PDA

View Full Version : Sox major flaw this year?


fisk_84
04-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Now that the season is under way, what do you guys see as the Sox major flaw?

gosox3072
04-10-2007, 10:01 PM
My god, how pessimistic can we be?

Im actually impressed with almost every part of the white sox so far. Obvously our starters need to do a bit better, but i dont see that as a flaw.

Garland_IS_God
04-10-2007, 10:02 PM
At the moment the offense. I know they'll pick it up its just a matter of when. The big bats have been quiet thus far.

fisk_84
04-10-2007, 10:04 PM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

A. Cavatica
04-10-2007, 10:10 PM
Now that the season is under way, what do you guys see as the Sox major flaw?

Not having played enough games to give me anything to complain about.

mantis1212
04-10-2007, 10:30 PM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

I'd say, especially since he put on that gut. Is it me or is he +15 - 20?

Overall though, I'm feeling good about 2007.

itsnotrequired
04-10-2007, 10:36 PM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

In 2005, Dye hit .175 through the month of April. He ended the season at .274.

Frater Perdurabo
04-10-2007, 10:42 PM
At the moment the offense. I know they'll pick it up its just a matter of when. The big bats have been quiet thus far.

Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

Yes. But if someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to pick one area for the Sox to struggle in April, I would pick the offense. PK, Thome and Dye are experienced veterans and by the end of the year they will have produced in line with their career norms. The top and bottom of the order have executed to score enough runs, which is all the Sox need right now. I'm so glad the pitching and defense have been strong since the first two games.

Brian26
04-10-2007, 10:42 PM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

Yes, everyone on the team must be hitting .325 thru the first six games of the 162 game schedule.

HotelWhiteSox
04-10-2007, 10:46 PM
My worry would innings pitched you'll get from the starters/related to usage of the bullpen

DumpJerry
04-10-2007, 10:48 PM
Biggest flaw? Their incomprehensible inability to control the weather at home.

FoulTerritory
04-10-2007, 10:52 PM
I think that this question makes a little more sense at this point if we are talking about a POTENTIAL flaw. I think the one potential hole is the starting pitching. Buerhle needs to return to form, most especially. If he pitches like a 4th starter this year (like he did last year), we'll have problems.

But other than that, the lineup looks well rounded, and the bullpen is loaded with nasty stuff. Dye will be fine in my opinion. The bad streaks that all hitters go through during a season are merely statistically more apparent at the beginning.

Jerko
04-10-2007, 10:53 PM
Biggest flaw so far? Thornton pitching to Sizemore...........

chisoxfanatic
04-10-2007, 11:17 PM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

I think I've noticed that he heats it up as it warms up. With that said, I still don't see any reason to believe he'll be in the running for the MVP award at the end of the season.

itsnotrequired
04-10-2007, 11:19 PM
I think I've noticed that he heats it up as it warms up. With that said, I still don't see any reason to believe he'll be in the running for the MVP award at the end of the season.

Well, he did hit something like .360 last April.:D:

oeo
04-10-2007, 11:19 PM
Now that the season is under way, what do you guys see as the Sox major flaw?

Nada. The offense is pretty cold right now, but I don't see Konerko, Thome, Dye, and Pierzynski staying cold all season. The whole pitching staff looks pretty good...we're looking good. :D:

jabrch
04-11-2007, 08:39 AM
Dye is a bit of a concern. Now I understand its very early, but the slow start is a bit concerning.

DYE? DYE is a concern? That's nuts. Dye is the least of my concerns.

veeter
04-11-2007, 08:42 AM
No major flaws at all. Some normal concerns, but at the beginning of every season it's all way too magnified. They are going to be very, very good.

INSox56
04-11-2007, 08:48 AM
Well, he did hit something like .360 last April.:D:
I think that was really a fluke year last year as far as the start to it. He's traditionally a slow starter. We were all ready to string him up beginning of 05, but it was his normal game...slow starts almost every year.

TomBradley72
04-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Right Handed pop off the bench. I think we're really exposed against tough lefties (either starters or coming out of the bullpen). Same weakness as last year's roster...we've swapped Mackowiak/Gload for Mackowiak/Erstad....especially with Hall on the DL.

Cuck_The_Fubs
04-11-2007, 10:01 AM
Now that the season is under way, what do you guys see as the Sox major flaw?
Chemistry, chemistry, and...uh...chemistry. They didnt have the team chemistry last year to get to the playoffs, nothing seemed to click. If they can get some team chemistry rolling, they will be one hell of a team.

credeistheman
04-11-2007, 10:15 AM
My god, how pessimistic can we be?



not pessimistic at all, criticism is good in moderation.

i'd say we need a stronger showing from the middle of our order. otherwise, i think we're looking good.

soxfan13
04-11-2007, 10:22 AM
My biggest concern is that Pods doesnt keep trying the "catch the ball with his hat" until he gets it right:D:

Cuck_The_Fubs
04-11-2007, 10:23 AM
not pessimistic at all, criticism is good in moderation.

i'd say we need a stronger showing from the middle of our order. otherwise, i think we're looking good.
Potential of our hitters (3-4-5 and others)+ a NASTY bullpen + Awesome pitching ( shown in 4 games) = the most dominating team in the league

We have the potential!

jabrch
04-11-2007, 10:27 AM
Chemistry, chemistry, and...uh...chemistry. They didnt have the team chemistry last year to get to the playoffs, nothing seemed to click. If they can get some team chemistry rolling, they will be one hell of a team.

Chemistry can't pitch. Last year we were failed by our pitching, not our chemistry.

pdimas
04-11-2007, 10:30 AM
My only concern right now is the velocity of Jenks' fastball.

Cuck_The_Fubs
04-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Chemistry can't pitch. Last year we were failed by our pitching, not our chemistry.

I do not agree with the slightest of what you just said. Sure, it's obvious that chemistry cannot pitch, but W's and L's spawn from chemistry.

Think about it. Last year, the starting pitchers would pitch amazing ball, maybe 1-3 runs, on a particular game. However, the hitters could not manufacture run support for them.

Also, when our bats went warm, our pitching was ice cold. We would manufacture 5-8 runs in a game, but lose it due to terrible pitching.

Nothing ever seemed to click, and if things do not click for a ballclub, expect to see a lot of L's. Chemistry is important, on all aspects.

jenn2080
04-11-2007, 10:39 AM
Flaws? They have played 9 games. Jenks fast ball will come around. Everyone was freaking about the same thing last year at this time with Jenks. He ended up fine.

INSox56
04-11-2007, 10:41 AM
I do not agree with the slightest of what you just said. Sure, it's obvious that chemistry cannot pitch, but W's and L's spawn from chemistry.

Think about it. Last year, the starting pitchers would pitch amazing ball, maybe 1-3 runs, on a particular game. However, the hitters could not manufacture run support for them.

Also, when our bats went warm, our pitching was ice cold. We would manufacture 5-8 runs in a game, but lose it due to terrible pitching.

Nothing ever seemed to click, and if things do not click for a ballclub, expect to see a lot of L's. Chemistry is important, on all aspects.

eh...I see what you're talking about as just coincidence, not chemistry. Chemistry is just like comaraderie basicaly, getting along and just having a great atmosphere. You can root for someone and have great chemistry all you want, but if a pitcher's pitching well, you can't just say "because I really like the guy, I'm gonna try harder". Well, that just doesn't fly because you can't will a hit.

maurice
04-11-2007, 10:52 AM
They haven't played enough games to add new concerns. My main pre-season concern remains--that Ozzie will play Erstad and Podsednik too often, resulting in injuries and/or declining production.

whitem0nkey
04-11-2007, 11:02 AM
The biggest flaw is that they play in the hardest league and in the toughest division. But seriously I like the team we have, we have solid pitching 1-5, a great bullpen, our 3,4,5,6 hitters are real scary for opposing pitchers. We have a nice 1 and 2 hitter to get things started. The bottom of our batting order is better than most teams. I think we have every position accounted for.

pdimas
04-11-2007, 12:25 PM
Flaws? They have played 9 games. Jenks fast ball will come around. Everyone was freaking about the same thing last year at this time with Jenks. He ended up fine.

I know you are right. I guess im just frustrated about last night's game. Two freakin' curveballs in a row arghhhhh!!!! With a fastball in the 100 mph range you can get away with more damned mistakes. Bobby just makes me nervous when he doesnt have it in his arsenal and has to be more of a "finesse" pitcher.

JB98
04-11-2007, 12:30 PM
Now that the season is under way, what do you guys see as the Sox major flaw?

Protecting leads. Three times in the first seven games, we've had a lead in the seventh inning or later and blew it. Fortunately, we recovered to win that final game against the Indians.

ws05champs
04-11-2007, 05:51 PM
I still think it's too early to see any real flaws. I do like the balance of this team. Since the first 2 games I do have confidence that the starting pitching can live up to its potential. The bullpen has been great so far. The defense appears pretty solid. With Pods looking to be back I like what I see from the running game. And I believe I am seeing the batting averages rising to where they should be. Also, I do like the way Ozzie is managing this team. I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 2005 team. Nothing of epic greatness, just a lot of strengths in all the areas that matter. If everything holds throughout the season, I'm keeping my October schedule clear.

Trav
04-11-2007, 07:50 PM
I don't like the way the base runners don't take the extra bag. When you see Hafner go from first to third and then see Dye stop at second, that'll piss you off...

RockyMtnSoxFan
04-12-2007, 04:27 PM
eh...I see what you're talking about as just coincidence, not chemistry. Chemistry is just like comaraderie basicaly, getting along and just having a great atmosphere. You can root for someone and have great chemistry all you want, but if a pitcher's pitching well, you can't just say "because I really like the guy, I'm gonna try harder". Well, that just doesn't fly because you can't will a hit.

Maybe you can't will a hit, but baseball has a strong mental component and a very long schedule. With better chemistry you will have better concentration, and I think that will lead to better results in clutch situations.

As far as flaws, I can't say that there is anything I know is a flaw, but there are some things that I have been worried about. The starting pitching is the number one concern, because I think everything hinges on pitching. Fortunately they've shown good stuff in the last week, but I still want to see consistency from Vazquez and Buehrle, and Danks is still a fairly unknown quantity despite his first start. The bullpen's ability to throw strikes will be a key as well, I think. We all know that they have good stuff, but a lot of those guys have had control problems in the past. They look good so far, though.

oeo
04-12-2007, 04:30 PM
I don't like the way the base runners don't take the extra bag. When you see Hafner go from first to third and then see Dye stop at second, that'll piss you off...

Paulie went first to third just the other day. How about Pods going from second to home on Saturday on a failed pickoff attempt? Or how about Uribe scoring the winning run on a short fly ball yesterday?

jabrch
04-12-2007, 04:43 PM
I don't like the way the base runners don't take the extra bag. When you see Hafner go from first to third and then see Dye stop at second, that'll piss you off...

Then when they do, if someone gets thrown out, then someone will complain that the 3B coach is too aggressive.

ondafarm
04-12-2007, 04:45 PM
I saw Buehrle's game yesterday up close and personal. I was perhaps 30 ft behind the umpire and about 10 ft off-center.

Biggest flaw on the White Sox?

One guy. Ozzie Guillen.

So far he's been absolutely masterful with keeping his pitcher's confidence solid. Jenks could easily have gone into a shell after blowing Tuesday's game, but Guillen trotted him right back out there and the guy responded. Aardsma was a failed pitching project for the Flubs last year. He looked absolutely unhittable in the eighth. That's Guillen building each guys confidence.

Guillen seems to be fine with most of his hitters, but he does seem to be having trouble with Anderson. Since all three outfielders: Dye, Erstad and Pods have injury histories, the Sox need Anderson to produce. But his confidence is fragile right now and Guillen's "in your face" kind of managerial style, may not work with the guy.

Can Guillen adapt? That will show how good of a manager he is.

Trav
04-12-2007, 04:45 PM
Then when they do, if someone gets thrown out, then someone will complain that the 3B coach is too aggressive.

Somebody might, but I won't. I like being aggressive.

Trav
04-12-2007, 04:45 PM
Paulie went first to third just the other day. How about Pods going from second to home on Saturday on a failed pickoff attempt? Or how about Uribe scoring the winning run on a short fly ball yesterday?
That's good stuff. I hope they keep it up.

Jjav829
04-12-2007, 04:48 PM
It's too early to notice any flaws. Give it another month or so and we'll start to get a better idea of what areas of the team could be a concern this year.

Trav
04-12-2007, 04:48 PM
I saw Buehrle's game yesterday up close and personal. I was perhaps 30 ft behind the umpire and about 10 ft off-center.

Biggest flaw on the White Sox?

One guy. Ozzie Guillen.

So far he's been absolutely masterful with keeping his pitcher's confidence solid. Jenks could easily have gone into a shell after blowing Tuesday's game, but Guillen trotted him right back out there and the guy responded. Aardsma was a failed pitching project for the Flubs last year. He looked absolutely unhittable in the eighth. That's Guillen building each guys confidence.

Guillen seems to be fine with most of his hitters, but he does seem to be having trouble with Anderson. Since all three outfielders: Dye, Erstad and Pods have injury histories, the Sox need Anderson to produce. But his confidence is fragile right now and Guillen's "in your face" kind of managerial style, may not work with the guy.

Can Guillen adapt? That will show how good of a manager he is.


Everything I've read about Anderson, and from being around him for a little while, says to me that he can take it. It's almost like the way Guillen treated Thomas while they were players. Only time will tell if that will work or not. Personally, I think Anderson is fine. He continues to play a good CF and I believe his bat will come along eventually.

soxwon
04-12-2007, 04:49 PM
Fans who dont have faith, and patience.
Those who believe they have flaws.

joking its ok to be wary
Da Rev

nlentz88
04-12-2007, 05:11 PM
I saw Buehrle's game yesterday up close and personal. I was perhaps 30 ft behind the umpire and about 10 ft off-center.

Biggest flaw on the White Sox?

One guy. Ozzie Guillen.

So far he's been absolutely masterful with keeping his pitcher's confidence solid. Jenks could easily have gone into a shell after blowing Tuesday's game, but Guillen trotted him right back out there and the guy responded. Aardsma was a failed pitching project for the Flubs last year. He looked absolutely unhittable in the eighth. That's Guillen building each guys confidence.

Guillen seems to be fine with most of his hitters, but he does seem to be having trouble with Anderson. Since all three outfielders: Dye, Erstad and Pods have injury histories, the Sox need Anderson to produce. But his confidence is fragile right now and Guillen's "in your face" kind of managerial style, may not work with the guy.

Can Guillen adapt? That will show how good of a manager he is.

Man, you took the words right out of my mouth. I think Anderson can take it from Guillen, but I really want Ozzie to realize that Brian can help the team out a lot this year.

Chicken Dinner
04-12-2007, 05:16 PM
The biggest flaw I see is Konerko's speed on the bases. :D:

maurice
04-12-2007, 05:22 PM
I think Anderson can take it as well, but it's hard to improve or help your team win when you only get to play part of a game once / week.

ondafarm
04-12-2007, 06:54 PM
The biggest flaw I see is Konerko's speed on the bases. :D:

Konerko beat out an infield single yesterday. I was totally shocked. Scutaro didn't even bobble it that badly.

ondafarm
04-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Everything I've read about Anderson, and from being around him for a little while, says to me that he can take it. It's almost like the way Guillen treated Thomas while they were players. Only time will tell if that will work or not. Personally, I think Anderson is fine. He continues to play a good CF and I believe his bat will come along eventually.

As for his defense, yesterday he made two plays that I don't think anybody else on the roster would have made. He made one as a diving catch saving at least one run, the other he just plain outran and ran down. He made it look routine and Erstad might have been able to dive to make a play, but BA caught it on the fly. Oddly, I saw Guillen greet BA on the top step of the dugout coming in. I didn't quite catch what they said, but it was good to see Ozzie supporting BA. Buehrle was less than a second behind his manager as well. He knew it was a great play.

JB98
04-12-2007, 07:15 PM
As for his defense, yesterday he made two plays that I don't think anybody else on the roster would have made. He made one as a diving catch saving at least one run, the other he just plain outran and ran down. He made it look routine and Erstad might have been able to dive to make a play, but BA caught it on the fly. Oddly, I saw Guillen greet BA on the top step of the dugout coming in. I didn't quite catch what they said, but it was good to see Ozzie supporting BA. Buehrle was less than a second behind his manager as well. He knew it was a great play.

Of course Ozzie supports BA. He praised the catch in the paper this morning. I still don't know why people think Ozzie is against BA.

champagne030
04-12-2007, 07:34 PM
Of course Ozzie supports BA. He praised the catch in the paper this morning. I still don't know why people think Ozzie is against BA.

BA didn't bootlick Ozzie Jr, actually dissed him, and that's why Ozzie thinks BA has a holier than thou attitude.

SoxandtheCityTee
04-12-2007, 07:35 PM
Of course Ozzie supports BA. He praised the catch in the paper this morning. I still don't know why people think Ozzie is against BA.

Man I hope you're right. Ozzie (mis)handling BA in some way that hurts the Sox -- not getting him enough time at the plate and then an OF goes down, stubbornly refusing to use him defensively in late innings, or (extreme scenario) insisting that KW get rid of him altogether and then BA goes on to stardom elsewhere -- is my fear. I'm breathing deeply though and hoping for the best.

ondafarm
04-12-2007, 08:11 PM
Of course Ozzie supports BA. He praised the catch in the paper this morning. I still don't know why people think Ozzie is against BA.

Do you have a link on that? I'd like to read the article.

JB98
04-12-2007, 08:14 PM
Man I hope you're right. Ozzie (mis)handling BA in some way that hurts the Sox -- not getting him enough time at the plate and then an OF goes down, stubbornly refusing to use him defensively in late innings, or (extreme scenario) insisting that KW get rid of him altogether and then BA goes on to stardom elsewhere -- is my fear. I'm breathing deeply though and hoping for the best.

Everything in these posts is speculation and hearsay.

Not getting him enough time at the plate? Yesterday's game was the first logical time to get BA in there, and Ozzie put him in the lineup. We were facing a left-hander who is not overpowering. Erstad and Pods have both been playing well. There were no opportunities for BA in recent games, unless you wanted to throw him in the lineup against Santana. If BA had played against Santana and gone 0-for-4, we'd have 500 posts talking about how Ozzie "set BA up to fail."

What evidence is there that Ozzie is "stubbornly refusing" to play BA as a late-inning defensive replacement? Is it that far-fetched to think he believes Pods and Erstad can do the job? I seem to recall us winning the World Series with Pods in LF. We were winning 1-0 going into the ninth in Game 4, right?

Incidentally, I don't see any posts about Ozzie not getting Mack enough ABs. Rob is essentially in the same position as Brian at this point. He's had one start, and the only reason he got that was because JD has been struggling. Does Ozzie have a vendetta against Rob too? Mack has six ABs. BA has four.

JB98
04-12-2007, 08:17 PM
Do you have a link on that? I'd like to read the article.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070411soxgamer,1,528049.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

Sixth paragraph. Ozzie states that Anderson contributed to the win by making a run-saving catch.

CLR01
04-12-2007, 08:45 PM
I seem to recall us winning the World Series with Pods in LF. We were winning 1-0 going into the ninth in Game 4, right?

I also seem to recall us winning a World Series with Cotts, Politte, Vizciano and Hermanson being our bullpen and our DH hitting .250. I guess we should make some trades and get back to the good old days. And again, in game 4, who did we have on the bench who was light years better than Pods defensively like we do this year with Anderson? Timo? Ozuna? Harris?

When you keep a guy on, partly, because he is the best defensive outfielder you have, you don't keep him on the bench when the defense is needed. We saw why two nights ago.

JB98
04-12-2007, 08:53 PM
I also seem to recall us winning a World Series with Cotts, Politte, Vizciano and Hermanson being our bullpen and our DH hitting .250. I guess we should make some trades and get back to the good old days. And again, in game 4, who did we have on the bench who was light years better than Pods defensively like we do this year with Anderson? Timo? Ozuna? Harris?

When you keep a guy on, partly, because he is the best defensive outfielder you have, you don't keep him on the bench when the defense is needed. We saw why two nights ago.

Pods isn't any worse defensively now than he was in 2005. Cotts, Politte and Hermanson, all far worse now than they were in 2005. Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

And if I had my way, Anderson would be in Charlotte and Eduardo Perez would be on this team. But that's water under the bridge now.

I don't know why you people blame Tuesday's loss on anybody other than Jenks. He made a horse**** pitch to Walker. He blew it. That simple.

SoxandtheCityTee
04-12-2007, 11:07 PM
Everything in these posts is speculation and hearsay.

What evidence is there that Ozzie is "stubbornly refusing" to play BA as a late-inning defensive replacement?

:?:
Ummm, none. We are just starting the season, it's too soon for stubbornly anything. I was describing my fear: what I hope does not happen.

champagne030
04-12-2007, 11:10 PM
Not getting him enough time at the plate? Yesterday's game was the first logical time to get BA in there, and Ozzie put him in the lineup. We were facing a left-hander who is not overpowering. What evidence is there that Ozzie is "stubbornly refusing" to play BA as a late-inning defensive replacement? Is it that far-fetched to think he believes Pods and Erstad can do the job? I seem to recall us winning the World Series with Pods in LF. We were winning 1-0 going into the ninth in Game 4, right?

.

BA hits better against power pitching. He likes the fastball and likes it from RH pitching. He has problems, at this point, with powder-puff and especially against 'soft tossing' LH pitching.

Yes, it is "far-fetched" that he thinks that Pods and Erstad is a better defensive combo that Erstad and BA.

And we didn't have Anderson available in the 9th inning of game 4. BA should've been in during the bottom of the 9th if he was available that game.

stillz
04-12-2007, 11:24 PM
I don't know why you people blame Tuesday's loss on anybody other than Jenks. He made a horse**** pitch to Walker. He blew it. That simple.

Agreed. He didn't have a very good inning. It's pretty simple. Jenks'll be fine. I would have preferred Anderson to Pods in LF or CF though.

oeo
04-12-2007, 11:29 PM
I don't know why you people blame Tuesday's loss on anybody other than Jenks. He made a horse**** pitch to Walker. He blew it. That simple.

For some reason people look to point fingers when Jenks doesn't have his best stuff. One of life's mysteries, I guess. :dunno:

stillz
04-12-2007, 11:32 PM
For some reason people look to point fingers when Jenks doesn't have his best stuff. One of life's mysteries, I guess. :dunno:

Isn't the closer deserving of finger-pointing if he can't do for one inning what his mates just did for 7 and 1, respectively? Of course, he'll blow some, but it goes with the territory.

Trav
04-13-2007, 04:57 AM
Isn't the closer deserving of finger-pointing if he can't do for one inning what his mates just did for 7 and 1, respectively? Of course, he'll blow some, but it goes with the territory.

It's nice having a closer. Jenks sure beats when most teams have.

oeo
04-13-2007, 05:02 AM
Isn't the closer deserving of finger-pointing if he can't do for one inning what his mates just did for 7 and 1, respectively? Of course, he'll blow some, but it goes with the territory.

You misunderstood my post. I'm saying Jenks should get fingers pointed at him when he blows a save...yet it seems like the complete opposite. Every time he blows a save, there's people looking for other reasons why we lost. Like Tuesday and the Ozzie/Pods situation...that didn't lose the game; Bobby lost it.

Tragg
04-13-2007, 07:53 AM
You misunderstood my post. I'm saying Jenks should get fingers pointed at him when he blows a save...yet it seems like the complete opposite. Every time he blows a save, there's people looking for other reasons why we lost. Like Tuesday and the Ozzie/Pods situation...that didn't lose the game; Bobby lost it.

I don't think it's "Blame the game on" - it's reasons why we lost. And we still might have prevented the loss - a game in which Jenks did not pitch well - had our personnel been used sensibly.

To answer this thread's question, I think too many below average position-players on the roster, including the lack of a really quality bench hitter, is the greatest weakness. (and it's not like any of them except Anderson have a serious chance to get better).

soxfanatlanta
04-13-2007, 07:59 AM
To answer this thread's question, I think too many below average position-players on the roster, including the lack of a really quality bench hitter, is the greatest weakness. (and it's not like any of them except Anderson have a serious chance to get better).

You consider Rob Mackowiak a below average hitter?

Bucky F. Dent
04-13-2007, 08:20 AM
Who started this thread, Marriotti or Rodgers!?!

They're .500 after eight games with two wins against division rivals, and two wins in a place where they've always had trouble.

I realize that we would all like to be undefeated right now, but give me a break, "major flaw!?!"

RowanDye
04-13-2007, 09:30 AM
Our biggest problem is that we have 3 teams ahead of us right now that are really good.

They all seem to have the killer instinct to win games above all else.

If we don't continue to pull out wins like the last one in Oakland, we will be in trouble.

We need to start consistently winning the close games. A couple of games over .500 probably leaves us in 3rd or 4th place.

CLR01
04-13-2007, 09:39 AM
I don't think it's "Blame the game on" - it's reasons why we lost. And we still might have prevented the loss - a game in which Jenks did not pitch well - had our personnel been used sensibly.


WSI law states that only one person can be blamed for each loss. On Tuesday, that person was Bobby Jenks. It doesn't matter that despite his ****ty pitching the team probably could have still won if the offense could have managed more than 1 run or if Pods could throw a baseball without missing the target by 20 feet.

WSI law, learn it and love it.

TomBradley72
04-13-2007, 09:44 AM
Guillen seems to be fine with most of his hitters, but he does seem to be having trouble with Anderson. Since all three outfielders: Dye, Erstad and Pods have injury histories, the Sox need Anderson to produce. But his confidence is fragile right now and Guillen's "in your face" kind of managerial style, may not work with the guy.

Can Guillen adapt? That will show how good of a manager he is.

Or it will show if Anderson is a legitimate major leaguer and can handle the pressure and accountability of playing for a team expecting to contend for the World Series.

ondafarm
04-13-2007, 10:08 AM
Or it will show if Anderson is a legitimate major leaguer and can handle the pressure and accountability of playing for a team expecting to contend for the World Series.


Touche.

Zisk77
04-13-2007, 10:10 AM
My god, how pessimistic can we be?

Im actually impressed with almost every part of the white sox so far. Obvously our starters need to do a bit better, but i dont see that as a flaw.


Pessimistic? :roflmao: You don't know pessimism. If You want to see pessimism go to the Inside Illini messageboard and check out the Fire Weber he can't recruit we want Bill Self back crowd. :angry:

Also, Yes I noticed dye has apparently put on weight.

As for the Jenks' blame for the loss @ Oakland, some can be spread for A.J. who called the pitch - THROW A NECK HIGH FASTBALL! then if he lays off drop the deuce on him. Of course, Bobby can always shake A. J. off...:rolleyes:

Clearly our biggest flaw is FOX blackouts on Saturday!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

mccoydp
04-13-2007, 10:19 AM
White Sox major flaw this year? I dunno...too early to tell. Let's revisit this in July or August. They look pretty good to me so far. They have the same record after 8 games as they did a year ago, but I think they look better than last year, when they went into a four game losing streak after opening day.

I plan on sitting back, relaxing, and :gulp:to what hopes to be a great season.

Cuck_The_Fubs
04-13-2007, 10:21 AM
Pessimistic? :roflmao: You don't know pessimism. If You want to see pessimism go to the Inside Illini messageboard and check out the Fire Weber he can't recruit we want Bill Self back crowd. :angry:

Also, Yes I noticed dye has apparently put on weight.

As for the Jenks' blame for the loss @ Oakland, some can be spread for A.J. who called the pitch - THROW A NECK HIGH FASTBALL! then if he lays off drop the deuce on him. Of course, Bobby can always shake A. J. off...:rolleyes:

Clearly our biggest flaw is FOX blackouts on Saturday!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:
Is that the reason Dye has been chugging to get fly balls? He seems like he has slowen up a bit.:(:

maurice
04-13-2007, 11:43 AM
You consider Rob Mackowiak a below average hitter?

I don't know exactly where average is, but here are his career numbers:
.262 AVE, .333 OBP, .412 SLG, .745 OPS in almost 2,000 ABs.

soxfanatlanta
04-13-2007, 12:35 PM
I don't know exactly where average is, but here are his career numbers:
.262 AVE, .333 OBP, .412 SLG, .745 OPS in almost 2,000 ABs.

He hit .290/.365 as a bench player last year. Yes, most of his AB were playing center, but he was still a bench player.

Not too shabby, IMO

Tragg
04-13-2007, 04:01 PM
You consider Rob Mackowiak a below average hitter? I probably should have said too many average hitters in my post.
But re Rob M, I said we had no quality bench hitter. I'd say Rob M is about average, but he had an above average offensive year last year. Maybe he's coming into his own and is really good. Play him more - okay by me. Rob M also fills a utility position which is needed. But Ozuna fills that role and Cintron (who is a well below average hitter) fills that utility role. I know Cintron is infield and Rob is outfield (although he used to be infield) and Ozuna is both. But we have 3 utility players.

And I know I'm beating a dead horse, but over the course of a season, a hitter like Erstad at 2 will cost us.

MRM
04-13-2007, 08:28 PM
And I know I'm beating a dead horse, but over the course of a season, a hitter like Erstad at 2 will cost us.

Yeah...sure cost the Angels in their World Series year...

Erstad is the PERFECT #2 for the Sox. I look for Pods and Darin to BOTH score more than 100 runs this year and for Thome, Konerko, and Dye to all drive in well over 100 with those two at the top of the order.

jabrch
04-13-2007, 08:39 PM
Yeah...sure cost the Angels in their World Series year...

Erstad is the PERFECT #2 for the Sox.

I wouldn't go as far as to call him PERFECT - but he is certainly not the worst in the world either.

He is a good fit for Guillen's style.

Craig Grebeck
04-13-2007, 11:48 PM
And he is putting up a PERFECT .604 OPS. The biggest weaknesses right now are the lack of Toby Hall and a weak top of the order.

Tragg
04-13-2007, 11:54 PM
Yeah...sure cost the Angels in their World Series year...

Erstad is the PERFECT #2 for the Sox. I look for Pods and Darin to BOTH score more than 100 runs this year and for Thome, Konerko, and Dye to all drive in well over 100 with those two at the top of the order.

They also won 77 and 75 games with him at various times. That WS team also had Showenweis - using that analysis why didn't we win a WS when we had Shoenweiss?
Poor OBP and no power at the 2 hole is a bad idea, as is demoting a superior hitter down to the 8 hole. In my opinion.
If he continues his robust .310 OBP out of the 2 hole, what is the argument for keeping him in the lineup? We could get that out of Anderson plus 10 or so homers and develop a young player; or we could move Anderson down and get a .340 OBP with 15 dingers out of Iguchi in the 2 hole.

BanditJimmy
04-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Yeah...sure cost the Angels in their World Series year...


That was 5 seasons ago!

You know, Kevin Appier and Aaron Sele were starting pitchers on that team, should we get them out of retirement and bring them over here just because they helped that team win a World Series?

Jurr
04-14-2007, 05:47 AM
And he is putting up a PERFECT .604 OPS. The biggest weaknesses right now are the lack of Toby Hall and a weak top of the order.
What do you want, two 40 homer guys at the top? Yeah, that's all the Sox need. More homers.
Pods is coming off of an injury and still is batting around .300. He's been creating some plays on the bases, too. (Remember the wild pickoff/run scored to pad a lead? The go ahead homer against Oakland?)
Erstad has been solid.

Neither guy is hitting .400 or anything, but I think we're alright at the top. You'd like to see Pods' OBP a little better, but it's early.

Craig Grebeck
04-14-2007, 07:39 AM
What do you want, two 40 homer guys at the top? Yeah, that's all the Sox need. More homers.
Pods is coming off of an injury and still is batting around .300. He's been creating some plays on the bases, too. (Remember the wild pickoff/run scored to pad a lead? The go ahead homer against Oakland?)
Erstad has been solid.

Neither guy is hitting .400 or anything, but I think we're alright at the top. You'd like to see Pods' OBP a little better, but it's early.
Are you kidding me? Erstad has been very bad and has contributed less than Anderson would (IMO).

UserNameBlank
04-14-2007, 07:59 AM
I probably should have said too many average hitters in my post.
But re Rob M, I said we had no quality bench hitter. I'd say Rob M is about average, but he had an above average offensive year last year. Maybe he's coming into his own and is really good. Play him more - okay by me. Rob M also fills a utility position which is needed. But Ozuna fills that role and Cintron (who is a well below average hitter) fills that utility role. I know Cintron is infield and Rob is outfield (although he used to be infield) and Ozuna is both. But we have 3 utility players.

And I know I'm beating a dead horse, but over the course of a season, a hitter like Erstad at 2 will cost us.
Cintron's career line of .279/.318/.407 is not what I would call well below average considering he is a SS. Plus, I don't have the stats, but I know he hit over .300 as a pinch hitter with AZ and I think he hit around that number as a pinch hitter for the Sox last year. He has also been pretty clutch and IIRC won us like 2 games in a 3 game stretch last year.

I see what you are saying about the 3 UT guys, but Mack is our best guy off the bench as a pinch hitter vs. RHP. Ozuna can pinch run, steal a bag, bunt for a hit, etc. Cintron is the only one on our bench who can play SS. All three of these guys are there for a reason, and the fact that they are versatile in the field is just a bonus and shouldn't be held against them.

For bench players, I'd say the Sox have at least 4 quality bench players, maybe 5 depending on if Hall returns. What else do you expect from these guys? If they were any better they'd be starters.

FarWestChicago
04-14-2007, 08:16 AM
Are you kidding me? Erstad has been very bad and has contributed less than Anderson would (IMO).Keep pulling against Sox players for the aggrandizement of your own ego. You know who else hates Sox players? Oh, that would be Flubs, Twinks, 'Toons and Kittie fans. :puking:

jabrch
04-14-2007, 08:30 AM
If he continues his robust .310 OBP out of the 2 hole, what is the argument for keeping him in the lineup?

He is doing everything that Ozzie asks his #2 hitter to do. He is seeing a lot of pitches. He is moving runners. He handles the bat well. He has gotten some big well timed hits.

Guillen's approach to the game stresses the fundamentals in the #2 hole more than OBP. That's how this team plays. You may not like it - but it has been fairly effective over the course of the past few years, and it surely isn't going to change any time soon.

Craig Grebeck
04-14-2007, 12:53 PM
He is doing everything that Ozzie asks his #2 hitter to do. He is seeing a lot of pitches. He is moving runners. He handles the bat well. He has gotten some big well timed hits.

Guillen's approach to the game stresses the fundamentals in the #2 hole more than OBP. That's how this team plays. You may not like it - but it has been fairly effective over the course of the past few years, and it surely isn't going to change any time soon.
That's Guillen's approach to the game. Unfortunately, his team hits the ball really hard and really far better than any other team in the game. His personnel doesn't suit his old timey baseball style.

Also--the two hole has been effective because we've had Tad, a FAR FAR FAR superior hitter to Erstad.

Tragg
04-14-2007, 02:59 PM
He is doing everything that Ozzie asks his #2 hitter to do. He is seeing a lot of pitches. He is moving runners. He handles the bat well. He has gotten some big well timed hits.

Guillen's approach to the game stresses the fundamentals in the #2 hole more than OBP. That's how this team plays. You may not like it - but it has been fairly effective over the course of the past few years, and it surely isn't going to change any time soon.

But it HASN'T been his approach....Iguchi batted #2...Iguchi had fair power; Iguchi could get on base and Iguchi could work the bat. Iguchi is a "Grinder" who can hit. Erstad is 1 and probably 2 levels below Iguchi, offensively.
Guillen also stuck with his young players - an offensively struggling Crede for 1.5 seasons and Anderson for 1 season. He'd play his "Ozzie style" players (Ozuna, Perez, Cintron, Harris) on Sundays.
Not no-mo. Ozzie style, every day.
This is a new approach for Guillen.

brewcrew/chisox
04-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Yeah...sure cost the Angels in their World Series year...

Erstad is the PERFECT #2 for the Sox. I look for Pods and Darin to BOTH score more than 100 runs this year and for Thome, Konerko, and Dye to all drive in well over 100 with those two at the top of the order.

Darin Erstad had exactly ONE good year in his career: the year you refer to here. If a below mendoza line center fielder is "a perfect #2" than I don't know what to tell you

ondafarm
04-14-2007, 05:00 PM
I'm definately a White Sox fan and I like having Erstad here.

That being said, I think he could use a bit more time off, that BA could use more at bats and that Paul Byrd, a not over-powering right-hander, would have been the perfect match-up for BA. Why he wasn't in today is beyond me.