PDA

View Full Version : Should the Sox Change Their DH Strategy?


Red Barchetta
08-19-2007, 07:50 PM
With another season closing down and another season with a DH partially injured, do you think it's time to change our DH strategy?

With interleague play, etc. I really think it benefits the team to pursue a fourth outfielder or fifth infielder instead of the hit-only approach with Thomas and Thome.

If you consider all the money spent on DH-only type players, would we be better served in using a more versatile athlete? I understand the strong argument regarding everyday position players and having your "A-team" on the field, however if managed correctly, I think we could get more mileage out of a more versatile player.

If we could obtain a corner OF/1B type player, we could systematically offer Konerko and perhaps two outfielders a regular day off the defensive side of the game with a DH rotation.

Are there any existing or recent models of this working on other teams in the AL?

SaltyPretzel
08-19-2007, 08:00 PM
Are there any existing or recent models of this working on other teams in the AL?

2005 White Sox?

DickAllen72
08-19-2007, 08:01 PM
With another season closing down and another season with a DH partially injured, do you think it's time to change our DH strategy?

With interleague play, etc. I really think it benefits the team to pursue a fourth outfielder or fifth infielder instead of the hit-only approach with Thomas and Thome.

Yes, definitely.

eastchicagosoxfan
08-19-2007, 08:13 PM
With another season closing down and another season with a DH partially injured, do you think it's time to change our DH strategy?

With interleague play, etc. I really think it benefits the team to pursue a fourth outfielder or fifth infielder instead of the hit-only approach with Thomas and Thome.

If you consider all the money spent on DH-only type players, would we be better served in using a more versatile athlete? I understand the strong argument regarding everyday position players and having your "A-team" on the field, however if managed correctly, I think we could get more mileage out of a more versatile player.

If we could obtain a corner OF/1B type player, we could systematically offer Konerko and perhaps two outfielders a regular day off the defensive side of the game with a DH rotation.

Are there any existing or recent models of this working on other teams in the AL?
Absolutely! Too much focus on RBI, and not enough on runs.

MCHSoxFan
08-19-2007, 08:13 PM
Yes, definitely.

I second that. That would also be worth the money. Someone that can help us in the OF as well as be a good enough hitter to DH.

Noneck
08-19-2007, 09:18 PM
And what do we do with our current DH or is this an idea for a couple years down the road?

Tragg
08-19-2007, 09:26 PM
I don't see the problem with 1 roster spot to a DH like Thome.

The problem is THREE roster spots to utility players.

Cut that down to one or two and, voila, you have space for your real 4th outfielder.

If we get one of those, then we can give Dye and Thome some rest - let Dye play left and DH against lefties.

TDog
08-19-2007, 09:32 PM
When the AL embarked on its three-year experiment with the DH at the beginning of the 1973 season, one school of thought was to rotate guys to get the day off. Another was to go with defensive liabilities and toke the gloves completely out of their hands. Soon, the teams that had full-time DHs were having more success at the position and the rotating DHs became a less successful Plan B.

If you have a team full of strong power hitters who hit for average and play great defense, rotating your DHs sounds like a great idea. When Thome was injured earlier in the year, the White Sox had some less-than-threatening hitters as their designated hitters.

Dan the Man
08-19-2007, 10:25 PM
If Fields gets comfortable over at 3rd and he doesn't have to move to the outfield, what would you guys think about Crede at DH?

VivaOzzie
08-19-2007, 10:29 PM
If Fields gets comfortable over at 3rd and he doesn't have to move to the outfield, what would you guys think about Crede at DH?


Have you seen Crede play 3B? He's pretty damn good. A lot better than Fields, thus far at least. If Crede's back is alright, I want his glove at third.

soxfanreggie
08-19-2007, 10:31 PM
I think one big reason we're having this discussion is because of the lack of production we have from Pods, Erstad, and their replacements for most of this season. Normally, your 1 and 2 positions have people who can get on and you have people like Thome knock them in with hits or SAC flies. I can imagine the same argument could be made the other way if we did get someone more of a utility DH that wsn't a power hitter if Erstad/Pods/their replacements were getting on and not getting driven in.

I think once we get some healthy, productive table-setting outfielders and a utility guy/spark like Pablo that we will be a lot better.

Would the OF-1B-DH type player you're looking for be like a Lyle Overbay?

voodoochile
08-19-2007, 10:33 PM
The 2005 Sox didn't choose to have a 4th OF as their primary DH, it just worked out that way when Frank re-injured his heel.

I think the first and foremost quality to consider in a DH is how well he hits the baseball. If he can then fill in and spell guys great, but if not, see baseball, hit baseball works for me.

Otherwise you give up too many runs to the teams who are willing to put aside a roster spot for a guy who strictly swings a big stick.

Thome was supposed to be able to spell Paulie occasionally at 1B when he was brought in, but injuries have ended that plan as Thome's bat is much to valuable to risk him injuring his back further while playing the field.

UserNameBlank
08-19-2007, 11:05 PM
So what would be the idea? Use the DH spot for someone who isn't as good of a hitter? Yeah, we should have brought in Trot Nixion. Or maybe we should try to pick up Endy Chavez and play him more regularly.

It's funny because at the beginning of the year so many people thought all we needed was more speed in the lineup. Well, now we have Owens and guess what, we still suck. We need a top of the order that can actually hit and get on base, preferrably with some speed to steal bases here and there.

I don't agree with Ozzie hitting Thome 3rd and I've never, ever agreed with that. Ideally the guys on base ahead of him would have speed and be able to score without always relying on a basehit. The problem is that Thome is the complete antithesis of Ozzieball. He strikes out too much and takes too many big swings in that spot. Now, I'm not saying Thome is wrong for doing so because that is his game, but Ozzie is wrong for putting him in that spot. We do need Thome's bat in the lineup; we just need to bat him 4th IMO. Put Dye in the 3 spot because he's more of the prototypical 3 hitter, bat Richar second, and a get a leadoff man. That'll improve the top of the lineup.

MisterB
08-20-2007, 12:40 AM
I don't agree with Ozzie hitting Thome 3rd and I've never, ever agreed with that. Ideally the guys on base ahead of him would have speed and be able to score without always relying on a basehit. The problem is that Thome is the complete antithesis of Ozzieball. He strikes out too much and takes too many big swings in that spot. Now, I'm not saying Thome is wrong for doing so because that is his game, but Ozzie is wrong for putting him in that spot. We do need Thome's bat in the lineup; we just need to bat him 4th IMO. Put Dye in the 3 spot because he's more of the prototypical 3 hitter, bat Richar second, and a get a leadoff man. That'll improve the top of the lineup.

To me the prototypical #3 hitter is vintage Frank Thomas: high average, high obp and power to boot. The kind of hitter that can drive in the guys at the top and get on for the power hitters behind him.

Thome's the only player on the roster that comes close to that model. Heck, even Konerko is closer to that than Dye is.

MetroPD
08-20-2007, 03:52 AM
You mean there was a strategy?

TomBradley72
08-20-2007, 10:42 AM
I like your proposal. We need more flexibility in our line up....and it hurts us to have a major part of our line up on the bench for 10% of our schedule (ie. interleague play).

As it is...I think we need a new DH against LH pitching (aproximately 30-35% of the schedule)...Thome is .188-4-18 in 2007, coming off .236-6-24 in 2006 against lefties.

BUMMER
08-20-2007, 10:59 AM
With another season closing down and another season with a DH partially injured, do you think it's time to change our DH strategy?

With interleague play, etc. I really think it benefits the team to pursue a fourth outfielder or fifth infielder instead of the hit-only approach with Thomas and Thome.

If you consider all the money spent on DH-only type players, would we be better served in using a more versatile athlete? I understand the strong argument regarding everyday position players and having your "A-team" on the field, however if managed correctly, I think we could get more mileage out of a more versatile player.

If we could obtain a corner OF/1B type player, we could systematically offer Konerko and perhaps two outfielders a regular day off the defensive side of the game with a DH rotation.

Are there any existing or recent models of this working on other teams in the AL?

Dye could fill that spot - he's slowing down in the field and durability is questionable - DH'ing Dye would allow a younger, faster (C Crawford, Sweeney, ie) to play OF & still keep JD's bat in the line-up - In NL parks, Dye could play the field also.

jabrch
08-20-2007, 11:19 AM
To me the prototypical #3 hitter is vintage Frank Thomas: high average, high obp and power to boot. The kind of hitter that can drive in the guys at the top and get on for the power hitters behind him

All we need are more Frank Thomases and we'd be just fine.

Railsplitter
08-20-2007, 11:27 AM
Sparky Anderson used 12 different DH's in 1984, when the Tigers on the Series. I think there should be 1st.Dh or DH outfield platooning.

voodoochile
08-20-2007, 11:46 AM
I like your proposal. We need more flexibility in our line up....and it hurts us to have a major part of our line up on the bench for 10% of our schedule (ie. interleague play).

As it is...I think we need a new DH against LH pitching (aproximately 30-35% of the schedule)...Thome is .188-4-18 in 2007, coming off .236-6-24 in 2006 against lefties.

I don't see how this is a viable option. I mean every AL team loses their DH for interleague play. If the DH were a viable option in the field than by definition they would be playing there everyday if they were that much better with the bat than the guy they are replacing and then the team would go get another pure DH and the guy the original DH replaced in the field would either ride the bench, bump the next worst bat at a position they can play or get traded.

You don't pick your DH your 1B based on defense anymore than you pick your pitchers based on how well they swing the bat (even in the NL :tongue: ). In fact it shouldn't even be part of the equation/discussion...

TDog
08-20-2007, 12:09 PM
If Fields gets comfortable over at 3rd and he doesn't have to move to the outfield, what would you guys think about Crede at DH?

Ken Berry is known as a weak-hitting but gold-glove centerfielder. At the end of his career, with both Milwaukee and Cleveland, he started some games as the DH. Those were with teams that didn't have hitters who didn't play well in the field. I still thought it was silly -- like DHing Brian Anderson.

If Carlos Zambrano played in the American League, I could see him starting some games as the DH because it isn't like he would be available to pitch on his non-start days. He probably considered that even if the Yankees had offered him more money than the Cubs, he wouldn't get to hit, but he might have been wrong. Maybe not. The Yankees can afford a better hitter. Bobby Thigpen was an All-American DH at Mississippi State, but he was a reliever. Unfortunately, he only got one at bat in the major leagues, and he was called on to bunt.

You can DH anyone. But it should be someone you wouldn't want to put in the game defensively in the late innings. It also should reflect your best available lineup against your opponent. I don't remember who was playing the outfield the day Anderson DHed, but the drop-off defensively couldn't be any worse than playing both Joe Crede and Josh Fields and having Crede on the bench when the Sox are in the field.

TomBradley72
08-20-2007, 02:01 PM
I don't see how this is a viable option. I mean every AL team loses their DH for interleague play. If the DH were a viable option in the field than by definition they would be playing there everyday if they were that much better with the bat than the guy they are replacing and then the team would go get another pure DH and the guy the original DH replaced in the field would either ride the bench, bump the next worst bat at a position they can play or get traded.

You don't pick your DH your 1B based on defense anymore than you pick your pitchers based on how well they swing the bat (even in the NL :tongue: ). In fact it shouldn't even be part of the equation/discussion...

But you can have a "rotating DH" using various players on your bench, players needing a partial rest, etc...without "clogging" your roster with a one dimensional player.

voodoochile
08-20-2007, 02:05 PM
But you can have a "rotating DH" using various players on your bench, players needing a partial rest, etc...without "clogging" your roster with a one dimensional player.

You call it clogging, I call it a massive bat.

You'd really rather have Rob Mackowiak (for example) rotating around all of the various positions giving people days off to DH than Jim Thome and 4 more bench players?

Suffice to say, we disagree...

TomBradley72
08-20-2007, 03:01 PM
You call it clogging, I call it a massive bat.

You'd really rather have Rob Mackowiak (for example) rotating around all of the various positions giving people days off to DH than Jim Thome and 4 more bench players?



Wouldn't do it if Mack was the alternative...it all depends on the players involved. As far as a "massive bat"...based on Thome's production vs. Left Handed pitching...I think "massive" is a significant overstatement:

Thome is .188-4-18 in 2007, coming off .236-6-24 in 2006 against lefties.

Not what I would expect from a full time DH and a guy we gave up our starting CF for...

voodoochile
08-20-2007, 03:36 PM
Wouldn't do it if Mack was the alternative...it all depends on the players involved. As far as a "massive bat"...based on Thome's production vs. Left Handed pitching...I think "massive" is a significant overstatement:

Thome is .188-4-18 in 2007, coming off .236-6-24 in 2006 against lefties.

Not what I would expect from a full time DH and a guy we gave up our starting CF for...

Well now you are using hindsight to attack the decision to acquire Thome which at the time looked like a no-brainer. the fact that injuries and age are catching up with Thome is a different issue, IMO.

Just for the record, Thome leads the team in SLG, OPS, BB and is third in RBI, HR and R while playing at least 10% less games than any of the guys in front of him in those categories. In addition, less than 40% of his AB have been against LH pitchers this season. Now yes, I would love a DH who is equally adept against both types of pitchers, but for the money the Sox are paying him, Thome isn't exactly chicken poop.

Okay, Mack isn't good enough in your opinion, but he fits the description of someone with a decent bat who can spell almost anyone on the field for a day here and there. Anyone with a better bat, IMO would be a full time starter at some position but perhaps you have an example of someone who can do what Mack does defensively AND brings a big enough bat to be the 10th man/DH. If so, I would love to read who that person is...

TomBradley72
08-20-2007, 06:13 PM
Well now you are using hindsight to attack the decision to acquire Thome which at the time looked like a no-brainer. the fact that injuries and age are catching up with Thome is a different issue, IMO.


Not attacking the trade..I agreed with the trade at the time...but when I look at Thome's production since last year's All Star break...it's underwhelming.

mjmcend
08-20-2007, 06:36 PM
Not attacking the trade..I agreed with the trade at the time...but when I look at Thome's production since last year's All Star break...it's underwhelming.

You are only looking at his production against LHP.

He is one of the top 5 hitters in baseball against RHP.

.307/.470/.603 in 2007.

Coming off an obscene .321/.454/.749 in 2006.

kitekrazy
08-20-2007, 10:34 PM
I'd like to see the DH removed from baseball.

UserNameBlank
08-20-2007, 11:18 PM
To me the prototypical #3 hitter is vintage Frank Thomas: high average, high obp and power to boot. The kind of hitter that can drive in the guys at the top and get on for the power hitters behind him.

Thome's the only player on the roster that comes close to that model. Heck, even Konerko is closer to that than Dye is.
Maybe that works if you're the A's or some other team that plays OBP station to station calculator baseball, but if you are going to play Ozzie's type of baseball you need someone who can make contact in the 3 spot. If he has a little bit of speed too that is an added bonus. Dye fits this mold better than anyone else on our team.

As for Thome in the 3 spot, he simply doesn't make contact enough. I can't even remember how many times I've seen a runner on 3B with one out, a K by Thome, and then a deep fly ball by Konerko to end the inning. Thome is a great hitter overall because of his terrific eye at the plate and his power, but situationally he is one of the worst hitters on the team. He swings hard at everything and tries to pull everything. That is fine, but IMO it is much better suited when you have your "base-clogging" power hitters on base because they basically are going to be standing still on the bases waiting to be driven in by an XBH. IMO, Thome is the perfect #5 or #6 hitter, even though he has a high career OBP, because of the type of hitter he is. On this team though since we don't have a lefty power threat besides him he fits fine fourth, just not third.

MisterB
08-21-2007, 12:19 AM
Maybe that works if you're the A's or some other team that plays OBP station to station calculator baseball, but if you are going to play Ozzie's type of baseball you need someone who can make contact in the 3 spot. If he has a little bit of speed too that is an added bonus. Dye fits this mold better than anyone else on our team.


So you know "Ozzieball" better than Ozzie himself?

If Ozzie didn't think that Thome was the best available #3 hitter for "Ozzieball", then Ozzie wouldn't put him there.

:ozzie
"I make out the ****ing lineups."

PhillipsBubba
08-21-2007, 07:41 AM
...time to send Jim Thome on his way. He can't hit lefties, can't run and is this far from the DL.

Great guy...wonderful career.... but it's time to move on.:(:

UserNameBlank
08-21-2007, 10:11 AM
So you know "Ozzieball" better than Ozzie himself?

If Ozzie didn't think that Thome was the best available #3 hitter for "Ozzieball", then Ozzie wouldn't put him there.

:ozzie
"I make out the ****ing lineups."

I don't think Ozzie knows what "Ozzieball" is, assuming of course "Ozzieball" is also "Smartball" and "Smartball" is smart baseball.

You either engineer the a top of the order in 2 ways IMO:

1. You try to put some speed on the bases so that you can do a few things and hopefully score early. Usually the model for this is one speedy leadoff hitter that can get on base at a decent clip and work a pitcher followed by another decent OBP contact hitter who can hit situationally. Usually it helps if guy #2 can run a little bit. Then in the 3 spot you want someone who can make contact. Usually a team's best all-around hitter goes here. OBP and power are common and certainly make for a better #3 hitter, but if you look at someone like Joe Mauer he's actually perfect for that role even though he doesn't hit a ton of home runs.

2. You go with the station-to-station OBP model. OBP, OBP, OBP + POWER and that's about it. You get on base more but the guys on base usually aren't as versatile. Plus this system doesn't work well against really good pitching, and is another reason why the A's suck in the playoffs.

Now, Ozzie's system says:

1. Put a speedy guy at the top of the lineup, even though he can't get on base at a decent clip and is really a poor hitter. Since we don't have anyone RELIABLE who is a prototypical leadoff hitter, I'll give Ozzie a pass on this one. I'd rather see Owens out there than Erstad any day of the week.

2. Put a high strikeout power hitter in the #2 spot because he can bunt and normally run well when he's not slowed by nagging injuries. Again, this would be a case where I guess I could sort of give Ozzie the benefit of the doubt because of his roster, but he has Danny Richar batting 9th? Danny is a prototypical #2 hitter. He has good speed, is solid fundamentally, makes a lot of contact and can draw a walk. *** Ozzie???

3. Put your WORST starting situational hitter in the #3 spot even though he doesn't make contact. Huh??? Ozzie suddenly abandons his ideal "Smartball" to go for an element of "BeaneBall" which says this is okay because Thome gets on at a good rate. Well, you don't need your #3 hitter to drive the ball in the gap or over the fence in order to score your #1 and #2 hitters because your top two hitters were put in those spots simply because they are easier to drive in once they get on base. Additionally, while Thome does get on base a lot, he immediately represents a GIDP threat because of his lack of speed, and his strikeouts really **** up the chance at driving home someone who just needs a productive out to score. All Ozzie has to do here is put his best hitter and most well-rounded offensive player, JD, in the 3 spot and bat Thome lower. 4th or 5th work for me. Give Dye the chance to make contact in contact situations, and then let Thome swing for the fences and try to drive in the slower power hitters who actually need an XBH to score most of the time.

So yeah, I don't agree with Ozzie and I have no ****ing idea why Hawk and co. keep running around spewing **** about Ozzie being a great manager. I love his character and attitude, but I find myself questioning his decision making way too much. Normally I don't question managers because even if I don't agree with a move in a certain situation, usually it is easy to see why the manager made that decision and the disagreement is just a difference in philosophy. But with Ozzie this year, he'll make a bad move and I'll sit there trying to come up with a reason for the move yet come up with nothing. That's a large part of the reason why I want Steve Stone in the booth all the time because he has the balls to question the manager, unlike Hawk who swings on Ozzie's nuts.

Like I said though, I love Ozzie's attitude towards the organization and rooted for him as a player, and I don't know **** about what goes on in the clubhouse and maybe he's a terrific motivator who is well respected by his players, but some of his moves this year have really left me scratching my head. I hope this changes in the future because I'd much rather see him turn into a good manager than leave.

FielderJones
08-21-2007, 12:04 PM
I'd like to see the DH removed from baseball.

Yes, because watching pitchers hit .140 all year, and lay down bunts with one out is so very entertaining. And let's not forget the rocket science of the double switch. Pure baseball strategy. :rolleyes:

voodoochile
08-21-2007, 12:06 PM
Yes, because watching pitchers hit .140 all year, and lay down bunts with one out is so very entertaining. :rolleyes:

Personally, the IBBs to the #8 hitter and his scintillating .620 OPS always make the games complete...

TornLabrum
08-21-2007, 12:11 PM
Yes, because watching pitchers hit .140 all year, and lay down bunts with one out is so very entertaining. And let's not forget the rocket science of the double switch. Pure baseball strategy. :rolleyes:

Hey now! Don't forget managerial genius Dusty Baker once screwed up the double switch. (Forgot to tell the umpire he was using it.)

UserNameBlank
08-21-2007, 12:44 PM
Hey now! Don't forget managerial genius Dusty Baker once screwed up the double switch. (Forgot to tell the umpire he was using it.)
Just wondering, but has anyone seen the ESPN segment where they have Darrin Baker talk about the players? Look, your kid is a cute kid, we all can see that. And yes, he's probably ten times more knowledgeable about baseball than Steve Phillips is, but the uncomfortable forced laughter at a kid's cuteness is not baseball. Dusty, please go away. ESPN, all your ideas are bad ideas.

MisterB
08-21-2007, 11:06 PM
3. Put your WORST starting situational hitter in the #3 spot even though he doesn't make contact. Huh??? Ozzie suddenly abandons his ideal "Smartball" to go for an element of "BeaneBall" which says this is okay because Thome gets on at a good rate. Well, you don't need your #3 hitter to drive the ball in the gap or over the fence in order to score your #1 and #2 hitters because your top two hitters were put in those spots simply because they are easier to drive in once they get on base.

Consider this-

Dye w/RISP: 133 PA, 38 RBI (28.6%), .386 SLG
Thome w/RISP: 106 PA, 46 RBI (43.4%), .603 SLG

Regardless of who makes more contact, Thome has been far more likely to get runs in than Dye. To me, that's just sacrificing a chance to score runs at the top of the order for a slightly better chance to score runs in the middle of the order (who are your better offensive players anyway)

Additionally, while Thome does get on base a lot, he immediately represents a GIDP threat because of his lack of speed, and his strikeouts really **** up the chance at driving home someone who just needs a productive out to score.

Thome has been far less likely than Dye or Konerko to hit into a DP - partly because he strikes out more often. He has 8, Dye and Konerko have 17 apiece. See my previous comment regarding driving in runs.

All Ozzie has to do here is put his best hitter and most well-rounded offensive player, JD, in the 3 spot and bat Thome lower. 4th or 5th work for me. Give Dye the chance to make contact in contact situations, and then let Thome swing for the fences and try to drive in the slower power hitters who actually need an XBH to score most of the time.

Both this year and in general, I'd put Dye as the third best hitter on the team behind Thome and Konerko.

UserNameBlank
08-23-2007, 01:32 AM
Consider this-

Dye w/RISP: 133 PA, 38 RBI (28.6%), .386 SLG
Thome w/RISP: 106 PA, 46 RBI (43.4%), .603 SLG

Regardless of who makes more contact, Thome has been far more likely to get runs in than Dye. To me, that's just sacrificing a chance to score runs at the top of the order for a slightly better chance to score runs in the middle of the order (who are your better offensive players anyway)

I can agree with this. I'd still like more contact in the three spot with Thome trying to drive in the slower, higher OBP guys in a lower spot but you do make a good point.

Thome has been far less likely than Dye or Konerko to hit into a DP - partly because he strikes out more often. He has 8, Dye and Konerko have 17 apiece. See my previous comment regarding driving in runs.

I meant that he's slow on the bases and becomes a greater GIDP threat for those behind him.

Both this year and in general, I'd put Dye as the third best hitter on the team behind Thome and Konerko.

Production wise he's generally top two, but he can't do what JD and PK can do with the bat, namely go up the middle or the other way. He's a terrific pull hitter, but generally in a key RBI situation, regardless of the numbers this year because both PK and Dye were uncharacteristically terrible in the first half, I'd rather have one of those two at the plate because they will look to make contact instead of trying to drive the ball, especially with two strikes.

Frater Perdurabo
08-23-2007, 06:23 AM
Part of the "problem" is that the Sox just don't have a "prototypical" #3 hitter. Thome has the great OBP, but he's more of a cleanup hitter. Paulie is more of a 4/5. Dye also is a #5 hitter.

I would give a kidney if the Sox had a .320 hitter who could hit 20 HRs a year to bat in front of Thome.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 09:53 AM
Yes, because watching pitchers hit .140 all year, and lay down bunts with one out is so very entertaining. And let's not forget the rocket science of the double switch. Pure baseball strategy. :rolleyes:

No it's pure baseball. I'd take that over a team full of players who are basically career designated hitters. (Sox come to mind?) Thomas is not a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame because he's a career DH. All it does is allow a baseball player to be lazy in other aspects of the game. The Hall of Fame is no place for one dimensional players except for pitchers.

soxfan13
08-23-2007, 10:17 AM
No it's pure baseball. I'd take that over a team full of players who are basically career designated hitters. (Sox come to mind?) Thomas is not a shoe in for the Hall of Fame because he's a career DH. All it does is allow a baseball player to be lazy in other aspects of the game. The Hall of Fame is no place for one dimensional players except for pitchers.

Neither Thomas or Thome were full time DH's their whole career. Thome Started at third moved to first and became full time DH when he came to the Sox. Thomas didnt become full time DH until about 8 years into his career with the Sox. So I definately think they are both shoo ins for the Hall.

MisterB
08-23-2007, 10:32 AM
I meant that he's slow on the bases and becomes a greater GIDP threat for those behind him.

The difference between a force out at second and a second-to-first DP is usually the foot speed of the BATTER. Getting the force out is fairly easy, but you have to have a hard hit ball and/or a slow batter in order to turn two: Konerko falls into both categories, and Dye more the first than the second.

voodoochile
08-23-2007, 10:48 AM
Neither Thomas or Thome were full time DH's their whole career. Thome Started at third moved to first and became full time DH when he came to the Sox. Thomas didnt become full time DH until about 8 years into his career with the Sox. So I definately think they are both shoo ins for the Hall.

Yeah, the whole purity of baseball crap gets old. Perhaps we should disallow the better gloves, plastic helmets, raise the mound back up, stop using 50 baseballs a game (they used to go into the stands and get them back after all and it wasn't unheard of to have a game use one ball the entire game). Heck, let's move all the walls back to 500 feet and start calling ground rule doubles homers again...:rolleyes:

soxfan13
08-23-2007, 10:49 AM
Yeah, the whole purity of baseball crap gets old. Perhaps we should disallow the better gloves, plastic helmets, raise the mound back up, stop using 50 baseballs a game (they used to go into the stands and get them back after all and it wasn't unheard of to have a game use one ball the entire game). Heck, let's move all the walls back to 500 feet and start calling ground rule doubles homers again...:rolleyes:

If it was so pure why did they make changes:tongue:

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 12:23 PM
If it was so pure why did they make changes:tongue:

Well the hitters made changes, just ask Bonds.

voodoochile
08-23-2007, 12:28 PM
Well the hitters made changes, just ask Bonds.

They lowered the mound first and then they tightened the baseballs about the same time the HR totals really took off too. Baseball must want more HR which would tend to support the DH sticking around after all...

:tool
"chicks dig the long ball..."

Frater Perdurabo
08-23-2007, 12:57 PM
I too am sick of the "DHs don't belong in the HOF" argument.

If the DH did not exist, Frank Thomas and Jim Thome would be starting first basemen. Harold Baines probably would have moved to first base, too. They wouldn't be great defensively, of course, but no one would have any doubt that all three would be first-ballot HOF-ers.

Why punish these guys for a rule change that was made in the 1970s?

voodoochile
08-23-2007, 01:29 PM
I too am sick of the "DHs don't belong in the HOF" argument.

If the DH did not exist, Frank Thomas and Jim Thome would be starting first basemen. Harold Baines probably would have moved to first base, too. They wouldn't be great defensively, of course, but no one would have any doubt that all three would be first-ballot HOF-ers.

Why punish these guys for a rule change that was made in the 1970s?

If the voters withhold votes from players who were primarily a DH because they don't play the field, they should withhold votes from pitchers because they don't bat, IMO. I mean seriously any pitcher worth a HOF vote should refuse to let the manager insert a DH for them. :rolleyes:

soxinem1
08-23-2007, 06:36 PM
If the voters withhold votes from players who were primarily a DH because they don't play the field, they should withhold votes from pitchers because they don't bat, IMO. I mean seriously any pitcher worth a HOF vote should refuse to let the manager insert a DH for them. :rolleyes:

You can take that stance and it is credible, but the bottom line is that the DH is a position, and if it is a recognized position, the HOF stuff should not even be an issue. There are plenty of defensive type players in the HOF, so offensive players should be shown the same consideration.

mjmcend
08-23-2007, 06:46 PM
You can take that stance and it is credible, but the bottom line is that the DH is a position, and if it is a recognized position, the HOF stuff should not even be an issue. There are plenty of defensive type players in the HOF, so offensive players should be shown the same consideration.

Exactly. There are some pretty crappy hitters in the HOF, so I have no problem with with some lousy fielders.

TDog
08-23-2007, 07:07 PM
...

If the DH did not exist, Frank Thomas and Jim Thome would be starting first basemen. Harold Baines probably would have moved to first base, too. They wouldn't be great defensively, of course, but no one would have any doubt that all three would be first-ballot HOF-ers? ...

I heard Harold Baines say he honestly doesn't know if he could have moved to first base if there were no DH. He couldn't move laterally. It is really a shame because he was a special hitter with a talent for bringing runners home.

I still think he belongs in the Hall of Fame for what he accomplished in his career. One can only imagine how special his career would have been with healthy knees. Whether he would have been able to play without the DH is doubtful. Whether he would have surpassed 3,000 hits had he not been traded by the White Sox is not.

dickallen15
08-23-2007, 07:11 PM
The Sox should absolutely change their DH strategy. Can you believe how stupid this current strategy is? Having a guy who hits home runs more often than anyone else on your roster and gets on base more often than anyone else on your roster clogging up the DH spot? They have to set their roster specifically for the 9 games against NL teams where there won't be a DH. Anything other than that is just short -sighted.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 09:11 PM
They lowered the mound first and then they tightened the baseballs about the same time the HR totals really took off too. Baseball must want more HR which would tend to support the DH sticking around after all...

:tool
"chicks dig the long ball..."

They are showing the history of the DH during the rain delay. The concept of the DH has been around the 20's.
I haven't figured out why the NL has yet to adopt it.

All the major U.S. pro sports have modified the rules to increase scoring.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 09:12 PM
Exactly. There are some pretty crappy hitters in the HOF, so I have no problem with with some lousy fielders.

Name one. You also can't compare those stats to our current steroid era.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 09:51 PM
If the voters withhold votes from players who were primarily a DH because they don't play the field, they should withhold votes from pitchers because they don't bat, IMO. I mean seriously any pitcher worth a HOF vote should refuse to let the manager insert a DH for them. :rolleyes:

Lame argument. The pitcher is much more involved. He's on the field every inning. A DH sits on the bench or watches "Victory At Sea" in the locker room.
The D.H. is a one dimensional position not worthy to be in the Hall of Fame with the likes of players like Mantle. So far no DH has been elected in the HOF. I wouldn't consider Thomas a shoe in.

We have kids now who want to be a career DH. THe talent at the MLB level has regressed and in generations will continue to do so because too many players can only do one thing well and the others thing very sub par.
You can see that on the Sox. The reason why the Twins always kick their ass is because they have players that do more than one thing well.

Anyway, that documentary on the DH during the rain delay was great. Good arguments on both sides about the value of the DH.

voodoochile
08-23-2007, 10:17 PM
Lame argument. The pitcher is much more involved. He's on the field every inning. A DH sits on the bench or watches "Victory At Sea" in the locker room.
The D.H. is a one dimensional position not worthy to be in the Hall of Fame with the likes of players like Mantle. So far no DH has been elected in the HOF. I wouldn't consider Thomas a shoe in.

We have kids now who want to be a career DH. THe talent at the MLB level has regressed and in generations will continue to do so because too many players can only do one thing well and the others thing very sub par.
You can see that on the Sox. The reason why the Twins always kick their ass is because they have players that do more than one thing well.

Anyway, that documentary on the DH during the rain delay was great. Good arguments on both sides about the value of the DH.

Well there ya go... It's not the fact that it's one dimensional it's the fact that the DH has little effect on the outcome of the game compared to the pitcher. So I guess the RF who touches the ball on average 4 times a game defensively shouldn't be given the same consideration as the catcher or the 1B or probably even the SS. I mean let's just break it down into some neat statistical probability chart and rate the various positions and then we can weight the voting accordingly and decide who truly is and is not HOF worthy.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic as I was with my pitcher post. I just find it silly to argue whether a recognized MLB position deserves to be considered for the HOF. If there was no DH, perhaps Frank would have already retired after playing 1B for all of his career and his numbers would be where they were a few years ago, maybe even 5 years ago and they'd still be HOF worthy.

If the DH is allowed by MLB in any league at any time than the players shouldn't be docked for playing it. You don't like the DH, that's fine. I prefer it, that's fine too. That's what message boards are for. I just don't get the DH-hater mentality that exists. I mean you don't want MLB to have them, that's one thing, but don't take it out on the players who played the position. Don't hate the player, hate the game...

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree...