PDA

View Full Version : The Sox can indeed win the Central


Demafrost
01-10-2008, 12:48 PM
Yes thats right. I think the Sox can win the AL Central. No I don't think they are the favorites. No I am not proposing one of those "the Tigers plane crashes in a field" scenarios. I think if just a couple of things break correctly, the Sox can win the Central. First of all, the Swisher trade was HUGE for the short and middle term. Maybe people don't like all the prospects changing hands, but the Sox got a great pickup in Swisher, and really filled a statistic of need with Swisher

How is this lineup not solid?
Cabrera, SS
Swisher, CF?
Konerko, 1B
Thome, DH
Dye, RF
Pierzynski, C
Crede, 3B
Uribe, 2B
Quinten, LF

A couple of things have to happen however. Dye obviously needs to continue hitting like he did in the second half of 07. Cabrera, Thome and Konerko need to not regress a bit. Pierzynski has to get on base at a decent clip. But the lineup has a lot of room to be really good. It might not be as good as the Tigers, but it has the potential to be much better than expected. The Tigers are relying on a 44 (?) year old ex-steroid user to produce in the middle of their lineup, and the bottom of the lineup with an aging Pudge, Polanco and Jacque Jones just isn't that scary.

Now for pitching. Again, there is a ton of potential in this rotation. Am I saying it is going to be awesome? No, but the odds are it could. You have a definite ace in Buehrle, a solid number 2 in Vazquez, a pitcher who was one of the top 2-3 prospects in baseball with potential ace stuff in Danks, a huge question mark in Contreras (but if in contention can be replaced in season) and finally another prospect with potential #3-4 stuff. Folks, this rotation can easily rival the Tigers rotation. Verlander and Bonderman are solid 1-2s, but after this its a bunch of huge question marks. Willis and his 5+ ERA moving to the AL Central, Rogers well into his 40s and Robertson just isnt that great.

It might all come down to bullpens and bench, which we all know was the downfall of the 07 White Sox, so who knows.

Bottom line is, I don't read this board a lot, only occasionally (I am actually a fan of another unnamed team) so maybe there is this exact same argument by another poster here. But all I know is that outsiders were saying the same thing about the 2005 team before the season. Except this team (and the rest of the division) looks better on paper than the 2005 one. Don't lose hope yet Sox fans.

soxfan21
01-10-2008, 12:53 PM
I haven't lost hope, I think that they can still win, but it is going to be a tough road ahead. I think in '05 a lot of publications had us finishing 3rd or 4th, yet we went wire to wire. That would be nice if that happens this year, but even if we make the playoffs it would be nice.

mcfish
01-10-2008, 12:55 PM
tied for first with 162 games left to play, of course we have a shot!

voodoochile
01-10-2008, 12:56 PM
Well, I expect to see Fields and Richar instead of Crede and Uribe in that lineup, but I agree, the Sox can compete. They just need to see players return to normal years and get solid results from Danks and Floyd and they should be fine.

russ99
01-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Well, I expect to see Fields and Richar instead of Crede and Uribe in that lineup, but I agree, the Sox can compete. They just need to see players return to normal years and get solid results from Danks and Floyd and they should be fine.

Agree, and also if the Sox are indeed competitive, I'm sure Kenny will be looking to add a few pieces at the deadline.

johnr1note
01-10-2008, 01:12 PM
Well, I expect to see Fields and Richar instead of Crede and Uribe in that lineup, but I agree, the Sox can compete. They just need to see players return to normal years and get solid results from Danks and Floyd and they should be fine.

I agree. I've argued with the black cloud crowd that the Sox are short in starting pitching, one or two more bullpen arms, and a legit leadoff hitter.

While this sounds like a tall order, all of these players may already be on our 40 man roster, and we don't know it yet. If not, I am fairly confident deals will be made to fill these holes.

Of course, its not going to be easy. But I'm cautiously optimistic.

At this point in January, 2005, the White Sox had just signed El Duque and A.J., two players that were viewed by most of the baseball media as cast-offs and huge gambles. Our second baseman was probably going to be Willie Harris. Our closer was Shingo. Looking back, even that team probably looks more solid than our current team does, but I'll bet the naysayers now were naysayers then. I know I was. I thought they'd have trouble playing .500 ball in 2005.

Do i think the Sox will win the WS in 2008? Probably not. But I'm willing to bet they'll be competitive, and give Detroit, Cleveland, and Minnesota a run for their money.

Demafrost
01-10-2008, 01:12 PM
Well, I expect to see Fields and Richar instead of Crede and Uribe in that lineup, but I agree, the Sox can compete. They just need to see players return to normal years and get solid results from Danks and Floyd and they should be fine.

Whoops, how can my post be taken seriously if I don't even include Josh Fields in my lineup analysis. Again, I'm a fan of another team, and while I do keep a watchful on of the Pale Hose, I miss stuff mentally from time to time.

veeter
01-10-2008, 01:13 PM
Kenny's additions, this off-season, remind me of the pre-2005 pick-ups. The ones every pundit hated. I like the feel of the personnel and think they will compete. A strong third is what I predict, but hey, if they get off to a hot start, who knows?

Rockin Robin
01-10-2008, 01:13 PM
I've got some optimism for a few reasons. I think Richar will have a break out season, and I think there is no way in hell that the lineup, collectively, can have as bad an offensive year as what we went through last year. Just not possible.

The pitching...well...uh...

thedudeabides
01-10-2008, 01:28 PM
Here's an article from the Detroit Free Press discussing the AL Central race.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/SPORTS02/801100421/1050/SPORTS01

The Tigers are saying the Indians are the favorite and the White Sox are much improved.

We'll see if the Indians have the pitching decline that the recent AL Central champs have had from going deep into the playoffs.

I also think each team has questions in the bottom half of the rotation and whoever steps up in that area will probably hold on.

One thing the Sox have going is they have a real closer. I think eventually that will catch up with Detroit and Cleveland. Either way I feel much better about the Sox chances than I did at the end of last year.

Gavin
01-10-2008, 01:31 PM
Of course they can.

kjhanson
01-10-2008, 01:38 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that our pitching is better than the Tigers. Obviously at the front, Buehrle and Verlander are comparable. Although, do keep in mind that Verlander is 1-4 career against the White Sox with a 5.96 ERA in 45.1 innings. Furthermore, when will people realize that Jeremy Bonderman is just not that good of a pitcher? His career ERA is .34 runs above the league average, and his 5.01/1.38 (ERA/WHIP) was just pitiful last season. He had a "solid" season in 2006, but was by no means dominant (4.08 ERA). Meanwhile, Vazquez may have finally adjusted to the A.L. last season. His career ERA is .24 runs below the league average; more than half a run better than Bonderman's. Willis and Danks had very similar seasons last year. I expect improvement out of John this year, while Willis has seen his K:BB ratio dip severly over the past few seasons. Nate Robertson is a very good number 5 starter, but I honestly think Gavin Floyd is much better. In his last five starts in 2007 (all against the ALC), Floyd had an ERA of 3.20 over 31 innings. The big question marks are with Contreras and Rogers. Save them, however, and I'd rather have our starters.

The Milkman
01-10-2008, 01:49 PM
I agree that we do not lack any semblance of a true leadoff hitter in our lineup...However, we need to think to the not so distant past and the 2007 Boston Red Sox who went IIRC 2/3 of the regular season with Julio Lugo as their leadoff hitter.

For the record, .294 OBP, .237BA, and a lot of cup adjustments.

We can roll with OCab as our leadoff hitter.

SBSoxFan
01-10-2008, 01:50 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that our pitching is better than the Tigers. Obviously at the front, Buehrle and Verlander are comparable. Although, do keep in mind that Verlander is 1-4 career against the White Sox with a 5.96 ERA in 45.1 innings. Furthermore, when will people realize that Jeremy Bonderman is just not that good of a pitcher?

Verlander is the type of pitcher the Sox usually do well against. However, Detroit has another starter in Rogers that the Sox usually do poorly against. Maybe it's good Rogers won't be around too much longer.

While Verlander has #1 stuff and MB really doesn't, Buehrle competes and finds ways to win.

Finally, I agree completely, whole-heartedly and whole-everything-else about Bonderman.

soxwon
01-10-2008, 01:51 PM
Division come on- your thinking too small.
im thinking series.
YOUR GONNA SAY HEY REV-MAN YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
We didnt believe at first, but you kept insisting it was gonna happen,
and whatya know- WE did win not just the division, but the freakin.
series.

chisoxmike
01-10-2008, 01:55 PM
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Live_Action_Walt/Pollyanna.jpg
"OH GOODIE, GOODIE! YES SOX FANS! ME TOO! ME TOO! I DON'T CARE IF JOSE CONTRERAS CAN'T PITCH ANYMORE OR THAT GAVID FLOYD LOOKS LIKE THE DEER PA SHOT FOR DINNER LAST NIGHT! OR OUR BULLPEN STILL SUCKS! WORLD SERIES HERE WE COME!"

ode to veeck
01-10-2008, 01:55 PM
Yep they can retake the central, but the pen will have to be a presence again as they've been pathetic in 06 and 07

pjchisox13
01-10-2008, 01:55 PM
I believe that we play in the best division in baseball by far and we have a shot at it for sure. I think one thing that helps us is the everyone else will talk up Detroit and Cleveland, and we can sneak right in there. They might be talking about us being improved but not quite there yet, in their eyes that is, and to be honest with you that's where I like it. Let the critics be star struck with Detroit and Cleveland. Minnesota and KC are always competitive too but if the Twinkies lose Santana I don't see them being able to bring the same kind of threat to us that they did before. By the way Baseball gods, please move him to a NL team. Had to get that out of the way. The Sox have a shot this year for sure, I don't think we're all crazy for saying that. Our bullpen blew up last year and has a chance to bounce back for sure. OC and Swish being here change the face of our defense and offense a ton and in a good way. They are gamers for sure and I think they will be awesome to watch play with our returning guys.

ode to veeck
01-10-2008, 01:56 PM
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Live_Action_Walt/Pollyanna.jpg
"OH GOODIE, GOODIE! YES SOX FANS! ME TOO! ME TOO! I DON'T CARE IF JOSE CONTRERAS CAN'T PITCH ANYMORE OR THAT GAVID FLOYD LOOKS LIKE THE DEER PA SHOT FOR DINNER LAST NIGHT! OR OUT BULLPEN STILL SUCKS! WORLD SERIES HERE WE COME!"

:darkcloud:

Go away, this is the optimists' thread

The Milkman
01-10-2008, 02:01 PM
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2005/11/07/chicken128.jpg

Taliesinrk
01-10-2008, 02:02 PM
Agree, and also if the Sox are indeed competitive, I'm sure Kenny will be looking to add a few pieces at the deadline.

Ah yes.. the ever-elusive, "big fish"

voodoochile
01-10-2008, 02:02 PM
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Live_Action_Walt/Pollyanna.jpg
"OH GOODIE, GOODIE! YES SOX FANS! ME TOO! ME TOO! I DON'T CARE IF JOSE CONTRERAS CAN'T PITCH ANYMORE OR THAT GAVID FLOYD LOOKS LIKE THE DEER PA SHOT FOR DINNER LAST NIGHT! OR OUR BULLPEN STILL SUCKS! WORLD SERIES HERE WE COME!"

Thought you cloudy folks were against labeling folks. In fact, I think there were several of you who were actively upset by the labels being thrown around. Now you want to open that can of worms again?

For the record, I think you are making gross errors in judgment on your three listed problem areas. I think it's WAY too soon to tell if you are correct or not. Contreras certainly didn't look to shabby from August of last year on and calling a 24-year old guy who's entering his first full year as a starting pitcher with some success to draw on a "dead deer" seems over the top and excessively negative since you simply have no clue how he will respond to getting a full year of starts next year. Of course you can base that analysis on how he pitched 2 years go, just as you can assess Jon Garland how he pitched his first few years in the league but it does seem odd to claim he's a bust at such a young age with so few career starts under his belt.

I'll close by pointing out that the bullpen is improved and there is still time to improve it further.

You notice I'm not calling you any names here though, right?

Zisk77
01-10-2008, 02:04 PM
I will guess Kenny doesn't trade Joe until his value increases. That may be by ST or buy July 31st. Of course some team may take a gamble on him early. Also Uribe will most likely be traded. richar will be given every chance to win 2b job with ramirez and ozuna as back-up plans.

I'd imagine those trades will net us at least one player that helps the starting rotation, bullpen, OR a leadoff hitter (which might in turn spawn another deal).

Also, some signing (Collaro, Otsuka, Colon, Stewert?) may still occur before the season starts.

So, contending is not out of the question. Either is finishing 4th.

I say the glass is half full at the moment. :supernana:

munchman33
01-10-2008, 02:04 PM
:darkcloud:

Go away, this is the optimists' thread

The thread title posted a question. It wasn't titled "Irrational Kool-Aid Thoughts"

Go make that thread.

My answer to the thread title is yes. We can. But it would take a lot. And not just a return to norms like Voodoo suggested. We would need most, if not all of our position players to have CAREER years. Because our norm is not better than the career norms of the Tigers or Indians players. We'd also need a miracle in the starting rotation.

chisoxmike
01-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Thought you cloudy folks were against labeling folks. In fact, I think there were several of you who were actively upset by the labels being thrown around. Now you want to open that can of worms again?

For the record, I think you are making gross errors in judgment on your three listed problem areas. I think it's WAY too soon to tell if you are correct or not. Contreras certainly didn't look to shabby from August of last year on and calling a 24-year old guy who's entering his first full year as a starting pitcher with some success to draw on a "dead deer" seems over the top and excessively negative since you simply have no clue how he will respond to getting a full year of starts next year. Of course you can base that analysis on how he pitched 2 years go, just as you can assess Jon Garland how he pitched his first few years in the league but it does seem odd to claim he's a bust at such a young age with so few career starts under his belt.

I'll close by pointing out that the bullpen is improved and there is still time to improve it further.

You notice I'm not calling you any names here though, right?

Yes, and thank you sir. :thumbsup:

Its just my opinion. I'm not a GM. I hope I'm way wrong. I just don't see it though. You can't fault me on that.

I still have my tickets, I'm still going to games, I'm just not expecting much this year. We'll see...

spawn
01-10-2008, 02:08 PM
The thread title posted a question. It wasn't titled "Irrational Kool-Aid Thoughts"

Go make that thread.

Thread title: The Sox can indeed win the Central

That's a statement, not a question.

For the record, I agree. It will take quite a few things to go right, but I'm not as down on this team as other fans.

munchman33
01-10-2008, 02:09 PM
Thread title: The Sox can indeed win the Central

That's a statement, not a question.

For the record, I agree. It will take quite a few things to go right, but I'm not as down on this team as other fans.


Haha...somebody changed it.

munchman33
01-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Thought you cloudy folks were against labeling folks. In fact, I think there were several of you who were actively upset by the labels being thrown around. Now you want to open that can of worms again?

For the record, I think you are making gross errors in judgment on your three listed problem areas. I think it's WAY too soon to tell if you are correct or not. Contreras certainly didn't look to shabby from August of last year on and calling a 24-year old guy who's entering his first full year as a starting pitcher with some success to draw on a "dead deer" seems over the top and excessively negative since you simply have no clue how he will respond to getting a full year of starts next year. Of course you can base that analysis on how he pitched 2 years go, just as you can assess Jon Garland how he pitched his first few years in the league but it does seem odd to claim he's a bust at such a young age with so few career starts under his belt.

I'll close by pointing out that the bullpen is improved and there is still time to improve it further.

You notice I'm not calling you any names here though, right?

Voodoo to be fair, with that Floyd to Garland comparison, if you look at the "stuff" the two of them are throwing up there, it isn't a fair comparison. I know Floyd was a former first rounder, but from what I've seen, his stuff isn't that great, whereas Garland can be nasty.

Has Floyd ever had some sort of injury that affected his arm? He just doesn't seem like the kind of a talent you see in the first round of a draft.

ode to veeck
01-10-2008, 02:13 PM
The thread title posted a question. It wasn't titled "Irrational Kool-Aid Thoughts"

Go make that thread.


The thread title is not a question and the opening post was certainly an attempt at an intelligent favorable view and didn't deserve the ALL CAPs, no real content, totally dark cloud response (to call the kettle black).

As much as a good Sox season will depend on good years from individuals, especially from pitchers, there's also a potential for the group with the new talent at the plate, on the basepaths, and with the leather to gel as a group, much like the '05 squad really did.

ode to veeck
01-10-2008, 02:15 PM
If someone changed it, it was before I saw the thread or posted the dark cloud moniker

batmanZoSo
01-10-2008, 02:24 PM
They did it in 2000, so...I guess anything can happen. Is that what this thread's about? That we have to in fact play the games?

WSox597
01-10-2008, 02:26 PM
We can roll with OCab as our leadoff hitter.


Please stop this. Thank you.

balke
01-10-2008, 02:29 PM
Voodoo to be fair, with that Floyd to Garland comparison, if you look at the "stuff" the two of them are throwing up there, it isn't a fair comparison. I know Floyd was a former first rounder, but from what I've seen, his stuff isn't that great, whereas Garland can be nasty.

Has Floyd ever had some sort of injury that affected his arm? He just doesn't seem like the kind of a talent you see in the first round of a draft.

You must not have seen Gavin Floyd pitch. Nasty curveball, 92-93 MPH fastball and can hit 95. Good frame for a pitcher.

Garland 92 MPH fastball, with a nasty sinker and a hard slider with a good frame.

Floyd looks like crap some games, but I saw 1 or 2 where he looked damn legit with his curve. If he can pitch like that consistantly, he'll be brilliant out there.

The Milkman
01-10-2008, 02:35 PM
Please stop this. Thank you.

Please stop this ↑. I'm sure you're the same guy correcting grammar on this site just for the hell of it. Get over it.

WSox597
01-10-2008, 02:37 PM
Please stop this ↑. I'm sure you're the same guy correcting grammar on this site just for the hell of it. Get over it.

Actually, no, not the grammar cop. Just not a fan of idiotic, shortened nicknames.

But, hey, you have fun with it.

chisoxmike
01-10-2008, 02:38 PM
:popcorn:

munchman33
01-10-2008, 02:43 PM
You must not have seen Gavin Floyd pitch. Nasty curveball, 92-93 MPH fastball and can hit 95. Good frame for a pitcher.

Garland 92 MPH fastball, with a nasty sinker and a hard slider with a good frame.

Floyd looks like crap some games, but I saw 1 or 2 where he looked damn legit with his curve. If he can pitch like that consistantly, he'll be brilliant out there.

I've definately never seen Floyd hit 95. I know he throws around 92. But when he does, it isn't moving all that much. As for the curveball....I've seen him throw it really well maybe once. I've seen it sail without a lot of break a ton. I don't judge pitchers by frame. I'll never understand that assessment. The ideal "frame" people look for from pitchers are really ideal frames for athletes. People with different frames can compete too. I'd rather have an undersized good pitcher than a crappy pitcher with a good "frame." That argument makes no sense.

spawn
01-10-2008, 02:43 PM
:popcorn:
Word. :redneck

chisox77
01-10-2008, 02:49 PM
I've been optimistic about the White Sox, even after the winter meetings when they left "empty handed." KW has a way to make creative and gutsy deals. That's when he is at his best. The trade for Cabrera, the trade for Quentin, the signing of Ramirez (this is a player to look out for), and the Swisher deal addressed some glaring needs, even after the original plan to sign Hunter failed, as well as the trade that could have brought Miguel Cabrera here.

We have to be patient for that next trade to come. Although anything is possible with KW. But there's more to come. It's just that how it comes may be a bit surprising. As of now, I like the Sox as constructed, with the possible addition of a pitcher (either a solid reliever or a 5th starter type).



:cool:

santo=dorf
01-10-2008, 02:55 PM
I know Floyd was a former first rounder, but from what I've seen, his stuff isn't that great, whereas Garland can be nasty.

..... seem like the kind of a talent you see in the first round of a draft.

I've definately never seen Floyd hit 95. I know he throws around 92. But when he does, it isn't moving all that much. As for the curveball....I've seen him throw it really well maybe once. I've seen it sail without a lot of break a ton.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1432863&postcount=286
Wow, most of you seem to hate this deal. When I heard that Floyd was involved I was ecstatic. He's got one of the better curves I've ever seen, and can throw like 94 mph. Just needs to work on his control and his change, which is not so good. Coop'll get him straightened out. Give him McCarthy's role in the pen. Easily could become our ace by 2008.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!

You hypocrite, and yet your great scouting skills have DLS as a Hall of Famer.
:rolleyes:x1000 :rolling: x 2000

spawn
01-10-2008, 02:58 PM
OWNED! :rolling:

Jerome
01-10-2008, 03:12 PM
I don't think the Sox have the pitching. I'm glad to see the bullpen improved but relying on Danks and Contreras and Floyd is a big if. The lineup though should provide for a lot of fireworks! And Swisher and Cabrera should have great years and provide some balance in there with the home run hitters.

sullythered
01-10-2008, 03:12 PM
:redface:

munchman33
01-10-2008, 03:18 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1432863&postcount=286


BWHAHAHAHA!!!

You hypocrite, and yet your great scouting skills have DLS as a Hall of Famer.
:rolleyes:x1000 :rolling: x 2000

He doesn't like that anymore. And I did ask if someone knew about an arm injury that caused it. Learn to read.

Carolina Kenny
01-10-2008, 03:18 PM
Please stop this. Thank you.

I would rather not be a big time favorite going in to the season. We could be pleasently surprised by a real rebound season from the WhiteSox.

Addition of Orlando and Swisheroo will have a huge trickle down effect for our Big Guns, JD, Thome, Konerko and even AJ.

The run production of our new lineup will be greater than projected stats based on previous year's individual stats. This is due to the collective lineup synergy which will, "keep the line moving."

No comment yet on the pitching. Defense in the infield should be pretty good and OF defense should improve.

It all means for exciting times and a great pennant chase this year. Be prepared to have a ton of fun.

GO SOX

balke
01-10-2008, 03:25 PM
I've definately never seen Floyd hit 95.

It doesn't matter what you've seen, that's his scouting report, meaning professionals saw that. But that's his top MPH, like Nick Massett can hit 101 I believe, but he throws about 95, and I've only seen him hit 99 I believe.

munchman33
01-10-2008, 03:50 PM
It doesn't matter what you've seen, that's his scouting report, meaning professionals saw that. But that's his top MPH, like Nick Massett can hit 101 I believe, but he throws about 95, and I've only seen him hit 99 I believe.

My point was that if he was throwing like that, he certainly isn't anymore. His curveball isn't what it was before too. I don't know why not. But he isn't that player anymore.

MCHSoxFan
01-10-2008, 03:54 PM
Division come on- your thinking too small.
im thinking series.
YOUR GONNA SAY HEY REV-MAN YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
We didnt believe at first, but you kept insisting it was gonna happen,
and whatya know- WE did win not just the division, but the freakin.
series.

I have always believed!!!

Lip Man 1
01-10-2008, 03:57 PM
Can the Sox win the toughest division in the toughest league in baseball...of course....that's why they play the games.

But keep in mind when factoring the actual chances of this happening that not only do the Sox (obviously) need to play much better then in 2007 but BOTH Cleveland and Detroit have to play much poorer.

I could certainly see one of those two having a bad year but to expect both of them to have bad ones is stretching credibility in my opinion.

Rather then ask can the Sox can win the Central perhaps a better question / expectation is, 'can the Sox bounce back and have a winning season?'

That would be no small accomplishment. And I wouldn't dismiss it or belittle it.

It would mean an improvement of at least ten games, it would help limit the amount of attendance regression (which means more income heading into the off season of 2008) and it would keep more options open for the front office in regards to trades and (or) getting free agents to want to come to the South Side.

Lip

MCHSoxFan
01-10-2008, 03:57 PM
:darkcloud:

Go away, this is the optimists' thread

Not, it's NOT. It IS the REALISTS thread!!!

tstrike2000
01-10-2008, 04:06 PM
Like any team, with a solid top of the rotation and good middle relief, anything's possible.

batmanZoSo
01-10-2008, 04:15 PM
Can the Sox win the toughest division in the toughest league in baseball...of course....that's why they play the games.

But keep in mind when factoring the actual chances of this happening that not only do the Sox (obviously) need to play much better then in 2007 but BOTH Cleveland and Detroit have to play much poorer.

I could certainly see one of those two having a bad year but to expect both of them to have bad ones is stretching credibility in my opinion.

Rather then ask can the Sox can win the Central perhaps a better question / expectation is, 'can the Sox bounce back and have a winning season?'

That would be no small accomplishment. And I wouldn't dismiss it or belittle it.

It would mean an improvement of at least ten games, it would help limit the amount of attendance regression (which means more income heading into the off season of 2008) and it would keep more options open for the front office in regards to trades and (or) getting free agents to want to come to the South Side.

Lip

Same here. Just be competitive and give us a reason to go to the damn games. At least be in the hunt for the Wild Card and win 85 or more.

oeo
01-10-2008, 04:15 PM
It doesn't matter what you've seen, that's his scouting report, meaning professionals saw that. But that's his top MPH, like Nick Massett can hit 101 I believe, but he throws about 95, and I've only seen him hit 99 I believe.

Talk about exaggeration. Masset's story was always upper-90s, but threw mostly in the mid-90s.

areilly
01-10-2008, 04:19 PM
tied for first with 162 games left to play, of course we have a shot!

Only if they give 110%, though. And if they never give up.

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 04:33 PM
CAN we win the central? Sure. We have a better chance than the Royals.

Will we? I wouldn't be a dollar on it if they gave me 100:1 odds.

However, we look a lot better than we did when I declared earlier that we had no chance to compete in 08. I still would make that claim as the roster stands , but as opposed to then, I now think Kenny could conceivably make some deals that could put us up there with Detroit and Cleveland.

Frankly, I didn't see us obtaining Swisher and Ramirez, and that makes us a lot deeper in positions we had weaknesses (although that's all it did--not fill holes, just give us a better chance of filling the holes we already tried to fill this offseason).

We are still lacking a CF and/or a leadoff hitter and about 3 bullpen arms. We lack solid footing in AT LEAST 2 out of our 5 rotation slots (depending on whether you want to count Contreras or Danks as solid footing--you can't count both and be looking at the situation realistically), and at 2B.

Thome, I hope we'll get 120 games out of him, but I wouldn't bet my salary on it...but he's a solid bet to produce well when he IS playing.

So overview: Complete holes at the CF/leadoff position and in the bullpen.

Shaky ground (at best!--Floyd could be in AAA by May and I wouldn't be any more shocked than if he was pitching 3.00 ERA ball in May) at 2B, 2/5 rotation spots, Wasserman, and 40-some games of DH.

Pretty solid footing in RF and 3B (because Dye's 2007 raises questions about what exactly we can expect from him production-wise in 08, especially with his aging and because Fields is not EXACTLY a sure-thing)

Extremely solid footing at 1B, SS, LF, and C...as well as at the back end of our bullpen and front end of our rotation.

Not a pretty site...but frankly, a lot better looking than a month ago, when we had a lot more shaky ground and complete holes.

Kudos to Kenny, as usual

Frontman
01-10-2008, 04:56 PM
I have to say, that I like the 2008 White Sox chances. They've retooled; they're working on improving both the lineup and the bullpen.

That being said, we need the Tigers to come back down a bit, and for the Indians to be more managable. I'm not too concerned about the Twins, as its a wholesale sell-off up there.

The Royals are always a pain.

But given that Kenny has been making moves, and still is trying to improve the club; I think they'll do far better than most of the "experts" are saying they will.

mjmcend
01-10-2008, 05:13 PM
I think they will have a top 10 offense in baseball. If Contreras and Floyd can keep their combined ERA under 4.50, I think we have a shot.

santo=dorf
01-10-2008, 05:14 PM
Division come on- your thinking too small.
im thinking series.
YOUR GONNA SAY HEY REV-MAN YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
We didnt believe at first, but you kept insisting it was gonna happen,
and whatya know- WE did win not just the division, but the freakin.
series.
You said the same thing last year. Give it a rest.

He doesn't like that anymore. And I did ask if someone knew about an arm injury that caused it. Learn to read.
Oh please. Your lame attack can't even save your own post where you admit you don't have a clue if he had an arm injury.

Injuries that occurred to Gavin Floyd since your claim he could "easily become the ace of the staff in 2008": 2
He had a mild ankle sprain that pushed back a start in Spring Training.
He missed two AAA starts due to a blister problem.

You admitted you've seen DLS only 3 times, and you pencil him for the HOF.

You watch Gavin Floyd for 3 months, declared his "stuff" is worse than Garland (a pitcher who isn't known for his "stuff") yet when the trade was initially made, you were head over heels for him and his curveball. You couldn't even figure if the guy had an injury when he performed WAY under your expectations ("coop will fix 'em.")

Just how much of Floyd did you see before the Garcia trade, 2 innings? :rolling:

WSox597
01-10-2008, 05:23 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic about the Sox chances. The big hitters will most likely rebound from 2007.

Pitching doesn't look that bad, actually. Probably the weakest link is Contreras, and he could also rebound.

It could happen.

PennStater98r
01-10-2008, 05:31 PM
I think the key to us being able to win next year is winning against true aces of the other teams. How many aces did we beat last year? We have to go out and beat the Sabathia, Santana, Halliday and Verlanders of the world - at least at a 50% stretch.

Sargeant79
01-10-2008, 06:11 PM
I think the key to us being able to win next year is winning against true aces of the other teams. How many aces did we beat last year? We have to go out and beat the Sabathia, Santana, Halliday and Verlanders of the world - at least at a 50% stretch.

That's a really good point. I don't have any stats to back this up (and would really be curious to see if this is the case) but it really seemed like other teams' aces really owned us last year.

Frontman
01-10-2008, 06:20 PM
I think the key to us being able to win next year is winning against true aces of the other teams. How many aces did we beat last year? We have to go out and beat the Sabathia, Santana, Halliday and Verlanders of the world - at least at a 50% stretch.

Not just the #1's, but the #2's as well. There were times the Sox got to Sabathia and won; only to give the game back the very next day.

raven1
01-10-2008, 06:22 PM
It's good to see a modestly optimistic thread for a change - there's been too much "gloom & doom" this off-season.

Since every team, no matter how good they look on paper, needs to have the same things go right to compete the Sox' chances comes down to how many question marks they have versus other teams.

I'm very concerned about the risk of having Contreras, Floyd, & Danks in the same starting rotation, but on the positive side you can't really say any other team (except the Angels, thanks to our help) is carrying any less risk.

Same for the bullpen with the addition of Linebrink & Bobby Jenks - could blow up, but no riskier than what anyone else has.

The offense has a definite risk in leadoff & marginal speed, but is a definite upgrade over last year and enough potential power if Konerko/Dye/Thome have normal years to offset the risk at the top & bottom - Cabrera & Swisher should give us a runner or two on base for the middle of the order far more often than last year.

Defense appears average - neither a strength or liability. Cabrera, Richar, & Konerko (and maybe even Crede for the beginning of the season until we need to trade to fill a hole) in the infield should balance a weak but serviceable outfield of Dye, Swisher, and whatever prospect steps up.

These risks are only slightly greater than what Detroit, Cleveland, or even NY or Boston are carrying. I wouldn't consider the White Sox favorites to win anything, but would give them about equal odds to the other 5 or 6 top teams in the AL.

The glass is indeed half full!

Corlose 15
01-10-2008, 06:27 PM
Not just the #1's, but the #2's as well. There were times the Sox got to Sabathia and won; only to give the game back the very next day.

Along these lines I think the Swisher move is a big one because he crushes left handed pitching. I'll think he'll come up big against Rogers, Sabathia, Santana (if he's still in the AL) etc.


As for Floyd, just in watching the highlights of his last few starts of the year, he was fairly consistently hitting 93-94 with his fastball, as well as having a tighter "curve/slider" that went in at 85 or so and his big "off the table curve" that comes in at 78-79. I think his stuff is fine.

Something else about Floyd is that he had 4 starts against the Tigers last year and pitched very well against them in 3 of them, getting knocked around in his second start after his callup in July.

angiew
01-10-2008, 06:58 PM
I love this thread:happyguy: I'm trying hard to be positive about 2008, but somethimes seeing all the doomsday threads brings me down. This is refreshing!:D:

santo=dorf
01-10-2008, 07:25 PM
Something else about Floyd is that he had 4 starts against the Tigers last year and pitched very well against them in 3 of them, getting knocked around in his second start after his callup in July.
In those 3 starts where he did well:
His only win: Sheff was not in the lineup and Sean Casey started out in the 3rd spot, later replaced by Craig Monroe. Mike Hessman, complete junk, played at first and Ivan Rodriguez was out for Mike Rabelo.

3rd start against them: Ryan Raburn was in the third spot. Maggs and Sheff were not in the lineup. Timo Perez played in the OF and Marcus Thames was the DH batting 8th.

4th Start against them: Timo Perez was batting third. Maggs and Sheff were not in the lineup.

Just sayin'.


I'm sick of hearing this "stuff" talk. It reminds me of Cub fans with Kerry Wood and other flop prospects like the beanballer, the birdkiller, and the domer who should've went to the NFL draft. Supposedly not having the "stuff" would keep Buehrle and Garland from not ever accomplishing anything and not being good as Wood or Prior.

FarWestChicago
01-10-2008, 07:54 PM
CAN we win the central? Sure. We have a better chance than the Royals.

Will we? I wouldn't be a dollar on it if they gave me 100:1 odds.100:1 odds? And you wouldn't bet a dollar?

You either need to toughen up or get a better job. :D:

JB98
01-10-2008, 08:01 PM
That's a really good point. I don't have any stats to back this up (and would really be curious to see if this is the case) but it really seemed like other teams' aces really owned us last year.

We've historically had good luck against Verlander. We beat Halladay last year too when Buehrle outpitched him.

Sabathia and Santana, though, they own us. A lot of left-handers seem to punk us, no matter what their status in the league. I think I'd rather face Verlander or Bonderman than Kenny Rogers.

pearso66
01-10-2008, 08:06 PM
Is the Tigers lineup stronger than the Sox? Yes it is, but thankfully, the Sox only have to play them 19 times this year. They only have to match up against the teams they are playing on that respective day. If they can go .500 against Cleveland and Detroit, they have a real shot.

Danks had a very good first half last year, and should have had 3-5 more wins if it wasn't for getting only about 5 runs of support in his first 6-7 starts. It's hard to win when your team doesn't score for you, even if you only give up 1 run. Contreras and Floyd ended the season pretty well. Will they hold up? who knows, but you can say that about anyone. Rogers didn't pitch much at all last year, and Willis was bad, and he moved to the AL Central from the NL East.

The have to improve by 10 games to get to .500. That should be easy if even 1/2 of the players return to normal. They just have to worry about the games they are currently playing, and worry about Detroit and Cleveland only when they play them.

It seems a lot of the dark clouds forget that most of the Sox players were below their career averages last year, and almost the whole offense was crap for the first half of the season.

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 08:28 PM
100:1 odds? And you wouldn't bet a dollar?

You either need to toughen up or get a better job. :D:

Go to Vegas West. There're myriad 100:1 shots there that are better bets than the Sox. You're not betting a dollar on those, are you?

FarWestChicago
01-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Go to Vegas West. There's myriad 100:1 shots there that are better bets than the Sox. You're not betting a dollar on those, are you?I've got a wife and kid. I need a better job. :D:

champagne030
01-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Agree, and also if the Sox are indeed competitive, I'm sure Kenny will be looking to add a few pieces at the deadline.

What's he going to trade?

Voodoo to be fair, with that Floyd to Garland comparison, if you look at the "stuff" the two of them are throwing up there, it isn't a fair comparison. I know Floyd was a former first rounder, but from what I've seen, his stuff isn't that great, whereas Garland can be nasty.

Has Floyd ever had some sort of injury that affected his arm? He just doesn't seem like the kind of a talent you see in the first round of a draft.

No injury, he just hasn't improved much since he was 18.

You must not have seen Gavin Floyd pitch. Nasty curveball, 92-93 MPH fastball and can hit 95. Good frame for a pitcher.

Garland 92 MPH fastball, with a nasty sinker and a hard slider with a good frame.

Floyd looks like crap some games, but I saw 1 or 2 where he looked damn legit with his curve. If he can pitch like that consistantly, he'll be brilliant out there.

Nasty when he doesn't get behind it and let it "roll" like he does multiple times a game.

Talk about exaggeration. Masset's story was always upper-90s, but threw mostly in the mid-90s.

Well, it was thrown around on this board and by the Sox that he was throwing 101 in the Mexican League last winter....much like Gavin sits around 88-90 unless he throws it high and then it's straight as an arrow at 92.

fquaye149
01-10-2008, 08:55 PM
I've got a wife and kid. I need a better job. :D:

I make 12,000 a year. I need every $ I can spare!

gogosox16
01-10-2008, 09:21 PM
What's he going to trade?



th92.

J o e c r e d e

voodoochile
01-10-2008, 10:10 PM
100:1 odds? And you wouldn't bet a dollar?

You either need to toughen up or get a better job. :D:

Heck, give me 100:1 odds, I'll lay down at least a ten-spot...

munchman33
01-10-2008, 11:58 PM
You said the same thing last year. Give it a rest.


Oh please. Your lame attack can't even save your own post where you admit you don't have a clue if he had an arm injury.

Injuries that occurred to Gavin Floyd since your claim he could "easily become the ace of the staff in 2008": 2
He had a mild ankle sprain that pushed back a start in Spring Training.
He missed two AAA starts due to a blister problem.

You admitted you've seen DLS only 3 times, and you pencil him for the HOF.

You watch Gavin Floyd for 3 months, declared his "stuff" is worse than Garland (a pitcher who isn't known for his "stuff") yet when the trade was initially made, you were head over heels for him and his curveball. You couldn't even figure if the guy had an injury when he performed WAY under your expectations ("coop will fix 'em.")

Just how much of Floyd did you see before the Garcia trade, 2 innings? :rolling:

I hadn't seen much of him once he made the Phillies roster for the first time, which is why I was so surprised he stuff wasn't the same. The only times I had seen him pitch in person before he was in a White Sox uniform was in Scranton. He is not the same player he was there.


Your posts are getting borderline personal. Am I going to have to fully quantify every post I make so that you don't attack me with your childish sarcasm?

Because I am not going to do that. You don't like what I post, ignore me. Don't attack me. It's getting childish.

Nellie_Fox
01-11-2008, 12:38 AM
Only if they give 110%, though. And if they never give up.Why are you willing to settle for 110%? Why not 200%? 500%? I mean, as long as you're asking for more than they have to give, let's ask for 10,000%!

I'd put down 20 at 100/1 odds. What the hell.

areilly
01-11-2008, 01:32 AM
Why are you willing to settle for 110%? Why not 200%? 500%? I mean, as long as you're asking for more than they have to give, let's ask for 10,000%!

Because I give up. And I don't play the games. Nor am I tied for first.

ksimpson14
01-11-2008, 03:58 AM
Eh, I'm not feeling the same optimism. In 05, I wasn't happy about the Lee trade, but I was at least happy that we had a complete rotation, an actual #5 who wasn't a career minor leaguer or named TBD. Much more riskier this time around, with only one addition to a pretty bad bullpen, and guys who are too young or too old making up the majority of your rotation. I have no problem with the offense, but a ton would have to go right. Det and Cle would probably need significant injuries too.

Grzegorz
01-11-2008, 04:40 AM
Much more riskier this time around, with only one addition to a pretty bad bullpen

I would have loved to see the Chicago White Sox take a chance on Matt Wise who ultimately made his way to New York.

He was a quality reliever out of the bullpen before he had the hit by pitch incident.

WhiteSox5187
01-11-2008, 05:50 AM
Just my humble two cents, as it stands right now without a game being played the Sox have as much of a chance to win the division as the Tigers or the Royals for that matter...however in order for this to happen, almost EVERYTHING has to go right. Floyd and Danks not only have to step it up but play way over their heads for the whole year, Owens and Richar HAVE to contribute in a big time way...yes the Sox CAN win the division, but I wouldn't put money on it. I sure as hell hope I'm wrong though.

GoSox2K3
01-11-2008, 07:40 AM
Will we? I wouldn't be a dollar on it if they gave me 100:1 odds.
You wouldn't bet a dollar on your own favorite team at 100:1 odds?:?:

We are still lacking a CF Nick Swisher is our CF now.

and/or a leadoff hitter and about 3 bullpen arms.
Did you really expect KW to get FOUR bullpen arms this winter (he already got one)? I don't think the Sox need to acquire 3 more relievers to compete.

So overview: Complete holes at the CF/leadoff position and in the bullpen. Since when is "leadoff" a position? Swisher may not be the best defensive CF, but I wouldn't call playing him out there a "complete hole". Cabrera, Swisher, and maybe Owens are options to leadoff. They may not be ideal, but I wouldn't call it a "complete hole" in our lineup either.

Floyd could be in AAA by May Won't happen. He's out of options. He's either on the Sox or on waivers.

Extremely solid footing at 1B, SS, LF, ... I like Carlos Quentin's potential, but I wouldn't call him extremely solid footing in LF. KW acquired him to play left and Swisher to play CF.

Hitmen77
01-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Just my humble two cents, as it stands right now without a game being played the Sox have as much of a chance to win the division as the Tigers or the Royals for that matter...however in order for this to happen, almost EVERYTHING has to go right. Floyd and Danks not only have to step it up but play way over their heads for the whole year, Owens and Richar HAVE to contribute in a big time way...yes the Sox CAN win the division, but I wouldn't put money on it. I sure as hell hope I'm wrong though.

If Floyd and Danks pitch well this year, I wouldn't call it "playing over their heads". Remember, both of these guys have a ton of talent.

Otherwise, I agree - we're relying on a bunch of unproven guys to come through. I'd say the odds are definitely against us. But, just about everyone in our lineup and rotation has a lot of good upside potential. Like I said, odds are against enough of these guys clicking these years - but it could happen. Let's see how it plays out. I can't wait for opening day. :smile:

voodoochile
01-11-2008, 08:40 AM
Eh, I'm not feeling the same optimism. In 05, I wasn't happy about the Lee trade, but I was at least happy that we had a complete rotation, an actual #5 who wasn't a career minor leaguer or named TBD. Much more riskier this time around, with only one addition to a pretty bad bullpen, and guys who are too young or too old making up the majority of your rotation. I have no problem with the offense, but a ton would have to go right. Det and Cle would probably need significant injuries too.

Career minor leaguer?

He's 24.

He got drafted out of HS and saw his first action at the age of 20. Now he's 24 and coming off his best season as a pro where he shaved 2 full runs off his ERA with one less start, 5 more appearances and 16 additional innings. He did all of that while going from the NL to the AL.

kraut83
01-11-2008, 08:41 AM
I know I'm in the minority, but I'm excited/anxious to see what Floyd can do this year. If he can stay ahead of hitters, trust his defense behind him, and avoid the big inning, I think he could be good.

Corlose 15
01-11-2008, 09:18 AM
Career minor leaguer?

He's 24.

He got drafted out of HS and saw his first action at the age of 20. Now he's 24 and coming off his best season as a pro where he shaved 2 full runs off his ERA with one less start, 5 more appearances and 16 additional innings. He did all of that while going from the NL to the AL.

You've been reading my mind with your posts lately.

I'm excited to see what Danks and Floyd do this year, as well as Quentin, Richar, and Fields.

chisox77
01-11-2008, 10:07 AM
I would feel better if a veteran or proven 5th starter was added (may still happen), or another qualtiy reliever.

However, the White Sox are in a position to discover more truth about Danks and Floyd. They are both talented pitchers who are young. Both have some ML experience, but need more to get established. It may be possible for the White Sox to still contend while the back end of the rotation develops some winning habits.

As bad as last year was (and it was awful), there were encouraging signs regarding Floyd's starts (especially against the Tigers, which helps), and Danks (who managed to win a few starts against good opposition pitchers, and rememeber, his first four starts, where he pitched really well, the Sox did not give him any run support, thus the 0-4 start which hurt his record).

Sure, the rotation seems a bit risky. But maybe not as risky as it appears.



:cool:

fquaye149
01-11-2008, 11:07 AM
You wouldn't bet a dollar on your own favorite team at 100:1 odds?:?:



Waste of time. I don't know why everyone is up in arms about this. It's not like someone literally OFFERED to give me 100:1 odds on the Sox for dollar stakes. I was just using a tangible example to prove an intangible point. That's all. :rolleyes:

Look, I tell you what: if you really really really need a dollar, give me 100:1 odds, and I'll send you the dollar.

It's not like you'll have to worry what will happen if you lose the bet...

Rounding_Third
01-11-2008, 12:12 PM
I'm troubled why there's been so little talk of Owens as our leadoff hitter; here at WSI and particularly within the Sox org. In my mind, for us to have any chance of challenging in the Central, Jerry MUST be our CF and MUST be productive. Without him leading off (successfully) and patrolling CF, we can still be good but not good enough to be in the race in Sept. Yes, he has to improve his BA and OBP. But if he improves only moderately, he could project to about 75 SB's for a full season. Throw out his 1st call-up and he had a very exceptional rookie 2nd half and his Sept was just outstanding. His 2007 July-Oct 1st stats were roughly a .283 BA and .338 OBS and projected to about 60 SB's for a full season. Considering that was his 1st year, only moderate improvement is nearly a given. Many other things have to come together, for sure, but Owens is a MUST. I just to understand why he seems to be getting pushed aside.

Assuming Crede is traded by ST, here's my non-pitching roster/lineup.

CF...Owens
SS...Cabrera
DH...Thome
1B...Konerko
RF...Dye
LF...Swisher
C....A.J.
3B...Fields
2B...Richar

Bench: Hall, Uribe, Ozuna, Quentin (assuming 12 pitchers). Solid but no leftie bat.

I think Uribe could also backup at 3rd with a little work. He's got the arm for it. I hate to see Crede go but it sounds inevitable and Fields can certainly replace Joe's offense. It may take a couple of years for Fields to get to Joe's glove though, if ever.

voodoochile
01-11-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm troubled why there's been so little talk of Owens as our leadoff hitter; here at WSI and particularly within the Sox org. In my mind, for us to have any chance of challenging in the Central, Jerry MUST be our CF and MUST be productive. Without him leading off (successfully) and patrolling CF, we can still be good but not good enough to be in the race in Sept. Yes, he has to improve his BA and OBP. But if he improves only moderately, he could project to about 75 SB's for a full season. Throw out his 1st call-up and he had a very exceptional rookie 2nd half and his Sept was just outstanding. His 2007 July-Oct 1st stats were roughly a .283 BA and .338 OBS and projected to about 60 SB's for a full season. Considering that was his 1st year, only moderate improvement is nearly a given. Many other things have to come together, for sure, but Owens is a MUST. I just to understand why he seems to be getting pushed aside.

Assuming Crede is traded by ST, here's my non-pitching roster/lineup.

CF...Owens
SS...Cabrera
DH...Thome
1B...Konerko
RF...Dye
LF...Swisher
C....A.J.
3B...Fields
2B...Richar

Bench: Hall, Uribe, Ozuna, Quentin (assuming 12 pitchers). Solid but no leftie bat.

I think Uribe could also backup at 3rd with a little work. He's got the arm for it. I hate to see Crede go but it sounds inevitable and Fields can certainly replace Joe's offense. It may take a couple of years for Fields to get to Joe's glove though, if ever.

Well, I disagree. I feel that the Sox will be fine with Cabrera or Swisher leading off and don't much care for Owens' arm in CF. Owens and Quentin can duke it out for the LF job with Owens probably starting the year there because Quentin won't be ready.

1989
01-11-2008, 12:45 PM
Voodoo to be fair, with that Floyd to Garland comparison, if you look at the "stuff" the two of them are throwing up there, it isn't a fair comparison. I know Floyd was a former first rounder, but from what I've seen, his stuff isn't that great, whereas Garland can be nasty.

Has Floyd ever had some sort of injury that affected his arm? He just doesn't seem like the kind of a talent you see in the first round of a draft.

have you seen floyd's curveball? I guess not

Rounding_Third
01-11-2008, 02:56 PM
Well, I disagree. I feel that the Sox will be fine with Cabrera or Swisher leading off and don't much care for Owens' arm in CF. Owens and Quentin can duke it out for the LF job with Owens probably starting the year there because Quentin won't be ready.

Swisher is not a leadoff hitter. He can't run that well. And he certainly shouldn't play CF. KW thinks Swisher will remind us all of Rowand and therefore sell tickets. Swisher is no Rowand defensively. And he's just an average OF'er in general. Yes he dives and crashes but that doesn't make him a good OF'er. For a guy like him, it just means he's too slow or gets a poor jump to catch the ball on his feet in many instances. When Owens makes a sprinting catch, that ball is falling in and/or rollling to the wall on Swisher. Factor in all the total bases taken away and Owens value rises even more. And it's not just the catches, it's doubles turned into singles and triples into doubles or even singles.

There are many fine CF'ers throughout the history of baseball that had weak arms. We had one in 1-dog. I'll take Owens' speed, jump, and weak arm in CF over Swisher's lack of speed and average glove. Swisher is not a CF'er by any stretch. "Strong up the middle" only works with speed in CF. Extra bases taken on Owens arm will be far exceed by the extra bases he takes away with his speed. And the momentum of a truely great catch far exceeds the momentum against on a tag up.

As far as leading off, I'll take a possible 75+ SB's (minimum 60). We all remember how Pods disrupted opposing pitching in '05. Cabrera would make a fair leadoff hitter but why not have 2 burners at the top and Swisher protecting Dye? Granted, Owens MUST improve his OBP and cut down his K's to warrent a leadoff spot. And if he can learn to sometimes slap down on the ball and improve his bunting, he could hit .300+. And with a little more experience and pitcher knowledge, he'd rarely get CS. With all of his rookie mistakes last year, he still hit over .280 from July on. Ozzie wants speed. Well, he's got him. He may the fastest man in the AL and perhaps in all of baseball.

Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to see Swisher in a Sox uni. But let's not make him out to be a 5 tool star but 4 out 5 ain't too bad.

Yes, I agree we'd be good with Cabrera leading off but not good enough. My point is that for us to catch the Tigers and Indians, we'll need every piece to work. Owens could easily match or even exceed Pods' 2005 production, Cabrera would be an outstanding #2, and Swisher would protect Dye.

voodoochile
01-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Swisher is not a leadoff hitter. He can't run that well. And he certainly shouldn't play CF. KW thinks Swisher will remind us all of Rowand and therefore sell tickets. Swisher is no Rowand defensively. And he's just an average OF'er in general. Yes he dives and crashes but that doesn't make him a good OF'er. For a guy like him, it just means he's too slow or gets a poor jump to catch the ball on his feet in many instances. When Owens makes a sprinting catch, that ball is falling in and/or rollling to the wall on Swisher. Factor in all the total bases taken away and Owens value rises even more. And it's not just the catches, it's doubles turned into singles and triples into doubles or even singles.

There are many fine CF'ers throughout the history of baseball that had weak arms. We had one in 1-dog. I'll take Owens' speed, jump, and weak arm in CF over Swisher's lack of speed and average glove. Swisher is not a CF'er by any stretch. "Strong up the middle" only works with speed in CF. Extra bases taken on Owens arm will be far exceed by the extra bases he takes away with his speed. And the momentum of a truely great catch far exceeds the momentum against on a tag up.

As far as leading off, I'll take a possible 75+ SB's (minimum 60). We all remember how Pods disrupted opposing pitching in '05. Cabrera would make a fair leadoff hitter but why not have 2 burners at the top and Swisher protecting Dye? Granted, Owens MUST improve his OBP and cut down his K's to warrent a leadoff spot. And if he can learn to sometimes slap down on the ball and improve his bunting, he could hit .300+. And with a little more experience and pitcher knowledge, he'd rarely get CS. With all of his rookie mistakes last year, he still hit over .280 from July on. Ozzie wants speed. Well, he's got him. He may the fastest man in the AL and perhaps in all of baseball.

Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to see Swisher in a Sox uni. But let's not make him out to be a 5 tool star but 4 out 5 ain't too bad.

Yes, I agree we'd be good with Cabrera leading off but not good enough. My point is that for us to catch the Tigers and Indians, we'll need every piece to work. Owens could easily match or even exceed Pods' 2005 production, Cabrera would be an outstanding #2, and Swisher would protect Dye.

There isn't a glove in the world that can make up 150 OPS points, period. Never has been, never will be.

Have you actually seen Swisher play CF or are you just speculating? He played there ~60 games and 200+ AB for the A's last year in a much bigger park. Owens may or may not develop into a definite leadoff hitter. I would love to see it and if he can get his OBP to .350+ he'd be fine, but that's a big leap for a guy who hasn't seen much time in the majors and speed isn't the only thing that matters. Swisher and Cabrera will be fine in the 1-2 holes and even Danny Richar might develop into a leadoff hitter down the road. Owens likely starts the year in LF while Quentin is finishing his rehab. That will give Swisher time to get comfortable and if he honestly cannot handle the position (he's better than Mackowiak defensively and his bat is better than Rowand by a long shot, IMO).

I'd prefer to see proven bats at the top of the order to start the season and if/when Owens proves he can get on base enough to lead off, they Sox can make a change. I'd love to see it, but don't want to count on it.

fquaye149
01-11-2008, 03:20 PM
Nick Swisher is our CF now.

Sure. And he's an improvement, but defensively he's not any kind of CF. Might as well put Dye there.


Did you really expect KW to get FOUR bullpen arms this winter (he already got one)? I don't think the Sox need to acquire 3 more relievers to compete. No, I didn't EXPECT Kenny to, but that doesn't mean it's okay that we only have 3 arms in our bullpen right now. And if you think that we can go into 2008 with a reliable setup guy, a great closer, and an ok middle reliever in Wasserman, and NOTHING ELSE in terms of proven arms, and be JUST FINE you're crazy.


Since when is "leadoff" a position? Swisher may not be the best defensive CF, but I wouldn't call playing him out there a "complete hole". Cabrera, Swisher, and maybe Owens are options to leadoff. They may not be ideal, but I wouldn't call it a "complete hole" in our lineup either.Leadoff is a need, not a position :rolleyes:

Swisher is a complete hole defensively in CF. Why not just reacquire Mackowiack and play him there if we're going to settle for bad defense and solid hitting? I love Swisher as a hitter, and obviously he's a huge improvement over Mackowiack both offensively and, to a lesser extent, defensively, but the point is: he isn't ANY kind of CF.


Won't happen. He's out of options. He's either on the Sox or on waivers.
Ok, well then amend my statement to out of the rotation. It's a horse a piece. My point remains the same.


I like Carlos Quentin's potential, but I wouldn't call him extremely solid footing in LF. KW acquired him to play left and Swisher to play CF.I meant that between Quentin AND Swisher (our two LF's) we are in good shape in LF

soxinem1
01-11-2008, 04:55 PM
Yes thats right. I think the Sox can win the AL Central. No I don't think they are the favorites. No I am not proposing one of those "the Tigers plane crashes in a field" scenarios. I think if just a couple of things break correctly, the Sox can win the Central. First of all, the Swisher trade was HUGE for the short and middle term. Maybe people don't like all the prospects changing hands, but the Sox got a great pickup in Swisher, and really filled a statistic of need with Swisher

How is this lineup not solid?
Cabrera, SS
Swisher, CF?
Konerko, 1B
Thome, DH
Dye, RF
Pierzynski, C
Crede, 3B
Uribe, 2B
Quinten, LF



Why are so many people hung up on making Cabrera a lead-off guy, and making Swisher a #2 hitter?

KenBerryGrab
01-11-2008, 04:56 PM
Swish hitting second would conjur memories of when LaRussa moved Fisk into that spot, and that ignited the club.

voodoochile
01-11-2008, 05:00 PM
Why are so many people hung up on making Cabrera a lead-off guy, and making Swisher a #2 hitter?

Because it makes more sense than the other way around...:D:

KyWhiSoxFan
01-11-2008, 05:30 PM
I really don't like debates about who should lead off. When a team does not have an obvious, good leadoff hitter, it can only spell trouble. Right now I don't have a lot of warm, fuzzy feelings about the Sox leadoff hitter.

Hopefully KW can fix that between now and the first game.

(And hey, mods, how about adding the word "Sox" to the spellchecker so it does not have to come up every freakin time someone spell checks a post?)

Soxman219
01-11-2008, 06:29 PM
Division come on- your thinking too small.
im thinking series.
YOUR GONNA SAY HEY REV-MAN YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
We didnt believe at first, but you kept insisting it was gonna happen,
and whatya know- WE did win not just the division, but the freakin.
series.

I with ya on that, buddy. Everyone is tied with 162 games left. I believe this team is able to play with anyone in the MLB if we play are cards right. We were picked 4th place in the ALC in 05' before we went to win the WS, Detroit was picked 4th in the ALC before they went to the Series. As of right now, all 30 teams have a shot at the World Series, but to make it you have to take it one game at a time. A lot of things need to happen, but I believe we CAN win the WS.:smile:

Frater Perdurabo
01-11-2008, 07:36 PM
Yes, the Sox can win the AL Central. It won't be easy, but it's never easy. They certainly should NOT be the favorites. IMHO their unmet needs (or uncertainties) are as follows, in order of urgency.

1. Getting solid contributions from the 3-4-5 pitchers. If Contreras, Danks and Floyd do it, great. If it comes from someone else (Colon? Livan Hernandez? Broadway?), fine.

2. Getting solid middle relief to bridge the gap from the starters to Linebrink and Jenks. If it's Thornton and MacDougal, great. If it's from players acquired in trade, fine.

3. Getting production from a leadoff hitter. If it's a player from another team, acquired in trade, great. If it comes from Cabrera or Owens, fine.

If all three of these happen, they will 95+ games and almost certainly make the playoffs.

If #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 happen, they will win 90 games and have an outside shot at the playoffs.

If only #1 happens, they will win 85 games.

If #1 does not happen, they will not have a winning season and the other two will not matter.

fquaye149
01-11-2008, 10:28 PM
Yes, the Sox can win the AL Central. It won't be easy, but it's never easy. They certainly should NOT be the favorites. IMHO their unmet needs (or uncertainties) are as follows, in order of urgency.

1. Getting solid contributions from the 3-4-5 pitchers. If Contreras, Danks and Floyd do it, great. If it comes from someone else (Colon? Livan Hernandez? Broadway?), fine.

2. Getting solid middle relief to bridge the gap from the starters to Linebrink and Jenks. If it's Thornton and MacDougal, great. If it's from players acquired in trade, fine.

3. Getting production from a leadoff hitter. If it's a player from another team, acquired in trade, great. If it comes from Cabrera or Owens, fine.

If all three of these happen, they will 95+ games and almost certainly make the playoffs.

If #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 happen, they will win 90 games and have an outside shot at the playoffs.

If only #1 happens, they will win 85 games.

If #1 does not happen, they will not have a winning season and the other two will not matter.

Quality post.

However, I'd put the odds at #1 happening at about 10:1

And the odds of #2 happening at about 4:1

And #3? LONGSHOT

note: odds are just GENERAL numbers!

Frater Perdurabo
01-12-2008, 06:03 AM
Quality post.

However, I'd put the odds at #1 happening at about 10:1

And the odds of #2 happening at about 4:1

And #3? LONGSHOT

note: odds are just GENERAL numbers!

#1 is the most important. I think it becomes more likely if the Sox sign Colon or Hernandez.

#2 almost certainly would not happen unless #1 happens, because if the 3-4-5 starters can't eat innings, then the bullpen will be overused, and as a result it too would be ineffective.

#3 is uncertain based on Owens. If Cabrera is the leadoff hitter, he'll get on base a good amount and score a good number of runs, but the rest of the lineup generally will be slow and "Earl Weaver-esque." If they get Willts, Figgins, Kendrick or another quality leadoff hitter in trade, then they are certain (baring injury) to get great leadoff production and the whole lineup will be much more dynamic and versatile.

raven1
01-12-2008, 08:58 AM
Yes, the Sox can win the AL Central. It won't be easy, but it's never easy. They certainly should NOT be the favorites. IMHO their unmet needs (or uncertainties) are as follows, in order of urgency.

1. Getting solid contributions from the 3-4-5 pitchers. If Contreras, Danks and Floyd do it, great. If it comes from someone else (Colon? Livan Hernandez? Broadway?), fine.

2. Getting solid middle relief to bridge the gap from the starters to Linebrink and Jenks. If it's Thornton and MacDougal, great. If it's from players acquired in trade, fine.

3. Getting production from a leadoff hitter. If it's a player from another team, acquired in trade, great. If it comes from Cabrera or Owens, fine.

If all three of these happen, they will 95+ games and almost certainly make the playoffs.

If #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 happen, they will win 90 games and have an outside shot at the playoffs.

If only #1 happens, they will win 85 games.

If #1 does not happen, they will not have a winning season and the other two will not matter.
Good summary - for the most part I agree, but for #3 I would replace production from the leadoff spot (although that would be nice) with RBI production from the middle of the lineup (Thome/Konerko/Dye) having the top 2 players in the lineup get on base & in scoring position would obviously help this, but it was really the slump & injuries from the "big guns" that sunk the offense last year.

As far as the odds of these things happening, I think the previous responses were either too pessimistic or quoting the odds of outstanding seasons, not just solid enough to keep us in contention. My take:

#1 - 50% chance of having starters 3-4-5 come through, but 75% of at least 2 out of 3 working out well enough (which would cost us 5-8 games versus all 3 - the difference between finishing first or just contending).

#2 - 75%+ of this happening - Thornton should be solid, by the end of last year the middle relievers they had were passable. If we don't get to Linebrink/Thornton/Jenks with a lead, it will more likely be the starter's fault.

#3 - 75% of the overall offensive run production returning to at least 2005 levels, but only a 50% of everybody being good enough to put up 2006-type numbers, which is what we will need to win 90+ games unless all of our starters are rock solid.

Overall - 4-1 odds of winning the AL central, but a 50-50 chance of being the race. Given how strong the overall AL is, even Detroit or Cleveland's odds are only slightly better than the Sox - all 3 of these pitfalls could just as easily apply to them, they have only a little more depth. Should be at least an interesting year to watch.

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 09:27 AM
:?:

a 50% chance of one over-the-hill veteran coming off a bad year, a 2nd year player whose 2007 showed plenty of progress but very little in results, and a failed #1 draft pick ALL panning out simultaneously? At BEST they have a 50% chance EACH of being effective in 2008, which means the odds of them ALL having a solid year being about 1/8 AT BEST.

Most likely the odds of each being effective (effective defined by a sub-4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins:

Contreras: 1 in 3

He's listed as 35 years old but who knows how old he truly is. Even so, 35 is quite old for a pitcher who's shown a huge loss of command in the recent years to come back and pitch better than he has in the last year and a half of baseball. A Sub 4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins would require a significant improvement in all areas but wins. The good news is that Contreras has some of the best STUFF in baseball when he's not afraid of his fastball and has shown as recently as a year and a half ago that he's capable of being a frontline ace...at least for 3 months...

Danks: 1 in 2

Danks showed a lot of guts pitching through 2007, and he had a lot of impressive starts. He's got great stuff when his command's on, and he even ended up with a pretty respectable k/bb ratio and an impressive k/9, which is a very good sign. You don't want to put too much stock in his rookie stats beyond his ability to throw strikes and strike people out, since it WAS his rookie season. However, his year end stats were pretty bad in terms of ERA and WHIP...and it's hard to EXPECT a serious improvement from him. We can hope for one with well-founded hopes, and most likely we'll be right...but although he's almost certain to improve, it's a coin flip, imo, whether he'll improve to very solid numbers or to just slightly better numbers

Floyd: 1 in 5

The pros: Gavin Floyd has solid, if not mindblowing stuff. He also had a heartening 2007 in the minors and in a brief stint with the MLB team.

The cons: Prior to September 2007, Floyd had absolutely NO success at the MLB level, despite being given plenty of innings to work his stuff out. Even with a strong September, his #'s in 2007 were pretty abysmal--5.27 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, unimpressive bb/k. His k/9 were all right, but nowhere near Danks's. The knock on Floyd is that he's a weak pitcher when expectations are high. When pitching for teams ina full-time role his #'s have been disastrous, and his only good #'s in his career over any length of time have come when the Sox were well out of contention

Overall, he's not shown any real reason to EXPECT even competency out of him in a season-long starting pitching role. However, he's young, has solid stuff, can strike people out, and is coming off a strong month, so anything is POSSIBLE.

1/3 * 1/2 *1/5 = 1/30

Not saying these numbers are accurate, or are odds I'm giving, or even that I'm a handicapper. Just showing how ridiculous it is to say that there's a 50% chance all three of our question marks in the rotation will be "effective"

voodoochile
01-12-2008, 09:43 AM
:?:

a 50% chance of one over-the-hill veteran coming off a bad year, a 2nd year player whose 2007 showed plenty of progress but very little in results, and a failed #1 draft pick ALL panning out simultaneously? At BEST they have a 50% chance EACH of being effective in 2008, which means the odds of them ALL having a solid year being about 1/8 AT BEST.

Most likely the odds of each being effective (effective defined by a sub-4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins:

Contreras: 1 in 3

He's listed as 35 years old but who knows how old he truly is. Even so, 35 is quite old for a pitcher who's shown a huge loss of command in the recent years to come back and pitch better than he has in the last year and a half of baseball. A Sub 4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins would require a significant improvement in all areas but wins. The good news is that Contreras has some of the best STUFF in baseball when he's not afraid of his fastball and has shown as recently as a year and a half ago that he's capable of being a frontline ace...at least for 3 months...

Danks: 1 in 2

Danks showed a lot of guts pitching through 2007, and he had a lot of impressive starts. He's got great stuff when his command's on, and he even ended up with a pretty respectable k/bb ratio and an impressive k/9, which is a very good sign. You don't want to put too much stock in his rookie stats beyond his ability to throw strikes and strike people out, since it WAS his rookie season. However, his year end stats were pretty bad in terms of ERA and WHIP...and it's hard to EXPECT a serious improvement from him. We can hope for one with well-founded hopes, and most likely we'll be right...but although he's almost certain to improve, it's a coin flip, imo, whether he'll improve to very solid numbers or to just slightly better numbers

Floyd: 1 in 5

The pros: Gavin Floyd has solid, if not mindblowing stuff. He also had a heartening 2007 in the minors and in a brief stint with the MLB team.

The cons: Prior to September 2007, Floyd had absolutely NO success at the MLB level, despite being given plenty of innings to work his stuff out. Even with a strong September, his #'s in 2007 were pretty abysmal--5.27 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, unimpressive bb/k. His k/9 were all right, but nowhere near Danks's. The knock on Floyd is that he's a weak pitcher when expectations are high. When pitching for teams ina full-time role his #'s have been disastrous, and his only good #'s in his career over any length of time have come when the Sox were well out of contention

Overall, he's not shown any real reason to EXPECT even competency out of him in a season-long starting pitching role. However, he's young, has solid stuff, can strike people out, and is coming off a strong month, so anything is POSSIBLE.

1/3 * 1/2 *1/5 = 1/30

Not saying these numbers are accurate, or are odds I'm giving, or even that I'm a handicapper. Just showing how ridiculous it is to say that there's a 50% chance all three of our question marks in the rotation will be "effective"

Well actually, Contreras career stats are dead on for the numbers you suggest and that's after last year's debacle.

Floyd showed such a dramatic improvement from the prior year pitching in Philly that those numbers definitely seem in reach, though I wouldn't be shocked if he missed them by a bit.

Danks is the question mark because last year was his very first MLB action. Did he burn out or did the league catch up to him. Time will tell.

Edit: Oh and from a team success perspective the only stat that will really matter is wins. So if they all go 12-12 but have an ERA around 5 and a WHIP around 1.5 the team will be reasonably happy with the results.

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Well actually, Contreras career stats are dead on for the numbers you suggest and that's after last year's debacle.

Career stats are a little hard to rely upon when a pitcher is a 35-year old (at the youngest) power pitcher who relies on a 94 MPH fastball to be successful and is coming off the worst year in his career where he had difficulty throwing said 94 MPH fastball for strikes


Floyd showed such a dramatic improvement from the prior year pitching in Philly that those numbers definitely seem in reach, though I wouldn't be shocked if he missed them by a bit.2006 Phillies: 54.3 IP, 34 K/32 BB, 14 HR, 7.29 ERA, 1.877 WHIP
2007 White Sox: 70 IP, 49 K/ 19 BB, 17 HR, 5.27 ERA, 1.486 WHIP

Yes, that's a definite improvement, and especially the K/BB improvement and that K/9 improvement are the most heartening, but to say "Floyd showed a dramatic improvement from 2006 to 2007" is a bit misleading, as it leads us to believe that Floyd didn't have a lousy 2007.


Danks is the question mark because last year was his very first MLB action. Did he burn out or did the league catch up to him. Time will tell.Agreed. I am most optimistic about Danks for 2008 though, and I think that I'm justified both statistically and "scouting-wise" for why that would be the case.


Edit: Oh and from a team success perspective the only stat that will really matter is wins. So if they all go 12-12 but have an ERA around 5 and a WHIP around 1.5 the team will be reasonably happy with the results.I mean, yeah, I guess...but it's not like there's a coin flip and however the coin comes up determines whether a pitcher gets a win or loss. Numbers like ERA, WHIP, and K/9 are going to help us measure the pitcher's success. Look at Burly any given year and you can see how a pitcher can pitch well and not get wins.

Does that matter in the long run? No--only wins and losses matter, TECHNICALLY speaking, but we're asking pitchers to go out and pitch well, not worry about whether or not the Sox are playing corpseball, or if our bullpen blows yet another save in the 8th inning....

cards press box
01-12-2008, 10:32 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the stats in Floyd's 2007 season showed improvement as the season progressed. I recall that he pitched his best baseball during the last 4-6 weeks. Perhaps he can continue to improve into 2008.

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 10:34 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the stats in Floyd's 2007 season showed improvement as the season progressed. I recall that he pitched his best baseball during the last 4-6 weeks. Perhaps he can continue to improve into 2008.

He definitely showed improvement as the season progressed, but the sample size is just too small to expect with any degree of certainty that a guy who's been in MLB for 4 years has "suddenly turned it around"

raven1
01-12-2008, 10:46 AM
:?:

a 50% chance of one over-the-hill veteran coming off a bad year, a 2nd year player whose 2007 showed plenty of progress but very little in results, and a failed #1 draft pick ALL panning out simultaneously? At BEST they have a 50% chance EACH of being effective in 2008, which means the odds of them ALL having a solid year being about 1/8 AT BEST.

Most likely the odds of each being effective (effective defined by a sub-4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins:

Contreras: 1 in 3

He's listed as 35 years old but who knows how old he truly is. Even so, 35 is quite old for a pitcher who's shown a huge loss of command in the recent years to come back and pitch better than he has in the last year and a half of baseball. A Sub 4.50 ERA, a WHIP under 1.40, and 10+ wins would require a significant improvement in all areas but wins. The good news is that Contreras has some of the best STUFF in baseball when he's not afraid of his fastball and has shown as recently as a year and a half ago that he's capable of being a frontline ace...at least for 3 months...

Danks: 1 in 2

Danks showed a lot of guts pitching through 2007, and he had a lot of impressive starts. He's got great stuff when his command's on, and he even ended up with a pretty respectable k/bb ratio and an impressive k/9, which is a very good sign. You don't want to put too much stock in his rookie stats beyond his ability to throw strikes and strike people out, since it WAS his rookie season. However, his year end stats were pretty bad in terms of ERA and WHIP...and it's hard to EXPECT a serious improvement from him. We can hope for one with well-founded hopes, and most likely we'll be right...but although he's almost certain to improve, it's a coin flip, imo, whether he'll improve to very solid numbers or to just slightly better numbers

Floyd: 1 in 5

The pros: Gavin Floyd has solid, if not mindblowing stuff. He also had a heartening 2007 in the minors and in a brief stint with the MLB team.

The cons: Prior to September 2007, Floyd had absolutely NO success at the MLB level, despite being given plenty of innings to work his stuff out. Even with a strong September, his #'s in 2007 were pretty abysmal--5.27 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, unimpressive bb/k. His k/9 were all right, but nowhere near Danks's. The knock on Floyd is that he's a weak pitcher when expectations are high. When pitching for teams ina full-time role his #'s have been disastrous, and his only good #'s in his career over any length of time have come when the Sox were well out of contention

Overall, he's not shown any real reason to EXPECT even competency out of him in a season-long starting pitching role. However, he's young, has solid stuff, can strike people out, and is coming off a strong month, so anything is POSSIBLE.

1/3 * 1/2 *1/5 = 1/30

Not saying these numbers are accurate, or are odds I'm giving, or even that I'm a handicapper. Just showing how ridiculous it is to say that there's a 50% chance all three of our question marks in the rotation will be "effective"
I agree with the strengths/weaknesses you list for each of these guys, but I would give each of them about an 80% chance of having at least a decent season. .8*.8*.8 = 51%. By the same logic, the chances are very good that at least 2 out of 3 will be ok. The really long odds a lot of people are quoting are way too pessimistic.

voodoochile
01-12-2008, 10:49 AM
He definitely showed improvement as the season progressed, but the sample size is just too small to expect with any degree of certainty that a guy who's been in MLB for 4 years has "suddenly turned it around"

His first two years were at 21 and 22. He was a September call up in 2004 and pitched so well they put him in the rotation for the next year. He got bombed in his first 4 appearances that year and was sent back down. Then he came back up in September and put up respectable but unspectacular numbers. So, the Phillys once again put him in the rotation and he had a bad 2 month stint before being sent down and basically abandoned before being traded during the off-season to the Sox where he had a solid if unspectacular August and a great September.

It wouldn't be surprising at ALL if he was suddenly becoming a solid pitcher at the age of 24-25. Looks like he was rushed if you ask me. How many pitchers are successful at 21-23 years of age?

And of course now he's got Coop to help him out...:tongue:

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 11:09 AM
His first two years were at 21 and 22. He was a September call up in 2004 and pitched so well they put him in the rotation for the next year. He got bombed in his first 4 appearances that year and was sent back down. Then he came back up in September and put up respectable but unspectacular numbers. So, the Phillys once again put him in the rotation and he had a bad 2 month stint before being sent down and basically abandoned before being traded during the off-season to the Sox where he had a solid if unspectacular August and a great September.

It wouldn't be surprising at ALL if he was suddenly becoming a solid pitcher at the age of 24-25. Looks like he was rushed if you ask me. How many pitchers are successful at 21-23 years of age?

And of course now he's got Coop to help him out...:tongue:

You're right--it wouldn't be surprising. But it wouldn't be surprising if he craps out yet again, especially given his supposedly-weak mental makeup.

Look: A lot of pitchers have followed Floyd's career path and been successful in their, say, fourth year. However, even more pitchers have been brought up far too young, bounced back a little, but never been anythign worth a damn, especially at the MLB level.

Floyd's a talented kid. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have been a first-round pick.

However, though he's talented, he's just as likely, if not much more likely, never to be a great or even good pitcher at the MLB level...and given his past performances, that's seems slightly more likely than for him to be successful IMMEDIATELY (i.e. in 2008)

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 11:11 AM
I agree with the strengths/weaknesses you list for each of these guys, but I would give each of them about an 80% chance of having at least a decent season. .8*.8*.8 = 51%. By the same logic, the chances are very good that at least 2 out of 3 will be ok. The really long odds a lot of people are quoting are way too pessimistic.

Frankly, I think 80% odds are way too steep, especially for Contreras and Floyd.

Our numbers, of course, are meaningless, as well since there's no real statistics behind them, they're just random numbers meant to represent what we sort of feel the odds to be of the back end of our rotation being successful.

Frankly, I would put the odds a lot longer than 50%...and I personally think that a "coin-flip" for competing pitching-wise in 2008 is a bit of a stretch.

We'll see, I guess.

oeo
01-12-2008, 11:35 AM
Frankly, I think 80% odds are way too steep, especially for Contreras and Floyd.

Maybe for Contreras, but not Floyd. Being the #5 starter means that Floyd will not have the same expectations as Contreras, or even Danks. A 5 ERA (which I think Floyd is capable of, probably better) is all we need from our 5th starter. I'm more worried about what our #3 and #4 are going to give us.

So Floyd is about problem #3 in this rotation, with Contreras and Danks as numbers one and two, respectively. I would put only Floyd at an 80% chance of being a solid contributor to the team. It's Contreras and Danks that should be skewing the odds, not Floyd.

fquaye149
01-12-2008, 01:58 PM
Maybe for Contreras, but not Floyd. Being the #5 starter means that Floyd will not have the same expectations as Contreras, or even Danks. A 5 ERA (which I think Floyd is capable of, probably better) is all we need from our 5th starter. I'm more worried about what our #3 and #4 are going to give us.

So Floyd is about problem #3 in this rotation, with Contreras and Danks as numbers one and two, respectively. I would put only Floyd at an 80% chance of being a solid contributor to the team. It's Contreras and Danks that should be skewing the odds, not Floyd.

The problem is that Floyd may or may not be the 5th best pitcher on this team.

Contreras may well post an ERA high above 5.00, and frankly, so might Danks. It's not beyond the realm of possibility...in fact it's rather likely.

That would put Floyd at #3...or he might have a 5.00+ ERA too.

The point is, when we have three huge question marks at starting pitching, we need to examine how likely each one is to post a DECENT season for a back of the rotation starter. Not for a "fifth" starter, because with three question marks any ONE of them could be considered a fifth starter, or, worse, all three might pitch like a fifth starter...

raven1
01-12-2008, 06:48 PM
The problem is that Floyd may or may not be the 5th best pitcher on this team.

Contreras may well post an ERA high above 5.00, and frankly, so might Danks. It's not beyond the realm of possibility...in fact it's rather likely.

That would put Floyd at #3...or he might have a 5.00+ ERA too.

The point is, when we have three huge question marks at starting pitching, we need to examine how likely each one is to post a DECENT season for a back of the rotation starter. Not for a "fifth" starter, because with three question marks any ONE of them could be considered a fifth starter, or, worse, all three might pitch like a fifth starter...
At this point my definition of a "decent starter" is someone who can keep their ERA below 5.00 and throw 6 or 7 innings more than half his starts. All these guys should be capable of that, but like most people I would feel a whole lot better about this team if we got one more solid veteran starter. Given that one of those guys may or may not be available without opening another hole in the lineup (maybe a Crede trade in spring training?), I still think our chances stack up ok against Detroit & Cleveland even with what we currently have.

Rudy Law
01-12-2008, 11:36 PM
I would feel a lot better about their chances if the pitching staff was a little better....

jabrch
01-13-2008, 12:07 AM
I would feel a lot better about their chances if the pitching staff was a little better....

We all would - but at the same time, our staff is still not measurably worse than anyone else in the AL (sans Boston). In particular, we are at least as good as the teams in our division. And as bad as our bullpen was, it looks to be no worse than that of the rest of our division (sans Minnesota).

Really - our offense isn't up to par with either Detroit or Cleveland, but our pitching is.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 10:36 AM
We all would - but at the same time, our staff is still not measurably worse than anyone else in the AL (sans Boston). In particular, we are at least as good as the teams in our division. And as bad as our bullpen was, it looks to be no worse than that of the rest of our division (sans Minnesota).

Really - our offense isn't up to par with either Detroit or Cleveland, but our pitching is.

:?:

I mean, seriously, :?:

Hitmen77
01-13-2008, 01:35 PM
Does anyone have information on the amount of speed on the basepaths Nick Swisher and Carlos Quentin will provide?

I know by looking at their SB numbers that they don't steal very many bases. I understand that part. But, that's not always an indicator of speed. I was wondering how good they are expected to be at being able to go from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home, etc.

I know station to station offense has been a problem with our current batch of slow-footed sluggers. Any thoughts on whether the new guys will improve this problem even if they are not speedsters like Podsednik or Owens?

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Does anyone have information on the amount of speed on the basepaths Nick Swisher and Carlos Quentin will provide?

I know by looking at their SB numbers that they don't steal very many bases. I understand that part. But, that's not always an indicator of speed. I was wondering how good they are expected to be at being able to go from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home, etc.

I know station to station offense has been a problem with our current batch of slow-footed sluggers. Any thoughts on whether the new guys will improve this problem even if they are not speedsters like Podsednik or Owens?

Swisher has good speed. In terms of "station to station" offense, Swisher will have no problem taking extra bases, going first to third, etc. He's not a base stealing threat, as you well know by looking at his numbers, but he's got good speed in the field and on the bases.

Quentin, I'm not sure about.

nccwsfan
01-13-2008, 02:45 PM
Does anyone have information on the amount of speed on the basepaths Nick Swisher and Carlos Quentin will provide?

I know by looking at their SB numbers that they don't steal very many bases. I understand that part. But, that's not always an indicator of speed. I was wondering how good they are expected to be at being able to go from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home, etc.

I know station to station offense has been a problem with our current batch of slow-footed sluggers. Any thoughts on whether the new guys will improve this problem even if they are not speedsters like Podsednik or Owens?

Here are some 2007 Baserunning Statistics (source- 2008 Bill James Handbook)

Nick Swisher
On Base 239 times, scored 26% of the time

Carlos Quentin
On Base 86 times, scored 28% of the time

Orlando Cabrera
On Base 262 times, scored 35% of the time


Running from 1st to 3rd on a single
Swisher- 32 opporunities, successful 15 times
Quentin- 8, 0
Cabrera- 36, 11
Dye- 12, 2
Fields- 15, 3
Konerko- 25, 3
Owens- 8, 5
Pierzynski- 16, 1
Richar- 9, 7
Thome- 18, 3

Scoring from 2nd on a single
Swisher- 17 opportunities, successful 11 times
Quentin- 10, 6
Cabrera- 23, 15
Dye- 19, 9
Fields- 7, 5
Konerko- 19, 9
Owens- 16, 13
Pierzynski- 9, 5
Richar- 8, 5
Thome- 15, 7

Running from 1st to Home on a double
Swisher- 4 opportunities, successful 3 times
Quentin- 2, 2
Cabrera- 13, 9
Dye- 5, 2
Fields- 3, 0
Konerko- 3, 0
Owens- 4, 1
Pierzynski- 8, 2
Richar- 2, 1
Thome- 4, 0

Baserunning Outs (# of times he ran himself into an out)
Swisher- 3
Quentin- 2
Cabrera- 0
Dye- 2
Fields- 1
Konerko- 0
Owens- 1
Pierzynski- 1
Richar- 1
Thome- 2

Two other figures of note, having to do with managerial style:

Runners Moving with the Pitch
Guillen- 92
Mike Scioscia (Cabrera)- 166 (led AL for 4th straight season)
Bob Geren (Swisher)- 91
Bob Melvin (Quentin)- 70

Stolen Base Attempts
Guillen- 123
Scioscia (Cabrera)- 194 (led AL for 5th straight season)
Geren (Swisher)- 72 (lowest in majors)
Melvin (Quentin)- 133

MrRoboto83
01-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Getting Jeff Leifer back seals the deal to a Central Division title.:bandance:

jabrch
01-13-2008, 08:33 PM
Here are some 2007 Baserunning Statistics

How much does any of that tell us?

SBSoxFan
01-14-2008, 07:22 AM
How much does any of that tell us?

I was wondering the same thing, especially since the first group doesn't have anything to do with base running ability.

Looking at the rest of those numbers, it pretty much looks like Owen's is the only guy who should be allowed to take an extra base. :dunno:

Corlose 15
01-14-2008, 08:16 AM
I was wondering the same thing, especially since the first group doesn't have anything to do with base running ability.

Looking at the rest of those numbers, it pretty much looks like Owen's is the only guy who should be allowed to take an extra base. :dunno:

The question is what determines an opportunity to take an extra base on a single or a double. For instance, does it take into account how hard a ball is hit or just measure every time somebody gets a single or double with a runner on base and how far that runner moved up?

It seems like you'd have to take into account if the ball was hit to right field, left field, center, gap, and how hard etc. before you could effectively judge whether or not the runner should have taken an extra base. Those numbers don't tell us anything about that.

voodoochile
01-14-2008, 08:57 AM
The question is what determines an opportunity to take an extra base on a single or a double. For instance, does it take into account how hard a ball is hit or just measure every time somebody gets a single or double with a runner on base and how far that runner moved up?

It seems like you'd have to take into account if the ball was hit to right field, left field, center, gap, and how hard etc. before you could effectively judge whether or not the runner should have taken an extra base. Those numbers don't tell us anything about that.

Pretty much and I doubt it takes in to account where the ball is hit. So balls hit to LF count just as much as balls hit to RF apparently. NO accounting for outs and no accounting for how aggressive the 3B coach is.

What this proves is that Owens is really really fast and nothing more.

What I did find interesting is how it shows how damned difficult it is to score in this game. I mean Swisher reached base 239 times last year and only had 32 times where he was on first and someone singled behind him.

nccwsfan
01-14-2008, 09:22 AM
How much does any of that tell us?


Originally Posted by Hitmen77 http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1769927#post1769927)
Does anyone have information on the amount of speed on the basepaths Nick Swisher and Carlos Quentin will provide?

I know by looking at their SB numbers that they don't steal very many bases. I understand that part. But, that's not always an indicator of speed. I was wondering how good they are expected to be at being able to go from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home, etc.


I put it out there for others to make their own judgement- truthfully there isn't a lot of information that can help answer Hitmen' question, so this was all I could find.

From my perspective Cabrera could either be a very smart baserunner or a product of the Angels aggressive philosophy. Swisher appears to be a better than average baserunner, and the jury is out on Quentin. To add to SBSox's post Owens, Cabrera, Swisher, and Richar make the 2008 White Sox a better lineup in terms of baserunning. It will ultimately depend on a) their OBP, and b) how aggressive Guillen wants to be.

Jurr
01-14-2008, 11:19 AM
Love the entusiasm.

This team has enough talent to win the division. It all depends on how much the coaching staff can get out of them. This game is very mental, and if the collective mindset and confidence of this staff can be maximized, there's a chance.

Rounding_Third
01-14-2008, 01:54 PM
There isn't a glove in the world that can make up 150 OPS points, period. Never has been, never will be.

Have you actually seen Swisher play CF or are you just speculating? He played there ~60 games and 200+ AB for the A's last year in a much bigger park. Owens may or may not develop into a definite leadoff hitter. I would love to see it and if he can get his OBP to .350+ he'd be fine, but that's a big leap for a guy who hasn't seen much time in the majors and speed isn't the only thing that matters. Swisher and Cabrera will be fine in the 1-2 holes and even Danny Richar might develop into a leadoff hitter down the road. Owens likely starts the year in LF while Quentin is finishing his rehab. That will give Swisher time to get comfortable and if he honestly cannot handle the position (he's better than Mackowiak defensively and his bat is better than Rowand by a long shot, IMO).

I'd prefer to see proven bats at the top of the order to start the season and if/when Owens proves he can get on base enough to lead off, they Sox can make a change. I'd love to see it, but don't want to count on it.

I've only seen Swisher play center on highlight film and am also going by what the Oakland fans have said unanimously. They say he is no CF'er by any stretch even though they loved his hustle. And even on his highlight catches, I could see how slow (average speed) he was compared to Owens. Just because he had 60 games there doesn't make him a great CF'er. I agree that Cabrera and Swisher "will be fine" leading off but NOT Swisher and Cabrera 1 & 2 (if you truly meant in that order). Swisher puts no pressure whatsoever on the pitcher while he's on base. He would be a terrible leadoff hitter despite his 100 W's. Don't forget he had 131 K's, as well. How many do you think he'll have facing a steady diet of Central division pitching? 150? 175? That is way too many for leadoff hitter and also for a #2 hitter for that matter. And "will be fine" will not be good enough to overtake both Detroit and Cleveland. If we were in the NL Central then sure. We'll need to be outstanding at the top of the order; not just very good. And a successful leadoff in Owens is a double positive in that it makes the whole lineup very tough, particularly having Swisher protecting Dye. Much like in hockey, when you begin pushing one man at a time down in the order, its like you're improving several positions at once.

I agree it's a bit of reach to think Owens can be that good to get to some of those lofty numbers. But I think its our only hope of having a 95+ win season. His Sept. #'s gives me that hope that he can and its not such a big leap from there if he can prove it more consistently. And I reiterate the extra bases he'll take away wiil far exceed what Swisher will be able to get, especially when his (Swisher) dives are unsuccessful. And no matter where Owens' bats in the lineup, if he's playing, he has to be in CF. And just in case you are, please don't judge Owens' glove based on Pods playing LF. He is a terrible OF'er. Owens is very solid despite the weak arm. The man can fly out there..and finish. He also has a sharp mind, very baseball savvy, and a "polish" to him.

If Floyd and Danks come through and have big seasons and the bullpen consistently backs up all the starters then Owens doesn't need to be a factor. But when I look at the posibillity of our pitching being stellar versus Owens coming through, I think our chances favor Owens. Relying on 4 or 5 (or more) guys "up"-ing their game at once is less likely than just 1. We'll need runs this year and lots of them. Swisher leading off and playing CF will be 2 huge mistakes if Owens has a big ST. If he doesn't then we're stuck with Swisher in CF but then Cabrera should lead off; not Swisher, even though Cabrera has never been a leadoff man before (correct me if I'm wrong). It will be an adjustment for him and probably cost him a little production as most adjustments do.

balke
01-14-2008, 02:41 PM
Yeah, the Swisher in CF thing is starting to look a lot like Carl Everett in CF for the Sox, when Willie Harris is the next best thing.

Willie was the better leadoff guy, and had an insane amount of range in the field, but Carl was the guy with the bat and arm.

I think the Sox went with Carl as much as they could then, and I think they'll go with Swisher as much as they can now.

PalehosePlanet
01-14-2008, 02:42 PM
If Floyd and Danks come through and have big seasons and the bullpen consistently backs up all the starters then Owens doesn't need to be a factor. But when I look at the posibillity of our pitching being stellar versus Owens coming through, I think our chances favor Owens. Relying on 4 or 5 (or more) guys "up"-ing their game at once is less likely than just 1. We'll need runs this year and lots of them. Swisher leading off and playing CF will be 2 huge mistakes if Owens has a big ST. If he doesn't then we're stuck with Swisher in CF but then Cabrera should lead off; not Swisher, even though Cabrera has never been a leadoff man before (correct me if I'm wrong). It will be an adjustment for him and probably cost him a little production as most adjustments do.

You're missing one big X factor in all of the outfield scenarios and that is Carlos Quentin. Quentin is a much better outfielder than both Swisher and Owens. He gets better reads, better jumps and has has a MUCH better arm. In fact his arm is much closer to cannon than average. I'd love to see him get a shot in CF despite it not being his natural postion.

FWIW, he's a much better corner OF than Rowand ever was and we gave him a shot. Why not Carlos?

jabrch
01-14-2008, 03:11 PM
Swisher puts no pressure whatsoever on the pitcher while he's on base.

Why's that exactly?

A) Because he is very slow

B) Because his team's strategy is one that discourages putting any pressure whatsoever on the pitcher while he's on base.

I'll give you a hint. It's not A.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 04:07 PM
Why's that exactly?

A) Because he is very slow

B) Because his team's strategy is one that discourages putting any pressure whatsoever on the pitcher while he's on base.

I'll give you a hint. It's not A.

you're right...but it's going to be hard to take a guy with above-average speed who hasn't had a lot of experience stealing bases at the MLB level and turn him into a SB threat immediately

That said, I'd rather have Swisher leading off than Cabrera, because 20-30 steals a year aside, I'd rather have my leadoff hitter get on base 40% of the time than 35%

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 04:08 PM
You're missing one big X factor in all of the outfield scenarios and that is Carlos Quentin. Quentin is a much better outfielder than both Swisher and Owens. He gets better reads, better jumps and has has a MUCH better arm. In fact his arm is much closer to cannon than average. I'd love to see him get a shot in CF despite it not being his natural postion.

FWIW, he's a much better corner OF than Rowand ever was and we gave him a shot. Why not Carlos?

I'm pretty sure THE Carlos Quentin will get a shot once healthy

jabrch
01-14-2008, 04:26 PM
I'd rather have my leadoff hitter get on base 40% of the time than 35%

I'd rather have the guy who has a SLG% possibly around .500 hitting with runners on base. The difference between your .350 obp and .400 obp is 30 bases all season. Let's say he scores 30% of the time - that's 10 runs over the course of the season - bfd. Put him hitting between PK and Dye and you suddenly have a run producer in the middle of the lineup.

jabrch
01-14-2008, 04:27 PM
You're missing one big X factor in all of the outfield scenarios and that is Carlos Quentin. Quentin is a much better outfielder than both Swisher and Owens. He gets better reads, better jumps and has has a MUCH better arm. In fact his arm is much closer to cannon than average. I'd love to see him get a shot in CF despite it not being his natural postion.

FWIW, he's a much better corner OF than Rowand ever was and we gave him a shot. Why not Carlos?

Mrs. Quintin, please tell Carlos we all say hello.

Rounding_Third
01-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Why's that exactly?

A) Because he is very slow

B) Because his team's strategy is one that discourages putting any pressure whatsoever on the pitcher while he's on base.

I'll give you a hint. It's not A.

It doesn't matter why. The fact is he's never done it and he strikes out too much. And both he and Cabrera will probably see a fairly significant lowering of their OBP by coming into the Central. If Swisher leads off and plays CF, we're going nowhere and a waste of his talents. By batting behind Dye he can be much more productive and maybe even hammer out 35-40 HR's. KW wants him in CF for one reason; to sell tickets as the next coming of Rowand which he isn't defensively. Just because he's a grinder doesn't make him Rowand.

Save McCuddy's
01-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Pretty much and I doubt it takes in to account where the ball is hit. So balls hit to LF count just as much as balls hit to RF apparently. NO accounting for outs and no accounting for how aggressive the 3B coach is.

What this proves is that Owens is really really fast and nothing more.

What I did find interesting is how it shows how damned difficult it is to score in this game. I mean Swisher reached base 239 times last year and only had 32 times where he was on first and someone singled behind him.

That data also fails to indicate the number of outs when the runner got to first base. The probability of scoring from first with no outs is close to 3 times greater than with one out.

jabrch
01-14-2008, 04:57 PM
It doesn't matter why. The fact is he's never done it

Having only seen him on video, I'm not sure how you can conclude that.


And both he and Cabrera will probably see a fairly significant lowering of their OBP by coming into the Central.

I call bull**** here. Leaving the biggest pitchers park in the AL (or at least one of the biggest) to come to (one of) the best hitters parks in the AL should not result in Swisher's OBP going down. That's absolutely ridiculous to say as a statement of fact.

If Swisher leads off and plays CF, we're going nowhere and a waste of his talents.

Where he hits in the lineup really doesn't matter at the end of the day. +/- a few runs over the couorse of the year between hitting #1 of #5.

KW wants him in CF for one reason; to sell tickets as the next coming of Rowand which he isn't defensively.

That's just ridiculous on so many levels. KW isn't talking abouot him as "the next coming of Rowand" and nobody is buying tickets to see Nick Swisher at this point. KW wanted him because he is signed for 5 years to an inexpensive contract, can play CF in this park, and will be a good hitter in this park. Not because of any resemblence (real or not) to Aaron Rowand


Just because he's a grinder doesn't make him Rowand.

I'm not sure what that means. Why is he a grinder? Who said he is Rowand? And who really cares anyhow? Rowand is not here. What's your Rowand-Crush all about?

santo=dorf
01-14-2008, 05:25 PM
I'd rather have the guy who has a SLG% possibly around .500 hitting with runners on base. The difference between your .350 obp and .400 obp is 30 bases all season. Let's say he scores 30% of the time - that's 10 runs over the course of the season - bfd. Put him hitting between PK and Dye and you suddenly have a run producer in the middle of the lineup.
...and you conveniently ignore that .350 guy makes 10 full games of outs more than the .400 guy. Another thing, Cabrera is not a .350 OBP guy at all.

Rounding_Third
01-14-2008, 06:24 PM
Having only seen him on video, I'm not sure how you can conclude that.




I call bull**** here. Leaving the biggest pitchers park in the AL (or at least one of the biggest) to come to (one of) the best hitters parks in the AL should not result in Swisher's OBP going down. That's absolutely ridiculous to say as a statement of fact.



Where he hits in the lineup really doesn't matter at the end of the day. +/- a few runs over the couorse of the year between hitting #1 of #5.



That's just ridiculous on so many levels. KW isn't talking abouot him as "the next coming of Rowand" and nobody is buying tickets to see Nick Swisher at this point. KW wanted him because he is signed for 5 years to an inexpensive contract, can play CF in this park, and will be a good hitter in this park. Not because of any resemblence (real or not) to Aaron Rowand




I'm not sure what that means. Why is he a grinder? Who said he is Rowand? And who really cares anyhow? Rowand is not here. What's your Rowand-Crush all about?

I randomly selected about 25 games from last year and found that he did not lead off in any of them. Nor have I ever heard of him refered to as a leadoff hitter until now. Please give examples/stats of him leading off.

I had calculated Swisher's OBP against our opponents in the Central at .348 or 33 pts lower than his full season stat. We're talking 57 games against 3 divisional opponents with outstanding pitching this year.

It matters tremendously where a player bats in the order especially the difference between leadoff and in the heart. His approach is completely different. And hey, lets bat Cabrera as cleanup with your philosophy, it shouldn't matter. Please don't tell me you don't understand this.

KW is trying to save face with his CF blunders this year. But going so far as to put a strong corner OF into CF just compounds the problem. I don't have a Rowand crush, I'm hoping Owens will shine. If you had read my posts that triggered this discussion you would have been smarter.

Do your homework before you spout off!

I like Swisher but leading him off is not our best option with him. He can be a great slugger in our park but those talents will be diminished leading off.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 06:31 PM
I'd rather have the guy who has a SLG% possibly around .500 hitting with runners on base. The difference between your .350 obp and .400 obp is 30 bases all season. Let's say he scores 30% of the time - that's 10 runs over the course of the season - bfd. Put him hitting between PK and Dye and you suddenly have a run producer in the middle of the lineup.

If we had a lineup that had trouble driving in runs, I'd agree.

However, the way it stands, Swisher is the only player who has a combination of

a.) getting on base at an acceptable rate
b) having adequate speed to hit leadoff

All our other players are either OBP machines who can't run the bases or speedy-ish guys who can't get on base.

I'm not too worried about the middle of our order, so I'm more apt to hit a guy with solid power in the leadoff spot than sacrifice OB at the leadoff position out of fear of the leadoff home run

soxinem1
01-14-2008, 09:02 PM
If we had a lineup that had trouble driving in runs, I'd agree.

However, the way it stands, Swisher is the only player who has a combination of

a.) getting on base at an acceptable rate
b) having adequate speed to hit leadoff

All our other players are either OBP machines who can't run the bases or speedy-ish guys who can't get on base.

I'm not too worried about the middle of our order, so I'm more apt to hit a guy with solid power in the leadoff spot than sacrifice OB at the leadoff position out of fear of the leadoff home run

What has he done to demonstrate any type of speed? Because he played some CF? Big deal, Gorman Thomas played CF for MIL, and he was a power-hitting whiff machine who drew a lot of walks.

Plus, he K'd over 280 times the last two years combined. That's not going to help make it better.

If anything, he's Jim Thome Light.

Why not just give Owens a chance to lead-off instead of grasping for straws and trying to make players something they are not?

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 09:10 PM
What has he done to demonstrate any type of speed? Because he played some CF? Big deal, Gorman Thomas played CF for MIL, and he was a power-hitting whiff machine who drew a lot of walks.

He just has above average speed. That's all there is to it. Your example of Gorman Thomas is irrelevant.

Swisher's not a speedster, and he likely won't swipe many bases, but he'll get on and advance more than the middle of the lineup guys we have now. That + an extra 60-70 points of OBP makes him a better bet than the light hitting Cabrera who might swipe 30 bases in a good season


Plus, he K'd over 280 times the last two years combined. That's not going to help make it better.

Yes, he K'ed a lot last year and still got on base much much much more often than Cabrera did in an aberration of a career year. K's are worse than a hit or a walk, but they're not much worse than a groundout. And K's are something that's likely to go down for Swisher as he progresses.

For the leadoff hitter, the bottom line is getting on base and moving around on base. Swisher gets on base nearly 40% of the time. Cabrera will be lucky to get on base 33% of the time. K's are nearly irrelevant to the discussion.


If anything, he's Jim Thome Light.

Except he's not slow as concrete

Why not just give Owens a chance to lead-off instead of grasping for straws and trying to make players something they are not?

Because playing Owens WOULD be grasping at straws. Swisher's not the IDEAL leadoff hitter, but he's a much better option with a .380 OBP and 5 SB than Jerry Owens with a .320 OPB and 40 steals.

Most likely though, Owens will get the start at leadoff, so we'll see how that works out

jabrch
01-14-2008, 09:11 PM
fear of the leadoff home run

It has nothing to do with fear of anything. It is about leveraging a LH run producer in the middle of the order.

champagne030
01-14-2008, 09:24 PM
He just has above average speed.

I'm not getting into the Owens vs. Swisher debate, but Swisher does not have above average speed. He hustles, much like Rowand, but Rowand isn't a great CF and he looks like Mays compared to Swisher. Swisher will be significantly below average on defense in CF. Owens is too, but that's one of my issues coming into this season. We're still weak in the rotation and do not have a legit CF or leadoff hitter........

balke
01-14-2008, 11:13 PM
I'm not getting into the Owens vs. Swisher debate, but Swisher does not have above average speed. He hustles, much like Rowand, but Rowand isn't a great CF and he looks like Mays compared to Swisher. Swisher will be significantly below average on defense in CF. Owens is too, but that's one of my issues coming into this season. We're still weak in the rotation and do not have a legit CF or leadoff hitter........

Prototypical leadoff hitter, no. Leadoff hitter? Yes.

I'm all about having a .400 OBP guy in the 1 or 2 spot in front of 3 other guys who can hit 40 hr's.

If Cabrera is leadoff, cool he's on base about the same as Pods. Will he steal a ton of bases? no. Will he score a ton of runs? Most likely.

Swisher-Thome-Konerko-Dye

That's going to be a great run producing lineup. If the Sox get lucky and can push Owens into the lineup at leadoff and great results, so be it. I still think regardless leadoff isn't really a "problem". Its not the prototype of what you want, but its a lot better than it was going into last season with Pods-Erstad IMO.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 11:41 PM
I'm not getting into the Owens vs. Swisher debate, but Swisher does not have above average speed. He hustles, much like Rowand, but Rowand isn't a great CF and he looks like Mays compared to Swisher. Swisher will be significantly below average on defense in CF. Owens is too, but that's one of my issues coming into this season. We're still weak in the rotation and do not have a legit CF or leadoff hitter........

I don't want Swisher in CF. I loathe the thought of Swisher in CF.

And I think Rowand's a fair comparison to Swisher in terms of speed. If Rowand had any PRAYER of OBPing .400 AND if Rowand were on this team, I would suggest him for the leadoff role.

It's not about whether Swisher can steal bases. It's whether Swisher's fast enough to be advanced, can stretch extra bases, and can score from second, all while getting on-base at a .400 clip.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 11:42 PM
Prototypical leadoff hitter, no. Leadoff hitter? Yes.

I'm all about having a .400 OBP guy in the 1 or 2 spot in front of 3 other guys who can hit 40 hr's.

If Cabrera is leadoff, cool he's on base about the same as Pods. Will he steal a ton of bases? no. Will he score a ton of runs? Most likely.

Swisher-Thome-Konerko-Dye

That's going to be a great run producing lineup. If the Sox get lucky and can push Owens into the lineup at leadoff and great results, so be it. I still think regardless leadoff isn't really a "problem". Its not the prototype of what you want, but its a lot better than it was going into last season with Pods-Erstad IMO.

Quoted for truth. Even if the Sox do what is imo the worst of all possible options and go with Owens/Cabrera as the 1/2, it still beats what we had last year in those spots.

ode to veeck
01-15-2008, 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarWestChicago http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1768163#post1768163)
100:1 odds? And you wouldn't bet a dollar?

You either need to toughen up or get a better job. :D:

Heck, give me 100:1 odds, I'll lay down at least a ten-spot...Heck, give me 100:1 odds, I'll lay down at least a ten-spot...

Actually, you should take 100:1 if you can get it http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/ as we opened at 28:1 and are at 30:1.

fquaye149
01-15-2008, 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarWestChicago http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1768163#post1768163)
100:1 odds? And you wouldn't bet a dollar?

You either need to toughen up or get a better job. :D:

Heck, give me 100:1 odds, I'll lay down at least a ten-spot...

Actually, you should take 100:1 if you can get it http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/ as we opened at 28:1 and are at 30:1.

Wouldn't lay money on that either.

Anyway, Vegas odds should be taken with a pinch of salt since they merely reflect betting action. Odds are raised or lowered in order to make certain teams look more attractive so as to lay off bets, not because of what a team's actual chances are of winning.

ode to veeck
01-15-2008, 09:03 AM
Well, I disagree. I feel that the Sox will be fine with Cabrera or Swisher leading off and don't much care for Owens' arm in CF. Owens and Quentin can duke it out for the LF job with Owens probably starting the year there because Quentin won't be ready.

It will be nice to have a little more capable depth in the OF

ode to veeck
01-15-2008, 09:13 AM
Getting Jeff Leifer back seals the deal to a Central Division title.:bandance:

LOL, fond memories of his bench stick at times

SoxKramer
01-19-2008, 02:07 AM
Are the Sox really going to sign this guy? Not sure if its the best sign or just a Kenny sign.

Lillian
01-19-2008, 05:56 AM
Returning to the discussion regarding Center Field. IŽd like to hear more about the merits, or problems with switching around the currently projected outfielders. If the Sox are going to go with an outfield of Quentin, Swisher, and Dye, I think that it makes no sense to put Quentin in Left. He is arguably the best outfielder of the three. Why not put him in right, and Dye in Left? Dye seems to be slowing down, and Quentin is probably already a better right fielder than Dye. Better yet, if Swisher is such a question mark in Center, why not give Quentin a try there, and move Swisher to Left?
Some have suggested this move in previous posts, but the subject quickly got changed. Please discuss this further.

On a related topic, I still think that the Sox need to give Owens a chance in Center, unless there is a trade for a better lead off hitter. And if he does play center, that means that Swisher moves to Left, and Quentin is not in the starting lineup.

Whether Owens succeeds in Center, or not, either way, this team seems to need to make a trade. If Owens doesnŽt succeed, we need a lead off hitter, and a better centerfielder. If he does succeed, we have log jam in the outfield with 4 guys who should all be playing. Swisher, Dye, Owens and Quentin all need to be in this lineup. I still say the Sox trade Crede, or Konerko for other parts, perhaps including a lead off hitter. If Konerko is traded, Swisher returns to 1st Base. If Crede is traded, then that opens the spot for Fields, but still doesnŽt solve the outfield problem. But that is a whole other topic, about which many of us have had our say. The issue here is what to do about the outfield, if the roster remains the same.

Frater Perdurabo
01-19-2008, 06:47 AM
Returning to the discussion regarding Center Field. IŽd like to hear more about the merits, or problems with switching around the currently projected outfielders. If the Sox are going to go with an outfield of Quentin, Swisher, and Dye, I think that it makes no sense to put Quentin in Left. He is arguably the best outfielder of the three. Why not put him in right, and Dye in Left? Dye seems to be slowing down, and Quentin is probably already a better right fielder than Dye. Better yet, if Swisher is such a question mark in Center, why not give Quentin a try there, and move Swisher to Left?
Some have suggested this move in previous posts, but the subject quickly got changed. Please discuss this further.

On a related topic, I still think that the Sox need to give Owens a chance in Center, unless there is a trade for a better lead off hitter. And if he does play center, that means that Swisher moves to Left, and Quentin is not in the starting lineup.

Whether Owens succeeds in Center, or not, either way, this team seems to need to make a trade. If Owens doesnŽt succeed, we need a lead off hitter, and a better centerfielder. If he does succeed, we have log jam in the outfield with 4 guys who should all be playing. Swisher, Dye, Owens and Quentin all need to be in this lineup. I still say the Sox trade Crede, or Konerko for other parts, perhaps including a lead off hitter. If Konerko is traded, Swisher returns to 1st Base. If Crede is traded, then that opens the spot for Fields, but still doesnŽt solve the outfield problem. But that is a whole other topic, about which many of us have had our say. The issue here is what to do about the outfield, if the roster remains the same.

I find myself agreeing with you a lot. :smile:

I'm not sure about Owens, but here's what I would do with Quentin and Dye. But given the current roster situation, I'd put Quentin in RF full-time and move Dye to LF. Crede should be the starting 3B but likely will need frequent days off. Also, since Fields absolutely clobbered LHP last year, and since Thome isn't that good against LHP, I'd have Fields DH against LHP. Also, Dye might benefit from a day off each week given his tendency to get nagging, minor injuries (like Thome). Consequently, although he's not the starter at any position, Fields would get nearly 500 plate appearances playing 3B twice weekly, DH-ing twice weekly, and playing LF once weekly.

Lillian
01-20-2008, 02:20 AM
"Fields would get nearly 500 plate appearances playing 3B twice weekly, DH-ing twice weekly, and playing RF once weekly."

I agree with the proposed use of Fields, and have been advocating that here for a while now, as you know. IŽm sure that you meant to say that he could spell Dye in LF, not RF. Makes sense to me.

Frater Perdurabo
01-20-2008, 06:39 AM
IŽm sure that you meant to say that he could spell Dye in LF, not RF. Makes sense to me.

Yes, that's what I meant! :redface:

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 09:22 AM
Returning to the discussion regarding Center Field. IŽd like to hear more about the merits, or problems with switching around the currently projected outfielders. If the Sox are going to go with an outfield of Quentin, Swisher, and Dye, I think that it makes no sense to put Quentin in Left. He is arguably the best outfielder of the three. Why not put him in right, and Dye in Left? Dye seems to be slowing down, and Quentin is probably already a better right fielder than Dye. Better yet, if Swisher is such a question mark in Center, why not give Quentin a try there, and move Swisher to Left?
Some have suggested this move in previous posts, but the subject quickly got changed. Please discuss this further.

I mean...this isn't a BAD idea...but at the same time, there's no indication that (aside from having a cannon) Quentin would be a good fit in CF. iirc, he hasn't played there yet in the MLB and he's not a natural CF...so that doesn't really fix the problem, just shuffle it around...


On a related topic, I still think that the Sox need to give Owens a chance in Center, unless there is a trade for a better lead off hitter. And if he does play center, that means that Swisher moves to Left, and Quentin is not in the starting lineup.

Owens is probably our best option in CF now defensively...although he's not a natural CF, at least he doesn't take bad first steps and has make-up speed. However, playing him in CF forces one of our two talented young OF's to the bench. I'm still in favor of that, because I'd rather have good defense and mediocre hitting than mediocre defense and good hitting in a position as important as CF, but this is why I think it's important to move Konerko (especially now that Crede's likely to be on the roster as playing the most capable defensive CF is currently blocking either Quentin or Swisher.


Whether Owens succeeds in Center, or not, either way, this team seems to need to make a trade. If Owens doesnŽt succeed, we need a lead off hitter, and a better centerfielder. If he does succeed, we have log jam in the outfield with 4 guys who should all be playing. Swisher, Dye, Owens and Quentin all need to be in this lineup. I still say the Sox trade Crede, or Konerko for other parts, perhaps including a lead off hitter. If Konerko is traded, Swisher returns to 1st Base. If Crede is traded, then that opens the spot for Fields, but still doesnŽt solve the outfield problem. But that is a whole other topic, about which many of us have had our say. The issue here is what to do about the outfield, if the roster remains the same.

Agree 100%. We NEED a trade right now. I hope we finally move Konerko so Swisher can play 1B, Quentin can play LF and Owens (or...Anderson? hope hope hope) can play CF. But moving Fields, Owens, or Dye would help allay this logjam

balke
01-20-2008, 10:49 AM
Agree 100%. We NEED a trade right now. I hope we finally move Konerko so Swisher can play 1B, Quentin can play LF and Owens (or...Anderson? hope hope hope) can play CF. But moving Fields, Owens, or Dye would help allay this logjam


There is no logjam. Konerko won't be traded. There is depth in the outfield, and infield. I kinda like it better this way going into a 162 game season, rather than counting on the starters to play every single day. There's gotta be a backup plan for injury or personal time or whatever. Plus, Ozzie uses guys so much, you have to make sure the guys on the bench are starter quality.

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 11:02 AM
There is no logjam. Konerko won't be traded. There is depth in the outfield, and infield. I kinda like it better this way going into a 162 game season, rather than counting on the starters to play every single day. There's gotta be a backup plan for injury or personal time or whatever. Plus, Ozzie uses guys so much, you have to make sure the guys on the bench are starter quality.

Depth is something you want when you don't have young players like Quentin, Owens, Fields and Swisher who NEED TO PLAY TO DEVELOP.

Kenny has cleared veterans off the bench, so this is something that needs to happen. Players like Quentin and Fields especially will not get better by sitting. They need regular and guaranteed playing time.

You can say Konerko won't be traded till your face turns blue, and maybe he won't. But you saying it won't be the reason why. In addition to the fact that we still have significant holes to fill on this team (Starting Pitching, Middle Relief, CF/2B/leadoff hitter), someone on this team at one of the corner positions needs to be traded simply because we simply have too many players there who need regular playing time. Since Crede can't be traded till June, Thome is nearly unmovable, Dye isn't at a particularly high trade value, and Swisher and Quentin's recent acquisitions make them unlikely trade candidates, the most likely candidates to be shipped are Fields, Konerko and Owens.

Owens's trade value isn't high, so that makes Fields and Konerko the most likely candidates for trade. Of the two, Konerko is most likely to be traded since Fields's cost is so low compared to what we stand to get from him production-wise...

So like I said, you can say "Konerko won't be traded" until you're blue in the face, but if Konerko isn't traded it will be for one of three reasons

1.) Kenny made a mistake and didn't make a trade at all

2.) Someone offers us a deal for Fields too good to pass up

3.) Nobody wants Konerko.

It won't be because Balke likes Konerko and doesn't want him to be traded and therefore is deluding himself that Konerko isn't the trade piece whose shipping would be most beneficial to the White Sox in the deal they NEED to make if they want to be competitive this year

Rounding_Third
01-20-2008, 11:11 AM
My intent on initiating this CF/OF discussion was to make the point that if we truly intend to compete with Detroit and Cleveland, we'll probably need to outscore our opponents due to our questionable pitching staff in the back of the rotation and in middle relief. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. If the pitching surprises us then fantastic! We'll be that much more dangerous.

I believe that a productive Owens at the top of the lineup is our best change of scoring a lot of runs. My disappointment is that management's plans seem to write him off to an extent. He's rarely spoken of in the same light as Swisher or Quentin. Owens was called upon under very difficult circumstances for him and, for the most part. he came through. His 2nd callup produced very solid numbers and his Sept. was simply outstanding.

So why isn't CF his job to lose going into ST? That's what I don't get. If he fails then we have strong alternative plans. He seems to be getting shoved aside for the "Great" Carlos Quentin, who has proven nothing yet. At least Owens HAS proven himself under pressure. Owens and Cabrera batting 1-2 gives us so much speed at the top of the order, its scary. The two could possibly steal over 100 bases between them and, oh, bring back that beloved double steal. The pressure on opposing pitchers and defenses would be unmatched in all of MLB. And batting Swisher behind Dye does 3 things; 1) protects JD; 2) allows Swisher to have more freedom to possibly crack 30 or even 40 HR's, drive in 100 RBIs, and still keep his BOP eye; and 3) transition to the back end of the lineup by being on base for Crede/Fields and A.J. when he's not belting HR's.

Defensively, I won't repeat myself other than Owens blows the doors off Swisher in CF; according to Oakland fans' accounts of Swisher's CF play; including many of his most loyal fans. Okay, Owens has no arm but the rest of his game far exceeds that one flaw; IE Rudy Law.

For me, that's our strongest lineup. It could be a great one and one that can match and even surpass Detroit's and Cleveland's. Otherwise our lineup is "just" very good but not quite good enough. Sure, we could win 90 games with a very good one but we'll need to win more than that, I suspect. I just can't understand why Owens leading off and playing CF isn't our #1 plan and all other scenarios are backups given what he did in basically his rookie 1/2 year. I totally agree that he needs to continue to improve (at least not go backwards) and I believe he has it in him if given the chance and backing of his organization.

And, apparently, we can forget about Fields playing any OF, at all. According to the lastest article, "That experiment is over". He'll play 3B exclusively whether it's with the Sox or the Knights.

balke
01-20-2008, 04:12 PM
It won't be because Balke likes Konerko and doesn't want him to be traded and therefore is deluding himself that Konerko isn't the trade piece whose shipping would be most beneficial to the White Sox in the deal they NEED to make if they want to be competitive this year


No he'll be traded because Fquaye said so. The oh so great message board GM who knows exactly what the brass is thinking.

And nobody said I don't want him traded. He won't be traded though. Not before the season starts at the very least.

And FWIW this "he needs to play to develop" crap is the same crap we heard all last season about all of the young guys. They'll play, even if they are coming off the bench they'll play a ton with Ozzie as manager. if they don't have room for Fields (which they will because they'll most likely trade Crede) they'll send him to AAA. Owens is staying up regardless, and Swisher will be playing a lot more OF than 1B.

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 05:43 PM
No he'll be traded because Fquaye said so. The oh so great message board GM who knows exactly what the brass is thinking.

And nobody said I don't want him traded. He won't be traded though. Not before the season starts at the very least.

And FWIW this "he needs to play to develop" crap is the same crap we heard all last season about all of the young guys. They'll play, even if they are coming off the bench they'll play a ton with Ozzie as manager. if they don't have room for Fields (which they will because they'll most likely trade Crede) they'll send him to AAA. Owens is staying up regardless, and Swisher will be playing a lot more OF than 1B.

ok

Demafrost
09-30-2008, 09:02 PM
Bump!

Ban me if you have to, I don't care!














(please don't ban me...)

WOOOOOOOO!!!!!

doublem23
09-30-2008, 09:07 PM
Bump!

Ban me if you have to, I don't care!














(please don't ban me...)

WOOOOOOOO!!!!!

:cool:

I'm gonna close this thread, but I'll stick it. :thumbsup:

voodoochile
09-30-2008, 09:22 PM
:cool:

I'm gonna close this thread, but I'll stick it. :thumbsup:

Just so long as you don't shove it...

I say open it up...