Greg Hibbard

Regardless of how you feel about which matchup is better, you have to agree it still takes away momentum from detroit.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:11 PM) GAME posponed, make up Monday 1:10. This could be awesome. Takes Momentum away from Detroit and we now miss Verlander

If you don't think Verlander's last two starts weren't "big games" when his team is trying desperately to fight its way into first place, regardless of the opponent not being the Sox, you have a serious double-standard. Verlander choked in both.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 11:27 PM) Why is it that the Sox fold big time against a division rival this century. Games are rarely close. They didn't fold in 2005. They didn't fold in 2008. They didn't fold in 2000. They still are still well-positioned to win this division. Will they choke? Maybe. Will they win the division? Maybe. I get a feeling if they win it will be met with a grudging "FINALLY" and if they lose it will be met with a self-depricating line of horses***. I get tired of the mentality that all losses are bad losses, teams always own us, and the Sox can do no right, ever. The Sox have been flat out beat by a team with comparable talent the last two nights. Hopefully they reverse that trend tonight.

UPDATED - how about those 11th losses in the stretches, huh? Apr 6 to Apr 23 10-6 Apr 24 to May 7 3-11 May 8 to Jun 1 17-5 Jun 2 to Jun 19 5-11 Jun 20 to Jul 7 12-4 Jul 8 to Jul 30 8-10 Jul 31 to Aug 26 16-8 Aug 27 to Sep 12 5-11 Sep 12 to Sep 17 4-0 I think it's worth noting that our previous three bad stretches ended with either 10 or 11 losses in the stretch.

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) It feels like we're being led to the gas chamber. I just don't like how the rest of the Sox and Tigers schedules match up for the Sox. They have that edge, for whatever that's worth. I'm thinking a 2-game lead after this series, we'll lose Game 163 at Detroit. A tie after this series, we're dead meat. 4-game lead--we have a very good chance to win the division. In the end, if the Sox go 5-13 against the Tigers, we deserve to lose and they deserve to win. But if we're playing 19 games a year against these same 4 teams, you better damn well have rosters that can beat these teams if you intend to make the playoffs. I disagree with you. Do the Tigers "deserve to win" the way they've gotten their asses handed to them by the rest of MLB outside the Sox since the break? To paraphrase Hawk, HELL NO. We have an above average team in the worst division in baseball, playing a bunch of other slightly above average, average or slightly below average teams. Is it really that surprising that we would struggle against some teams and handle others, and ultimately put up something in the neighborhood of a .500 record in our division? I don't think so. The fact of the matter is that this team has played well all year in stretches, played poorly in others. A particularly maddening thing every fan of this team tends to overlook is that injuries have absolutely killed us this year. We are playing against Detroit these seven games largely without our best power hitter all year. Konerko was out for a stretch, De Aza was out for a stretch, Youk was gone for a couple games, and now Dunn is out indefinitely. That's not even mentioning Danks, Floyd, Sale's dead arm scares. The fact this team is still in this thing is a bloody miracle.

I just have a feeling that at the end of this year Gordon will be about 3-5 home runs short of where we'd like his total to be at, and about 10 point short of where we'd like his average to be at you know, like he always seems to be.

If this is true, I just don't know how much faith I have left in following professional sports.

QUOTE (tonyho7476 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) Konerko has been pathetic since that hot streak at the end of May/early June. His RBIs are sad since then. "pathetic"? .287 in the second half with 7 home runs thus far is "pathetic"? Man.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 29, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) The numbers say he is striking out less the second half. They also say his HR rate is basically the same, just a fraction HIGHER. He is walking less and getting fewer hits. The pre/post all star splits are a bit deceiving because of the first few games after the all star game. Just after the allstar break, he had 11 strikeouts and 3 homers in the first six games. Look at this split: up to July 15th vs. post July 15th, Ks, BBs vs. HRs. Since July 15th game, he has 10 HR, 18 BB and 46K in 152 AB Before that, he had 28 HR, 72 BB and 138K in 302 AB. Seems like a pretty spectacular difference to me. Seems like a trend.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 28, 2012 -> 07:17 PM) With all due respect, you know damn well plenty of people rightfully disagree with this. Of course that's why I assume you said it like it was gospel right, to get a jab in? Some people believe there is such a thing as a productive, team-oriented, getting the job done, or sacrificial out. Some people don't and that's ok with me. Why can't some people acknowledge the two sides of this topic? Are you kidding? The guy had TWO INFIELD SINGLES in the past two nights, one which was, at the time, the GO AHEAD RBI. Adam Dunn has been making a s***-ton more contact in the second half than he did in the first, and now people are complaining about his batting average... ...All while STILL saying he's striking out too much! Yes, my comment was obviously a bit facetious but I do think when this guy is going well he's striking out a ton and homering a ton. The guy has struck out 63 times in the last 53 games he's played (195 AB). Given his average number of yearly AB, that would project out to 170 per season - right around where he usually is on his BEST full seasons. Meanwhile, his BA drops, his homers drop. How can this guy win with some people, honestly?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2012 -> 12:43 PM) He's swinging hard and his OPS is the second lowest of his career. His lowest was last year when his strikeout rate was the highest of his career. The more often he strikes out, the lower his OPS is. Setting aside last season, which was anomalous in every respect, when he strikes out more he tends to hit more homers.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) If he made more contact, he'd hit more home runs not less. You can't homer striking out. A ball that clears the fence by 5 feet counts just as much as one that clears it by 100. If he makes solid contact and gets it in the air, its gone even if he doesn't swing as hard as he can. With all due respect, I think this is incorrect. If he changes his proven approach, he'll be less effective as a hitter, in all areas. As I pointed out, when his K rate is highest, his homer and walk rate is highest. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. My theory is that when he swings for the fences most effectively, he also tends to strike out more because he commits to more pitches earlier. When he's hitting a lot of home runs, he also tends to be more selective with pitches when he's going well, as many hitters are. More K's = more homers. More homers = more walks. Here's hoping he strikes out 300 times. After all, it's just another out.

OPS down to .824 so it's time to bump this thread again. He's down to .204 BA. Here's an interesting stat In April, May and June, Dunn struck out 125 times in 272 ABs In July and August he's struck out 58 times in 179 ABs Seems like he's cutting his strikeout rate down, but his BA is suffering. Also, when his K rate was highest, his walk rate and homer rate were also highest.

What is it going to take for this team to have a DECENT homestand. GOD.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) He said taken the proposition. As in bet. At least that is how I read it. I meant it as you can have one as long as you take the other. Sorry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2012 -> 07:45 AM) I would not have. I would have though if the average was that low, and the K's were that high, that his power numbers would not have recovered either. Out of curiosity, would you have taken Dunn as-is or Dunn with a .244 average and only 25 home runs, 80 RBI, 80 bb and 180 ks? As a side note, I wonder if taking too many walks is killing his batting average.

Is there anyone in this thread, especially the naysayers towards Dunn's average, that wouldn't have taken the following proposition before this season: "Adam Dunn will hit 40 homers, drive in 100 and walk 100 times, but in order to do that, he will hit around .200 and strike out 240 times." I mean....seriously? Dunn is who we thought he is (to paraphrase Denny Green)

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 16, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) Don't you DARE mock those 80's teams of Carlos Martinez, Dan Pasqua, Joel Skinner, Scott Fletcher, Steve Sax...BWAHAHAHA... Crap, almost made it through without laughing. Wasn't Sax a 90s Sox? Like 92 or something?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 16, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) Pennant chase would have been ridiculous to watch too. And 38 HR, 1.217 OPS for Frank Thomas when it ended, he was on pace for 50+. Frank was on pace for 54 homers and like 130+ rbis. It was the most ridiculous offensive season ever, post-ruth and pre-roids.

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 16, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) And with the 1990 team, they won 94 games and had the second best record in the AL with, for all intents and purposes, a balanced schedule--13 vs West teams, 12 vs East teams. They lose the division by 9 games to the roided A's, and the Red Sox go to the playoffs with 88 wins. Oh yeah, that system was fair. Well, to be fair, in the Wild Card era the 2002 and 2003 Seattle Mariners won 93 games back to back years and didn't make the playoffs. To the point about 20 years - The Sox since the beginning of 1990 are one of three AL teams to win 1900+ games (they have won 1904 games from the beginning of the 1990 season to today). The Yankees have won 2050+ and the Red Sox have won 1970+. Fourth place is the A's, 25 games behind. They've also averaged 86 wins in the 19 complete seasons (not counting 1994, 1995 and 2012) from 1990 on.

The White Sox won the most games of any AL team from 1990-1994.

Why not flip Dunn and AJ? The argument that Stone was making the other night was that this lineup was designed to go LRLRRL to not allow a manager to plug in a single "matchup" reliever for three batters in a row (By flipping Rios and Dunn, you have a situation where 2-3-4 are RRR) I get that, but with AJ batting 3rd and Dunn batting 6th we still would have LRLRRL. Dunn is really in a slump of late and not helping the top of the order enough.

If we ultimately lose the series, of course it's disappointing, but I'm not in the "any loss against the Royals is a bad loss" Typically the best team in baseball plays barely better than .600 ball, and typically the worst still wins more than 1 game in every 3. If we end up winning the series I'm fine with this. More to the point, as long as we are over .500 against the division and at least around .500 against the Tigers, I think we'll be fine.

Oh I see.