PDA

View Full Version : Swisher will lead off and play CF, according to Ozzie


chisoxmike
03-26-2008, 10:21 PM
From Mark Gonzales

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/03/swisher-takes-o.html


Says after the game today, Ozzie stated that Swisher will lead off and play CF while Owens is on the DL

:anderson:
"Where's the love?"

JermaineDye05
03-26-2008, 10:24 PM
From Mark Gonzales

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/03/swisher-takes-o.html


Says after the game today, Ozzie stated that Swisher will lead off and play CF while Owens is on the DL

:anderson:
"Where's the love?"

My guess is Brian will be starting on opening day in Center. When has Ozzie ever had a consistent lineup on the field?

Corlose 15
03-26-2008, 10:25 PM
This seems to imply that Quentin is going to get the bulk of the playing time then.

Huisj
03-26-2008, 10:30 PM
This seems to imply that Quentin is going to get the bulk of the playing time then.

He's been hitting fine lately, but I really wonder about the health of his shoulder. The throws I saw him make from left field on Sunday were horrible. Worse than Podsednik, and that's something.

I'd still feel more comfortable about the outfield with Anderson's defense in center and Swisher in left.

Tragg
03-26-2008, 10:30 PM
This is just strange. Crede on the block, Crede starting. Uribe waived, now he starts. Anderson on bench, whoa he's not, yes he is.

Who knows.

Taliesinrk
03-26-2008, 10:32 PM
What the hell? Who's gonna play LF? Don't tell me that BA will sit while Quentin plays. Ugh.

Foulke You
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
Swisher batting leadoff? Ugh. A waste of an RBI producer if you ask me. Why not the speedy Ramirez or Ozuna to leadoff until Owens is healthy? I am looking forward to seeing what Quentin could do if that is indeed the plan.

Of course, this is Ozzie, he could change his mind 3 more times by March 31st.

chisoxmike
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
What the hell? Who's gonna play LF? Don't tell me that BA will sit while Quentin plays. Ugh.


They should have a promo every Thursday home game; "Play the outfield night!" presented by US Cellular! US Cellular never roams in the outfield!

WhiteSox5187
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
This seems to imply that Quentin is going to get the bulk of the playing time then.
Errr...I think Anderson has earned a spot on this team and should be the starting CF. I have no problems with Swisher leading off (though I'd like better speed) but I'd much rather have Anderson in CF and Swisher in LF. Quentin should be in AAA.

DickAllen72
03-26-2008, 10:34 PM
He's been hitting fine lately, but I really wonder about the health of his shoulder. The throws I saw him make from left field on Sunday were horrible. Worse than Podsednik, and that's something.

That's funny (peculiar) because it was his left shoulder that was injured and he throws with his right.

From the scouting reports I read on him he is supposed to have a "plus arm" for an outfielder. I hope the "l" wasn't a typo. :tongue:

DickAllen72
03-26-2008, 10:35 PM
Swisher batting leadoff? Ugh. A waste of an RBI producer if you ask me. Why not the speedy Ramirez or Ozuna to leadoff until Owens is healthy?
From what I've read, Ramirez swings at everything.

Craig Grebeck
03-26-2008, 10:47 PM
I'm not sure what's crazier, people implying that Quentin playing LF over Anderson is a bad thing or that Ramirez or Ozuna should leadoff over Swisher.

Optipessimism
03-26-2008, 10:51 PM
Ozzie Guillen is a chicken-sacrificing BA hater.

Poor Brian. He earned that starting job by busting his ass and stabbing his Jerry Owens voodoo doll in the groin.

Tragg
03-26-2008, 10:55 PM
From what I've read, Ramirez swings at everything.
No wonder he's on the team.

TheOldRoman
03-26-2008, 10:55 PM
This means Quentin will be in LF, and I am fine with that. Quentin is a better player now, and he has a much higher ceiling. I feel bad for BA, I want him to play, but he isn't going to start unless KW moves Konerko.

Swisher will miss RBI opportunities, but he needs to lead off now because of his monster OBP possibilities. The more he gets on, the more chances Thome, Konerko and Dye get for RBIs.

chisoxmike
03-26-2008, 10:58 PM
This means Quentin will be in LF, and I am fine with that. Quentin is a better player now, and he has a much higher ceiling. I feel bad for BA, I want him to play, but he isn't going to start unless KW moves Konerko.

Swisher will miss RBI opportunities, but he needs to lead off now because of his monster OBP possibilities. The more he gets on, the more chances Thome, Konerko and Dye get for RBIs.

I just hope Quentin is healthy. I don't want "The Carlos Quentin" playing getting hurt after a week or two.

And yeah, Swisher seems like the only logical lead off hitter. Which says something about the team...:o:

Metalthrasher442
03-26-2008, 11:41 PM
Why not bat Thome lead off. He tends to walk a lot.

Navarro's Talent
03-26-2008, 11:48 PM
Why not bat Thome lead off. He tends to walk a lot.

This was briefly considered last season when Thome was trying for his 500th home run. :redneck

voodoochile
03-26-2008, 11:53 PM
So since Crede and Uribe didn't get traded and Richar is hurt, the opening day lineup is pretty much what we expected in January?

Okay...

PalehosePlanet
03-26-2008, 11:54 PM
From what I've read, Ramirez swings at everything.

Definitely not true. He's agressive yes and he's been fooled on some off speed pitches, but he certainly doesn't swing at crap.

Sockinchisox
03-27-2008, 12:01 AM
Why not bat Thome lead off. He tends to walk a lot.

My eyes, my eyes!

:tealtutor:

Chilli Palmer
03-27-2008, 12:32 AM
I just hope Quentin is healthy. I don't want "The Carlos Quentin" playing getting hurt after a week or two.

And yeah, Swisher seems like the only logical lead off hitter. Which says something about the team...:o:

I think "The Carlos Quentin" can turn into a GREAT ballplayer, but who knows what will happen to him after "The Greg Walker" is through.

LoveYourSuit
03-27-2008, 12:36 AM
This is just strange. Crede on the block, Crede starting. Uribe waived, now he starts. Anderson on bench, whoa he's not, yes he is.

Who knows.


Exactly.

I am not going to listen to this crap anymore until I see the line-up read by DJ every night.

michned
03-27-2008, 12:39 AM
I think "The Carlos Quentin" can turn into a GREAT ballplayer, but who knows what will happen to him after "The Greg Walker" is through.

:rolling:

LoveYourSuit
03-27-2008, 12:42 AM
My eyes, my eyes!

:tealtutor:


I love these kind of posts.

I usually sit here and take the over/under on how many posts will go thru until someone jumps out to report this.

Tragg
03-27-2008, 12:44 AM
ONe thing's for sure: it's time to get the show on the road. PLAY BALL!

Elephant
03-27-2008, 12:48 AM
Another day, another ****ty roster move.

Thank god they serve beer at the park.

TDog
03-27-2008, 01:21 AM
Another day, another ****ty roster move.

Thank god they serve beer at the park.

What roster move? All I see here is discussion of the batting order.

The problem I see with Swisher leading off isn't that he'll miss RBI opportunities. I think he strikes out too much to be a good leadoff man.

Leading off the fastest guy on the team wouldn't be a good move if the guy rarely gets on base. A leadoff hitter primarily has to get on base and prefrably work deep in the count before walking and putting the ball in play.

With Thome and Konerko batting third and fourth (or even fourth and third), you're not going to see much stealing at the top of the order anyway.

BadBobbyJenks
03-27-2008, 02:03 AM
Definitely not true. He's agressive yes and he's been fooled on some off speed pitches, but he certainly doesn't swing at crap.

I was at the game today and I was really impressed. I dont know where this kid gets his power from, he absolutely crushed that grand slam to the opposite field.
This is the first time I have seen him live, is it possible he should be our leadoff hitter and starting second baseman?

I hope he is in the lineup tomorrow.

HebrewHammer
03-27-2008, 02:36 AM
This is probably the best news we've heard out of spring training. I was terrified he'd stick Alexei in CF and bat him leadoff.

Jerome
03-27-2008, 04:30 AM
If Quentin's shoulder is not ok will Swisher get moved to LF and BA to Center? And when Owens does come back will he (Swisher) get moved to left? I'm confused. Oh well, I think he'll be fine at the top of the order.

Swisher
Cabrera
Thome
Konerko
Dye

not exactly chopped liver 1-5

LITTLE NELL
03-27-2008, 05:57 AM
Whats wrong with Swisher in left and either Anderson or Alexi in Center, that would be the best way to go for defense.

Hitmen77
03-27-2008, 11:33 AM
I hope to see both Quentin and BA get a decent chance to show success in real games as they split the 3rd OF duties while Owens is out.

If one or both of these guys can succeed, that would be a huge boost for the Sox. BA is our only decent fielding CF - I'd love to have his glove around if he can succeed offensively. Quentin's minor league numbers from what I recall were great and he's a good defensive corner OF. I'd love to have his bat in our lineup if he can come anywhere close to replicating his minor league success (and if he's healthy of course).

These 2 guys may have a pretty short window to show they can hit in major league games since one of them is likely to be sent down when Owens comes back. Question: If Anderson and Quentin both are tearing the cover off the ball during these early season games, who gets sent down when Owens returns from the DL? (maybe that question should be in deep pink, but I think it is possible)

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 11:37 AM
Well this thread isn't surprising at all

People couldn't care less about Swisher being in CF but they're hopping mad over the best OBP guy (with decent speed) leading off.

Us White Sox fans deserve the team we're about to get.

sullythered
03-27-2008, 11:38 AM
I'm not sure what's crazier, people implying that Quentin playing LF over Anderson is a bad thing or that Ramirez or Ozuna should leadoff over Swisher.
Yeah, Swisher is a much better option at lead-off, but Brian has vastly outplayed Quentin thus far.

Bob G
03-27-2008, 11:48 AM
Let's face the facts .. due to KW's inability to make the trades he wanted to make and injuries this lineup is pretty much a mess. Hopefully it'll get straightened out during April... hopefully.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure what's crazier, people implying that Quentin playing LF over Anderson is a bad thing or that Ramirez or Ozuna should leadoff over Swisher.

Who would have guessed?! Mr. Grebeck supporting Quentin at all costs.. never saw it coming.

oeo
03-27-2008, 11:52 AM
Let's face the facts .. due to KW's inability to make the trades he wanted to make and injuries this lineup is pretty much a mess. Hopefully it'll get straightened out during April... hopefully.

I don't think I'd call it a 'mess.' A mess would be if we had gaping holes at multiple positions. We actually have a good problem here. The only problem is trying to find playing time for everyone...which is a lot better than what we had last year where 2/3 of our outfield and our 3B were just counting the days until hitting the DL.

Once Thome and/or Dye start their annual injuries, the depth of this team will really show as a strong point and not a mess.

Tragg
03-27-2008, 12:01 PM
I'm not sure what's crazier, people implying that Quentin playing LF over Anderson is a bad thing or that Ramirez or Ozuna should leadoff over Swisher.
The latter is, by far, nuttier.

Tragg
03-27-2008, 12:05 PM
These 2 guys may have a pretty short window to show they can hit in major league games since one of them is likely to be sent down when Owens comes back. Question: If Anderson and Quentin both are tearing the cover off the ball during these early season games, who gets sent down when Owens returns from the DL? (maybe that question should be in deep pink, but I think it is possible)
Hopefully, they play decently and they stay this way. Owens doesn't bring anything compelling as a bench player anyway (nor as a starter if he doesn't deliver a .350 OBP).

Craig Grebeck
03-27-2008, 12:09 PM
Who would have guessed?! Mr. Grebeck supporting Quentin at all costs.. never saw it coming.
If you want to put all of your stock in spring training statistics, go right ahead. There is not a scout on earth that would tell you BA is a better hitter than Carlos.

btrain929
03-27-2008, 12:10 PM
Call me crazy, but my ideal lineup with Owens injured would be:

1)Cabrera
2) Quentin or BA
3) Thome
4) Konerko
5) Swisher
6) Dye
etc

This way, we are strong 1-6, not just 1-5. Also, with the strong part of our order coming up, and Cabrera on 1st base hopefully a good amount (a threat to steal), anyone we put in the 2 hole should see some good pitches to hit. It could be a great confidence booster for both Quentin and BA if they see time in the 2 hole, see some meatballs thrown to them, and they jump all over them.

I know, I know, the #2 hitter should be good with the bat and hit it to right field whenever he chooses. I personally think that skill for the #2 hitter is overrated. Just get on base and keep the line moving. And with one, or both of these guys hitting before Thome or Konerko or Swisher, and Cabrera on 1st, they should see good pitches to hit. It should do wonders for their confidence level since they are still young to the MLB game, and its definitely better than having them in the 8 hole with Uribe on deck.....

Carolina Kenny
03-27-2008, 12:12 PM
Whats wrong with Swisher in left and either Anderson or Alexi in Center, that would be the best way to go for defense.

I agree. A outfield of Swish in Center and Dye in Right will have terrible range. Think of all those balls in the gaps.

Our infield defense is looking pretty good, but I am really concerned about the outfield defense.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 12:14 PM
I don't think I'd call it a 'mess.' A mess would be if we had gaping holes at multiple positions. We actually have a good problem here. The only thing now is trying to find playing time for everybody.

Maybe. But this could turn into one huge circus, IMO. This 1/2-"reload", 1/2 rebuild, 100% 3rd place idea we've gone for this off-season could seriously stunt the growth of certain players on the squad. Primarily my concerns are for:

BA - let the ****ing kid play, just once (oh yeah - I got the people that think he was given a shot in '06 - I don't agree so there's no point in bringing it up again)
Quentin - hasn't had any extensive time in the big leagues and we're going to platoon him/use him as a reserve... sounds like '06 and BA.
Ramirez - has 0 MLB experience, and with Ozzie's proclamation that Uribe will get the bulk of the PT at 2nd (and Ozuna will play some too), he looks to ride the pine a fair amount too.

I just don't understand, and have just about no idea as to whether we'll finish in 1st or 5th this year.

oeo
03-27-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree. A outfield of Swish in Center and Dye in Right will have terrible range. Think of all those balls in the gaps.

Our infield defense is looking pretty good, but I am really concerned about the outfield defense.

What I've seen from Alexei in center was not very good. He doesn't look very confident out there. I'd only put him there as a last resort.

I think since Anderson is our only real choice in CF, you start him the bulk of the games (notice I didn't say everyday...I know there will be people here whining if BA isn't starting 7 days a week, but there are other guys that need ABs, too). If BA struggles in April, then I think you have to move Swisher to CF (as well as think about BA's future...move him, send him back down; I'd rather have Bourgeious up here for the added depth if Anderson can't hit).

Dye can move to DH against some lefties, opening a spot for Quentin. Quentin can go in left, moving Swisher to center against tough righties (BA is the suck against a good RHP).

When Owens comes back, I don't know. :nuts: Hopefully they keep him out until he's completely healthy, and then we might have a better idea of whether BA's spring was just another good spring and/or if Quentin is healthy. If everything is good...BA is succeeding, Quentin is healthy and playing well, the team is winning games with Swisher at leadoff, etc., then don't fix what's not broken: put Owens in Charlotte.

Until Owens gets back, I agree with Ozzie that Swisher is our best bet leading off.

peeonwrigley
03-27-2008, 12:28 PM
Maybe. But this could turn into one huge circus, IMO. This 1/2-"reload", 1/2 rebuild, 100% 3rd place idea we've gone for this off-season


:rolling:

oeo
03-27-2008, 12:39 PM
Maybe. But this could turn into one huge circus, IMO. This 1/2-"reload", 1/2 rebuild, 100% 3rd place idea we've gone for this off-season could seriously stunt the growth of certain players on the squad. Primarily my concerns are for:

BA - let the ****ing kid play, just once (oh yeah - I got the people that think he was given a shot in '06 - I don't agree so there's no point in bringing it up again)
Quentin - hasn't had any extensive time in the big leagues and we're going to platoon him/use him as a reserve... sounds like '06 and BA.
Ramirez - has 0 MLB experience, and with Ozzie's proclamation that Uribe will get the bulk of the PT at 2nd (and Ozuna will play some too), he looks to ride the pine a fair amount too.

I just don't understand, and have just about no idea as to whether we'll finish in 1st or 5th this year.

Well, if Crede, Uribe, and Anderson all play well, I honestly think every last one of them will be dealt at some point in the season. I don't think any of them were in the plans of the Opening Day roster, but one had an awful spring and couldn't be dealt, the other is a ****ty $4.5 million player, and the last one had a great all-around spring, which you can't just ignore.

It'll be interesting, to say the least, how everything turns out.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 12:57 PM
Well, if Crede, Uribe, and Anderson all play well, I honestly think every last one of them will be dealt at some point in the season. I don't think any of them were in the plans of the Opening Day roster, but one had an awful spring and couldn't be dealt, the other is a ****ty $4.5 million player, and the last one had a great all-around spring, which you can't just ignore.

It'll be interesting, to say the least, how everything turns out.

Yeah, I understand Crede and Uribe leaving, but I think Anderson could turn out to be a solid (notice I didn't say superstar, so all the BA haters should relax) player for years to come. I think we should keep Anderson, but I'm not sure he'll ever be able to satisfy Ozzie. Who knows. The only thing I do is that I'm afraid the White Sox drinking game may have to be in full force this season.

KyWhiSoxFan
03-27-2008, 01:13 PM
The Tribune article was poorly edited and written. It says two different things. The headline says Swisher is leading off and will play center, but the third paragraph says Ramirez or Anderson will start in center. The third paragraph was a direct attribution to Ozzie. Since headlines are always written by someone in the office, I tend to think the third paragraph is correct, that Ramirez or BA will be in CF.

If that is the case, then perhaps Swisher is starting in left field. I'm sure this will be clarified by the end of the day. (But probably not in the Tribune.)

Tragg
03-27-2008, 01:25 PM
the other is a ****ty $4.5 million player, .
Didn't somebody claim him and we pulled him back? Not paying the salary is the most we can reasonably expect for him and we turned it down (or maybe, we're still liable for the salary if he's claimed? But I don't think so).

EndemicSox
03-27-2008, 01:25 PM
Still think Swish is better suited for the 3 spot, and he'll probably be there before long, but it is what it is...hopefully a month from now this simply doesn't matter...

Heffalump
03-27-2008, 01:36 PM
Call me crazy, but my ideal lineup with Owens injured would be:

1)Cabrera
2) Quentin or BA
3) Thome
4) Konerko
5) Swisher
6) Dye
etc




Quentin or BA hitting in the two hole? Seriously?

Paulwny
03-27-2008, 01:36 PM
Didn't somebody claim him and we pulled him back? Not paying the salary is the most we can reasonably expect for him and we turned it down (or maybe, we're still liable for the salary if he's claimed? But I don't think so).


Yep, 2 teams , why they didn't let him go a mystery. The claiming team would have to pay his entire salary.

btrain929
03-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Quentin or BA hitting in the two hole? Seriously?

Did you READ the rest of my post? Tell me what part of my explanation is illogical. If they fail miserably, you move Cabrera back to the #2 hole. If those Anderson and/or a healthy Quentin can't hit in a 2 hole with those guys ahead and behind him, there's not much hope for them offensively.

FedEx227
03-27-2008, 01:53 PM
Did you READ the rest of my post? Tell me what part of my explanation is illogical. If they fail miserably, you move Cabrera back to the #2 hole. If those Anderson and/or a healthy Quentin can't hit in a 2 hole with those guys ahead and behind him, there's not much hope for them offensively.

OC is built for the 2-spot, plain and simple. He is a prototypical 2-hole hitter.

btrain929
03-27-2008, 01:55 PM
OC is built for the 2-spot, plain and simple. He is a prototypical 2-hole hitter.

Oh, I get it, and Swisher was built for the leadoff spot, plain and simple. He is a prototypical leadoff guy.....

Sometimes you have to adjust and work with what you got. Perfect world, Cabrera is your #2 hitter. But with Owens out, I'd rather see him at the top of the order. Batting Swisher leadoff is going to give us a hideous 6-9.....

Iwritecode
03-27-2008, 01:55 PM
Yep, 2 teams , why they didn't let him go a mystery. The claiming team would have to pay his entire salary.

Probably because they figure if there's two teams willing to take him, maybe they are willing to work out a trade so the Sox at least get something for him?

Iwritecode
03-27-2008, 01:58 PM
The Tribune article was poorly edited and written. It says two different things. The headline says Swisher is leading off and will play center, but the third paragraph says Ramirez or Anderson will start in center. The third paragraph was a direct attribution to Ozzie. Since headlines are always written by someone in the office, I tend to think the third paragraph is correct, that Ramirez or BA will be in CF.

If that is the case, then perhaps Swisher is starting in left field. I'm sure this will be clarified by the end of the day. (But probably not in the Tribune.)

It said Swisher will bat lead off and play center most of the time. Ramirez and Anderson will start in selected games against left-handers.

Lip Man 1
03-27-2008, 01:59 PM
Tragg:

I think, if memory serves, that I saw a story in the past few days saying the Dodgers were one of the two teams putting in a claim for Uribe.

If that's the case, perhaps the Sox didn't go through with something hoping L.A. would eventually want to take Crede off their hands?

Lip

Palehose Pete
03-27-2008, 02:00 PM
Swisher batting leadoff? Ugh. A waste of an RBI producer if you ask me. Why not the speedy Ramirez or Ozuna to leadoff until Owens is healthy? I am looking forward to seeing what Quentin could do if that is indeed the plan.

Of course, this is Ozzie, he could change his mind 3 more times by March 31st.

Thank you. The man needs to hit 5th or 6th, not lead-off.

And what about BA? He was doing well in ST, why isn't he even mentioned?

oeo
03-27-2008, 02:01 PM
Didn't somebody claim him and we pulled him back? Not paying the salary is the most we can reasonably expect for him and we turned it down (or maybe, we're still liable for the salary if he's claimed? But I don't think so).

I don't think anyone knows what happened. That story changed so many times, I don't even believe that it happened anymore.

As for your question...you're right: if we was claimed, he would no longer be Sox property and thus that team would have to pay the full $4.5 million.

Paulwny
03-27-2008, 02:02 PM
Probably because they figure if there's two teams willing to take him, maybe they are willing to work out a trade so the Sox at least get something for him?

Its hard for me to imagine a team giving up players plus a $4.5 mil contract for Uribe.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Did you READ the rest of my post? Tell me what part of my explanation is illogical. If they fail miserably, you move Cabrera back to the #2 hole. If those Anderson and/or a healthy Quentin can't hit in a 2 hole with those guys ahead and behind him, there's not much hope for them offensively.

Not necessarily illogical, but at least IMO, just that we would differ on the importance/needs of the necessary skill-set of a 2-hole hitter

sox1970
03-27-2008, 02:27 PM
Swisher is leading off and playing center today. Quentin in LF.

Bob G
03-27-2008, 02:30 PM
With Owens on the DL this team is really lacking speed - something that OG has stated many times he wants. I wouldn't be surprised if Pablo gets more starts until Owens returns. He can be the lead off guy with OC #2. I also like the idea of Swisher batting third - with his high OBP he needs to be up there.

While Owens is out Anderson should be our CF - he's the best we have defensively in that position and I think this could be a breakout year for him (at least I hope so).

pudge
03-27-2008, 02:31 PM
Well this thread isn't surprising at all

People couldn't care less about Swisher being in CF but they're hopping mad over the best OBP guy (with decent speed) leading off.

Us White Sox fans deserve the team we're about to get.

In this case, I think you're being a little harsh on the fans. Here is what I don't get: This team won a world title with a great starting 5, speed at lead-off, and solid defense up the middle, and now it seems like they have no clue what brought them that championship. Danks and Floyd at the bottom of the rotation? Swisher in CF? It's like when they lost so many games in '06 because of putting Mackowiack in CF. (I realize Swisher is not that bad, but still.) I just don't get the entire strategy this off-season. All in all, very disheartening. I hope they prove me wrong, but I fail to get jacked up about this year.

Heffalump
03-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Did you READ the rest of my post? Tell me what part of my explanation is illogical. If they fail miserably, you move Cabrera back to the #2 hole. If those Anderson and/or a healthy Quentin can't hit in a 2 hole with those guys ahead and behind him, there's not much hope for them offensively.

Uh, YES, I did read it. So basically you are saying take two inexperienced players that have never batted #2, aren't bunters, tend to strike out more than average, haven't proven that they can "just get on base" or move runners over consistently and put them in a high pressure situation to "improve their confidence level"? And then you say if they fail miserably, we can move them? Well of course we can! Way to cover all of your bases.

Sounds like a smart move to me for a team that hopes to contend! Sorry but this isn't the instructional league.

And why do you think they would get all "meatballs" thrown to them? Because Thome is up next? Maybe in a few situations, but IMO, batting them 2nd would just lead to A LOT of rally killings.

Ozzie does some stupid things (see Mack in CF), but this would take the cake.

Sockinchisox
03-27-2008, 02:33 PM
Swisher is leading off and playing center today. Quentin in LF.

If the lineup thats on display today is going to be the regular lineup, I'm fine with it.

Craig Grebeck
03-27-2008, 02:35 PM
Why does ability to bunt take precedence over OBP in the 2 hole?

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 02:37 PM
If the lineup thats on display today is going to be the regular lineup, I'm fine with it.

So's Craig Grebeck... and the rest of the AL Central.

Sockinchisox
03-27-2008, 02:43 PM
So's Craig Grebeck... and the rest of the AL Central.

You're vastly underrating Quentin here, he has a much larger ceiling than Anderson.

Craig Grebeck
03-27-2008, 02:45 PM
So's Craig Grebeck... and the rest of the AL Central.
Well I haven't seen the lineup, but if it focuses on utilizing baseball skills instead of track and field skills, then I will be.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Why does ability to bunt take precedence over OBP in the 2 hole?

Because not everything is about OBP and SLG and OPS and the inverse derivative of the square root of x cubed plus 4 minus whatever other bull**** moneyball or money dumb**** ball, billy beane and his computer geek nerd herd friends put together for a "winner" that's never even seen the World Series.

Heffalump
03-27-2008, 02:46 PM
You're vastly underrating Quentin here, he has a much larger ceiling than Anderson.


<using Hawk voice> I luv ceilings!

Craig Grebeck
03-27-2008, 02:47 PM
Because not everything is about OBP and SLG and OPS and the inverse derivative of the square root of x cubed plus 4 minus whatever other bull**** moneyball or money dumb**** ball, billy beane and his computer geek nerd herd friends put together for a "winner" that's never even seen the World Series.
...

I'm not even sure what to say.

spiffie
03-27-2008, 02:51 PM
Because not everything is about OBP and SLG and OPS and the inverse derivative of the square root of x cubed plus 4 minus whatever other bull**** moneyball or money dumb**** ball, billy beane and his computer geek nerd herd friends put together for a "winner" that's never even seen the World Series.
Last year's World Series was just an illusion. The Red Sox didn't use #2 hitters who couldn't bunt their way out of a paper bag but were OBP machines.

voodoochile
03-27-2008, 02:53 PM
Didn't somebody claim him and we pulled him back? Not paying the salary is the most we can reasonably expect for him and we turned it down (or maybe, we're still liable for the salary if he's claimed? But I don't think so).

Supposedly the Dodgers claimed him, but right at the same time it became apparent that Richar was going to go on the DL and I think Ozzie got nervous about having only Ozuna and Rameriz to fall back on so they kept Uribe. They can always do it again later or if he gets off to a hot start, perhaps someone will offer us something more than simply paying his salary.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 02:53 PM
You're vastly underrating Quentin here, he has a much larger ceiling than Anderson.

How am I underestimating Quentin? The fact of the matter is that Anderson has outplayed Quentin THIS spring. Quentin has better minor league numbers - but has been injured. In his brief time at the ML level, he has failed to overly impress (as has Anderson - offensively). Anderson is a GG-caliber CF - a position that this team lacks. Quentin, is a corner outfielder and cannot adaquately play CF (not according to me - but major league scouts). I am not saying that BA will have a better career than Quentin (or even the potential to have a better career). What I am saying is that Anderson fills a hole the team needs and has, thus far, outplayed Quentin. Anderson has EARNED the right to be the starting CF until he fails (or Owens comes back because he fills a need as well - potentially - as a a leadoff hitter).

Don't get me wrong, I think Quentin could be a hell of a player, just not the most pressing need of the team at this time.

voodoochile
03-27-2008, 02:55 PM
You're vastly underrating Quentin here, he has a much larger ceiling than Anderson.

Is it higher too or just larger? :dunno:

Heffalump
03-27-2008, 02:57 PM
How am I underestimating Quentin? The fact of the matter is that Anderson has outplayed Quentin THIS spring. Quentin has better minor league numbers - but has been injured. In his brief time at the ML level, he has failed to overly impress (as has Anderson - offensively). Anderson is a GG-caliber CF - a position that this team lacks. Quentin, is a corner outfielder and cannot adaquately play CF (not according to me - but major league scouts). I am not saying that BA will have a better career than Quentin (or even the potential to have a better career). What I am saying is that Anderson fills a hole the team needs and has, thus far, outplayed Quentin. Anderson has EARNED the right to be the starting CF until he fails (or Owens comes back because he fills a need as well - potentially - as a a leadoff hitter).

Don't get me wrong, I think Quentin could be a hell of a player, just not the most pressing need of the team at this time.


I suggest we bat Quentin and Anderson in the 3 and 4 holes. It will "improve their confidence level" and raise their "ceilings". Thome and Konerko can bat 8 and 9 with Uribe batting 7th. This way Uribe will see lots of "meatballs".

The Immigrant
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Quentin starting in LF today with Swisher in CF and leading off. This will likely be our regular lineup against righties.

:bandance: (there's not enough dancing 'nanas to express my joy)

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 03:01 PM
In this case, I think you're being a little harsh on the fans. Here is what I don't get: This team won a world title with a great starting 5, speed at lead-off, and solid defense up the middle, and now it seems like they have no clue what brought them that championship. Danks and Floyd at the bottom of the rotation? Swisher in CF? It's like when they lost so many games in '06 because of putting Mackowiack in CF. (I realize Swisher is not that bad, but still.) I just don't get the entire strategy this off-season. All in all, very disheartening. I hope they prove me wrong, but I fail to get jacked up about this year.

You're right on with starting five and solid defense up the middle.

But speed at leadoff is a red herring. It was more the fact that Pod's speed and decently high OBP was something we were lacking.

A higher OBP and less speed would have been just as good for us in 2005

Sockinchisox
03-27-2008, 03:02 PM
Is it higher too or just larger? :dunno:

Is there a difference?

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 03:07 PM
I suggest we bat Quentin and Anderson in the 3 and 4 holes. It will "improve their confidence level" and raise their "ceilings". Thome and Konerko can bat 8 and 9 with Uribe batting 7th. This way Uribe will see lots of "meatballs".

You're mocking the person who suggested we put one of those guys in the 2 hole right?? Because I never said any of this.

spiffie
03-27-2008, 03:07 PM
You're right on with starting five and solid defense up the middle.

But speed at leadoff is a red herring. It was more the fact that Pod's speed and decently high OBP was something we were lacking.

A higher OBP and less speed would have been just as good for us in 2005
I wonder about that last statement. At least as regards pure OBP. Now, a higher OPS out of the 1 spot coupled with less SB I can agree with. But as there were a goodly number of runs scored by virtue of Podsednik moving himself from station to station or being moved via sacrifice/giving himself up AB's by Iguchi, I don't know if simply having a guy on first more often would have been quite as successful. In the overall it may not have mattered, but my first guess would tell me that due to the way the Sox were constructed that year that Podsednik's ability to be moved along the basepaths without the benefit of additional productive AB's from the 2 spot probably made his speed even more valuable than it would be under most circumstances.

voodoochile
03-27-2008, 03:07 PM
Is there a difference?

Technically speaking, yes.

But, I was just messing with you, though I haven't ever heard the expression, "he has a larger ceiling" before today.

champagne030
03-27-2008, 03:22 PM
Quentin has better minor league numbers - but has been injured. In his brief time at the ML level, he has failed to overly impress (as has Anderson - offensively). Anderson is a GG-caliber CF - a position that this team lacks. Quentin, is a corner outfielder and cannot adaquately play CF (not according to me - but major league scouts). I am not saying that BA will have a better career than Quentin (or even the potential to have a better career). What I am saying is that Anderson fills a hole the team needs

I agree with this. Carlos needs to put up big numbers and Brian needs to continue to bat .230 to justify the defensive shenanigans that we'll be watching to Carlos' left. :shrug:

As someone mentioned earlier, I'm not sold on the story behind this thread. It says that Ozzie announced his plans yesterday and that Swisher would be in LF and Alexei or Brian in CF for opening day. It mentions nothing about Ozzie saying Swish would be playing CF (and not just opening day).

Why would Carlos be sitting on opening day against a lefty? Or is he going to DH?

Edit: I guess it doesn't say Swish will be in LF. Is he going to DH and Carlos in LF?

EndemicSox
03-27-2008, 03:25 PM
You're vastly underrating Quentin here, he has a much larger ceiling than Anderson.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/A/brian-anderson-3.shtml
Obviously, something has gone wrong over the past two years, but hopefully that can be explained by injury/rushed to the bigs...

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/Q/Carlos-Quentin.shtml
No doubt Quentin's upside is higher...

Nevertheless, I think both guys have a bright future, and I'm glad the Sox have them...

Heffalump
03-27-2008, 03:29 PM
You're mocking the person who suggested we put one of those guys in the 2 hole right?? Because I never said any of this.

Yep....Sorry.

Jerko
03-27-2008, 03:30 PM
uh oh


FIELDING
E: Swisher (1, fielding).

Tragg
03-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Because not everything is about OBP and SLG and OPS and the inverse derivative of the square root of x cubed plus 4 minus whatever other bull**** moneyball or money dumb**** ball, billy beane and his computer geek nerd herd friends put together for a "winner" that's never even seen the World Series.
The Sox were last in OBP in the majors last year - dead Last. The manager values aggressive swinging. We're a long, long way from being too far on the OBP side.
And it seems to me the last thing we need is to make intentional outs in front of Thome, Konerko and Dye, reducing the chance that they get at bats with men on base. Why would we want to bunt in front of Thome, save speciific late inning circumstances?

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 04:15 PM
I wonder about that last statement. At least as regards pure OBP. Now, a higher OPS out of the 1 spot coupled with less SB I can agree with. But as there were a goodly number of runs scored by virtue of Podsednik moving himself from station to station or being moved via sacrifice/giving himself up AB's by Iguchi, I don't know if simply having a guy on first more often would have been quite as successful. In the overall it may not have mattered, but my first guess would tell me that due to the way the Sox were constructed that year that Podsednik's ability to be moved along the basepaths without the benefit of additional productive AB's from the 2 spot probably made his speed even more valuable than it would be under most circumstances.

Podsednik OBPed .351 in 554 PA in 2005, meaning he was on base 194 times.

He stole 59 bases and got caught 23 times.

If we had had a guy with less speed who OBPed .380 in 554 PA, he would have gotten on base 210 times, 16 more times on base.

Granted, he would have likely lacked the 59 advanced bases that SB's allowed, but he also would likely not have gotten caught 23 times, removing himself from base. That 23+16 more times on base=39 more times on base, but 59 less advanced bases.

However Podsednik only hit 28 doubles and had only 1 triple in 2005, meaning that those 59 advanced bases could roughly= 29 more doubles, 12 more HR, or 19 more triples.

Of course this isn't a perfect correlation, especially since situationally, you're right, there are a number of times when Pods would single or walk, steal second, and be advanced by Iguchi for a sac fly from Everett or whomever...and it also doesn't account for how a pitcher may pitch differently when SB's are a concern....

However, what I'm generally trying to suggest is that having a Swisher in the leadoff spot, despite less SB speed, would generally create just as many scoring opportunities.....

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 04:16 PM
Because not everything is about OBP and SLG and OPS and the inverse derivative of the square root of x cubed plus 4 minus whatever other bull**** moneyball or money dumb**** ball, billy beane and his computer geek nerd herd friends put together for a "winner" that's never even seen the World Series.


:rolling:

You're talking about OBP, the average number of times a hitter gets on base, as if it's some sort of complex formula.

Do you have a similar mistrust of Batting Average?

:rolling:

spiffie
03-27-2008, 04:28 PM
:rolling:

You're talking about OBP, the average number of times a hitter gets on base, as if it's some sort of complex formula.

Do you have a similar mistrust of Batting Average?

:rolling:
If a stat wasn't used by men wearing handlebar moustaches, it must be arcane :cool:

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 04:56 PM
If a stat wasn't used by men wearing handlebar moustaches, it must be arcane :cool:

The funny thing is, I'm reading a book about the 50 best baseball games, written in 1986 by Bert Randolph Sugar, a guy who clearly, even by 1986, had been around a great many years, and he uses OBP to extol the virtues of many of the greats who took part in the 50 best baseball games.

But yeah, it's such a newfangled measure of ability. Certainly Babe Ruth and Ted Williams's walks have nothing to do with how great they are

:rolling:

Elephant
03-27-2008, 04:59 PM
Getting on base is like the point of baseball. It's prerequisite for scoring baseball points.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me..

mccoydp
03-27-2008, 05:06 PM
No wonder he's on the team.

He probably takes batting practice with Ooo-ree-bay.

TomBradley72
03-27-2008, 05:08 PM
A higher OBP and less speed would have been just as good for us in 2005

I think that's revisonist history...early in the season when we were in a ton of 1 run/low scoring games....Pods ability to steal/take the extra base, etc...was a huge difference maker. It was more than just his OBP.

ChicagoG19
03-27-2008, 05:13 PM
I personally think we should put swisher in the two spot with quentin at the top.

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 05:14 PM
Getting on base is like the point of baseball. It's prerequisite for scoring baseball points.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me..

Now that the last page of this thread has been devoted to tearing me apart, I'd like to note that I appreciate the usefulness of OBP. It wasn't even really directed at the topic at hand, rather an outburst of frustration due to Craig Grebeck's end-all, be-all: statistics. It goes back over a month in our disagreement of Anderson/Owens vs. Quentin and other minor things (like who should be at 2B). Bottom line is it's always statistical, and he's gone so far to use stats I've never even heard of before. Craig is a stat guy, and that's fine. I just feel like he discounts other aspects of baseball (see: defense, or more in this case: the ability to "do the little things" like hit behind the runner, so on and so forth). So if you're really bored, go back and find the Anderson/Owens vs. Quentin threads and you'll understand what I really meant (hopefully).

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 05:16 PM
I think that's revisonist history...early in the season when we were in a ton of 1 run/low scoring games....Pods ability to steal/take the extra base, etc...was a huge difference maker. It was more than just his OBP.

I agree.

Lip Man 1
03-27-2008, 05:24 PM
Can someone please tell me what Pods OBP was on the 3rd Thursday of every month against right handed pitchers who's last name is six letters or less?

Some of these folks have a tendency to take things a tad to the extreme don't you think?

:rolleyes:

Lip

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 05:26 PM
I think that's revisonist history...early in the season when we were in a ton of 1 run/low scoring games....Pods ability to steal/take the extra base, etc...was a huge difference maker. It was more than just his OBP.

And getting on base more, hitting more doubles, and letting Iguchi/Everett/Konerko swing away wouldn't have provided runs?

You can't know for certain, but it's a pretty hard sell to say that OBPing .350, hitting 29 doubles 1 triple and no home runs, and stealing 53 bases somehow produces more runs than OBPing .380, hitting 36 doubles 1 triple and hitting 22 HR

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 05:27 PM
Can someone please tell me what Pods OBP was on the 3rd Thursday of every month against right handed pitchers who's last name is six letters or less?

Some of these folks have a tendency to take things a tad to the extreme don't you think?

:rolleyes:

Lip



Where on earth in this thread do you see any of that sort of statistical analysis

Of course, to some, the mere idea of statistical analysis, however rudimentary (i.e. WALKS=GETTING ON BASE) is enough to turn baseball into computer golf

Lip Man 1
03-27-2008, 05:38 PM
You got it bucko!

Just play the damn game and leave the quantum physics and theoretical analysis in the classroom where it belongs...not on the playing field.

Lip

spiffie
03-27-2008, 05:43 PM
I burned all my baseball cards because they had too many numbers on the back.

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 05:49 PM
You got it bucko!

Just play the damn game and leave the quantum physics and theoretical analysis in the classroom where it belongs...not on the playing field.

Lip

Yeah...it's not like baseball's a sport in which statistics are a rich and varied component of its history

Taliesinrk
03-27-2008, 06:31 PM
Yeah...it's not like baseball's a sport in which statistics are a rich and varied component of its history

Lip's post was much more eloquent than my tirade, but is essentially what I was saying. It's not that stats have no value, just that they don't win and lose baseball games. It's also that stats have never been able to measure the entire value of a player.

Stats will never be able to measure the value of intangibles - something, if you're curious the white sox benefitted tremendously from in '05.

santo=dorf
03-27-2008, 06:42 PM
Getting on base is like the point of baseball. It's prerequisite for scoring baseball points.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me..
It also means not making a precious out, you know you only get three of those an inning. (I know you know, but some fail to grasp that concept.)

If you're having a hard time calculating OBP or OPS, you should really consider contacting Sylvan Learning Center.

Lip's post was much more eloquent than my tirade, but is essentially what I was saying. It's not that stats have no value, just that they don't win and lose baseball games. It's also that stats have never been able to measure the entire value of a player.

Stats will never be able to measure the value of intangibles - something, if you're curious the white sox benefitted tremendously from in '05.
The stats that calculated our "intangibles" of 2005 were ERA, WHIP, BAA, HR's hit, and IP by our starters.

Daver
03-27-2008, 06:49 PM
The stats that calculated our "intangibles" of 2005 were ERA, WHIP, BAA, HR's hit, and IP by our starters.

Nope.

The only stat that means a damn thing from 2005 is 11-1.

Lip Man 1
03-27-2008, 07:22 PM
Daver is correct!

Lip

Tragg
03-27-2008, 07:40 PM
I personally think we should put swisher in the two spot with quentin at the top.

That would be interesting. Can't wait to see Quentein hit.

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 08:26 PM
Nope.

The only stat that means a damn thing from 2005 is 11-1.

Certainly.

And the stats that led up to that were the pitching lines of the 4 starters--particularly IP, CG, ERA, K/9, K/BB and WHIP

which were all quite excellent

Daver
03-27-2008, 08:31 PM
Certainly.

And the stats that led up to that were the pitching lines of the 4 starters--particularly IP, CG, ERA, K/9, K/BB and WHIP

which were all quite excellent

So what, numbers can be great and you lose, in the end the only thing that is worth a squirt of piss is whether you won or lost.

Domeshot17
03-27-2008, 08:34 PM
So what, numbers can be great and you lose, in the end the only thing that is worth a squirt of piss is whether you won or lost.


BINGO

Jon Garland once won 18 games with an era over 4. That exact same year Roger Clemens only managed to go 13-8, while having an era under 2.

Brian26
03-27-2008, 08:37 PM
So what, numbers can be great and you lose, in the end the only thing that is worth a squirt of piss is whether you won or lost.

As long as you're not a wild card team that wins the World Series while managing only 90 wins.:cool:

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 08:41 PM
So what, numbers can be great and you lose, in the end the only thing that is worth a squirt of piss is whether you won or lost.

Why watch games then? Why not just look at w/l record at the end of the year?

Obviously nothing in a game matters as long as you win or lose. Nothing you "enjoyed" while watching a game is worth a squirt of piss if your team lost.

Why bother executing? Why bunt, hit and run, and steal? It doesn't matter if you execute perfectly if you lose.

Why go after players with great numbers as FA or trade bait? Why not just look and see whether their team won or lost?

Come on.

fquaye149
03-27-2008, 08:44 PM
BINGO

Jon Garland once won 18 games with an era over 4. That exact same year Roger Clemens only managed to go 13-8, while having an era under 2.

:shrug:

Wins are an important stat, but in 2005 Garland had 18 wins and Santana had 16 or so. If wins are the only thing that makes a piss or squirt, then Garland had a better 2005 than Santana.

Maybe that's true. But it doesn't do a whole lot of good in evaluating who's a better pitcher. Garland is not a better pitcher than Santana, and it doesn't make a piss or a squirt that Garland happened to win more games nor that Garland happened to be on a team that had 4 other excellent pitchers and therefore won the WS

Daver
03-27-2008, 08:45 PM
Why watch games then? Why not just look at w/l record at the end of the year?

Obviously nothing in a game matters as long as you win or lose.

Why bother executing? It doesn't matter unless you win or lose.

Why go after players with great numbers as FA or trade bait? Why not just look and see whether their team won or lost?

Come on.

You can't watch a player and tell if he has talent or not?

You can't look at BA or ERA in relation to watching said player?

Are you a fan of baseball or math?

Brian26
03-27-2008, 08:46 PM
nor that Garland happened to be on a team that had 4 other excellent pitchers and therefore won the WS

El Duque wasn't a pitcher. He was a magician.

Domeshot17
03-27-2008, 08:50 PM
:shrug:

Wins are an important stat, but in 2005 Garland had 18 wins and Santana had 16 or so. If wins are the only thing that makes a piss or squirt, then Garland had a better 2005 than Santana.

Maybe that's true. But it doesn't do a whole lot of good in evaluating who's a better pitcher. Garland is not a better pitcher than Santana, and it doesn't make a piss or a squirt that Garland happened to win more games nor that Garland happened to be on a team that had 4 other excellent pitchers and therefore won the WS


More what I was saying was the best stats dont always mean the best results. Clemens was better everywhere else in 2006 but won less games, and at the end of the day, the W is what counts.

santo=dorf
03-27-2008, 09:12 PM
More what I was saying was the best stats dont always mean the best results. Clemens was better everywhere else in 2006 but won less games, and at the end of the day, the W is what counts.
No, the problem is those two pitchers played on completely different teams, in different leagues with different rules.

Wins are a team stat. Wins for a pitcher should not be used solely on determining if a pitcher is a good fit for the team. Last year Jim Hungry explained to the Chicago media how Jason Marquis was worth the money he was given because he won more games than Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt over the same three year time period. How'd that work out for him?

spiffie
03-27-2008, 09:16 PM
I can think of very few other businesses where people would advocate that using any sort of analysis beyond "gut feeling" and "liking the way a guy looks" to build a $100 million+ company is somehow inappropriate.

mccoydp
03-27-2008, 09:25 PM
El Duque wasn't a pitcher. He was a magician.

Amen, and a fantastic one at that.

Mohoney
03-27-2008, 10:12 PM
Why would we want to bunt in front of Thome, save speciific late inning circumstances?

It would eliminate the double play possibility and guarantee that both Thome and Konerko get at least 1 at-bat with a man on 2nd. If Thome's at-bat is taken away with an IBB, then Paulie bats with 2 men on.

Those are both nice situations to be in. Getting the young starters at the back end of our rotation an early run to work with is something I want to try to do.

Tragg
03-27-2008, 10:20 PM
It would eliminate the double play possibility and guarantee that both Thome and Konerko get at least 1 at-bat with a man on 2nd. If Thome's at-bat is taken away with an IBB, then Paulie bats with 2 men on.


I'll take my chances any day and not throw away outs in front of either of them.
I did a dance when Garner threw away 33% of his outs in the 9th.

Mohoney
03-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Last year Jim Hungry explained to the Chicago media how Jason Marquis was worth the money he was given because he won more games than Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt over the same three year time period. How'd that work out for him?

I would say that it worked out OK, considering the Cubs went 20-13 in the 33 games started by Jason Marquis last year. They had a better winning % in his starts than they did in any other starter on the team.

I don't understand why so many people think that Marquis is some kind of baseball leper. He's slightly better than mediocre, and he's paid accordingly.

Mohoney
03-27-2008, 10:36 PM
I'll take my chances any day and not throw away outs in front of either of them.
I did a dance when Garner threw away 33% of his outs in the 9th.

Fair enough. I guess it's just that I really, really hate double plays. I hate them even more than caught stealing or botched bunts.

It just seems that at least botched bunts or getting caught stealing is proactive, as opposed to that helpless feeling of just waiting around for the extra base hits.

JB98
03-27-2008, 10:42 PM
Fair enough. I guess it's just that I really, really hate double plays. I hate them even more than caught stealing or botched bunts.

It just seems that at least botched bunts or getting caught stealing is proactive, as opposed to that helpless feeling of just waiting around for the extra base hits.

The main problem with our club is they all bunt like ****. I might be in favor of bunting more often if I actually had confidence that our hitters could get bunts down effectively.

Craig Grebeck
03-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Fair enough. I guess it's just that I really, really hate double plays. I hate them even more than caught stealing or botched bunts.

It just seems that at least botched bunts or getting caught stealing is proactive, as opposed to that helpless feeling of just waiting around for the extra base hits.
I don't understand how giving up outs is proactive. "Waiting around for the extra base hits" is what baseball is.

santo=dorf
03-27-2008, 11:13 PM
I'll take my chances any day and not throw away outs in front of either of them.
I did a dance when Garner threw away 33% of his outs in the 9th.
Ever notice how whenever someone bunts, fans of each team cheer? Listen for it the next time you go to a Sox game. When the away team does it, the crowd isn't as loud, but fans are thrilled to get an out.

FedEx227
03-27-2008, 11:24 PM
I would say that it worked out OK, considering the Cubs went 20-13 in the 33 games started by Jason Marquis last year. They had a better winning % in his starts than they did in any other starter on the team.

I don't understand why so many people think that Marquis is some kind of baseball leper. He's slightly better than mediocre, and he's paid accordingly.

I think it has a lot to do with his 6 ERA in 06, followed by a 4.60 in 2007. Not to mention WHIPs of 1.52 and 1.38.

I guess that has a lot to do with it.

jabrch
03-27-2008, 11:30 PM
Lip's post was much more eloquent than my tirade, but is essentially what I was saying. It's not that stats have no value, just that they don't win and lose baseball games. It's also that stats have never been able to measure the entire value of a player.

Stats will never be able to measure the value of intangibles - something, if you're curious the white sox benefitted tremendously from in '05.


Let me take a swing at this...

Statistics have always been a part of the game. They tell you what happened. Individual numbers like 61, 755, 300, 3000, etc. are milestones that tell you a great deal about history.

What they don't tell you is who will win a game, who will win more games over the course of a season, or what will happen tomorrow. The road to the WS is littered with teams who should not have been there according to the numbers. And the team who math would have picked to win has won very few times.

There is a difference between using numbers as a matter of fact to say what happened and taking numbers and using them to tell someone what is going to happen. The former is firm factual analysis. The latter is fluffy predictive guestimations.

I love looking at the history of the game in terms of statistics, but I hate the use of manipulated numbers to try and predict the unpredictable future.

A team is more the sum of its parts. I know some fans don't believe that, but the team with the highest number of pythagorean wins will not always have the most wins. There is a lot more to baseball than that. So the key is to understand WHEN it is to take chances. Yes - stealing a base, mathematically, is a losing proposition unless you have a 72+% (I think) success rate. But that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to try. Same for the bull**** "giving up outs". Mathematically it doesn't make sense - but teams win games by someimes getting one run in an inning.

Baseball is a sport just like any other, that is played by human beings who do not perform predictably or linearly. For that reason, using statistics to try and see the future is a suckers game. While it may look right on paper, you will end up finding yourself making excuses more often than not for why your math, which was correct, ended up not getting the right result.

Lip Man 1
03-27-2008, 11:55 PM
Jab:

Bravo post...very well played.

Lip

Tragg
03-27-2008, 11:58 PM
, but the team with the highest number of pythagorean wins will not always have the most wins.
I like stats, but I find phythagorean wins particularly useless and intellectually lazy. what makes it worse is they attach the name of a great mathematician to a bad stat.

FedEx227
03-28-2008, 12:00 AM
I'm a stat head, but I will never use the term "giving up an out". There are PLENTY of situations where bunting/stealing is great.

I like to consider myself a blend between the two I'll use stats a plenty to say Player A is better than Player B, but I will not believe that you can only win by hitting 3 run homers. I love guys who can rack of steals and I have nothing against sacrificing someone over when the situation fits.

Craig Grebeck
03-28-2008, 12:25 AM
I'm a stat head, but I will never use the term "giving up an out". There are PLENTY of situations where bunting/stealing is great.

I like to consider myself a blend between the two I'll use stats a plenty to say Player A is better than Player B, but I will not believe that you can only win by hitting 3 run homers. I love guys who can rack of steals and I have nothing against sacrificing someone over when the situation fits.
Agree 100%. Unfortunately that situation is not the first inning.

jabrch
03-28-2008, 12:43 AM
Jab:

Bravo post...very well played.

Lip


Thanks Lip - I appreciate it.

WhiteSox5187
03-28-2008, 12:59 AM
Agree 100%. Unfortunately that situation is not the first inning.
So if Swisher leads off the first inning with a double, you wouldn't want Cabrera to bunt him over to third??

Taliesinrk
03-28-2008, 01:17 AM
Let me take a swing at this...

Statistics have always been a part of the game. They tell you what happened. Individual numbers like 61, 755, 300, 3000, etc. are milestones that tell you a great deal about history.

What they don't tell you is who will win a game, who will win more games over the course of a season, or what will happen tomorrow. The road to the WS is littered with teams who should not have been there according to the numbers. And the team who math would have picked to win has won very few times.

There is a difference between using numbers as a matter of fact to say what happened and taking numbers and using them to tell someone what is going to happen. The former is firm factual analysis. The latter is fluffy predictive guestimations.

I love looking at the history of the game in terms of statistics, but I hate the use of manipulated numbers to try and predict the unpredictable future.

A team is more the sum of its parts. I know some fans don't believe that, but the team with the highest number of pythagorean wins will not always have the most wins. There is a lot more to baseball than that. So the key is to understand WHEN it is to take chances. Yes - stealing a base, mathematically, is a losing proposition unless you have a 72+% (I think) success rate. But that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to try. Same for the bull**** "giving up outs". Mathematically it doesn't make sense - but teams win games by someimes getting one run in an inning.

Baseball is a sport just like any other, that is played by human beings who do not perform predictably or linearly. For that reason, using statistics to try and see the future is a suckers game. While it may look right on paper, you will end up finding yourself making excuses more often than not for why your math, which was correct, ended up not getting the right result.

I'm more proud of myself for following this line of reason after the night I've had out watching games. But a close second is how well put together this post is... everything I was trying to say and more.

Thanks :gulp:

HebrewHammer
03-28-2008, 01:30 AM
Lip's post was much more eloquent than my tirade, but is essentially what I was saying. It's not that stats have no value, just that they don't win and lose baseball games. It's also that stats have never been able to measure the entire value of a player.

Stats will never be able to measure the value of intangibles - something, if you're curious the white sox benefitted tremendously from in '05.

I think 2005 had more to do with scoring more runs than the teams we played and less to do with "intangibles." Intangibles will never outscore another team.

Also, I guess you can measure "intangibles"....

http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html

pudge
03-28-2008, 01:59 AM
I think 2005 had more to do with scoring more runs than the teams we played and less to do with "intangibles."

I think it's funny my comment and someone's reply sparked this whole thing on speed vs. OBP and whether stats are meaningful - it's like we're trying to get distracted from the ugly reality. You can debate the merits of speed all night long, but the fact is when you're putting a Swisher in CF and hitting lead-off, it says that your club is sort of a mess and doesn't have the true pieces to contend. (And I know Owens got injured, but still, they were discussing this well before that.) Same goes with the starting 5, and maybe the bullpen if Dotel turns out to be garbage. Again, it's all just so opposite the brilliant construction job Williams did before '05. He masterfully plugged all the holes that needed to be plugged. (And yes, I was gung ho on that team before the season - maybe not World Series, but I liked what Kenny had done.) I feel like a "smart" GM somehow possessed his body that winter and then departed, leaving us with the "real" Kenny for eternity.

Mohoney
03-28-2008, 02:59 AM
I think it has a lot to do with his 6 ERA in 06, followed by a 4.60 in 2007. Not to mention WHIPs of 1.52 and 1.38.

I guess that has a lot to do with it.

His '06 was bad, don't get me wrong, but the 4.60 and 1.38 of '07 is terrible? If Danks and Floyd put up numbers like this in '08, you wouldn't be happy?

Plus, if we take out the horrid September that Marquis posted, his ERA drops to 4.26 and his Whip drops to 1.35. Like I said, that's slightly above mediocre. Like I said, he's getting paid accordingly.

Logging anywhere close to 200 IP with an ERA in the low 4s and a Whip under 1.4 is about $7 million bucks now. That's what the market dictates.

Disagree with it all you want (I disagree with it as well), but that's the reality. The players realize that this industry is realizing ridiculous profit margins, and they are demanding higher salaries. A pitcher with a slightly above average track record is going to command about $7 million bucks a year on the free market.

Mohoney
03-28-2008, 03:03 AM
So if Swisher leads off the first inning with a double, you wouldn't want Cabrera to bunt him over to third??

I didn't even comment on this one. Bunting the runner on 2nd over with Thome and Konerko being given chances to plate a run simply with a fly ball?

With this rotation?

jabrch
03-28-2008, 10:06 AM
I think 2005 had more to do with scoring more runs than the teams we played and less to do with "intangibles." Intangibles will never outscore another team.

Also, I guess you can measure "intangibles"....

http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html


"scoring more runs than the teams we played" is an output; a result.

There are many inputs to it. Some are measurable. Some are analzyzable. Others are not. Some can be projected to some level, many can not.

I know it is the cool thing to do amongst the FJMites and the Flotsamians to imply that the world of baseball [gross exaggeration] is merely the result of one big formula and that anyone who believes that this is untrue is a simpleton who doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to get the briallance that they have, but it is flat out untrue. [/gross exaggeration]

It is a provable fact that the team with the best measureable statistics does not always win. So that would mean that there are unmeasureables that come into play. Now over the course of a season - many of these net themselves out. But anyone who has ever worked in a high functioning team would know that there is a way to make the whole more effective than the mathematical sum of the parts. You can deny the impact of intangibles all you want - there are probably still folks somewhere denying that the earth is round. But to do so is equally as shortsighted and narrowminded as you would think people are for poo pooing the use of statistics as a tool to measure history.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 10:09 AM
So if Swisher leads off the first inning with a double, you wouldn't want Cabrera to bunt him over to third??

No you'd have Cabrera hit behind him toward right field (like Gooch used to do in similar situations) and advance the runner while attempting to get a hit in the process. Cabrera himself has talked about doing that and enjoying doing it - taking one for the team as it were. It's what makes him such a great 2-hole hitter.

Personally I prefer the hit and run to the bunt, but it takes a hitter with good bat control and a reasonably quick runner to make to make it work. In addition if you do it too often the other team starts calling for pitchouts and that can cost you when your runner gets hung out to dry.

Tragg
03-28-2008, 10:16 AM
So if Swisher leads off the first inning with a double, you wouldn't want Cabrera to bunt him over to third??
Absolutely not. That's playing for 1 run when the inning has started perfectly.

jabrch
03-28-2008, 10:19 AM
No you'd have Cabrera hit behind him toward right field (like Gooch used to do in similar situations) and advance the runner while attempting to get a hit in the process. Cabrera himself has talked about doing that and enjoying doing it - taking one for the team as it were. It's what makes him such a great 2-hole hitter.

Personally I prefer the hit and run to the bunt, but it takes a hitter with good bat control and a reasonably quick runner to make to make it work. In addition if you do it too often the other team starts calling for pitchouts and that can cost you when your runner gets hung out to dry.

Both are options...both have good reasons and bad reasons. I won't categroically say to do one or the other is better or worse because, as it nearly always is with baseball, it depends.

But even with no outs in the first inning with the leadoff hitter on 2B, you can easily argue that sometime is is better to just get the one run and potentially limit yourself, but to increase the odds of getting that run. I think the fact that some of our guys have been such bad bunters the last few seasons clouds some people's judgement. I have no problem playing for one run sometimes.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 10:26 AM
Both are options...both have good reasons and bad reasons. I won't categroically say to do one or the other is better or worse because, as it nearly always is with baseball, it depends.

But even with no outs in the first inning with the leadoff hitter on 2B, you can easily argue that sometime is is better to just get the one run and potentially limit yourself, but to increase the odds of getting that run. I think the fact that some of our guys have been such bad bunters the last few seasons clouds some people's judgement. I have no problem playing for one run sometimes.

In the first inning with the leadoff guy on first, a hit and run makes a lot more sense to me. You've got a reasonably quick guy on first and a guy with good bat control batting and the big boppers coming up. Under those circumstances, bunting does feel like giving up an out, but you can't be predictable if you want to win in this game anyway, so mixing it up is a great way to go and it never hurts to take one pitch and fake the bunt in those circumstances to see how the infield reacts and changes their setup.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 10:30 AM
Let me take a swing at this...

Statistics have always been a part of the game. They tell you what happened. Individual numbers like 61, 755, 300, 3000, etc. are milestones that tell you a great deal about history.

What they don't tell you is who will win a game, who will win more games over the course of a season, or what will happen tomorrow. The road to the WS is littered with teams who should not have been there according to the numbers. And the team who math would have picked to win has won very few times.

There is a difference between using numbers as a matter of fact to say what happened and taking numbers and using them to tell someone what is going to happen. The former is firm factual analysis. The latter is fluffy predictive guestimations.

I love looking at the history of the game in terms of statistics, but I hate the use of manipulated numbers to try and predict the unpredictable future.

A team is more the sum of its parts. I know some fans don't believe that, but the team with the highest number of pythagorean wins will not always have the most wins. There is a lot more to baseball than that. So the key is to understand WHEN it is to take chances. Yes - stealing a base, mathematically, is a losing proposition unless you have a 72+% (I think) success rate. But that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to try. Same for the bull**** "giving up outs". Mathematically it doesn't make sense - but teams win games by someimes getting one run in an inning.

Baseball is a sport just like any other, that is played by human beings who do not perform predictably or linearly. For that reason, using statistics to try and see the future is a suckers game. While it may look right on paper, you will end up finding yourself making excuses more often than not for why your math, which was correct, ended up not getting the right result.
I find it interesting that you didn't want the Sox to sign Rowand back up, when he is perhaps the poster child for that line of thinking. Who brings more non-linear unquantifiable things to a team than Crash? Look at the fire and passion he brought the 2005 team, something that has been missing ever since he was traded away.

I find the part about SB's interesting, because to me you prove the point you're trying desperately to debunk. The idea of certain situations justifying taking a chance that may, over the course of a season, be a net negative. How do you come to that conclusion? Blind luck and chance? Or the understanding of your team? Of whether or not your bullpen is likely to hold a one-run lead? Is your team likely to get more hits? How are you making those decisions? Because the guys seem really excited? Because they went out drinking the night before? Or because you know your bullpen pitchers have low ERAs and your hitters have low OPS against the sort of pitchers they might be facing the rest of the game?

A team is exactly the sum of its parts. At no point has desire ever allowed for a run crossing home plate to count for double. The 2005 White Sox won because they had good power and a hell of a pitching staff. Their desire allowed them to maximize what talent they did have. And they generally played very well in close games, a function of having a great bullpen and a speed guy.

Regarding predicting the future...how would you assemble a team? Line 25 guys up and see how they look in their uniforms? Who has the prettiest swing? How would you make decisions involving tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars? Is the decision not to offer Torii Hunter 90 million dollars based pretty much solely on "fluffy predictive guestimations" since no one does better on the eye test and the hustle test and the grit test than Torii did? Yet you called the size contract he got crazy. Why? What possible reason could you have for making that sort of distinction without falling back on historical data to predict future performance?

jabrch
03-28-2008, 10:31 AM
In the first inning with the leadoff guy on first, a hit and run makes a lot more sense to me.

Except a Hit and Run has the added "bonus" of a CS or a double play that erases the baserunner. A bunt is unlikely to result in either of those.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 10:34 AM
Both are options...both have good reasons and bad reasons. I won't categroically say to do one or the other is better or worse because, as it nearly always is with baseball, it depends.

But even with no outs in the first inning with the leadoff hitter on 2B, you can easily argue that sometime is is better to just get the one run and potentially limit yourself, but to increase the odds of getting that run. I think the fact that some of our guys have been such bad bunters the last few seasons clouds some people's judgement. I have no problem playing for one run sometimes.
To me it depends on your pitching staff. When you have a team like 2005, where you had strong starters a shutdown pen, the need for a lot of runs is less. We could reasonably expect to win games, or have a good chance of winning them, with 3-4 runs. So sure, I'd go more for a high chance of getting one run right away.

With a team like we have this year, with a questionable pen and a rotation with a lot of concerns about it, I don't think we have the luxury of not trying to pile up as many runs as we can whenever we get the chance. Getting 1 run in the first isn't going to help much if we're down 5-1 in the fourth. The only people I would want bunting this year are maybe the 8 or 9 hitters if there's a man on second and no outs. But when you have a .300+ hitter in the two hole, and Gavin Floyd on the mound, I think we best be swinging ay and hoping to get a multi-run inning right off the bat.

jabrch
03-28-2008, 10:40 AM
I find it interesting that you didn't want the Sox to sign Rowand back up, when he is perhaps the poster child for that line of thinking.

I was uninterested in signing him at that cost regardless of what line of thinking he is or is not the poster child for. If you read my post, nowhere did I say that intangibles are a primary driver, and nowhere did I imply that 5/75 would be a good price to pay for them.



I find the part about SB's interesting, because to me you prove the point you're trying desperately to debunk. The idea of certain situations justifying taking a chance that may, over the course of a season, be a net negative. How do you come to that conclusion? Blind luck and chance? Or the understanding of your team? Of whether or not your bullpen is likely to hold a one-run lead? Is your team likely to get more hits? How are you making those decisions? Because the guys seem really excited? Because they went out drinking the night before? Or because you know your bullpen pitchers have low ERAs and your hitters have low OPS against the sort of pitchers they might be facing the rest of the game?

First off - I am not desperately trying to do anything.

Second, I don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Can you make it a bit more simple so someone like me can understand?

A team is exactly the sum of its parts.


Then you have probably never been a part of a high performing team. A good team is MORE than the sum of its parts.


Regarding predicting the future...how would you assemble a team? Line 25 guys up and see how they look in their uniforms? Who has the prettiest swing?

Way to make yourself sound like a complete douchebag...you know full ****ing well that none of that is the case.


What possible reason could you have for making that sort of distinction without falling back on historical data to predict future performance?

You clearly don't understand the difference between predicting future results and understanding historical results. And I don't give a damn anymore to spend time trying to explain them if the rest of this post is indicative of the crap I can expect from you.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 10:51 AM
I was uninterested in signing him at that cost regardless of what line of thinking he is or is not the poster child for. If you read my post, nowhere did I say that intangibles are a primary driver, and nowhere did I imply that 5/75 would be a good price to pay for them.





First off - I am not desperately trying to do anything.

Second, I don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Can you make it a bit more simple so someone like me can understand?




Then you have probably never been a part of a high performing team. A good team is MORE than the sum of its parts.




Way to make yourself sound like a complete douchebag...you know full ****ing well that none of that is the case.




You clearly don't understand the difference between predicting future results and understanding historical results. And I don't give a damn anymore to spend time trying to explain them if the rest of this post is indicative of the crap I can expect from you.
Hmmm...considering I am now on your ignore list I guess responding to this is futile, but I'll just put one question out there for the board. Which part of the 2005 team was more than the sum of its parts? When I go look at the boxscores all the numbers seem to add up in each game's results, be it the really good pitchers, the HR's, the SB's. Maybe I just hate that ridiculous phrase and its blinding me to the obvious.

FedEx227
03-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Hmmm...considering I am now on your ignore list I guess responding to this is futile, but I'll just put one question out there for the board. Which part of the 2005 team was more than the sum of its parts? When I go look at the boxscores all the numbers seem to add up in each game's results, be it the really good pitchers, the HR's, the SB's. Maybe I just hate that ridiculous phrase and its blinding me to the obvious.

We won because of an amazing pitching staff, not because we manufactured runs, or used more hit and runs, etc. Everything you do looks MUCH better when you have a shutdown rotation as shown by this. We weren't particularly mind blowing in any "manufacturing" stat, not in sacs flies, we had high SB, but we also lead the league in CS and ended with a percentage good for 22nd in the league.

2005 White Sox Offensive Ranks

Runs: 13th
Hits: 18th
Doubles: 30th
Triples: 23rd
HR: 5th
BA: 18th
OBP: 24th
SLG: 11th
SB: 4th
CS: 1st
SB%: 22nd
Sacrifice Hits: 16th
Sacrifice Flies: 8th

2005 White Sox Pitching Ranks

ERA: 4th
CG: 9th
Shutouts: 11th
IP: 1st
Earned Runs: 4th
BB: 8th
Ks: 11th
BAA: 4th

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 11:04 AM
Except a Hit and Run has the added "bonus" of a CS or a double play that erases the baserunner. A bunt is unlikely to result in either of those.

H&R is designed to stay out of the DP, so you have to have monumentally bad luck to have it happen. If the hitter has good bat control, they should be able to hit the ball to the expected hole vacated by the man asigned to cover second base.

The bigger factor is the caught stealing, but again, the leadoff hitter is a guy you hope will steal bases anyway (at least for the Sox) so it's not like you're sending Paulie...:tongue:

Just my preference. I don't like to bunt a lot as a rule. I think it costs more than it helps over the course of a season if you use it too much.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 11:09 AM
Hmmm...considering I am now on your ignore list I guess responding to this is futile, but I'll just put one question out there for the board. Which part of the 2005 team was more than the sum of its parts? When I go look at the boxscores all the numbers seem to add up in each game's results, be it the really good pitchers, the HR's, the SB's. Maybe I just hate that ridiculous phrase and its blinding me to the obvious.

If you refuse to acknowledge that intangibles exist in any form then you won't understand how it works.

One example from the 2005 team that comes immediately to mind was Gooch regularly hitting behind runners when batting second. Giving himself up to advance a guy. That is one simple example of something that doesn't show up in the box score because it isn't a SH. It only shows up as an out. Backing up throws is another example of things that don't show up in the box score when they prevent a base from being taken. Yes, in theory, those things should be automatic at this level, but the fact remains, some teams are good at it and some aren't and over the course of a season it can add up and none of it will show up in the numbers.

FedEx227
03-28-2008, 11:10 AM
H&R is designed to stay out of the DP, so you have to have monumentally bad luck to have it happen. If the hitter has good bat control, they should be able to hit the ball to the expected hole vacated by the man asigned to cover second base.

The bigger factor is the caught stealing, but again, the leadoff hitter is a guy you hope will steal bases anyway (at least for the Sox) so it's not like you're sending Paulie...:tongue:

Just my preference. I don't like to bunt a lot as a rule. I think it costs more than it helps over the course of a season if you use it too much.

Totally agreed. If you have a professional hitter like an Orlando Cabrera the hit and run is my weapon of choice, good bat control, hit a gap you've likely scored or gotten the leadoff man to 3rd, which is MUCH more efficient than a sac bunt.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 11:13 AM
Totally agreed. If you have a professional hitter like an Orlando Cabrera the hit and run is my weapon of choice, good bat control, hit a gap you've likely scored or gotten the leadoff man to 3rd, which is MUCH more efficient than a sac bunt.

It puts more pressure on the defense to perform too. A SH bunt is a pretty routine play in most cases, but get that defense moving around and things start to happen.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 11:17 AM
If you refuse to acknowledge that intangibles exist in any form then you won't understand how it works.

One example from the 2005 team that comes immediately to mind was Gooch regularly hitting behind runners when batting second. Giving himself up to advance a guy. That is one simple example of something that doesn't show up in the box score because it isn't a SH. It only shows up as an out. Backing up throws is another example of things that don't show up in the box score when they prevent a base from being taken. Yes, in theory, those things should be automatic at this level, but the fact remains, some teams are good at it and some aren't and over the course of a season it can add up and none of it will show up in the numbers.
I understand that there are skillsets that do not show up wholly in the numbers, which is why I've never been a fan of trying to predict things off of PECOTA or anything like that. The problem is the courtesy doesn't extend the other way in this argument usually. Iguchi was more valuable in 2005 than his OPS would suggest because of these things. But on the other hand every time Iguchi have himself up what might have happened otherwise? Is it somehow heretical to try and figure out if that was the best thing that could be done in that situation, through a means other than asking Hawk Harrellson's opinion on the matter? I don't think it is. Others seemingly do.

Jerko
03-28-2008, 11:18 AM
Obviously there are times when the bunt is the proper call, but IMO the #2 batter of the game, fresh off the first guy getting a double, should swing the bat. Sometimes that first out is the hardest to get, don't do the other team any favors.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 11:23 AM
I understand that there are skillsets that do not show up wholly in the numbers, which is why I've never been a fan of trying to predict things off of PECOTA or anything like that. The problem is the courtesy doesn't extend the other way in this argument usually. Iguchi was more valuable in 2005 than his OPS would suggest because of these things. But on the other hand every time Iguchi have himself up what might have happened otherwise? Is it somehow heretical to try and figure out if that was the best thing that could be done in that situation, through a means other than asking Hawk Harrellson's opinion on the matter? I don't think it is. Others seemingly do.

End result, it worked. History is the ultimate judge and whatever the Sox did that season they clearly did it right.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 11:26 AM
End result, it worked. History is the ultimate judge and whatever the Sox did that season they clearly did it right.
I want to know what parts worked the best, so that we can do those again, and not do whatever the hell we did in 2007. 2005 was a lot more fun than 2007, and I know I would much prefer they figure out what did well that year and start doing it again. Sadly judging by the rotation they're putting out this year, I don't see that happening.

Frater Perdurabo
03-28-2008, 11:29 AM
We won because of an amazing pitching staff, not because we manufactured runs, or used more hit and runs, etc. Everything you do looks MUCH better when you have a shutdown rotation as shown by this. We weren't particularly mind blowing in any "manufacturing" stat, not in sacs flies, we had high SB, but we also lead the league in CS and ended with a percentage good for 22nd in the league.

2005 White Sox Offensive Ranks

Runs: 13th
Hits: 18th
Doubles: 30th
Triples: 23rd
HR: 5th
BA: 18th
OBP: 24th
SLG: 11th
SB: 4th
CS: 1st
SB%: 22nd
Sacrifice Hits: 16th
Sacrifice Flies: 8th

2005 White Sox Pitching Ranks

ERA: 4th
CG: 9th
Shutouts: 11th
IP: 1st
Earned Runs: 4th
BB: 8th
Ks: 11th
BAA: 4th

Yes, but the 2005 Sox seemed to be able to execute the sacrifice when they needed to do so. Game 4 of the WS is an excellent example of that.
:bandance:

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 11:41 AM
I want to know what parts worked the best, so that we can do those again, and not do whatever the hell we did in 2007. 2005 was a lot more fun than 2007, and I know I would much prefer they figure out what did well that year and start doing it again. Sadly judging by the rotation they're putting out this year, I don't see that happening.

The differences between 2005 and 2007 are so vast that intangibles are well down the list of the reasons why.

Intangibles cannot make a bad ballclub good they can only make a good team better. If you have a lack of talent, instilling teamwork and good decision making can create a culture that will flourish when talent arrives, but it cannot make up for lack of talent.

I think last year's team had more talent than their record shows, but injuries in the first half crushed any chance for the team to succeed and the second half was all about getting the injured veterans back on track and giving some kids some PT. We hope those things pay off a bit this year, but currently both of the kids who got that PT are on the DL to start the season, so things are off to a rough start.

Taliesinrk
03-28-2008, 12:01 PM
The differences between 2005 and 2007 are so vast that intangibles are well down the list of the reasons why.

Intangibles cannot make a bad ballclub good they can only make a good team better. If you have a lack of talent, instilling teamwork and good decision making can create a culture that will flourish when talent arrives, but it cannot make up for lack of talent.


This is right on. It also serves as a response to Spiffie's weird/mostly nonsensical post in response to Jabrach... where I think he was being purposefully obtuse. Either way, Spiffie should read this. I have a feeling that he'll agree in principal, but disagree on how important they are.

FedEx227
03-28-2008, 12:02 PM
Intangibles cannot make a bad ballclub good they can only make a good team better. If you have a lack of talent, instilling teamwork and good decision making can create a culture that will flourish when talent arrives, but it cannot make up for lack of talent.


THANK YOU!

This is one thing a lot of people don't quite understand no matter what side of the fence they are on (stat heads or old school). Intangibles don't make you talented. A-Rod is VERY talented, David Eckstein and Aaron Rowand aren't.

However, as you said when you can add those intangibles and good baseball sense to an already vastly talented player the results are great. The legends of this sport were guys that blended both, they were ultra-talented and just flat out good at baseball but also had a grasp on the little things as well.

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 12:05 PM
THANK YOU!

This is one thing a lot of people don't quite understand no matter what side of the fence they are on (stat heads or old school). Intangibles don't make you talented. A-Rod is VERY talented, David Eckstein and Aaron Rowand aren't.

However, as you said when you can add those intangibles and good baseball sense to an already vastly talented player the results are great. The legends of this sport were guys that blended both, they were ultra-talented and just flat out good at baseball but also had a grasp on the little things as well.

To use an example from another sport: Michael Jordan was a supremely talented player. What made him one of the best ever if not THE best ever was his work ethic and knowledge of the game. Great players always have both amazing talent and a desire to get better.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 12:17 PM
The differences between 2005 and 2007 are so vast that intangibles are well down the list of the reasons why.

Intangibles cannot make a bad ballclub good they can only make a good team better. If you have a lack of talent, instilling teamwork and good decision making can create a culture that will flourish when talent arrives, but it cannot make up for lack of talent.

I think last year's team had more talent than their record shows, but injuries in the first half crushed any chance for the team to succeed and the second half was all about getting the injured veterans back on track and giving some kids some PT. We hope those things pay off a bit this year, but currently both of the kids who got that PT are on the DL to start the season, so things are off to a rough start.
I think last year's team was a team that had some talented players on it who underperformed, and a lot of guys who are just terrible at major league baseball. At least half of the guys who played on the team last year have no business being at this level.

I think we might be working on slightly different definitions of intangibles. To me every thing you're saying will mostly find its way into some sort of statistical breakdown if you choose to go at it long enough and move beyond just the basic back of the baseball card numbers. To me when I hear intangibles I think of the people who talk about "these guys like each other so they play harder for each other" something I think is mostly bunk. Winning seems to make guys like each other. There may be some benefit to feeling relaxed and comfortable, but I suspect that its a chicken and egg argument. If the Sox had started 2005 with a 10-12 record I wonder if their "chemistry" would have been nearly as good. Your "intangibles" are, to my way of thinking, just things that require a little more elbow grease and patience to at least somewhat quantify.

I have never advocated against the idea that there are things about the game you only can pick up by watching it. But numbers aren't quite the liars that a lot of people here want to make them out to be. But I suspect that for someone like Juan Uribe that if you examined his fielding data closely enough from the last few years it would back up exactly what the eyes tell us, that he got lazy and out of shape last year and wasn't as good.

cws05champ
03-28-2008, 12:36 PM
I wonder about that last statement. At least as regards pure OBP. Now, a higher OPS out of the 1 spot coupled with less SB I can agree with. But as there were a goodly number of runs scored by virtue of Podsednik moving himself from station to station or being moved via sacrifice/giving himself up AB's by Iguchi, I don't know if simply having a guy on first more often would have been quite as successful. In the overall it may not have mattered, but my first guess would tell me that due to the way the Sox were constructed that year that Podsednik's ability to be moved along the basepaths without the benefit of additional productive AB's from the 2 spot probably made his speed even more valuable than it would be under most circumstances.
And it is not just about the SB's...it is the threat of stealing as well. How many times that year did we see the pitcher get rattled and throw a bad pitch or make a bad pick off move because of the speed threat. The way the 2005 team was constructed, I beleive the speed at the top was critical given the team BA.

FedEx227
03-28-2008, 01:07 PM
I have never advocated against the idea that there are things about the game you only can pick up by watching it. But numbers aren't quite the liars that a lot of people here want to make them out to be. But I suspect that for someone like Juan Uribe that if you examined his fielding data closely enough from the last few years it would back up exactly what the eyes tell us, that he got lazy and out of shape last year and wasn't as good.

Indeed you can! Say what you want about Zone Rating or defensive stats, but clearly this shows that Juan Uribe had a large downward progression in 2007... both stats and good ole fashioned watching the game show this.

2005 Zone Rating: .852
2006 Zone Rating: .868 (+.016)
2007 Zone Rating: .828 (-.040)

jabrch
03-28-2008, 02:53 PM
H&R is designed to stay out of the DP,

Except when you hit a line drive at someone, or swing through a pitch...

Carolina Kenny
03-28-2008, 03:24 PM
More important than intangibles of "fire and passion" are "smarts and professionalism".

Baseball smarts if instintive or taught create wise decision making by players on the field. Professionalism by a individual player will enhance his performance over the long, long season in many ways.

Give me a bunch of players that excel in making the right plays and act in a professional way on and off the field. I'll take that over "fire and passion" any day.

The open question: who on the Sox would you consider "baseball smart" and a "true professional"?

Taliesinrk
03-28-2008, 04:51 PM
More important than intangibles of "fire and passion" are "smarts and professionalism".

Baseball smarts if instintive or taught create wise decision making by players on the field. Professionalism by a individual player will enhance his performance over the long, long season in many ways.

Give me a bunch of players that excel in making the right plays and act in a professional way on and off the field. I'll take that over "fire and passion" any day.

The open question: who on the Sox would you consider "baseball smart" and a "true professional"?

While maybe not a true professional, I'd certainly put A.J. in the "baseball smart" category. JT is a definite true professional

fquaye149
03-28-2008, 05:03 PM
Both are options...both have good reasons and bad reasons. I won't categroically say to do one or the other is better or worse because, as it nearly always is with baseball, it depends.

But even with no outs in the first inning with the leadoff hitter on 2B, you can easily argue that sometime is is better to just get the one run and potentially limit yourself, but to increase the odds of getting that run. I think the fact that some of our guys have been such bad bunters the last few seasons clouds some people's judgement. I have no problem playing for one run sometimes.

So you want to talk about increasing the odds but you don't want to talk about how stats can be used to help determine the success of a ball club?

Bull****.

Baseball is, even at the "old school" level all about increasing your percentages. The problem is that a lot of these ideas about "increasing your percentages" such as "bunting guys over" or "speedy guys putting pressure on the pitcher" can be shown NOT to increase the percentages.

There are studies that have been done that show that bunting a runner from 2nd to 3rd with no outs DOES NOT appreciably increase the chance of scoring that run than just taking your three outs to try to get a single or better.

And that's if you're playing for ONE run. Studies also show the increased chances of multiple run innings are more than worth the supposed increased assurance of getting that one run.

But looking at actual numbers is "hoo hah" right? It's losing touch with the way the game is played. Instead let's talk abstractly about how "fundamental baseball" increases the odds of success because it "seems" like the truth even though it's very much NOT the truth. Let's talk abstractly about how "bunting the runner over" "increases your odds of scoring" even though it doesn't because that's the way certain managers like Ozzie Guillen have "always been brought up to play."

It is worth noting that the manager of the greatest dynasty of the past 40 years (the Orioles of the 1960's and 1970's) played for the big inning, not the piddling one run inning.

Scratching it out is fine for the NL where the ability to manufacture runs at the bottom of the order is a necessity given that the picture will preclude most chances of having extended run-producing innings, but to apply that to the top of the order is ****ing ridiculous, and to act like it has anything to do with some sort of abstract, non-fact-backed concept of "increased odds" is preposterous.

There's a time and a place for everything, and bunting a runner over when there's also a chance for a base hit, or when you absolutely positively NEED one and only one run and the batters who will be coming up are good flyball hitters but poor contact hitters, but the idea that a leadoff double by the #1 hitter should be bunted over more often than not, no matter the situation, is a horrible horrible strategy. Period.

fquaye149
03-28-2008, 05:05 PM
Except when you hit a line drive at someone, or swing through a pitch...

If a hitter can't avoid hitting a line drive on a hit and run what possible reason do you have to believe that hitter has the bat control not to pop up a bunt

Paulwny
03-28-2008, 05:46 PM
Baseball is, even at the "old school" level all about increasing your percentages. The problem is that a lot of these ideas about "increasing your percentages" such as "bunting guys over" or "speedy guys putting pressure on the pitcher" can be shown NOT to increase the percentages.

There are studies that have been done that show that bunting a runner from 2nd to 3rd with no outs DOES NOT appreciably increase the chance of scoring that run than just taking your three outs to try to get a single or better.
.

I agree with the studies, but I've never seen inning by inning stats on bunting and runs scored, I also never looked for these stats.

It's all situational, If your ace is pitching against the opponents ace and you expect a low scoring game.
In the early innings , 1-6, you may want to bunt a runner to 3rd. Most teams in the early innings will play the infield back and not only will the runner score with a sac fly, but also with a ground ball.

After the 6th inning teams will play the infield in and now a hit or sac fly is needed. Also, the batter may now be facing a situational relief pitcher instead of the starter.

In the early innings its easier to score a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs then it is in later innings, but in the early innings most managers are looking for more than 1 run.

jabrch
03-28-2008, 06:00 PM
More important than intangibles of "fire and passion" are "smarts and professionalism".

None are substitutes for being a great player. But very few great players don't have some of them. They are also generally items that are part of good teams that have a high degree of synergies amongst members.

lazy, listless, dumb and amateurish players still can be great. Manny Ramirez comes to mind in some ways. (although I think that is overstated in his case) But most GREAT players do have some of those intangibles you discuss. And most great teams have people who instill that in the teams; be it the leaders on or off the field.

fquaye149
03-28-2008, 06:38 PM
I agree with the studies, but I've never seen inning by inning stats on bunting and runs scored, I also never looked for these stats.

It's all situational, If your ace is pitching against the opponents ace and you expect a low scoring game.
In the early innings , 1-6, you may want to bunt a runner to 3rd. Most teams in the early innings will play the infield back and not only will the runner score with a sac fly, but also with a ground ball.

After the 6th inning teams will play the infield in and now a hit or sac fly is needed. Also, the batter may now be facing a situational relief pitcher instead of the starter.

In the early innings its easier to score a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs then it is in later innings, but in the early innings most managers are looking for more than 1 run.

The thing is certain "ace" pitchers tend to give up runs in bunches.

You're not going to beat Santana by nickel and diming because he's not going to give up a sac fly anyway.

Santana, when he is beaten, is often beaten because teams capitalize on big innings.

I'm not saying that bunting a runner over is "always" a bad idea. Just that it's a generally self-defeating strategy.

People can poo-poo the whole "giving up an out" argument all they want, but that is what bunting is doing--giving up an out.

If a player gets on base 35% of their at bats and strikes out 20% of their other at bats, that leaves 45% of their at bats making outs. I would think most hitters trying to get the ball on the ground to the right side could do that about 50% of the time.

That means most likely if you let a decent hitter (i.e. the kind of guy who should be hitting in the #2 spot) swing away with runners on second, he will most likely have a favorable outcome (AT THE LEAST advancing the runner) over half the time. And of that half the time he advances the runner, more than half of that will be reaching base successfully.

Given that our #3 and #4 hitters are the best on the team and our #5 hitter ain't far behind...that's a very good thing

But you're right--there are circumstances when bunting is the smart move.

chisox77
03-28-2008, 06:56 PM
Good discussion here!


:cool:

voodoochile
03-28-2008, 07:48 PM
The thing is certain "ace" pitchers tend to give up runs in bunches.

You're not going to beat Santana by nickel and diming because he's not going to give up a sac fly anyway.

Santana, when he is beaten, is often beaten because teams capitalize on big innings.

I'm not saying that bunting a runner over is "always" a bad idea. Just that it's a generally self-defeating strategy.

People can poo-poo the whole "giving up an out" argument all they want, but that is what bunting is doing--giving up an out.

If a player gets on base 35% of their at bats and strikes out 20% of their other at bats, that leaves 45% of their at bats making outs. I would think most hitters trying to get the ball on the ground to the right side could do that about 50% of the time.

That means most likely if you let a decent hitter (i.e. the kind of guy who should be hitting in the #2 spot) swing away with runners on second, he will most likely have a favorable outcome (AT THE LEAST advancing the runner) over half the time. And of that half the time he advances the runner, more than half of that will be reaching base successfully.

Given that our #3 and #4 hitters are the best on the team and our #5 hitter ain't far behind...that's a very good thing

But you're right--there are circumstances when bunting is the smart move.

You have some kind of breakdown on that big inning leads to most of Santana's losses or is this just your perception. Mine is the exact opposite - that with an opponent ace on the hill you fight and grind for every run and hope your staff can hold the other team down. I don't expect to beat Santana (for example) 6-3 because of a 5 run 3rd. I hope to beat him 3-2 because my pitchers had a good day.

Oh and again some of this stuff comes down to situations. While in the entire history of the game it may not make a lot of sense to bunt a man over early in the game, it might make more sense in the 2nd inning if you have the 7-8-9 guys coming up where you aren't expecting a couple more hits, but might scrape out one.

That's the problem with using over all stats to figure out what to do all the time. The top and bottom of a lineup are normally quite different (more pronouncedly so in the NL) and what you might do when your leadoff hitter doubles to open an inning might be entirely different than what you do if your 6th place hitter does it.

Elephant
03-28-2008, 08:26 PM
Keys to beating Santana include not being the Sox, making him throw pitches, hacking at his relievers, and pitching pretty well yourself.

spiffie
03-28-2008, 09:57 PM
You have some kind of breakdown on that big inning leads to most of Santana's losses or is this just your perception. Mine is the exact opposite - that with an opponent ace on the hill you fight and grind for every run and hope your staff can hold the other team down. I don't expect to beat Santana (for example) 6-3 because of a 5 run 3rd. I hope to beat him 3-2 because my pitchers had a good day.

Oh and again some of this stuff comes down to situations. While in the entire history of the game it may not make a lot of sense to bunt a man over early in the game, it might make more sense in the 2nd inning if you have the 7-8-9 guys coming up where you aren't expecting a couple more hits, but might scrape out one.

That's the problem with using over all stats to figure out what to do all the time. The top and bottom of a lineup are normally quite different (more pronouncedly so in the NL) and what you might do when your leadoff hitter doubles to open an inning might be entirely different than what you do if your 6th place hitter does it.
Johan Santana's innings with runs scored on him - 2007:
4/2 - 3 run 4th, 1 run 6th
4/8 - 0 runs scored
4/13 - 3 run 5th, 1 run 6th
4/19 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 3rd
4/24 - 1 run 1st, 2 run 4th, 1 run 7th
4/29 - 2 run 3rd, 1 run 4th
5/5 - 1 run 4th
5/11 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd
5/17 - 2 run 7th
5/22 - 1 run 2nd
5/28 - 1 run 3rd, 1 run 4th, 2 run 6th
6/4 - 1 run 1st, 3 run 3rd
6/9 - 3 run 3rd
6/14 - 1 run 5th, 1 run 6th
6/19 - no runs scored
6/24 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd
6/29 - 1 run 6th
7/4 - 1 run 2nd, 1 run 4th
7/13 - no runs scored
7/18 - 2 run 4th, 1 run 6th
7/23 - 3 run 1st, 1 run 3rd, 2 run 5th
7/28 - 2 run 7th
8/3 - 2 run 3rd, 1 run 5th
8/8 - 2 run 6th
8/13 - 2 run 1st, 1 run 5th
8/19 - no runs scored
8/24 - 3 run 1st, 1 run 6th
8/29 - 4 run 1st
9/3 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd, 1 run 3rd, 1 run 5th
9/9 - 1 run 1st
9/15 - 4 run 1st
9/21 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 4th, 3 run 5th
9/26 - 3 run 2nd

219 IP total, runs given up in 52 innings, more than 1 run given up in 19 innings, 0 or 1 scoring inning in a game 14 out 33 times.

sullythered
03-28-2008, 10:56 PM
Keys to beating Santana include not being the Sox, making him throw pitches, hacking at his relievers, and pitching pretty well yourself.
I know it seems simplistic, but why not always sit on the change. Sure you'll look goofy as hell when he throws a fastball, but who cares? It seems like it would work better than trying to guess, because the guy always seems to go throw the opposite pitch you guessed. He doesn't throw much else, so why not?

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 09:33 AM
You have some kind of breakdown on that big inning leads to most of Santana's losses or is this just your perception. Mine is the exact opposite - that with an opponent ace on the hill you fight and grind for every run and hope your staff can hold the other team down. I don't expect to beat Santana (for example) 6-3 because of a 5 run 3rd. I hope to beat him 3-2 because my pitchers had a good day.

Oh and again some of this stuff comes down to situations. While in the entire history of the game it may not make a lot of sense to bunt a man over early in the game, it might make more sense in the 2nd inning if you have the 7-8-9 guys coming up where you aren't expecting a couple more hits, but might scrape out one.

That's the problem with using over all stats to figure out what to do all the time. The top and bottom of a lineup are normally quite different (more pronouncedly so in the NL) and what you might do when your leadoff hitter doubles to open an inning might be entirely different than what you do if your 6th place hitter does it.

Except that you can use stats to show that the 7, 8, 9 hitters of most AL teams have a better chance of scoring a man from second with 0 outs than a man on third with 1 out :shrug:

If you have a 7 and 8 hitter coming up hitting .250 with a 10% or less strikeout rate, the odds are in your favor that at least one of them will get a hit or that the first one will move the runner over. Even if they don't, you still have an out left.

Now, if you have guys coming up who hit .200, .200, .200 or something, then yeah, it might be best to bunt them over, but what makes you think an 8 or 9 hitter hitting .200 is going to get enough wood on a pitch hit a deep fly ball or lay down an excellent squeeze bunt in an obvious squeeze situation, especially with a slow #6 or #7 hitter on base?

Not to mention that people usually advocate the bunt-him-to-third approach against good pitchers.

No chance a .200 hitter is going to hit a sac fly against Johan Santana

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 09:33 AM
I know it seems simplistic, but why not always sit on the change. Sure you'll look goofy as hell when he throws a fastball, but who cares? It seems like it would work better than trying to guess, because the guy always seems to go throw the opposite pitch you guessed. He doesn't throw much else, so why not?

Couldn't hurt, I guess, but it's not like his change is hittable even if you know it's coming

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 09:49 AM
Johan Santana's innings with runs scored on him - 2007:
4/2 - 3 run 4th, 1 run 6th
4/8 - 0 runs scored
4/13 - 3 run 5th, 1 run 6th (LOSS 4-2)
4/19 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 3rd
4/24 - 1 run 1st, 2 run 4th, 1 run 7th (LOSS 5-3)
4/29 - 2 run 3rd, 1 run 4th (LOSS 4-3)
5/5 - 1 run 4th
5/11 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd (LOSS 7-3)
5/17 - 2 run 7th (LOSS 2-0)
5/22 - 1 run 2nd
5/28 - 1 run 3rd, 1 run 4th, 2 run 6th
6/4 - 1 run 1st, 3 run 3rd (LOSS 4-2)
6/9 - 3 run 3rd (LOSS 3-1)
6/14 - 1 run 5th, 1 run 6th
6/19 - no runs scored
6/24 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd
6/29 - 1 run 6th
7/4 - 1 run 2nd, 1 run 4th
7/13 - no runs scored
7/18 - 2 run 4th, 1 run 6th (LOSS 3-2)
7/23 - 3 run 1st, 1 run 3rd, 2 run 5th (LOSS 6-4)
7/28 - 2 run 7th
8/3 - 2 run 3rd, 1 run 5th (LOSS 5-2)
8/8 - 2 run 6th
8/13 - 2 run 1st, 1 run 5th (LOSS 4-3)
8/19 - no runs scored
8/24 - 3 run 1st, 1 run 6th
8/29 - 4 run 1st (LOSS 4-3)
9/3 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 2nd, 1 run 3rd, 1 run 5th (LOSS 5-0)
9/9 - 1 run 1st
9/15 - 4 run 1st (LOSS 4-3)
9/21 - 1 run 1st, 1 run 4th, 3 run 5th (LOSS 6-4)
9/26 - 3 run 2nd (LOSS 9-4)

219 IP total, runs given up in 52 innings, more than 1 run given up in 19 innings, 0 or 1 scoring inning in a game 14 out 33 times.

I've indicated all 16 of his losses. If you notice, not only did he give up a multiple run inning in all but two of them, in 10 games, the runs given up in a single inning were greater than the team's margin of victory. In other words, without that inning the team would likely have lost.

Furthermore in 6 of those losses, Santana gave up runs in only a single inning of the game...meaning that inning was the only chance the team had to score runs.

This doesn't prove anything at all since we can't suppose a different past nor have we looked at HOW those individual innings progressed, but it does suggest that Santana would have probably had quite a few less losses if teams had willingly given up outs in the innings that turned out to decide the game

jabrch
03-29-2008, 12:42 PM
That's the problem with using over all stats to figure out what to do all the time. The top and bottom of a lineup are normally quite different (more pronouncedly so in the NL) and what you might do when your leadoff hitter doubles to open an inning might be entirely different than what you do if your 6th place hitter does it.

Scoring runs on Santana at all requires a good bit of luck in addition to skill. I'm more than willing to take any run I can get off him and cross my fingers that others come later rather than sitting around waiting for someone to hit a 3 R HR off of him.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 12:43 PM
Scoring runs on Santana at all requires a good bit of luck in addition to skill. I'm more than willing to take any run I can get off him and cross my fingers that others come later rather than sitting around waiting for someone to hit a 3 R HR off of him.

And the numbers year to year show that that is a stupid way to try and beat santana. It's not much easier to hit a sacrifice fly off Santana than it is to get a base hit. Santana strikes out a ridiculous amount of players and saws off most of the rest. He also tends to have innings, often early in the game, when he's not as sharp. Once he sharpens up, getting a hit (or a sac fly) is pretty much out of the question.

There is absolutely no reason to give up outs against Santana in the quixotic hope that he'll make a mistake and you can fly out deep to left...especially since if there's a runner on second with no outs, you might have a chance to catch Johan with his pants down. And the numbers seem to support this idea--that when Santana IS beaten, he's beaten because teams take advantage of big innings

But then again numbers are stupid unless they're the number JABRCH likes :shrug:

Tragg
03-29-2008, 01:29 PM
There is absolutely no reason to give up outs against Santana in the quixotic hope that he'll make a mistake and you can fly out deep to left...especially since if there's a runner on second with no outs, you might have a chance to catch Johan with his pants down.

I agree.
Bunting as a mainstream strategy makes sense only if you have a lock-down pitching staff where you will win most games scoring 3 runs. Then, you can increase your opportunities to get those 3 (but decrease your opportunties to get anymore) -but it's worth it because that's all you need.
That's why our mediocre offense worked in 2005 - our pitching and D was unbelievable.
Unfortunately, we've tried to expand the slap-hitting approach - not only did our O get worse, but the D got worse (partially as a result of the infusion of bad hitters that also couldn't catch or throw) and the pitching is far worse.

Elephant
03-29-2008, 01:31 PM
I agree.
Bunting as a mainstream strategy makes sense only if you have a lock-down pitching staff where you will win most games scoring 3 runs. Then, you can increase your opportunities to get those 3 (but decrease your opportunties to get anymore) -but it's worth it because that's all you need.
That's why our mediocre offense worked in 2005 - our pitching and D was unbelievable.
Unfortunately, we've tried to expand the slap-hitting approach - but the D got worse (partially as a result of the infusion of slap hitters) and the pitching is far worse.

Exactly, but to romantic hindisghters, 2005's offense is just "the way."

:ozzie
Play de game righ'

Nope. You need stellar pitching 1-11 to get it done with an offense like that.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 01:57 PM
Carl Everett was our #3 hitter in 2005.

It doesn't become such a bad strategy to play for one run when your #3 hitter is going to hit like .250 with a .311 OBP

Brian26
03-29-2008, 05:04 PM
Carl Everett was our #3 hitter in 2005.

It doesn't become such a bad strategy to play for one run when your #3 hitter is going to hit like .250 with a .311 OBP

Everett was an enigma in 2005. It always seemed like he got big hits with runners on base that year. I'm just pulling these numbers off retrosheet:

Everett's average/OBP:

With nobody on base: .197/.258

With runners on: .317/.371
With runners on 2nd & 3rd: .299/.351
With bases loaded: .500/.500

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 05:18 PM
Carl Everett is my god, however, having him in the #3 spot couldn't have inspired much confidence in Ozzie.

You're right though--he did manage to get a lot of big hits...which is why Carl Everett is in fact my god

To be fair to non-gods, though, .317/.371 with runners on resemble the kind of numbers #3 hitters ought to be putting up OVERALL

santo=dorf
03-29-2008, 05:34 PM
Thome's average/OBP 2006:

With nobody on base: .248/.380

With runners on: .329/.453
With runners on 2nd & 3rd: .336/.468
With bases loaded: .143/.222 (but a .571 slg% in 7 atbats)

Thome's average/OBP 2007:

With nobody on base: .243/.348

With runners on: .322/.488
With runners on 2nd & 3rd: .313/.496
With bases loaded: .364/.462

I'm guessing a lot of hitters have this trend of hitting significantly better when there are runners on base. Will some of the 2005-4-LYFE's finally understand why OBP is so important?

Tragg
03-29-2008, 07:10 PM
Exactly, but to romantic hindisghters, 2005's offense is just "the way."



The field staff shares the swing at everything philosophy; which creates another disequilibrium as the gm has been acquiring obp hitters.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 07:32 PM
where were they going without ever knowing "the way"?

Elephant
03-29-2008, 07:40 PM
Thome's average/OBP 2006:

With nobody on base: .248/.380

With runners on: .329/.453
With runners on 2nd & 3rd: .336/.468
With bases loaded: .143/.222 (but a .571 slg% in 7 atbats)

Thome's average/OBP 2007:

With nobody on base: .243/.348

With runners on: .322/.488
With runners on 2nd & 3rd: .313/.496
With bases loaded: .364/.462

I'm guessing a lot of hitters have this trend of hitting significantly better when there are runners on base. Will some of the 2005-4-LYFE's finally understand why OBP is so important?

It's a well known fact that AVG and OPS go up with men on base for several reasons. So yeah, it's pretty important to excel in OBP. Anyone who knows baseball should know and agree with that.

20054LYFEs will dismiss empirical evidence along these lines because "there's more to it than numbers." Whatever. Seasons like 2005 happen all the time, too..

Daver
03-29-2008, 07:51 PM
where were they going without ever knowing "the way"?

A Fastball reference?


Hang your head and feel shame.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 08:00 PM
A Fastball reference?


Hang your head and feel shame.

Recognizing a fastball reference?

That's a paddling

Daver
03-29-2008, 08:10 PM
Recognizing a fastball reference?

That's a paddling

I have teenage children, what's your excuse?

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 08:11 PM
I have teenage children, what's your excuse?

I was in eighth grade when that song came out :shrug:

Elephant
03-29-2008, 08:21 PM
I was in eighth grade when that song came out :shrug:

I was a sophomore in HS. It came out in 98.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 09:05 PM
I was a sophomore in HS. It came out in 98.

Awesome factoid. 1998 was my first year of high school and the song probably came out in the spring of 98, putting me in eighth grade

:IhateElephant:

Elephant
03-29-2008, 09:06 PM
:bateyes:

PalehosePlanet
03-30-2008, 12:47 AM
Tragg:

I think, if memory serves, that I saw a story in the past few days saying the Dodgers were one of the two teams putting in a claim for Uribe.

If that's the case, perhaps the Sox didn't go through with something hoping L.A. would eventually want to take Crede off their hands?

Lip

The Dodgers probably view Juan as a safer bet over Crede and would have him playing 3rd until LaRoche returns. After that they could use Juan as a bench player that can play 3 IF positions, unlike Joe.