**Official** 2019 Playoffs

[Grzegorz]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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?

[Frater Perdurabo]

Originally Posted by JermaineDye05

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.

[HomeFish]

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.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Originally Posted by HomeFish

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.

[JermaineDye05]

Originally Posted by HomeFish

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.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by TDog

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.

[voodoochile]

Originally Posted by Mohoney

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.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by voodoochile

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.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Mohoney

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.

[Paulwny]

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.

[ChiSoxNationPres]

Originally Posted by asindc

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.

[Paulwny]

Originally Posted by voodoochile

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.

[Grzegorz]

Originally Posted by Mohoney

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.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres

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.

[ChiSoxNationPres]

Originally Posted by Mohoney

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.