It's to early to get into this in depth because we have to see what develops but WHY couldn't the Sox have been in the mix for Abrau?

The Sox payroll is around 100 million right now, they will have drawn almost three million.

The bad days of claiming to be a 'small market' team are dead and gone. The Sox have no reason in the world to not act like a 'big market' franchise from now on.

For decades they said 'if you come, we'll spend it.' This season they have been true to their word. I expect them to keep their word in the future as long as the fans show up (and they have been in droves...)

Lip

Define "Big market". Per USA Today, the White Sox began the season with a total 2006 payroll of $102.8M, 4th in baseball. While it's true that some of that is subsidized by other teams, that's likely true for other teams as well.

Regardless, even if you go with a $95M payroll, that would put them 6th in all of baseball, behind the 2 NY teams, the 2 LA teams, and Boston. That seems about right to me given the relative market sizes we're talking about (with Boston taking the New England market).

And by the way - the Red Sox also passed on Abreu for financial reasons.

There are limits, and sometimes you reach them no matter how many people show up. The Sox will likely never be in the financial position that the NY, LA, & Boston teams are.

maurice
08-24-2006, 04:47 PM
Flight makes an excellent point. It's not necessary to get a better leadoff hitter than Podsednik to improve the team. If KW can manage to acquire a good defensive SS who can come close to matching Podsednik's offense in the leadoff spot, he can improve the team by adding a LF who hits better than Uribe and fields better than Podsednik. Getting a qualified SS may be hard, but getting the LF would be extremely easy.

It's true that Fields has no MLB expereince, but it's hard to believe that he would do appreciably worse than Uribe in the 8 or 9 hole. He would have to learn to play the OF, but Podsednik is terrible defensively and (at a minimum) Fields has a much much stronger arm.

Lip Man 1
08-24-2006, 08:16 PM
Flight:

I have no issues with a payroll above 93 million dollars. That's 'big market' to me.

By the way The Sporting News this week did a market size analysis based on TV market size and also compensated for markets that have two teams in them. The Sox (and Cubs) were listed in the second tier under "big market."

The New York teams, Southern California teams, Philadelphia and Boston were considered the biggest market clubs.

Lip

caulfield12
08-24-2006, 08:49 PM
Philadelphia has to be considered one of the most disappointing franchises since the Mitch Williams fiasco in the World Series.

FarWestChicago
08-24-2006, 09:32 PM
I dislike the writer after he personally ripped me and then later attacked PHG and this site with personal insults, but I have to (regretably) recommend reading this analysis.

To me it's 100% spot-on regarding the issues with this team over the entire season not just since the All Star break.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley23.html

Lip:rolleyes: Lip, this is just pathetic, a complete joke. *** kind of "genius" does it take to predict the Sox wouldn't repeat. That's an absurdly safe prediction. How many teams friggin' repeat in baseball? Yeah, Carl and Tailgunner are ****ing brilliant. Get a grip. Even for a basket case like you, you are losing it. :puking:

Tragg
08-24-2006, 09:39 PM
Philadelphia has to be considered one of the most disappointing franchises since the Mitch Williams fiasco in the World Series.
The Phillies are pretty much the least accomplished franchise in the history of baseball.

Fungo
08-25-2006, 12:02 PM
This Detroit series proved what a farce this article really was. Do the Tiger have a lack of killer instinct because they were up 2-0 in the series and couldn't put us away or do they just tip their cap on a job well done by Garland? Does this prove we have the heart and chemistry that Carl Everett said we wouldn't or was this what most of the folks here have been saying for months, solid pitching and 4 runs will put a lot of W's on the board. I say nice game by Verlander, it's tough to beat a good pitcher each time out and Rodgers always seems to give us fits. Decent game by Garcia and a pure gem by Garland in the finale. I still can't believe Cowley brought up a quote by Carl Everett. Just laughable.

Flight #24
08-25-2006, 12:15 PM
Flight:

I have no issues with a payroll above 93 million dollars. That's 'big market' to me.

By the way The Sporting News this week did a market size analysis based on TV market size and also compensated for markets that have two teams in them. The Sox (and Cubs) were listed in the second tier under "big market."

The New York teams, Southern California teams, Philadelphia and Boston were considered the biggest market clubs.

Lip

That seems about right, as does the payroll relatively speaking. Which directly answers your question about why they couldn't get Abreu - no one could except the Yankees, who are in a class by themselves financially. And that's only going to get worse as they start deducting stadium costs from their revenue sharing requirement.

Lip Man 1
08-25-2006, 12:58 PM
Fungo:

The 'killer instinct' comment I think comes from 24 losses to crap teams like the Royals, Mariners, Indians, Devil Rays,Cubs, Pirates and Orioles.

That is far, far to many for a team with the talent that the 2006 White Sox have.

For what it may be worth as a comparison, Detroit has 12 losses to teams with losing records (as of today.)

Lip

Ol' No. 2
08-25-2006, 01:30 PM
Fungo:

The 'killer instinct' comment I think comes from 24 losses to crap teams like the Royals, Mariners, Indians, Devil Rays,Cubs, Pirates and Orioles.

That is far, far to many for a team with the talent that the 2006 White Sox have.

For what it may be worth as a comparison, Detroit has 12 losses to teams with losing records (as of today.)

LipI think you're overanalyzing. Teams getting their asses handed to them by inferior teams is nothing new. The Sox also have the best record in baseball agains above-.500 teams. So while you can say their record would be a lot better if they beat up on weak teams, you can also say their record would be a lot worse if they didn't do so well against strong teams.

A win is a win, no matter who you beat.

caulfield12
08-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Leading to the underachieving/no heart/lack of focus comments from everywhere for the last two months.

I'm not sure which is worse...to regularly beat the good teams but not ramp up the intensity for the also-rans or to be in the Tigers' position. If both teams do make the playoffs, it will be interesting to see which one wins out.

The other thing to consider is those cellar-dwelling teams can have their season made when they beat a defending WS champion or a team like the Yankees (see TB occasionally) or Red Sox (Royals this year). That same Royals team can lose focus against another so-so team in CLE with nothing to play for and blow a 9 run lead somehow.

Lip Man 1
08-25-2006, 04:05 PM
It was a 10 run lead.

Lip

balke
08-25-2006, 10:14 PM
These Sox didn't beat the Red Sox or Yankees either. All I can say is we beat Detroit very consistantly, and that's better than being 6 back because Detroit kicked your around all season.

Sox will be okay, they somehow lose to Kansas City, and that sucks. But at the same time, Kansas City has to beat someone... might as well be in thier version of the World Series v. the defending Champion White Sox.

Heart or no heart, no matter who they have beat this season... Sox play Min., Tampa Bay, and Kansas in the next 3 series. I wouldn't be surprised if the lead gets cut in half for Detroit who faces Cleveland and the Yankees in that stretch.