lostfan

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) While putting the ball in play may lead to good things, most of the time and out is an out. Certainly you need to look at why he is striking out, poor pitch selection, getting fooled, etc. But I'm more interested in obp and ba. The problem with that many strikeouts, and my whole problem with the "strikeouts really aren't that bad" argument in general, is that when you combine it with a low BA/OBP it means someone just can't hit the ball. They can't put the ball safely in play, they can't connect on big swings more than they already can, they can't even foul pitches off to work the count and wait out a walk - they just can't raise their stats that way. For an example of a player like that who's never going to change, see: Uribe, Juan. For an example of a player who did, see: Granderson, Curtis.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) 160? If he plays a full season of games, he would have close to 200 K's. I was being generous.

All of those strikeouts would be ok if he could offset it with a high OBP which he cannot at this point. Whether he does it through contact (ideally) or from drawing a higher number of walks, either way he's got to raise that by about 60 points if he's going to strike out 160 times a year.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) I understand your point but I don't agree with it, and not just because party affiliation makes for good scandalmaker fodder. The makeup of the legislature with regard to the R:D ratio largely defines the agenda of the legislature, so for general news stories I think it's good to let the audience know which side of the aisle a guy sits on as they listen to and try to digest whetever it is he's saying. I think most of the time when that happens people are trying to imply that one party is morally superior to another to appease the sheep in their party and get them fired up when in fact there is no such damn thing. I don't see the point in calling somebody out for doing something wrong and then going "hahaha and SEE, he's a Republicrat!" and then leaving it at that, and not making a point except to imply "lol the Republicrats are so corrupt and incompetent." At any point. Ever.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 10:10 AM) I think that the additional time will help Fields, as I think it woud help Alexei. Both players can crush fastballs but strike out a lot on secondary stuff. Other way round for Fields actually. And I'd go out on a limb and say there are more guys with a good fastball in the minors than there are guys with good secondary pitches, those who do have them are gonna be your hotshots that are going to the majors soon.

I would argue that of all the major professional sports, strategically speaking, the job of manager in baseball is the least important to a winning team compared to a NFL head coach/coordinator or a NBA coach. There are basic things that all managers should know how to do across the board that are done on every team, but overall, a manager can do much more to bring a team down by being a complete moron than he can bring it up by being a genius. A manager is only as good as his players almost all the time, and a lot of things are out of his control.

IIRC Buddy Bell is part of our minor league instructional team now isn't he? That can't hurt Fields' development in the field. Not at all.

I agree 100% with the benefits of getting rid of the problems and I think a line-item veto would do that, I just think there's a better way although I can't think of one off the top of my head.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 09:37 AM) I think I would be inclined to stick with Uribe. His defense at second has been really pretty impressive and his bat doesn't hurt so much when we can hit. 20 homers out of the 9 hole isn't such a bad thing. Uribe isn't giving me any reasons to want to bench him right now, but Richar could provide the same offensive production as Uribe, probably better. Long-term, we should still be looking at Richar. It makes zero sense not to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) I don't think it does at all. You still have the veto override chance. If your line item is important enough, hopefully 60% of your chamber feels the sameway. I disagree just because of the fact that it would it would increase the number of vetos and number of times an override is needed, at least in theory (I could be completely wrong about this if it goes another way in practice too). That in and of itself upsets the balance, even if only a little.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) Ramirez should get his shot at 2B, but also can play SS and OF so that Pablo Ozuna is really unnecessary. I also hope Jerry Owens is left in AAA to rehab the entire year. If I could trust Ozzie using him only occasionally as LH bat and pinch runner, I'd keep him over Ozuna, but I don't trust Ozzie yet. I don't think we should be writing off Richar just yet.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:17 AM) I do think its a problem, but not in the most obvious way. Its not a problem to spend money on these local projects per se - heck some of them are very good uses of the money. The problem is with the method. Putting an earmark for a state park in the transportation spending bill, for example, causes 2 problems. One, you make it impossible for Congresspeople to make a proper vote, because, what are they voting for? The park or the roads? And they'll get nailed to the wall by their opponents in the next election either way. And two, it makes it much more likely for the spending to become highly unfair and unguided, resulting in illogical financial policy. I have suggested before, I really think that they should adopt something like what the Chicago City Council has in place (and no, I don't mean the corruption part). Take the amount of money spent on these earmarks and porkbarrel projects spend in 2007, cut it down by 25%, and set a baseline amount of money. Split that money per capita in each district, and give the congressperson that money to do with as they and their district see fit. Adjust the total amount up by a market basket measure of inflation. Voila! You get your solid local projects, cut spending, take away the whole old boy network effect, and make spending bills actually a little more on topic. On a side note, I do agree with you on the whole guns and butter thing. That, and the social welfare programs (Soc Sec, Medicare) are the biggest problems in the budget. Oh I don't disagree with you that it's a problem and a mess, it's just closer to "slick spot in the road" and less of the "catastrophic oil spill" that it's being made out to be. As politicians tend to do, they're blowing it all out of proportion so that they can get major cool points for being the one to take it down.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:10 AM) The one way to fix it? Line item veto. I think that's a good idea in principle, but my main problem with that is that it disrupts the checks and balances system and gives the president too much power.

I think it's so funny that there is so much to-do about "pork" and "earmarks" from both parties. It's part of being in the Senate and has been for a long time, it's nothing new and all of them do it (look what happened when they just voted on stopping it, Obama, Hillary, and I think McCain IIRC all voted against it but it was defeated easily). It's not the most efficient way of doing things but damn look at how the Constitution is constructed, it's like that on purpose. It's just one of those latest populist rallying cries that sounds like it means a lot but in the grand scheme of things but it doesn't (like NAFTA). Someone who is crying out that they will do all these things to get rid of it will make it sound like it's destroying the national budget but all it takes is a quick look at the top of it to see what the real problems are, namely, the fact that defense spending has skyrocketed.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:56 AM) These games are very big wins for the Sox. These are our division opponents and every W we put up is an L on their record. In 2005 we owned the division. Considering how BRUTAL this division can be, winning division games is critical this year.

...so about Paul Konerko...

QUOTE (hi8is @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 01:31 AM) I'd speak my mind on the subject but in doing so would risk getting suspended myself. This boards a totalitarian system in a lot of ways. I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended for saying that. This isn't WSI, the mods here don't get off on suspensions and bans and I get the feeling it's not something they like to do.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 08:16 PM) yes, of course I mean more K's. Come on now, we might have some disagreements, but you should know that I'm not a bumbling imbecile Haha. You do have me worried sometimes.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 08:11 PM) I think Fields would at least match Crede's production with less average (and K's) but with more power and possibly OBP. The wildcard here is the defense. I assume you mean Fields would have less average and more K's right? Crede doesn't strike out (or walk) that much. It's written kind of confusing.

See that's what raises my eyebrows, the words "suggest that either could develop." Meaning there is no way in hell that I'd be putting them into an important spot like that before they're ready, OBP is the most important thing and you need it now, not eventually. It takes time to adjust to the MLB level unless your name is Griffey Jr. Maybe Chris (or hell, Danny, which would be f***ing sweet) will develop into a bona fide MLB leadoff hitter but that looks to be a ways off. I just can't see Chris Young suddenly becoming Curtis Granderson this year.

Guys there are certain posts in this thread that make it almost unreadable. Not directing that at anybody. I don't know why this has to be so polarized, it's ridiculous. If Joe Crede is doing great we should all be happy in theory right? Josh Fields or no Josh Fields.

He's had one full season in the bigs and he was a leadoff hitter then too and I don't understand how then or now, even though his OBP was below .300. If he jumps up 100 points in OBP in one season that would be completely miraculous - in the minors the closest he got to that is .377 and it's unrealistic to expect him to jump sky-high like that. He is kind of like a faster Josh Fields - he strikes out a lot and he doesn't walk very much. If anything it seems like he should be hitting at the bottom of the order until he can get enough contact ability to be a heart of the order guy with speed... but not a leadoff hitter.

Yeah I have no idea how Young is a leadoff hitter... he has never hit for a high average at any level of professional baseball, ever, and his OBP in the majors is nearly Uribe-esque. He has quite a bit of power obviously, and he could be a 30-30 guy, but as a prototypical leadoff hitter he's useless. It'd be like putting Danny Richar up there.

Has anybody ever read China's official comments every time we throw someone into prison for espionage on behalf of China? They always act like we are completely making it up and they'd never do such a thing, and that they're offended we'd suggest it. I find it amusing.

Chris Young pitched a pretty good game today against the Twins. Seriously though, now the organization is completely past this now and we even have Carlos Quentin who might even be as good as Young offensively. We actually have a surplus of outfielders.