PDA

View Full Version : Brian Roberts politely hints at wanting to be traded?


It's Time
02-19-2008, 10:10 AM
From the Baltimore Sun.

“It’s a touchy situation because I love the Orioles,” he said. “I’ve been here since Day One and I do want to see this organization win. I made a commitment when I signed my deal. But certainly, on the other hand, when you see two of your best players gone, a lot of unknowns come in. Very talented, I’m sure, but unknowns nonetheless. The organization essentially has conceded that we probably won’t win for a couple years. It’s hard to swallow at first. But wherever I end up, I’ll do my job.”

IMO, when the Cubs signed Cintron, it was insurance because Cedeno is heading to the O's.

There is also mention on the O's site of Jay Payton being in the deal.

Come on, Kenny. There is no doubt Roberts can be had. Go get him!!!!!!

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 10:14 AM
From the Baltimore Sun.

Its a touchy situation because I love the Orioles, he said. Ive been here since Day One and I do want to see this organization win. I made a commitment when I signed my deal. But certainly, on the other hand, when you see two of your best players gone, a lot of unknowns come in. Very talented, Im sure, but unknowns nonetheless. The organization essentially has conceded that we probably wont win for a couple years. Its hard to swallow at first. But wherever I end up, Ill do my job.

IMO, when the Cubs signed Cintron, it was insurance because Cedeno is heading to the O's.

There is also mention on the O's site of Jay Payton being in the deal.

Come on Kenny, there is no doubt Roberts can be had. Go get him!!!!!!

Why do you want this cheater on the Sox?

It's Time
02-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Why do you want this cheater on the Sox?

Because he is a great player who ADMITTED to making a mistake. If the White Sox can employ a cheater like Albert Bell, they certainly can take on Roberts.

Roberts is a stand up guy and a difference maker.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 10:27 AM
MacPhail and Hendry are playing poker. MacPhail is not tipping his hand but he sure seems ready to move him by the "anything can happen" comment.


I don't see [a trade] as likely before the reporting date," Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail said. "Anything can happen ... but I just don't see it."



http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/b...,1905404.story (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.osnotes16feb16,0,1905404.story)

DirtySouthsider
02-19-2008, 10:31 AM
Because he is a great player who ADMITTED to making a mistake. If the White Sox can employ a cheater like Albert Bell, they certainly can take on Roberts.

Roberts is a stand up guy and a difference maker.

Great player? That's a stretch.

Stand up guys don't cheat. He admitted to cheating because he got caught, not because he wanted to be a stand up guy!

oeo
02-19-2008, 10:34 AM
Once again, we're not a good match for the Orioles...so let's get over that.

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 10:36 AM
Great player? That's a stretch.

Stand up guys don't cheat. He admitted to cheating because he got caught, not because he wanted to be a stand up guy!

And there's no guarantee that what he admitted to was all there was. I would personally prefer the Sox stayed away from anyone who was named or had admitted to using PED's at this stage of the game. Once a cheat, always a cheat. They just find new ways to cheat.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Once again, we're not a good match for the Orioles...so let's get over that.

Why do you say that? How are the Cubs a good match?

spiffie
02-19-2008, 10:42 AM
And there's no guarantee that what he admitted to was all there was. I would personally prefer the Sox stayed away from anyone who was named or had admitted to using PED's at this stage of the game. Once a cheat, always a cheat. They just find new ways to cheat.
What if someone currently on the roster eventually gets fingered? Do you cut them? Trade them for anything you can get?

doublem23
02-19-2008, 10:43 AM
Why do you say that? How are the Cubs a good match?

I think oeo's referring to the fact we don't have many tradeable assets right now.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 10:45 AM
I think oeo's referring to the fact we don't have many tradeable assets right now.

But Murton, Gallagher and Cedeno are? :?:

Johnnydogs
02-19-2008, 10:48 AM
From the Baltimore Sun.

Its a touchy situation because I love the Orioles, he said. Ive been here since Day One and I do want to see this organization win. I made a commitment when I signed my deal. But certainly, on the other hand, when you see two of your best players gone, a lot of unknowns come in. Very talented, Im sure, but unknowns nonetheless. The organization essentially has conceded that we probably wont win for a couple years. Its hard to swallow at first. But wherever I end up, Ill do my job.

IMO, when the Cubs signed Cintron, it was insurance because Cedeno is heading to the O's.

There is also mention on the O's site of Jay Payton being in the deal.

Come on, Kenny. There is no doubt Roberts can be had. Go get him!!!!!!

Yeah he can be had but I don't see the Sox or any other team swooping in to steal Roberts from the Cubs. It's obvious to me that both sides are playing hardball otherwise this deal (that started in November at the Meetings) would have already been completed. You have to believe that the Cubs have the inside track because of the nature of McPhail and Hendry's relationship and the time they have already devoted. I think Roberts will be a cub before Spring Training ends. Roberts now making his feelings public, about playing for a contender, is his diplomatic way of trying to speed this up. He could have just declined to talk about rumors.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 10:49 AM
But Murton, Gallagher and Cedeno are? :?:

:dunno:

Neither of us are MLB GM's, so it's hard to say what the O's are looking for.

I think Murton, Gallagher, and Cedeno are more inviting assets than the Sox would be willing to to part with for Brian Roberts, though.

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 10:50 AM
What if someone currently on the roster eventually gets fingered? Do you cut them? Trade them for anything you can get?

Talk to me when the time comes. I don't think it's a good business decision to intentionally sign guys who are proven cheats. I wonder if they are clean and if they will end up getting busted in the future. MLB will be keeping a close eye on anyone who is named in the Mitchell report, IMO. Why risk the money and the playing time on someone who might end up getting suspended or booted sometime in the future. Develop your own new talent and let the chips fall where they may.

spiffie
02-19-2008, 10:52 AM
But Murton, Gallagher and Cedeno are? :?:
Matt Murton is probably a more valuable asset than anything the Sox would consider trading with the possible exception of Fields. Josh would be more valuable, but I couldn't see any scenario where the Sox part with him. And Gallagher's 2.75 ERA over 430+ innings in the minors is likely more valuable than any pitcher left in our organization.

DirtySouthsider
02-19-2008, 10:55 AM
What if someone currently on the roster eventually gets fingered? Do you cut them? Trade them for anything you can get?

No. I just don't think it's smart to actively pursue a player who just recently got caught. The Sox have stayed relatively clean throughout the investigations. So why would you want to tarnish that now?

I would much rather cheer for a "stand up organization", opposed to a "stand up guy" who admitted to cheating.

chaerulez
02-19-2008, 10:55 AM
Why do you want this cheater on the Sox?

At least he can admit to it. I highly doubt he's making the same mistake again. And the Sox did sign a known wife beater back in the day, which I think is worse.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 11:03 AM
Talk to me when the time comes. I don't think it's a good business decision to intentionally sign guys who are proven cheats. I wonder if they are clean and if they will end up getting busted in the future. MLB will be keeping a close eye on anyone who is named in the Mitchell report, IMO. Why risk the money and the playing time on someone who might end up getting suspended or booted sometime in the future. Develop your own new talent and let the chips fall where they may.

Do you consider Ozzie and Juan character guys? The point is there are FAR worse guys than Roberts. He admitted his wrong, as did Pettitte.

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 11:04 AM
At least he can admit to it. I highly doubt he's making the same mistake again. And the Sox did sign a known wife beater back in the day, which I think is worse.

Ethically yes, from a purely business standpoint, no.

Roberts has both ethical and business of baseball issues surrounding him. Regardless of what he does off the field, there's a chance he will cheat again, get caught and a major piece of the Sox puzzle will be taken away from them. Relying on guys who have cheated to get an edge is a good way to end up on the outside of the playoffs looking in...

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 11:06 AM
Do you consider Ozzie and Juan character guys? The point is there are FAR worse guys than Roberts. He admitted his wrong, as did Pettitte.

Haven't really thought about it. I was referring more to not taking chances on players who might not be with the team after they get caught again.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Do you consider Ozzie and Juan character guys? The point is there are FAR worse guys than Roberts. He admitted his wrong, as did Pettitte.

Is it really a great revelation of character to admit you did something wrong after you've been caught? I mean, I'd take that over a guy like Roger Clemens, who has spent the last few weeks pointing the finger at everyone but himself, but it's not like these guys are stand-up citizens, either.

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 11:12 AM
All this arguing for the Marcus Giles clone? Are you kidding me?

kittle42
02-19-2008, 11:18 AM
Do you consider Ozzie and Juan character guys? The point is there are FAR worse guys than Roberts. He admitted his wrong, as did Pettitte.

Making them better than Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire, but worse than, oh, the 95% of MLB players that haven't been fingered?

This logic is quite a stretch.

oeo
02-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Why do you say that? How are the Cubs a good match?

Because we can't put together a deal for just Roberts. What we have is either too little, or too much. We don't have anyone between a Masset and a Danks, or an Anderson and a Fields. Sometimes you're just not a good match. :dunno:

But Murton, Gallagher and Cedeno are? :?:

If that's what the O's wanted, it would have happened a long time ago.

munchman33
02-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Haven't really thought about it. I was referring more to not taking chances on players who might not be with the team after they get caught again.

And filling your rotation with guys of questionable ability isn't?

No offense Voodoo, but there are a lot worse things than picking up Brian Roberts. I don't see how he isn't a smaller question mark than Danny Richar.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 11:54 AM
And filling your rotation with guys of questionable ability isn't?

No offense Voodoo, but there are a lot worse things than picking up Brian Roberts. I don't see how he isn't a smaller question mark than Danny Richar.

:rolling:

Way to spin the argument. VC wasn't commenting on his ability, rather the distinct possibility he may be spending an extended perioid of time away from the team because he may be suspended. If KW picked up Roberts and then he ended up sitting 1/3 of the season due to a failed drug test, you'd be the first guy on this site, blasting him for acqurining a guy with a track record of steroid abuse.

Read first. Then post.

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 12:00 PM
Again... why are we arguing over a Marcus Giles clone with a potential steroid suspension hanging over him?

doublem23
02-19-2008, 12:03 PM
Again... why are we arguing over a Marcus Giles clone with a potential steroid suspension hanging over him?

Because Opening Day is still over 40 days away, when we can argue over real baseball.

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 12:04 PM
Because Opening Day is still over 40 days away, when we can argue over real baseball.

I can't wait.

btw, Richar in 08!

munchman33
02-19-2008, 12:07 PM
:rolling:

Way to spin the argument. VC wasn't commenting on his ability, rather the distinct possibility he may be spending an extended perioid of time away from the team because he may be suspended. If KW picked up Roberts and then he ended up sitting 1/3 of the season due to a failed drug test, you'd be the first guy on this site, blasting him for acqurining a guy with a track record of steroid abuse.

Read first. Then post.

I still think it's very valid. You don't want to add a guy because he might sit? But you'll pay guys to not produce instead? :rolleyes:

Brian Roberts is a star player. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which season he was "enhanced." But his career norm is still exceptional for a leadoff guy. I doubt there's a GM that wouldn't want him.

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 12:11 PM
I still think it's very valid. You don't want to add a guy because he might sit? But you'll pay guys to not produce instead? :rolleyes:

Brian Roberts is a star player. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which season he was "enhanced." But his career norm is still exceptional for a leadoff guy. I doubt there's a GM that wouldn't want him.

Star player.....?!!?

Please stop watching baseball.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 12:16 PM
I still think it's very valid. You don't want to add a guy because he might sit? But you'll pay guys to not produce instead? :rolleyes:

Brian Roberts is a star player. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which season he was "enhanced." But his career norm is still exceptional for a leadoff guy. I doubt there's a GM that wouldn't want him.

I don't see what's "exceptional" about a guy whose career OBP is .351. Furthermore, do you really think KW and the Sox didn't take a look at Roberts, since he would be a pretty nice fit for this team? Perhaps they came to the conclusion that the kind of package the Orioles wanted for him was something they weren't able to put together, considering what in-house options they have.

Considering you or I have no actual insight into the wheelings and dealings of the White Sox front office, it's pretty silly to sit here and pretend to talk like we do. It's one thing to discuss your feelings on moves that have already been made, but it's pretty asinine to debate "potential" moves, since none of us really have any knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 12:18 PM
Star player.....?!!?

Please stop watching baseball.

Wouldn't making the all star game twice in three years validate that the guy IS a star player?:?:

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 12:19 PM
Wouldn't making the all star game twice in three years validate that the guy IS a star player?:?:

In the MLB, absolutely not. Not until they stop the "Every team needs a rep" rule. Mike Sweeney was never a star.

I think people throw STAR around a bit too much. Ryan Howard is a star. Albert Pujols is a star. Brian Roberts is a two-time All Star on a crappy team.

PalehosePlanet
02-19-2008, 12:19 PM
I still think it's very valid. You don't want to add a guy because he might sit? But you'll pay guys to not produce instead? :rolleyes:

Brian Roberts is a star player.

Star player?? You have got to be kidding!!

Roberts is a scrappy, more heart than talent, overachiever type. Think of Aaron Miles, or David Eckstein on PED's and VOILA!!

doublem23
02-19-2008, 12:31 PM
Wouldn't making the all star game twice in three years validate that the guy IS a star player?:?:

When averaged for 162 games, here are Roberts' career numbers:

.281/.351/.409, 10 HR, 61 RBI, 37 SB, 70 BB, 90 K, 180 H, 42 D, 5 T

Good player. Would be a nice fit for this team. But a star? Come on, people.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 12:38 PM
For comparison's sake, here's a guy's 162-game average that we're all familiar with...

:ray

.277/.351/.436, 16 HR, 73 RBI, 23 SB, 67 BB, 99 K, 171 H, 36 D, 7 T

Remarkably similar, no? Was Ray Durham ever a star second baseman? No. Was he good; well above average? Yes. Let's not get the terminology confused.

munchman33
02-19-2008, 12:41 PM
Hey guys, mass response since I'm taking a lot of flack...in terms of leadoff hitters, how many guys are better? He gets on base more than adequately, steal bases, and scores runs. And he's done it in some pretty bad offenses. I do think he's a star.

I'm not giving the sox flack for not picking him up. I honestly don't think we have what it would take. Just trying to dispell the notion that Roberts wouldn't have a great effect on this, or any, team. Because he is that type of player.

munchman33
02-19-2008, 12:41 PM
For comparison's sake, here's a guy's 162-game average that we're all familiar with...

:ray

.277/.351/.436, 16 HR, 73 RBI, 23 SB, 67 BB, 99 K, 171 H, 36 D, 7 T

Remarkably similar, no? Was Ray Durham ever a star second baseman? No. Was he good; well above average? Yes. Let's not get the terminology confused.

He's been an All-Star.

It's Time
02-19-2008, 12:45 PM
For comparison's sake, here's a guy's 162-game average that we're all familiar with...

:ray

.277/.351/.436, 16 HR, 73 RBI, 23 SB, 67 BB, 99 K, 171 H, 36 D, 7 T

Remarkably similar, no? Was Ray Durham ever a star second baseman? No. Was he good; well above average? Yes. Let's not get the terminology confused.


:hawk
"I luuuuvv to watch Ray run"

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 12:48 PM
He's been an All-Star.

So has Mark Redman, what's your point?

munchman33
02-19-2008, 12:49 PM
So has Mark Redman, what's your point?

Yeah, but Ray deserved it. There were seasons he was one of the best second basemen in the league.

soxfan13
02-19-2008, 01:09 PM
Making them better than Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire, but worse than, oh, the 95% of MLB players that haven't been fingered?

This logic is quite a stretch.

Do you honestly believe that 95% of MLB players havent done anything? Unless MLB decides to move on and deal with the present and future . I think many many more players are gonna be fingered.

SoxNation05
02-19-2008, 03:40 PM
How has FedEx gotten away with saying Marcus Giles and Brian Roberts are clones?

voodoochile
02-19-2008, 03:42 PM
I am shocked... shocked do you hear me that Munchman tried to turn this into a discussion of KW's failures with regards to starting pitching. Who wouldn't make the comparison between trying to trade for a guy who is a known cheat and signing young unproven pitching. Once again, Munch is so far ahead of the curve the rest of us can only gape in utter fascination... :rolleyes:

johnr1note
02-19-2008, 03:55 PM
Do you consider Ozzie and Juan character guys? The point is there are FAR worse guys than Roberts. He admitted his wrong, as did Pettitte.

I don't think you read today's quotes from Pettitte. He said he was sorry, he said what he did was stupid, but even after being questioned about it several times, repeatedly said he did not view himself as a cheater.

I can be driving 95 miles an hour down the interstate, and if a state trooper pulls me over, I can roll down my window and apologize, I can say, "Boy was that stupid or what," but if I try to claim that I'm not a law breaker, he'll laugh at me and write the ticket. I can try and excuse it as part of my competitive nature to do what I need to to get to business meetings on time, even break rules and drive too fast, but I'm still a lawbreaker.

Petitte and Roberts got caught. They have "come clean" to a point to avoid being hauled in front of congress like Roger Clemens. But Petitte has not come close to admit his wrongdoing.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 04:16 PM
How has FedEx gotten away with saying Marcus Giles and Brian Roberts are clones?

Because they are? :dunno:

Giles' offensive numbers suffered when he moved to San Diego, not surprisingly, but look at their numbers - they're very similar players.

FedEx227
02-19-2008, 09:30 PM
Because they are? :dunno:

Giles' offensive numbers suffered when he moved to San Diego, not surprisingly, but look at their numbers - they're very similar players.

Player A: 5-8
.277/.353/.429, 16 HR, 68 RBI, 14 SB, 107 Ks, 65 BB, 38 2B

Player B: 5-9
.281/.351/.409, 10 HR, 61 RBI, 37 SB, 90 Ks, 70 BB, 42 2B

World of difference I'd say.

Obviously B is Roberts because of the SBs and A is Giles, but seriously outside of a decent amount of stolen bases they are VERY similar.

Tragg
02-19-2008, 09:46 PM
On edit, never mind. I see the issue of whether Brian Roberts and his 350 obp is a "Star" player has been discussed - enough.

doublem23
02-19-2008, 10:22 PM
Player A: 5-8
.277/.353/.429, 16 HR, 68 RBI, 14 SB, 107 Ks, 65 BB, 38 2B

Player B: 5-9
.281/.351/.409, 10 HR, 61 RBI, 37 SB, 90 Ks, 70 BB, 42 2B

World of difference I'd say.

Obviously B is Roberts because of the SBs and A is Giles, but seriously outside of a decent amount of stolen bases they are VERY similar.


Seriously... HOW DARE YOU COMPRE THOSE TWO PLAYERS WITH EACH OTHER! Don't you know you're significantly hurting the "Brian Roberts is a Star 2B" camp by adding some logic in this thread.

Optipessimism
02-20-2008, 01:14 AM
Player A: 5-8
.277/.353/.429, 16 HR, 68 RBI, 14 SB, 107 Ks, 65 BB, 38 2B

Player B: 5-9
.281/.351/.409, 10 HR, 61 RBI, 37 SB, 90 Ks, 70 BB, 42 2B

World of difference I'd say.

Obviously B is Roberts because of the SBs and A is Giles, but seriously outside of a decent amount of stolen bases they are VERY similar.

The stolen bases make all the difference in the world though because it puts Roberts into a category of a slim few players who are prototypical leadoff men coming from a non-power position. That's huge. How many true leadoff guys (plus speed, average, contact, OBP) playing C, 2B, SS, or CF are out there? You have what, Ichiro, Furcal, Jimmy Rollins, Figgins, Hanley Ramirez, Reyes, Victorino, Upton, maybe Ellsbury, and maybe someone like Sizemore or Granderson although they strike out a lot and hit for enough power to fit better in the 3, 5, or 6 spots. That looks like pretty select company to me.

Giles supplies enough offense to be a starter at his position, but he isn't anything really special. He's someone you ideally would like to hit second or preferably near the bottom of your lineup since he doesn't have to tools to hit at the top or in an RBI spot. There are lots of players like Giles around and very few like Roberts, which is why Roberts commands more money and better players via trade.

Optipessimism
02-20-2008, 01:27 AM
Seriously... HOW DARE YOU COMPRE THOSE TWO PLAYERS WITH EACH OTHER! Don't you know you're significantly hurting the "Brian Roberts is a Star 2B" camp by adding some logic in this thread.
Brian Roberts IS a star 2B. Stats on paper aren't everything. Just because Roberts has an OPS that compares better to Marcus Giles than Chase Utley doesn't mean that Giles is anywhere near Roberts' league. And it doesn't mean that Utley is lightyears better or anything like that. Comparing say Roberts to Utley or something like that would be kind of like comparing Ichiro at the top of his game to Andruw Jones at the top of his game. They are two entirely different players and each one adds an important piece to your team.

Throw VORP and PORK and FORK and MACH5 and all that out the window. Roberts has a tool (speed) that has kept a lot of players in baseball over a long period of time. Speed adds another dimension to the game and is ALWAYS underrated by stats people. Speed on the basepaths affects the mindset of opposing pitcher and catcher, the opposing defensive positioning, and the pitch selection the hitter at the plate will receive. None of that shows up in the stats, but it is an important aspect of a multi-dimensional game. And it never slumps.

Damn, I normally agree with you guys but trying to say that Giles can even sniff Roberts' jock is ridiculous. No way.

santo=dorf
02-20-2008, 04:43 AM
I'm not a cement foot favored, no stealing, base clogging guy, but why are people so obsessed with stolen bases and weigh it much so heavily?

Even from a fantasy side I hear it. Someone was trying to tell me Ryan Theriot is as good or even better than Dustin Pedroia because he stole 28 bases compared to 7. He also feels this makes up the difference in OBP and SLG (that's what we count) and probably the difference in runs scored and RBI's.

kittle42
02-20-2008, 09:56 AM
I'm not a cement foot favored, no stealing, base clogging guy, but why are people so obsessed with stolen bases and weigh it much so heavily?

Even from a fantasy side I hear it. Someone was trying to tell me Ryan Theriot is as good or even better than Dustin Pedroia because he stole 28 bases compared to 7. He also feels this makes up the difference in OBP and SLG (that's what we count) and probably the difference in runs scored and RBI's.

The fantasy reason is the number one thing, I think. But it's not like Boston was out there stealing bases last year, and they seemed to do just fine.

SBs are one of the most overrated stats in baseball. Soon, someone's gonna start telling me Nook Logan deserves a starting role because he "distracts pitchers."

Madscout
02-20-2008, 11:38 AM
The fantasy reason is the number one thing, I think. But it's not like Boston was out there stealing bases last year, and they seemed to do just fine.

SBs are one of the most overrated stats in baseball. Soon, someone's gonna start telling me Nook Logan deserves a starting role because he "distracts pitchers."

I agree and disagree with your post. On the one hand, yes Boston did well last year, but they did so because of their pitching and an offense that could get it done. They decided to go the route they went, and it worked for them with the players they had and the manager they had. We have a different manager and different players and a payroll that is about 100 million less than theirs. Our manager, our players, and our offense is better with a guy that can steal bases. Just look at stats of when Pods was healthy.

voodoochile
02-20-2008, 11:46 AM
I agree and disagree with your post. On the one hand, yes Boston did well last year, but they did so because of their pitching and an offense that could get it done. They decided to go the route they went, and it worked for them with the players they had and the manager they had. We have a different manager and different players and a payroll that is about 100 million less than theirs. Our manager, our players, and our offense is better with a guy that can steal bases. Just look at stats of when Pods was healthy.

Sure, but that was also 3 years ago. Guys like Swisher and Thome change the dynamics of the team. The Sox have a LOT more power than they did in 2005, so manufacturing runs becomes less important - not worthless, just not as necessary.

kittle42
02-20-2008, 12:54 PM
Sure, but that was also 3 years ago. Guys like Swisher and Thome change the dynamics of the team. The Sox have a LOT more power than they did in 2005, so manufacturing runs becomes less important - not worthless, just not as necessary.

C'mon voodoo, everyone knows all we need to do is get the closest possible replacement player to everyone we had in '05 and everything will be hunky dory.

WhiteSox5187
02-20-2008, 03:19 PM
I'm joining the arguement rather late, but the guy hit .290 with a .377 OBP and 50 SBs last year, maybe he isn't a star, but he's certainly a guy I'd want on my team. Steroids or no steroids...and it was '05 the Mitchell report said he took steroids, right?

EndemicSox
02-20-2008, 03:48 PM
I'm joining the arguement rather late, but the guy hit .290 with a .377 OBP and 50 SBs last year, maybe he isn't a star, but he's certainly a guy I'd want on my team. Steroids or no steroids...and it was '05 the Mitchell report said he took steroids, right?

Those numbers, which should be the norm for the next few seasons, are certainly "star" worthy for a 2B...I'd take him on the Sox, but it probably would take Fields, so no go...

WhiteSox5187
02-20-2008, 03:52 PM
Those numbers, which should be the norm for the next few seasons, are certainly "star" worthy for a 2B...I'd take him on the Sox, but it probably would take Fields, so no go...
Now this is a dumb question, but if Crede shows he's healthy could we maybe package a deal with the Giants and get Roberts in a three team sort of deal?

Madscout
02-20-2008, 03:59 PM
Sure, but that was also 3 years ago. Guys like Swisher and Thome change the dynamics of the team. The Sox have a LOT more power than they did in 2005, so manufacturing runs becomes less important - not worthless, just not as necessary.

Sure, a lot more power, great. However, in the past, both before and after the WS, when the sox tried to live by the HR, they died by it. I love offenses that can put up big numbers, but even those offenses don't do that every game. We still need to win games when we can't hit the cover off the ball.

munchman33
02-20-2008, 04:58 PM
I'm not a cement foot favored, no stealing, base clogging guy, but why are people so obsessed with stolen bases and weigh it much so heavily?

Even from a fantasy side I hear it. Someone was trying to tell me Ryan Theriot is as good or even better than Dustin Pedroia because he stole 28 bases compared to 7. He also feels this makes up the difference in OBP and SLG (that's what we count) and probably the difference in runs scored and RBI's.

Remind me the last time WE won a world series without a player like that?

We can't build a lineup like Boston's because we don't have the resources. We need to be balanced. And we need speed.

santo=dorf
02-20-2008, 05:26 PM
Remind me the last time WE won a world series without a player like that?

We can't build a lineup like Boston's because we don't have the resources. We need to be balanced. And we need speed.
So the exception is the rule (well, 1 year out of 90?) How come we never won a world series with Lance Johnson?

Teams win because of strong starting pitching, not because there's a fast guy at the top of lineup.

kittle42
02-20-2008, 05:30 PM
So the exception is the rule (well, 1 year out of 90?) How come we never won a world series with Lance Johnson?

Teams win because of strong starting pitching, not because there's a fast guy at the top of lineup.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

So bring back Garland, Garcia, and El Duque and we're set, according to munch and crew.

munchman33
02-20-2008, 05:45 PM
So the exception is the rule (well, 1 year out of 90?) How come we never won a world series with Lance Johnson?

Teams win because of strong starting pitching, not because there's a fast guy at the top of lineup.

We won because of starting pitching and the ability to score every game we played. Teams with balance in their lineup score more consistently. Not in bunches.

Just a reminder, in 2005 game two of the ALCS and game four of the World Series were both decided by a run setup by speed.

You want to downplay speed, and say its for fantasy baseball guys? Fine. But our manager plays a game where speed is absolutely the most important attribute. So to us, it's pretty darn important to have guys like that.

munchman33
02-20-2008, 05:47 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding!

So bring back Garland, Garcia, and El Duque and we're set, according to munch and crew.

Careful, that's a better 3, 4, 5 then we have now.

FedEx227
02-20-2008, 05:52 PM
Careful, that's a better 3, 4, 5 then we have now.

Except 4 won't pitch this season and 5 will likely pitch about 100 innings.

WhiteSox5187
02-20-2008, 11:03 PM
So the exception is the rule (well, 1 year out of 90?) How come we never won a world series with Lance Johnson?

Teams win because of strong starting pitching, not because there's a fast guy at the top of lineup.
You are absolutely right, pitching is what wins championships, but having a great speed threat at the top of the order never hurt either...it's worth noting that in 1959, 1983, 1993, 2000, 2005 we had a leadoff man with 25+ steals at the top of the order, and if you take 2000 out of the equation (where we were really more of a station to station team anyways) all of those years we had a guy with 35+ steals leading off...speed never goes into a slump, so it sure helps to be able to manufacture a run rather than sitting back and waiting for somebody to hit the hell out of the ball...ideally you have a team that has both though. And I think if we were to some how land Roberts, we'd have that.

kittle42
02-21-2008, 12:08 AM
You are absolutely right, pitching is what wins championships, but having a great speed threat at the top of the order never hurt either...it's worth noting that in 1959, 1983, 1993, 2000, 2005 we had a leadoff man with 25+ steals at the top of the order, and if you take 2000 out of the equation (where we were really more of a station to station team anyways) all of those years we had a guy with 35+ steals leading off...speed never goes into a slump, so it sure helps to be able to manufacture a run rather than sitting back and waiting for somebody to hit the hell out of the ball...ideally you have a team that has both though. And I think if we were to some how land Roberts, we'd have that.


We also had that with Lance Johnson for years - you are selecting the seasons that work into your equation.

munchman33
02-21-2008, 12:16 AM
Except 4 won't pitch this season and 5 will likely pitch about 100 innings.

Case and point. :cool:

munchman33
02-21-2008, 12:19 AM
We also had that with Lance Johnson for years - you are selecting the seasons that work into your equation.

Is your argument that we lost because Lance Johnson was fast?

We lost because we didn't have a complete team. There are many pieces that need to fit. A speed guy is a HUGE part of a winning equation. Unless you've got an MVP type slugger 1-9. Which we don't, and probably will never have.

WhiteSox5187
02-21-2008, 12:31 AM
We also had that with Lance Johnson for years - you are selecting the seasons that work into your equation.
Lance Johnson was on the team when we won the 1993 AL West Title and was the catalyst of some very competitive Sox teams in the early 1990s, I chose those years because they were years when we made the playoffs but I think Lance Johnson is certainly a name that should be mentioned when we're talking about the importance of speed.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-21-2008, 12:56 AM
Why do you want this cheater on the Sox?


Oh GOD. Spare us this crap.
Who's a bigger scumbag, Roberts or Kobe Bryant? If you say Roberts then WOW are you off. And if you said Kobe, tell me you wouldn't love to see him on the Bulls tomorrow? If you say no to that refer to my statement earlier.

Cheater or not, who cares. Do you really lose sleep at night because Roberts used steroids and he has 52 career home runs? he's liked for his OBP and base stealing ability which steroids doesn't help you with. And look at Giambi and Pettitte, both cheated, both admitted to it, and now its business as usual.

The game is full of cheaters. Are we just going to acquire the clean ones? I sure as hell hope not because according to many reports that would eliminate over 50% of active baseball players who currently do or have cheated in some way, shape, or form.

Roberts admitted to what he did wrong. Something baseball knew about and did NOTHING about. And if you're going to overlook him because of this issue why don't we overlook Mark Buehrle because he speeds on the highway? What is the difference between steroids and speeding? They're both illegal. They both give one person an advantage over another. They both put the person doing them at a higher risk of being injured/killed. There are some other obvious differences, yes, but a well-known abuser and a player like Barry Bonds who after one look we can easily conclude that he is on 'roids is different than someone who used them a few times and by looking at him you can tell he only did use them a few times.

Nellie_Fox
02-21-2008, 01:12 AM
Oh GOD. Spare us this crap....he's liked for his...base stealing ability which steroids doesn't help you with. Steroids don't help speed? Give Ben Johnson his gold medal back.

What is the difference between steroids and speeding? They're both illegal. You can't be serious. You simply can't. Check the penalty provisions in the law for each and get back to me.

by looking at him you can tell he only did use them a few times.Who needs steroid testing when we can tell by just looking at someone?

WhiteSoxFan84
02-21-2008, 01:27 AM
Steroids don't help speed? Give Ben Johnson his gold medal back.

You can have all the speed in the world but still have pathetic stealing ABILITY. Speed contributes to ability, yes, but it's not the whole story. Power contributes to hitting home runs but if you don't have the vision, timing, and excellent baseball skills that Bonds already had before using roids, you can't hit 800 home runs. Same goes for stealing bases, you can get roids to make you faster but still not be able to read pitchers and get picked off a lot more.


You can't be serious. You simply can't. Check the penalty provisions in the law for each and get back to me.

As I later stated, "there are some OBVIOUS differences", you stated one of them.


Who needs steroid testing when we can tell by just looking at someone?

Have Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens failed ANY drug tests? Don't tell me what you've read or what people think, have either one of them failed drug tests? Why does popular opinion believe that they both used steroids? By looking at them and their numbers.

Optipessimism
02-21-2008, 01:48 AM
We won because of starting pitching and the ability to score every game we played. Teams with balance in their lineup score more consistently. Not in bunches.

Just a reminder, in 2005 game two of the ALCS and game four of the World Series were both decided by a run setup by speed.

You want to downplay speed, and say its for fantasy baseball guys? Fine. But our manager plays a game where speed is absolutely the most important attribute. So to us, it's pretty darn important to have guys like that.

Excellent point.

The more ways a team has to win, the better the chances that team is going to win.

Ideally, you want a very good starting staff of workhorses, a very good and deep bullpen, a very good defense, and a lineup with speed + OBP + fundamentals at the top, some high-OBP mashers in the middle, and speed/fundamentals at the bottom. You want to be able to limit your opponent's scoring opportunities with strong pitching and a defense capable of playing in all ballparks, and you want a lineup that can crush bad to mediocre pitching as well as manufacture runs in tight games against top pitching and top defense.

Now, some teams put high OBP above all else on offense, which is fine IMO because it just makes them more vulnerable to a team with a more well-rounded form of attack. With some teams, like the A's for a perfect example, what they do makes a lot of sense, because they don't have the payroll to go out build a complete team that is going to be a sure-fire bet to contend year after year. So, they identify one main aspect of the offensive game and look to acquire players to fit that mold. The Twins do the same thing, only they stress fundamentals/team play and look for players who fit that mold. Both are successful, extremely successful for small market organizations.

Other teams, especially Boston with all the money they have to spend, overlook other aspects of the game that they don't have to and really shouldn't, but they are able to get away with it because they pour so much money into their farm system, international talent, free agents, and SP. But just because Boston was successful without a true leadoff guy doesn't mean jack. I have total faith that if Kenny Williams had the all-around budget and freedoms like Boston does, enabling him to bid competitively with other teams for top international prospects and free agents, negotiate with all agents, and go over slot in the draft, we'd have a better, more complete team than they do.

Anyway, speed is just another element of the game, and its not more or less important than anything else. You don't want a plodding lineup 1-9 that can't take advantage of bad pick-off moves, catchers with poor/inaccurate arms, outfielders with weak arms, etc. and you don't want a speed-or-nothing lineup 1-9 that settles for seeing-eye singles against the Russ Ortiz's of the world instead of XBH's.

voodoochile
02-21-2008, 08:19 AM
Oh GOD. Spare us this crap.
Who's a bigger scumbag, Roberts or Kobe Bryant? If you say Roberts then WOW are you off. And if you said Kobe, tell me you wouldn't love to see him on the Bulls tomorrow? If you say no to that refer to my statement earlier.

Cheater or not, who cares. Do you really lose sleep at night because Roberts used steroids and he has 52 career home runs? he's liked for his OBP and base stealing ability which steroids doesn't help you with. And look at Giambi and Pettitte, both cheated, both admitted to it, and now its business as usual.

The game is full of cheaters. Are we just going to acquire the clean ones? I sure as hell hope not because according to many reports that would eliminate over 50% of active baseball players who currently do or have cheated in some way, shape, or form.

Roberts admitted to what he did wrong. Something baseball knew about and did NOTHING about. And if you're going to overlook him because of this issue why don't we overlook Mark Buehrle because he speeds on the highway? What is the difference between steroids and speeding? They're both illegal. They both give one person an advantage over another. They both put the person doing them at a higher risk of being injured/killed. There are some other obvious differences, yes, but a well-known abuser and a player like Barry Bonds who after one look we can easily conclude that he is on 'roids is different than someone who used them a few times and by looking at him you can tell he only did use them a few times.

Once again, it's not about Robert's character, it's about whether he might still be cheating and that cheating might lead to him getting suspended down the road. I don't want to put my faith or potentially my season in the hands of a guy who might end up not playing and thus bring down everything else around him.

If the Sox truly cannot win without a speedy, base-stealing, high OBP guy leading off, I want to be sure the guy they put there is going to play the whole season unless injured. Otherwise, it's just not worth the risk.

It's not personal, just business and right now that business is still being decided. I wouldn't risk acquiring any of the known cheats until Congress finishes doing their thing, especially if it's via trade and requires a lot of good young talent.

spiffie
02-21-2008, 09:43 AM
Excellent point.

The more ways a team has to win, the better the chances that team is going to win.

Ideally, you want a very good starting staff of workhorses, a very good and deep bullpen, a very good defense, and a lineup with speed + OBP + fundamentals at the top, some high-OBP mashers in the middle, and speed/fundamentals at the bottom. You want to be able to limit your opponent's scoring opportunities with strong pitching and a defense capable of playing in all ballparks, and you want a lineup that can crush bad to mediocre pitching as well as manufacture runs in tight games against top pitching and top defense.

Now, some teams put high OBP above all else on offense, which is fine IMO because it just makes them more vulnerable to a team with a more well-rounded form of attack. With some teams, like the A's for a perfect example, what they do makes a lot of sense, because they don't have the payroll to go out build a complete team that is going to be a sure-fire bet to contend year after year. So, they identify one main aspect of the offensive game and look to acquire players to fit that mold. The Twins do the same thing, only they stress fundamentals/team play and look for players who fit that mold. Both are successful, extremely successful for small market organizations.

Other teams, especially Boston with all the money they have to spend, overlook other aspects of the game that they don't have to and really shouldn't, but they are able to get away with it because they pour so much money into their farm system, international talent, free agents, and SP. But just because Boston was successful without a true leadoff guy doesn't mean jack. I have total faith that if Kenny Williams had the all-around budget and freedoms like Boston does, enabling him to bid competitively with other teams for top international prospects and free agents, negotiate with all agents, and go over slot in the draft, we'd have a better, more complete team than they do.

Anyway, speed is just another element of the game, and its not more or less important than anything else. You don't want a plodding lineup 1-9 that can't take advantage of bad pick-off moves, catchers with poor/inaccurate arms, outfielders with weak arms, etc. and you don't want a speed-or-nothing lineup 1-9 that settles for seeing-eye singles against the Russ Ortiz's of the world instead of XBH's.
SB stats of leadoff hitters for AL playoff teams: (using player who batted in #1 spot most often):

2007:
Red Sox - Lugo 33 SB
Yankees - Damon 27 SB
Indians - Sizemore 33 SB
Angels - Willits 27 SB

2006:
A's - Kendall 11 SB
Twins - Castillo 25 SB
Yankees - Damon 25 SB
Tigers - Granderson 8 SB

FWIW if we bat Cabrera leadoff he has averaged in the low 20's in SB's the last 3 seasons, which would fit neatly into the pocket of teams that made the playoffs the last two years.

santo=dorf
02-21-2008, 10:43 AM
We won because of starting pitching and the ability to score every game we played. Teams with balance in their lineup score more consistently. Not in bunches.

Just a reminder, in 2005 game two of the ALCS and game four of the World Series were both decided by a run setup by speed.

You want to downplay speed, and say its for fantasy baseball guys? Fine. But our manager plays a game where speed is absolutely the most important attribute. So to us, it's pretty darn important to have guys like that.
What about the other 10 playoff games that the Sox went 9-1 in?
Game 1 ALDS: Strong pitching Lots of home runs. Early home runs buried them.
Game 2 ALDS: 3 run homer put us ahead
Game 3 ALDS: Konerko's home run put us ahead, strong bullpen pitching.

Game 1 ALCS: Shutdown by good pitching, beaten by home runs.
Game 3 ALCS: Early home run, strong pitching
Game 4 ALCS: same as game 3
Game 5 ALCS: Strong pitching, Crede had a game tying home run. Sox took the lead by not playing small ball.

Game 1 WS: Jermaine Dye early home run, strong pitching, Joe Crede with the Go ahead home run
Game 2 WS: Paul Konerko Grand slam. Scott Podsednik walk off home run. But I bet Lidge accidentally threw a meatball because he was afraid of what Pods could do on the basepaths, right? :rolleyes: A triple is better than a home run still, right? :rolleyes:
Game 3 WS: Rally started off with a Crede home run. Sox did not score rest of the runs from small ball. In fact the game winning run was yet another home run and the run after that came due to a bases loaded walk. The ultimate move in station-to-station baseball. We also had great bullpen pitching.

But please, just go ahead and sweep those other 10 games under the rug.

"Small ball" is for small brains.

munchman33
02-21-2008, 10:56 AM
What about the other 10 playoff games that the Sox went 9-1 in?
Game 1 ALDS: Strong pitching Lots of home runs. Early home runs buried them.
Game 2 ALDS: 3 run homer put us ahead
Game 3 ALDS: Konerko's home run put us ahead, strong bullpen pitching.

Game 1 ALCS: Shutdown by good pitching, beaten by home runs.
Game 3 ALCS: Early home run, strong pitching
Game 4 ALCS: same as game 3
Game 5 ALCS: Strong pitching, Crede had a game tying home run. Sox took the lead by not playing small ball.

Game 1 WS: Jermaine Dye early home run, strong pitching, Joe Crede with the Go ahead home run
Game 2 WS: Paul Konerko Grand slam. Scott Podsednik walk off home run. But I bet Lidge accidentally threw a meatball because he was afraid of what Pods could do on the basepaths, right? :rolleyes: A triple is better than a home run still, right? :rolleyes:
Game 3 WS: Rally started off with a Crede home run. Sox did not score rest of the runs from small ball. In fact the game winning run was yet another home run and the run after that came due to a bases loaded walk. The ultimate move in station-to-station baseball. We also had great bullpen pitching.

But please, just go ahead and sweep those other 10 games under the rug.

"Small ball" is for small brains.

It takes a team...

WhiteSoxFan84
02-21-2008, 12:04 PM
Once again, it's not about Robert's character, it's about whether he might still be cheating and that cheating might lead to him getting suspended down the road. I don't want to put my faith or potentially my season in the hands of a guy who might end up not playing and thus bring down everything else around him.

If the Sox truly cannot win without a speedy, base-stealing, high OBP guy leading off, I want to be sure the guy they put there is going to play the whole season unless injured. Otherwise, it's just not worth the risk.

It's not personal, just business and right now that business is still being decided. I wouldn't risk acquiring any of the known cheats until Congress finishes doing their thing, especially if it's via trade and requires a lot of good young talent.


Oh ok, now I understand your view a little more.
But I just can't believe he's still on them. But I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

munchman33
02-21-2008, 12:27 PM
Oh ok, now I understand your view a little more.
But I just can't believe he's still on them. But I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

Like I said earlier...it's obvious what year he took them.

Optipessimism
02-21-2008, 01:26 PM
But please, just go ahead and sweep those other 10 games under the rug.

Where has anyone said that? Where has anyone said that OBP and XBH's aren't important to an offense? There seems to be a stupid argument going on where some people actually believe that, despite what history says, speed is basically irrelevant. Thanks to the throngs of wheel-reinventing stathead heroes everywhere and the propaganda they so generously spew, no longer do people have to actually watch or participate in a baseball game to see how it all works, now we can all go online, find some website that makes up brand new, completely bull**** stats that determine the worth of any given player major league player, and we can cast away all our skepticism because obviously any human being on the planet with such an unhealthy obsession with calculators must be automatically assumed to be an expert far more knowledgeable than anyone else.

"Small ball" is for small brains.

I'd rather have a small brain capable of contemplating all aspects of a subject than have a large brain that is basically useless as it is capable of nothing other than ignorance. Implying that people who give more attention to an aspect of the game that you completely ignore are stupid says nothing positive about the size of your brain, or how you use it.

Lip Man 1
02-21-2008, 03:48 PM
In 2005 the Sox were in the top 5 in the A.L. in the following categories:

Home Runs
Bunts
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Flys
Sacrifice Bunts.

THAT's how you win games... with BALANCE, not sitting back and hoping for a three run home run or station to station base running. You put yourself in a situation to win a game in a number of ways. The best teams can beat you in a number of ways.

And the bottom line is this, the Sox won a World Series with great pitching and a balanced offense in 2005. In the years 2001 through 2004 along with 2006 they won nothing... didn't even make the post season, by standing around and slugging 200+ home runs did they?

Yea I'll take some speed, some fundamentals and some baseball smarts in my lineup anyday along with some pop. I'll take my chances with that thank you.

I know I can steal a base any day off anyone...I can't say I'll be able to blast a three run home run every game or any time I need one.

Lip

kittle42
02-21-2008, 04:49 PM
In 2005 the Sox were in the top 5 in the A.L. in the following categories:

Home Runs
Bunts
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Flys
Sacrifice Bunts.

THAT's how you win games... with BALANCE, not sitting back and hoping for a three run home run or station to station base running. You put yourself in a situation to win a game in a number of ways. The best teams can beat you in a number of ways.

And the bottom line is this, the Sox won a World Series with great pitching and a balanced offense in 2005. In the years 2001 through 2004 along with 2006 they won nothing... didn't even make the post season, by standing around and slugging 200+ home runs did they?

Yea I'll take some speed, some fundamentals and some baseball smarts in my lineup anyday along with some pop. I'll take my chances with that thank you.

I know I can steal a base any day off anyone...I can't say I'll be able to blast a three run home run every game or any time I need one.

Lip

Balance undoubtedly works, though I'd really rather see the rankings of playoff/championship teams the last 5 years or so than just one winner in 2005.

santo=dorf
02-21-2008, 06:27 PM
I believe Ozzie made a comment along the lines of small ball being for small minds, and how they play "smart ball."

Lip, I don't know where you are getting your stats but the Sox were 7th out of 14 teams in sac flies in 2005. Is that really all that impressive? The AL team average was 46 and the Sox had 49. What a world of difference.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=sacFlies&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1

The White Sox lead the AL in Sac Bunts (not sure how that's different from a bunt :?: ) with 53, which is actually less than the NL average due in part to the pitcher "batting."
If you look at the top five in sac bunts you'll see the two ALCS teams, but you also see three other teams from the AL Central, and the one that almost made the playoffs isn't on the list.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=sacHits&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1

The two ALCS teams were in the top 3 for stolen bases (sandwiched between a garbage Tampa team) but they were tied for 10th in SB%.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=stolenBasePct&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1

WhiteSox5187
02-21-2008, 06:43 PM
I believe Ozzie made a comment along the lines of small ball being for small minds, and how they play "smart ball."

Lip, I don't know where you are getting your stats but the Sox were 7th out of 14 teams in sac flies in 2005. Is that really all that impressive? The AL team average was 46 and the Sox had 49. What a world of difference.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=sacFlies&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1

The White Sox lead the AL in Sac Bunts (not sure how that's different from a bunt :?: ) with 53, which is actually less than the NL average due in part to the pitcher "batting."
If you look at the top five in sac bunts you'll see the two ALCS teams, but you also see three other teams from the AL Central, and the one that almost made the playoffs isn't on the list.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=sacHits&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1

The two ALCS teams were in the top 3 for stolen bases (sandwiched between a garbage Tampa team) but they were tied for 10th in SB%.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=stolenBasePct&split=0&group=7&season=2005&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=exp1
A sac bunt is a bunt just trying to move the runner forward, so like in the NL when the pitcher bunts he's not trying to get on first, he's trying to move the runner on first (or wherever) to second and giving himself up.

SoxyStu
02-21-2008, 07:11 PM
In 2005 the Sox were in the top 5 in the A.L. in the following categories:

Home Runs
Bunts
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Flys
Sacrifice Bunts.

THAT's how you win games... with BALANCE, not sitting back and hoping for a three run home run or station to station base running. You put yourself in a situation to win a game in a number of ways. The best teams can beat you in a number of ways.

And the bottom line is this, the Sox won a World Series with great pitching and a balanced offense in 2005. In the years 2001 through 2004 along with 2006 they won nothing... didn't even make the post season, by standing around and slugging 200+ home runs did they?

Yea I'll take some speed, some fundamentals and some baseball smarts in my lineup anyday along with some pop. I'll take my chances with that thank you.

I know I can steal a base any day off anyone...I can't say I'll be able to blast a three run home run every game or any time I need one.

Lip

Top that offensive balance with these pitching top 5s and you have a great shot at a winner:
runs allowed per game
runs against
era
hits against
strikeouts
saves