fathom

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:21 AM) What does 6 sac bunts in his career have to do with it? Playing in takes that option away from him, no matter how many statistical successes he's had or hasn't had. He is a veteran and knows what he's doing. Any kind of bunt, even a bad one, likely gets the job done. You are not thinking this thru, choosing instead to find every little thing to criticize the manager about. This wasn't a little thing to criticize about. It was a huge strategically decision in the game, and it deserves discussion (as we're doing). I can guarantee that we weren't worried about Javy Lopez beating us with the bunt. I will give you Patterson being a threat to bunt, and that could be a reason to walk him. All I know is that if you walk the bases for a slow, power hitter, most managers would probably play their middle infielders back. As for Jenks, he needs to put together a string of solid outings. He's been giving up runs pretty consistently now, and it's been happening almost completely on his fastball.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:20 AM) I don't think it sucks. Most agree that this team is better then the '05 team. Let them play. They had a slump. It happens. It may make things more interesting then we'd like but I don't see how a guy like Soriano is going to help a lot. We're better on paper and on offense....that's it.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:15 AM) Oh please. Just stop. Lopez is very good at handling the bat, he is a veteran player, a good hitter. That's the point, they played in to take away the bunt. Think about it. If they played back, as you wanted, it gives Lopez the option to bunt or hit something soft. Playing in gave the Sox more defensive options and put the pressure on the hitter to execute, which he did. Lopez is good at handling the bat? He has 6 sac bunts in his career. With the bases loaded, if the opposition wants to try to bunt, be my guess. With Jenks throwing high fastballs at 98 mph, I would have been more than willing to tip my cap if he executed the bunt. It's over though...time to move on to tomorrow's important game.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:11 AM) Was that still with Tejada on 3rd? I can't see a bunt being the smart option. He's not exactly a speed burner. And I doubt Lopez is a great bunter...and how in teh world do you get a good bunt down against Bobby Jenks anyway? I don't know, but every team we play seems to have no trouble getting the bunt down. It's amazing how they're able to do it even on tough pitches. I can only recall one time this year where the other team didn't execute their bunt (Twins triple play). QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:12 AM) Now you're changing your beef. You said you wondered why they had the IF playing back in that situation. I explained why. Now you are saying they should've done something different with Patterson. The question was why did they play the IF in with 1 out and the bases loaded.. All along, I thought we should have faced Patterson in that situation. I've seen him enough for the last 5 years to know that he doesn't have a great chance of contact against the stuff Jenks has. However, once Ozzie made the decision to walk him, he should have had the corners in, and played his middle infield at DP depth. Of course, when there's one out and first and third, you would play your infield in with someone like Patterson at the plate. In the Patterson situation, you would hope for a K.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:08 AM) How do you address defending against a bunt in that situation? Javy Lopez could've dropped one down the line with the IF playing back, and even if he gets thrown out the runner scores, especially on a bunt to the right side with a righthander pitching and a lefthanded throwing firstbaseman in the game. Percentage wise, it was the right move. It forced the guy to make solid contact, i.e hard grounder not right at someone or a deep fly ball ... and Lopez got the job done. If Lopez drops down a successful bunt, then you tip your cap to him (especially against Jenks). We're not talking about Omar Vizquel at the plate in terms of how he handles the bat. By having your corners in for that situation, it's unlikely they're going to bunt with the bases loaded.

Hopefully this works. If this results in Sandy facing tough righties at the plate, then it will be a massive downgrade from AJP playing.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 02:56 AM) Would they not want to try and cut the winning run off at home plate on a softly hit grounder? Why concede the winning run? If they play back, it requires a hard hit ball on the ground. Playing the infield in gives them the opportunity to keep the game alive on a softly hit ball via a force at the plate, or possibly a DP if it's hit right at someone. Why eliminate one of your options? Your criticism stems from the end result, a hard hit ball not right at one of the infielders. They played the %'s and the guy smoked one. Here's my thinking...if you're not going to play for the double play, then you have Jenks face Patterson and not load the bases. Patterson is extremely prone to the strikeout, and that's what's Jenks best asset is. Once you loaded the bases with one out, you have to play the middle infielders back and try to turn the double play. I don't know what the splits are, but Jenks seems to be a ground ball pitcher when the ball is put into play. And FWIW, I said in the game thread that I didn't like the Patterson IBB.

QUOTE(champ @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 01:43 AM) For the last time, we have a centerfielder and he's a damn good one. He's probably best in the game defensively, and his hitting has come around, so...THERE IS NO LONGER A HOLE IN CENTERFIELD. Get over yourself. You'd give up prospects for a guy we don't even need? This is just like the Soriano talk, stupid. The Soriano talk is stupid? Yeah, this team definitely is strong in LF. And Anderson is showing improvement, but he's far from being considered a "damn good one" right now.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines Sounds like Ozzie got quite annoyed with Vazquez. No surprise, but Vazquez sounds like he was mentally defeated again in the 6th inning.

QUOTE(whitesoxownyou @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:52 AM) Well this Zito trade rumor sounds like a pretty good deal.. Yeah so far this place seems to be laid back and people don't flip out when they disagree with something or be rude to people. *Knocks on wood. But yeah it is good to be back at Soxtalk Just to clarify, there is no Zito rumor right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:46 AM) And they were actually pointing out prime examples of it during the game, getting ahead of guys 1-2 and then winding up with full counts. Hard to argue with them on that. It doesn't make sense though, as our starting pitcher's K rate has gone way down this year. It's funny, but our most effective pitcher this wknd was Thornton, who just went right at guys.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) No. It was the heater as you correctly state, he wanted to come inside, and got too far inside. He was geeked up I'd imagine and it ran too far in. A mistake. Lack of execution. I know some on this site think Hawk Harrelson is senile but once again he made a great point today. He said they Sox pitchers are throwing too many pitches to these hitters and they are relying too much on these hitters to get themselves out. He said, and I agree with him, they need to go right at these guys a lot more aggressively. And that means pitching inside more, which is an entirely different topic for an entirely different thread. I thought AJP was set up well outside for Tejada's fastball. I don't recall AJP ever setting up inside for Jenks fastball on a righty. And yes, Hawk and DJ were saying that stuff about going after the hitters after THE FIRST BATTER OF THE GAME!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) How in the world did Tejada's arm avoid snapping in half then? It barely got him.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:37 AM) As far as my eyes could tell, that pitch that hit Tejada was the curve ball? Nope, it was a 98 mph that missed its spot by 3 feet.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:28 AM) That is exactly what I would've done ... yank him after the out on Conine. He can't rely on Cotts to get an out vs. Markakis ... we have problems. However that doesn't absolve Vazquez of the blame of plunking Patterson, it was the same dumb mistake Jenks made plunking Tejada in the 9th. Do you sense a pattern. Pitchers not executing. I've come more around to the lack of players execution. It's just terrible. We talked yesterday about the awful pitch selection. The same thing happened with Jenks hitting Tejada. Jenks best pitch has been his curveball this season. As funny as it sounds, his 97 mph is his set-up pitch. There were too many examples this weekend of not trying to put away the hitter...and it was why every hitter for the Orioles had like 10 hits this wknd.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:24 AM) Interesting. Sean Tracey gets cuffed around and Montero comes in and keeps the game close. Seems to me Montero and Tracey are the two options for the White Sox if they need a rubber armed guy to give them innings. Neither have been lights out. I'd say there's a definite chance that Tracey might be the answer to long-relief....via trade. If I had to guess, Tracey might be in a Pirates uniform in a few days.

QUOTE(CardsJimEdmonds15 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:16 AM) Trade is official.. Unimpressed honestly.. Loved Luna myself.. He shoulda been our everyday 2B, but we went with that bum AAron Miles.. If anything this does improve our 2B position and offense but the most important part to this.. Miles shouldnt be out there everyday.. Thanks for that much Hector! Belliard isn't afraid to get a big hit. I'm thrilled we don't have to face him anymore.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:13 AM) Actually you have it backwards. The reason you leave him in after a cheap HR is to build his confidence. I agree 100 pct that you usually keep pitchers in to get confidence. However, with what's been happening to Vazquez lately, it creates a very unique situation. Maybe Ozzie would have been better off pulling him after he got the first out on Conine that inning, and let Cotts come in to face Patterson (not like Cotts would have got him out ). I'm just shocked that Ozzie gave him the chance to get the loss.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:56 PM) Yes, RJ with an iffy back. Lidle is ok, nothing more, he will have his good games and then in other games he will get torched. Again it all comes down to the White Sox playing better, looking at it from a White Sox point of view. They are right there for the wild card. Right there. If they play great the rest of the way they will make it. Scoreboard watching be damned, they have games left vs. Minnesota, NYY, and Toronto. It's incumbent on the White Sox to play well. The managers decisions won't have anywhere near the impact on this team as the players actually playing well will. He actually gave Vazquez a shorter rope today than he did before. He gave him two batters in the 6th and then yanked him. Vazquez's rope will be even shorter his next start. Yasny got crucified on the game thread because he said Gibbons' HR was a pop fly and not indicative of how Vazquez was pitching. I should have stood up for Yasny but I didn't because the game thread crowd has all the answers. If you have a lot of experience watching the game like Yasny does and I do, you know it was a much shorter leash on Vazquez today vs. his last start. Yes, it is a HR no matter what but his option was Cotts ... who can't seem to get lefthanded hitters out. What had Corey done vs. Vazquez, not much. As soon as Vazquez plunked him his butt was out of there. Short leash. Unless I am remembering it wrong. Guillen has a lefthander at his disposal (Cotts) who lately can't seem to get lefthanders out. Stupid pitch to start the sequence to Markakis ... fastball right down the chute. Poorly located. Nothing wrong with a fastball there if it's in on his hands. Further, he decides to try and stay away from Fahey's bat, of all people, trying to get him out on outside crap. These pitchers are not aggressive because they don't have enough confidence. Guillen tries to build their confidence by giving them opportunities, these pitchers are not coming through. The homer was cheap, but the reason you get him out of the game immediately following that is purely for the mental part of it. I actually did notice the quicker hook by Ozzie, and he wasn't the main person that I blamed for the disaster (involving the 6th inning...he made some other terrible decisions today). He was in a bad spot due to the bullpen's inability to get guys out yesterday. Vazquez just has to man up and get some guys out.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) So you're estimate was closer than I thought, but it's still at about $95 million (I'm giving Crede about $6 million). In itself, I guess you were right, but that doesn't include the fact that the Sox will probably be shedding $10 million with the trade of Vazquez/Garcia, and adding in McCarthy. And that's exactly what I was referring to. We're going to have to unload some salary to add parts this offseason.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) well I guess I was right about the bullpen having problems today Cotts allows all inherited runners to score and Jenks gets the loss so it might have been good to get the win saturday (which is what you want to do), but we suffer a tough loss possibly as a result And who's to say if we lost Saturday, we don't come out flat today, and lose 2 out of 3 this wknd?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:22 PM) I was wondering that as well. And why does Ozzie wait until Vazquez has the lead run on base before he is pulled? Note to Ozzie: waiting for a few more hits doesn't do anything for your bullpen. They still have to get the same amount of outs. Its so apparent when Vazquez is going to fall apart, yet the dugout seems to want to look the other way. Everyone gave Ozzie credit for how he used to let Garland work out of trouble, and it helped his confidence. The thing is, Ozzie has always pulled Garland before he can be put in a situation where he can get the loss. It's similar to what happened in McCarthy's debut.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:24 PM) LOL. Sorry Fathom, I've got to agree with Jim here. You would never know you were "Mr. Pessimism" if we were to simply delete all your posts regarding the Sox and solely look at how discuss other teams. Umm....wouldn't pessimism towards the Sox equate to the opposite view of opposing teams? I thought I had stated in my post about the Yankees that they would be very tough to beat if they can get their guys back healthy, and then be able to keep that lineup the rest of the way. Right now, they only have two reliable pitchers in Mussina and Wang. Johnson looks injured yesterday, and Wright's been awful recently.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:29 PM) Fathom, WTF are you talking about? Look here at the Sox payroll info -- it's not even close to $100 million locked up in 13 players. I don't know where the hell you pulled that number from... There was an article in the Tribune over a month ago which went into detail about the Sox financial situation. In the article, it said that the Sox might have to trade some players in the offseason in order to clear up payroll for next season. The article mentioned how a lot of guys were already signed for next year, and it was above 90 million was what they stated. After reviewing that page, there's a lot of errors. Examples are Dye's not making only 1 million next year, same with Buehrle.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:19 PM) I'm not sure I could create a better lineup on Xbox. SABR geeks will have an erection just looking at that lineup.