Jump to content
Jack Parkman

Personal opinions on Sox rebuild pieces.

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, mqr said:

And still managed to be an okay contributor. A huge chunk of his strikeouts can be wiped out by very slight adjustments and less bad strike zone luck.

He was in the bottom 3rd of 2nd baseman at absolute best. If thats a lock for future this is not going to work. He can get better but I am not holding my breath.

Edited by Soxbears2001
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chisox378 said:

I will say this once again. The Sox organization, right now, whether its the coaching in the minors, or Steverson the hitting coach, or a bad philisophy by someone in the organization, but right now Sox hitters are programed to hit from .210 to .250 with 5 to 6 times the strikeouts to walks, and hit HRs or strikeout.  Its bad hitting.  The small ball days of Ozzie and good baseball have been replaced with Adam Dunn and Jim Thome philosophy. It doesnt create runs, it doesnt make the defense work, its selfish baseball.

These ideas are basically mutually exclusive. And before you tell me they won a world series playing small ball... they didn't. But yes White Sox hitters strike out too much and don't walk enough and it's a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small ball was a big part in their winning, of course it was. Everyone was on board that philosophy and they executed it. They held some sort of record for scoring first, which put the other team on their heels early in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

Small ball was a big part in their winning, of course it was. Everyone was on board that philosophy and they executed it. They held some sort of record for scoring first, which put the other team on their heels early in the game.

They were also 4th in baseball in Home Runs. If they were closer to the bottom of the league they aren't sniffing the playoffs. They also won 3 of 4 world series games with a ton of Home Runs and XBH. That team won in spite of its philosophy. 

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasnt an either or to that championship it was a both/and. They used small ball throughout the season and in the playoffs but ALSO hit HR and doubles and on top of that had timely hits. The small ball sets the stage for the slugging.

Edited by Chisox378

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the stats for that 2005 team they were the 6th worst in the entire MLB in walks but they didnt strike out, they put the ball in play and were around the middle of the pack in the entire MLB with strikeouts. Last year we led the entire MLB in strikeouts with 1594.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

It wasnt an either or to that championship it was a both/and. They used small ball throughout the season and in the playoffs but ALSO hit HR and doubles and on top of that had timely hits. The small ball sets the stage for the slugging.

"Small Ball" was a small side show...

1. Starting pitching

2. Bullpen

(significant gap)

3. Home runs

4. Timely hitting (call it "clutch" if you'd like)

5. Defense, up the middle and skill INF, where it matters most

(significant gap)

6. Hustle, stolen bases, scrapping for runs and anything else related to "small ball"

7. Attitude

 

That, to me, is the 2005 team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Sox started this rebuild they have acquired some guys with star potential: Moncada, Jimenez, Kopech, Cease and Robert... but the farm is thin on guys with high ceilings. Lots of guys in the farm project to be relivers or utility players. 

Always take the best player on the board but the Sox amateur scouting staff has to start prioritizing high school players in the draft more. I understood prioritizing college players in terms of building an organizational foundation but when you solely target college guys at the top of the draft, you run the risk of having an older farm. Dane Dunning could very be 25+ by the time he reaches the majors. High school players are younger obviously and spend more time in your system learning your way of doing things.

This was a rant

Edited by Joshua Strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I didn't mean to put you on the spot . It's just like I said though , you named a handful among 30 teams. it's all easier said then done.Once we found Quintana that was under the current regime wasn't it ? What about Quentin, Thornton, Jenks. Seems like a lot of guys from 2005 were those types of value. Iguchi, Dye, Konerko and probably more.

I named recent acquisitions for teams that were in a similar spot in rebuilds, that specifically had playing time for players that they could afford to let develop in the majors, which was an asset other teams could not offer.

It's not just naming examples of striking gold on a prospect a la quintana, it is comparing apples to apples where teams that could offer playing time to players that had promise but risk found decent production, while the white sox could not.

None of the 2005 players are that, but especially not paul konerko I'm not sure why he is even there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshua Strong said:

Since the Sox started this rebuild they have acquired some guys with star potential: Moncada, Jimenez, Kopech, Cease and Robert... but the farm is thin on guys with high ceilings. Lots of guys in the farm project to be relivers or utility players. 

Always take the best player on the board but the Sox amateur scouting staff has to start prioritizing high school players in the draft more. I understood prioritizing college players in terms of building an organizational foundation but when you solely target college guys at the top of the draft, you run the risk of having an older farm. Dane Dunning could very be 25+ by the time he reaches the majors. High school players are younger obviously and spend more time in your system learning your way of doing things.

 This was a rant  

 

 

 

On second thought, keep targeting college guys

Edited by mqr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joshua Strong said:

With that mind set, just stop drafting guys. 

Well, I mean, we should stop letting the current FO draft people, among other things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

"Small Ball" was a small side show...

1. Starting pitching

2. Bullpen

(significant gap)

3. Home runs

4. Timely hitting (call it "clutch" if you'd like)

5. Defense, up the middle and skill INF, where it matters most

(significant gap)

6. Hustle, stolen bases, scrapping for runs and anything else related to "small ball"

7. Attitude

 

That, to me, is the 2005 team.

 

This is a great summary of the 2005 team. But small ball was implemented in each one of these categories. It was a philosophy, it was an unselfish philosophy that the players bought into and it did effect all aspects of the 2005 team. Once they signed Dunn and Thome, seems like they shifted away from this philosophy.

 

Anayways....this is a new team with a new philosophy.

Edited by Chisox378

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

This is a great summary of the 2005 team. But small ball was implemented in each one of these categories. It was a philosophy, it was an unselfish philosophy that the players bought into and it did effect all aspects of the 2005 team. Once they signed Dunn and Thome, seems like they shifted away from this philosophy.

 

Anayways....this is a new team with a new philosophy.

Jim Thome hitting home runs and hustling harder to 1b than anyone else on the team did not make the starting pitching and defense collapse in 2006.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bmags said:

I named recent acquisitions for teams that were in a similar spot in rebuilds, that specifically had playing time for players that they could afford to let develop in the majors, which was an asset other teams could not offer.

It's not just naming examples of striking gold on a prospect a la quintana, it is comparing apples to apples where teams that could offer playing time to players that had promise but risk found decent production, while the white sox could not.

None of the 2005 players are that, but especially not paul konerko I'm not sure why he is even there.

 

I was just pointing out that good value can be found any year . It obviously becomes more important in rebuild years. Konerko was traded for Cameron right?. They both were young and it worked out for both sides.  Jenks was a good value find. Iguchi came out of nowhere.Dye's production exceeded his cost. I also mention them because KW was GM then Hahn was assistant GM so they have some history of finding gems that worked out just not many recently. Maybe they used up their quota with the baseball gods to win us a World Series. The question becomes how did they find gems in the past ? Better scouting ?.More luck? A better plan or vision ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

Looking at the stats for that 2005 team they were the 6th worst in the entire MLB in walks but they didnt strike out, they put the ball in play and were around the middle of the pack in the entire MLB with strikeouts. Last year we led the entire MLB in strikeouts with 1594.

Probably not a good idea to compare a World Series winning team from 14 years ago to a 100 loss team now. Strikeouts throughout baseball have skyrocketed since 2005 not just for the White Sox . When you are a 100 loss teams you are going to be at the top of a lot of bad statistical categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I was just pointing out that good value can be found any year . It obviously becomes more important in rebuild years. Konerko was traded for Cameron right?. They both were young and it worked out for both sides.  Jenks was a good value find. Iguchi came out of nowhere.Dye's production exceeded his cost. I also mention them because KW was GM then Hahn was assistant GM so they have some history of finding gems that worked out just not many recently. Maybe they used up their quota with the baseball gods to win us a World Series. The question becomes how did they find gems in the past ? Better scouting ?.More luck? A better plan or vision ?

They had their success when the player aging curve was much different, and since free agency has become less productive the team has been unable to overcome their lack of scouting, drafting, player development and international pipeline and have become one of the worst teams of the decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Jim Thome hitting home runs and hustling harder to 1b than anyone else on the team did not make the starting pitching and defense collapse in 2006.

Agreed. And this is something people seemed to miss, probably based on assumptions around Thome's body build. Thome hustled more than most of the team, and there were a handful of players that were actually slower than him on the bases.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

This is a great summary of the 2005 team. But small ball was implemented in each one of these categories. It was a philosophy, it was an unselfish philosophy that the players bought into and it did effect all aspects of the 2005 team. Once they signed Dunn and Thome, seems like they shifted away from this philosophy.

 

Anayways....this is a new team with a new philosophy.

I would agree that the 2005 team played unselfishly. I would not agree that Thome, or then later Dunn, being added had any negative effect on that whatsoever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mqr said:

Then it's already failed

The rebuild hasn't failed. It is just currently stuck in the mud.

It's pretty clear that Hahn and company aren't going to be able to turn things around as quickly as Theo or Jeff Luhnow did, however. This looking more and more like a 6-7 year rebuild.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

"Small Ball" was a small side show...

1. Starting pitching

2. Bullpen

(significant gap)

3. Home runs

4. Timely hitting (call it "clutch" if you'd like)

5. Defense, up the middle and skill INF, where it matters most

(significant gap)

6. Hustle, stolen bases, scrapping for runs and anything else related to "small ball"

7. Attitude

 

That, to me, is the 2005 team.

 

The hitting in 06 was amazing but the pitching sort of collapsed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I still think there is a significant chance that Moncada does develop into that 6+WAR stud, but I have reduced it from 30-35% to 10-15%. The more I see of him, the less likely I think that he reaches his ceiling. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, OneDog847 said:

The rebuild hasn't failed. It is just currently stuck in the mud.

It's pretty clear that Hahn and company aren't going to be able to turn things around as quickly as Theo or Jeff Luhnow did, however. This looking more and more like a 6-7 year rebuild.  

Its pretty much failed. The pitching has fallen apart and I dont think enough of the hitters have maintained their stock to be in sufficient quantity to acquire the pitcher they are going to need. The Tatis Jr. trade...it looms over everything.

Doesn't mean they wont ever be good though. While were talking about 2005, remember the off-season before it where they made all the stupidest moves possible? Trading away El Caballo for Scott Podsednik and letting Magglio walk to be replaced by Jermaine Dye were universally panned moves. How many people called the Sox cheap that off-season? Sometimes baseball can be weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmags said:

They had their success when the player aging curve was much different, and since free agency has become less productive the team has been unable to overcome their lack of scouting, drafting, player development and international pipeline and have become one of the worst teams of the decade.

So you're saying because of steroids there were older better players to choose from ? Are you saying any success the Sox had in acquiring value on talent in the past means those players were on steroids  ? Free agency has become less productive  compared to what ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×