Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 3, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) What were Konerko's Minor League numbers compared to Viciedo? If I find an example of a top minor leaguer than had a slow first 300 abs before crushing at the ML level, would it change your prejudice? That's a rhetorical question.

I can't believe people are really willing to conclude, well, anything about this guy less than 300 ML ABs into his career. For context, Paul Konerko was barely hitting over .200 at the age of 22, about 400 ABs into his career. I think I'll wait until he's about 1000 ABs into his career until I start to draw any conclusions.

Well at least Ohman got an opportunity to bring his ERA down. Oh, wait...

Perhaps good pitching and suspect hitting is a bad combination for a team that plays in a hitters park. I do think this trend will straighten itself out. I also think the 2009-2012 teams being about .500 overall and about .500 at home is really not that alarming.

How many times do we have to say "just don't let cespedes beat you"

Don't forget to vote corpseball in 2012, guys. "out early, out often"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) Because we're down by 1 and getting a runner to 2b with 1 out increases your chances of scoring that single run even if it reduces your chances at a big inning. I get why a sacrifice makes sense, in a vacuum. It made no sense with the way he was starting to unravel.

You have to be kidding me with that call.

Why the f*** are we sacrificing when this pitcher is losing control

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:07 AM) As debated ad infinitum, Peavy's not going to be easy to move at all. If other teams are after him, it probably means the White Sox will be within shouting distance of first place or at least the wild card. So then you're just talking about dumping more salary or payroll relief, because we're not going to get savings AND a prospect simultaneously. I think we can both come up with plenty of scenarios where Peavy is dealing but the Sox are not in the race, especially given that our most glaring weakness is our seemingly constant struggle to score runs. My nightmare scenario is similar to 2011: seemingly in it most of the year, Ken "Stand Pat" Williams drools all over his "competing team" at the deadline (and does little else), and the White Sox die down the stretch to a bland 85 wins. That's only happened, what, 4-5 times in the past 12 years? I know it's not just about the BoSox, which is why I threw in the remark about the East beating up on each other. I'm hoping all five east teams win between 74 and 93 games, which would set up the Sox to probably really compete for the WC. If the Orioles and Jays bottom out, we would be more in trouble than if they compete. I think the jury is way out on the Indians. Not sure what to make of the Angels yet (or our Sox for that matter). I don't think they're going to hit sub .200 for a complete season, but there's always Adam Dunn's 2011. Explain. Do you mean that there's a hard cap on seasonal IP because the first two have not pitched full seasons? Has that explicitly been stated, or are you just projecting what will probably happen? I think we all know that if Peavy completely goes down this team is screwed anyway. Well, my actual theory is that we can do pretty well against the Central and rake in interleague like we always do. If we hit May 31 over .500 I think we're in good shape to win 87-93 games.

With the start, I guess the one thing that is clear is that this team probably wins 80 games. The larger questions now are how likely it is that Detroit wins more than 93, and if it would take winning 93-94 games to make the wild card. If we can play Detroit head to head tough, we obviously have a chance at the division, but I think the more likely scenario is that the sox play into the wildcard race if Boston continues to struggle and/or the east beats up on each other. The worst case scenario is the sox winning 87 games and ending up something like 6 games out of both races, while hanging on to pieces they could have otherwise moved (Peavy, for one).

...but I hadn't realized that the Sox started 10-6 or better 7 times in the preceding 12 seasons from 2000-2011 (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008). Of course, the results in all those years are all over the map, from 81 wins all the way to 99 and the series. It does bode well that in 3 of those years the Sox won the division, and in a fourth they won 90 games but finished in third.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) Apparently 1,290 at bats of a .656 OPS was not enough, either. The precipitous decline in base-running and fielding abilities apparently also mattered not. I still don't understand how OPS is a particularly relevant statistic for a lead-off hitter who doesn't hit home runs. Wouldn't Runs Created be more relevant? Anyway, I wouldn't argue that Pierre was in decline, but OPS seems like exactly the wrong metric to use to describe his output - at any point in his career.

Gonna try to catch a couple innings at the Tilted Kilt this afternoon.

"Losing is a disease...."

If the Sox are out of it early, he'll hit .265/40/120. If the Sox are in it all year, he'll hit .198/22/76 I wish I could say it wasn't contingent on whether his team is competing for a division.

No expectations years tend to be a little looser and more fun (especially around here) than huge expectations years.

The Sox will win exactly 76.5 games.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) His calling a game is greatly overrated, I think people hear Hawk say it enough times and it sticks. He hasn't been better than any of those 3 players listed and Crede had that big HR late in the season to insure we didn't collapse in the end of the season and AJ got on 1B by an umpire error not too mention the Angels were on their 3rd or 4th bp arm while we still had Buehrle going in that game I was pretty confident. But if we are going to give everyone who contributed in the postseason lets go ahead and give Podsenick, Blum, and Dye statues too. Jesus. Do you get that I'm actually taking into account the whole picture? People keep nit-picking one aspect of this and then throwing out other names. Name another player that: 1) spent 8 years with the White Sox, including 2005 2) had the impact AJ did on a pivotal playoff game 3) put up similar overall statistics, given his position (this is where he differs greatly from Crede) Does ANYONE else fit that bill? If anyone else deserves a statue from this era, it's AJ. Whether or not you think he deserves that is entirely subjective. I happen to think he does.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) None of those guys deserves a statue I completely agree.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 07:45 AM) The only year that mattered in that time was 2005 so I don't know why it matters that he stayed from 2006-2011 with multiple failed seasons. Should Joe Crede get a statue too since he was here from 2000-2008 and lets give statues to Jon Garland and Juan Uribe too since they spent a lot of time with Wsox too. Well, AJ arguably singlehandedly decided the pivotal game in the 2005 ALCS with hustle, for one thing. I also think his statistics with the white sox are considerably better than Crede, Uribe and Garland, especially considering how he handles a staff/calls a game, which is why I think he deserves a statue over them. Was 2008 a failure? Huh. I guess every season except 2005 is a failure, then. Let's take all the rest of the statues down.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 06:45 PM) I would not be down with AJ getting a statue, if he got one than we might as well give them to everyone. You mean all those players who were with the Sox from 2005-2011? How many of those are there? Oh yeah: Konerko, Buehrle, AJ and Ozzie. Seems like AJ fits to me.

Realistically, he will probably have a much more precipitous decline than most, because of his injury history and his lack of versatility/speed. Good on him for (hopefully) knowing when to hang it up. If he does it at the right time, he will probably be remembered much more fondly, and I think he also knows that. My second favorite player of the Williams era (after Buehrle)

Oh, and here I thought that the White Sox had stooped so low that COOPER WAS ON THE STAFF

Can someone please make the case why Santo shouldn't be in the hall? I'm honestly dumbfounded by that sentiment. He was one of the greatest third basemen of his era.