White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #406  
Old 11-03-2019, 05:07 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cub killer View Post
The Nats are the 1st team since us to win it all after losing their team leader from the year before.

Theirs to free agency, ours to injury for almost all the season, including all of October.
Who appointed Harper the team leader?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004

Last edited by Grzegorz; 11-03-2019 at 07:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 11-03-2019, 07:24 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 20,783
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JermaineDye05 View Post
He was on the Tigers in 2005. Frank was on the team for about two months. I want to say July and August before he went back on the DL. Though I take your point, Frank wasn’t the team leader in 2004 either.
Frank played in 34 games in 2005 between May 30 and July 20. Even with his badly injured foot, his slash line was .219/.315/.590/.905. The Sox were 24-10 in the games in which he played and 20-8 when he started. He was second on the team in OPS in 2005 (Paulie was first with .909.)

In 2004, Frank played in 74 games, and his slash line was .271/.434/.563/.997. The Sox were 40-34 when he played and 39-30 in games he started. His .997 OPS led the 2004 Sox.

Maybe he wasn’t the “team leader,” but when he was playing he was the most productive (or second most productive) hitter on the team.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 11-03-2019, 07:38 AM
HomeFish HomeFish is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,298
Default

My memory of Frank Thomas on that 2005 team is that he came back for like a month and just hit a ridiculous number of home runs. Just murdered balls. John Rooney was no longer surprised when it happened. The team was already doing well of course. And then he went back on the DL.

I think if you asked MLB fans across the country to name a member of the Chicago White Sox during 2005 - 2010, 99% of them would have said "Ozzie Guillen". He was just so much more famous and charismatic than any of the players on that team. A Sox fan probably replies with Paul Konerko or Mark Buehrle, but Ozzie was the face of that era of Sox baseball for better or worse.
__________________
"Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only when they are ruined."
-- Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 11-03-2019, 09:38 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 20,783
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeFish View Post
My memory of Frank Thomas on that 2005 team is that he came back for like a month and just hit a ridiculous number of home runs. Just murdered balls. John Rooney was no longer surprised when it happened. The team was already doing well of course. And then he went back on the DL.

I think if you asked MLB fans across the country to name a member of the Chicago White Sox during 2005 - 2010, 99% of them would have said "Ozzie Guillen". He was just so much more famous and charismatic than any of the players on that team. A Sox fan probably replies with Paul Konerko or Mark Buehrle, but Ozzie was the face of that era of Sox baseball for better or worse.
Here’s another interesting fact: When Frank returned to the active roster, the Sox led the AL Central by 4 games. When he went back on the injured list, they led by 11 games. In other words, they gained 7 games in the standings, in a division race they ultimately won by 6 games (and their lead shrunk to 1.5 games by Sept. 22-24). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that his production in the lineup during that period gave the Sox the cushion they absolutely needed to withstand Cleveland’s torrid pace in August and September.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 11-03-2019, 10:03 AM
JermaineDye05 JermaineDye05 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 16,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeFish View Post
My memory of Frank Thomas on that 2005 team is that he came back for like a month and just hit a ridiculous number of home runs. Just murdered balls.
The 3-Run HR at the Cell against Casey Fossum is the one that still sticks in my memory.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:19 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
As I said, the numbers that put this at a coin flip are irrelevant because it isn't limited to players focused on getting the run home situations where getting the run home isn't an objective, i.e. down by three with one out in the ninth.


The numbers have no controls and are out of context.
That doesn't matter, because neither data set classified attempts as either intentional or unintentional.


Besides, if the premise is that fewer runners are being advanced from 3rd with fewer than 2 outs because modern players are somehow more deficient or more negligent at this skill than players of yesteryear, wouldn't this be reflected in the data? In fact, if overall rates have stayed the same despite modern players supposedly eschewing "fundamentals," wouldn't that mean that the players of yesteryear were actually worse at this than modern players? According to everybody who moans and groans at runners being left on base in these situations, the failure is blamed on players "just not giving it the old college try" or "not doing enough to hone their skills." Well, the bottom line is that modern players are succeeding just as often as before, so all that "extra effort" in the "good ol' days" resulted in absolutely no appreciable difference in success.


At that point, may as well just forget the dink-and-dunk **** and try to hit the ball hard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:25 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,769
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
That doesn't matter, because neither data set classified attempts as either intentional or unintentional.


Besides, if the premise is that fewer runners are being advanced from 3rd with fewer than 2 outs because modern players are somehow more deficient or more negligent at this skill than players of yesteryear, wouldn't this be reflected in the data? In fact, if overall rates have stayed the same despite modern players supposedly eschewing "fundamentals," wouldn't that mean that the players of yesteryear were actually worse at this than modern players? According to everybody who moans and groans at runners being left on base in these situations, the failure is blamed on players "just not giving it the old college try" or "not doing enough to hone their skills." Well, the bottom line is that modern players are succeeding just as often as before, so all that "extra effort" in the "good ol' days" resulted in absolutely no appreciable difference in success.


At that point, may as well just forget the dink-and-dunk **** and try to hit the ball hard.
The number one way teams encourage a player to get a run home from third with less than 2 outs is by hitting a SF. That skills corresponds well the hit the ball hard and hit the ball up (launch angle and exit velocity) that are highly prized in today's game.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:36 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
The number one way teams encourage a player to get a run home from third with less than 2 outs is by hitting a SF. That skills corresponds well the hit the ball hard and hit the ball up (launch angle and exit velocity) that are highly prized in today's game.
Exactly. The idea of shortening the swing and hitting the ball on the ground in those situations is flawed. Lots and lots of grounders are totally useless, and I think the exact magnitude of just how useless ground balls really are is lost on some fans.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:05 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Exactly. The idea of shortening the swing and hitting the ball on the ground in those situations is flawed. Lots and lots of grounders are totally useless, and I think the exact magnitude of just how useless ground balls really are is lost on some fans.
It’s not about shortening up to hit a grounder.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:20 PM
Paulwny Paulwny is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In a Field
Posts: 6,700
Default

Early in the game a manager will usually have the infield play back, conceding the run. With 2 strikes a batter should just try and make contact, not swing for the fences.
__________________
She's the foundation I lean on, My woman, my WIFE.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:20 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
It’s not about shortening up to hit a grounder.
This. It's shortening up to have a better shot at making contact because striking out is the worst thing you can do in that situation.
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:29 PM
Paulwny Paulwny is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In a Field
Posts: 6,700
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
The number one way teams encourage a player to get a run home from third with less than 2 outs is by hitting a SF. That skills corresponds well the hit the ball hard and hit the ball up (launch angle and exit velocity) that are highly prized in today's game.
Since the very first time in the late 1890's, that a runner was on third with less than 2 outs the batter has tried to elevate the ball (launch angle), nothing new here.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:00 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Exactly. The idea of shortening the swing and hitting the ball on the ground in those situations is flawed. Lots and lots of grounders are totally useless, and I think the exact magnitude of just how useless ground balls really are is lost on some fans.
Exactly... Exhibit A.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:21 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
This. It's shortening up to have a better shot at making contact because striking out is the worst thing you can do in that situation.
No it’s not. The worst thing that can happen is the lead runner being retired.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:32 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
No it’s not. The worst thing that can happen is the lead runner being retired.
Right, but that has nothing to do with the approach at the plate. The batter knows if the infield/corners are in or not. The runner doesn't go on infield in or corners in if the ball is hit to them. The contact play happens, but not too much and still doesn't change anything about the approach. You don't want a strikeout in that situation period.

I should have said, it's the worst thing a batter can do in the situation.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.