Ranger

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 11:58 AM) I think he deserves some credit for the change in approach we've seen from the team is a hole. Anyone who still says Walk is a "lift and pull" coach hasn't watched this season at all. That said, he probably didn't have much to do with our struggles or are successes, which is why I was never on the Fire Walk bandwagon. At the very least, good for him for getting the fans off his back. I never understood where that came from. This has never been his overall hitting philosophy and he's never told all of his players he wants them to do that. There are some individuals that try too often to hit the other way, and he's told them to not be afraid to pull the ball sometimes (Beckham is a recent example). However, that's pretty rare and it certainly isn't all he ever tells his hitters. If you're seeing a lot of guys doing that, it's because they have a lot of guys that do it naturally. It's not his hitting philosophy and it never has been.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 01:09 AM) If what Ranger says is true, Freddy and Jackson are the keys to the season. If Jackson continues his bad run and Freddy runs out of steam, 2/5s of a rotation faring poorly won't cut it. They are keys, as well as Putz, Thornton, Jenks. All five have to perform exceedingly well, assuming the Big Three in the rotation continue to do just fine. Defense goes along with pitching, so Ranger do you feel Teahen should NOT play much 3B the rest of the way? I would not be very comfortable with Teahen playing a lot of 3B down the stretch. He's going to have to play some, but I hope they're able to limit it and keep Vizquel as fresh as possible. But, to your overall point: that is absolutely what I believe. Assuming the top 3 guys in the rotation stay fairly consistent to their norms, if Freddy and Jackson don't get it done, the Sox will not win. That's my opinion. QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 01:14 AM) This is absolutely ridiculous. Baseball is not a zero sum game, Chris. The offense is responsible to carry its weight, and that means picking up the slack a bit when the pitching does falter. Just because we can't hit with the Yankees or the Rangers every night does not mean that the offense gets a pass and is not responsible when we lose a 5-4 ballgame. Last I checked, there are some pretty solid hitters on this team, minus Mark Kotsay of course. But you are right in the sense that the offense needs all the help it can get. Depriving it of a run producer in favor of Kotsay is wasting some of the few offensive resources we have in the name of Mark's practical jokes. And the offense has most definitely carried it's weight. Like I've said, even with Kotsay on the roster, they've been scoring plenty of runs on a nightly basis to win ballgames. It's not ridiculous. They're hitting over .300 as a team in the last month of the season and hitting .333 with RISP in the last 1.5 months. The offense as a whole is doing it's job.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 01:06 AM) So what you're saying is that one player could cost us a bunch of games, but not just a little? I don't understand that logic whatsoever. Maybe the fact that he is taking up a roster spot is costing us? He doesn't have to even be making outs to cost us, because by him being in the dugout, it is preventing someone else from being there. And how you can somehow immediately chalk any failures up to the pitching 1) before these hypothetical failures occur; and 2) after the performance of this staff over the past two months, is incredible to me. How can you possibly know this? So if we lose 1-0 games to the Twins where Kotsay leaves 7 men on base you're going to blame that on our pitching? Look, I buy into the chemistry s*** more than most people, because I have managed groups of people before and I see how people who aren't necessarily tangible difference makers can be huge intangible difference makers. For all we know, Mark makes Alexei relax and hit as well has he has over the past two months. I really can't say. And if that is the case, then I will agree with you, the guy should probably be in the clubhouse and the dugout. As a COACH. Or put him on the DL with some imaginary ailment and let him hang around the ballpark. I don't care. But to send down Lillibridge, after the guy has delivered in nearly every big situation we have asked him to? To send down Viciedo, who has hit the ball harder in his few weeks worth of PAs than Kotsay has all season long? It's just really difficult to stomach. And it goes against all logic. And there is no room for it in professional baseball. I don't know what this guy has to do to make you think that he is costing us. Does he explicitly have to come up in the 9th inning with the game on the line and fail time and time again to make you believe he costs us games? Even the cumulative effect of having him in the lineup as a .650 OPS player as opposed to someone like Dayan or Teahan would probably calculate out to double digit runs, which is worth a a win or two. You can't continually look at things and say "one player won't cost us," because one player does cost you over the course of a season. It all adds up, Chris. There are numbers that support it. And there is no denying them. We have a 1 game lead in the standings. Having him on this roster is risking him costing us a game every single night we play. And that is one too many unnecessary risks. Shack, this isn't difficult to understand. Costing them = losing games. If they're not losing games, then nobody is costing them anything. That's the only measure of cost. But if they have the best record in baseball over the last two months of the season, I'm not sure how anyone could expect more from them. I don't have the numbers on this, but I would guarantee that he's not the worst violator on the team as far as stranding runners. I'd venture to say that AJ, at least, is as bad as it gets. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Kotsay as a larger contributor to their losing than anyone else on this team. That is, when they were losing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 12:52 AM) I don't know about an atmosphere... I mean you had 3 pitchers performing like absolute garbage to start the season (Buehrle, Peavy, Floyd) who then turned around and started pitching lights out (Peavy's injury notwithstanding) and that's when the run happened and the team loosened up. They were wound up tight because they were losing, not vice versa. Regardless of how many days he plays, he is going to finish the season at ~400 at-bats... that is waaaaay too many. At the beginning of the season I didn't mind him being on the team, but not as someone that plays almost as much as a starter. There's a reason the Red Sox DFA'd him. Two things: 1) Don't be so sure about which came first, the loose feeling in the clubhouse or the winning. While nobody was happy during the first two months, they were still fairly loose down there given the situation. 2) You basically make my case that this team will live or die with the pitching. They don't pitch, they won't win. The Sox are definitely not going to outslug the rest of the AL (even if they were to have added a bat at the deadline). It always has, and always will be, about pitching this season. They're gonna score enough to win, but if they don't pitch well, they can forget about it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2010 -> 09:48 PM) He is killing them and he might cost them a division. Take your Kostay blinders off. So Mark Kotsay may cost the White Sox the division all by himself? That's ridiculous. Again, these season will be won or lost on pitching and there's no way around it. If they don't pitch well, they will not win anything. QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 2, 2010 -> 11:28 PM) I think I cut Kotsay more slack around here than most, and that is because it seems like the 30% of balls he doesn't hit directly to the second basemen, he hits pretty hard, but it is getting more and more difficult to defend the guy with each passing day. And I don't know how on earth you can continue to claim that one guy isn't going to cost them the division when we're leading it by the slimmest of margins. It could be any minor thing that costs us this division at this point, and we need to eliminate every weakness possible. Now we just eliminated Daniel Hudson, who had a much bigger claim to being on this team down the stretch than Mark Kotsay. So what is the excuse for not eliminating Kotsay? Because he is well-liked? They need to suck it up, tell Kotsay they love him, offer him the opportunity to go down to Charlotte and play for a month, and then come back up on Sept 1 when rosters expand. Things can then be re-evaluated once the season is over. But he does not have a place on this ballclub right now over Viciedo or Lillibridge once Teahan comes back. So, the Sox are only in first place by 1 game because of Kotsay? (He doesn't play every day, by the way). And, no, he's not killing them. Killing them would mean that they're losing a bunch of games because of his presence. Are they losing a bunch of games because he's on the team or in the lineup? Well, obviously not because they haven't been losing much at all for the last two months. I don't have "Kotsay blinders". That's stupid. What I do have is the recognition that there is some importance to clubhouse presence and the importance of his influence on younger players. They like him. He helps them. And the players want him there because they think he makes a difference. You can argue that part of the reason they even made a turnaround in the first place was because that clubhouse is loose, and he is a giant part of that atmosphere. Obviously, it would be amazing to have a lineup full of guys with OPS's above .900. But since they aren't New York, some intangibles are gonna have to make a difference. You can choose to believe it or not, but intangibles do make a difference. Don't think for a second that team psychology doesn't matter. To reiterate a point from above, they've lost 11 games since June 9th. How many of those losses do you really think were because Kotsay was in the lineup? Honestly. And tell me specifically how he cost them. Because from what I see, most of those losses came because the pitching failed them in some manner or another (blown saves, starters lasting 3 innings, etc). For example, they gave up 17 runs in their 3 losses in the recent trip to MIN, and one of those losses came because of a Jenks meltdown. That's Kotsay's fault how? And you mean to tell me that the loss in SEA was his fault too? That one was another blown save. And I realize he went hitless in that game but so did everybody else except Beckham, Vizquel and PK. Their last loss to OAK? He didn't play in that game...therefore, not his fault. The Sox are hitting pretty well overall in the last two months, even with Kotsay on the team. He isn't costing them anything. I'm sorry, shack, but I just don't by into this idea that one offensive player is going to cost them. If that were the case, then they would be losing a bunch right now, but they aren't. When they were hitting like garbage in April and May, It was because EVERYBODY but 2 guys were hitting like garbage. When 78% of the lineup is not hitting to your liking, you're gonna lose games. When 2 or 3 guys aren't hitting, you're probably still gonna get by if the pitching is good. Don't know what else to tell you.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Aug 2, 2010 -> 08:22 AM) I am one who will generally give K.W. & Ozzie the benefit of the doubt when it comes to baseball decisions, I am quite sure that they know much more than I do. However, I may have to rethink that train of thought if anyone but Kotsay is gone when Teahen comes back. Kotsay isn't going anywhere. I could be wrong, but my guess is Viciedo is back to Charlotte when Teahen is back. Konerko is getting quite a few off days from the field (he's already 3 games away from his single season high of games played at DH), and Kotsay is the only one that backs him up. If they decide to move Viciedo to first base, it won't be done at the ML level this year and they certainly won't want him playing there down the stretch in a playoff race. I understand nobody likes Kotsy and he's everybody's favorite target, but he isn't killing them and he isn't going to cost them the division. If they lose the division, it'll be because the pitching failed.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 12:00 AM) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Av.h...tradebuzz073010 I feel that the last 2 months have been some kind of bizarre "Quadruple Vortex" (inside joke, ask Ranger someday)... We've gone through a cycle where arguably we were one of the worst franchises in baseball to one of the most powerful? What's going on? Can we not see the forest for the trees anymore, our mindset of "mid market" has warped our thinking? I'm not really sure what to believe anymore. From not having the ability to go the extra mile to sign Johnny Damon, after picking up Rios and peavy, now we're operating in a new environment again where scarce resources and future budget allocations don't apply? If we really are planning to keep Edwin Jackson, is JR no longer concerned about 2011's $75 million going to 11 players, the biggest chunk of that to our starting rotation? The way Passan (who's one of the best baseball reporters out there) was writing that article, he was assuming we'd also somehow end up with Adam Dunn, too. Is this the biggest KW bluff since Orlando Cabrera? Will keeping Jackson for next year force a trade of Danks1 and seemingly finalize the departures of Konerko and AJ? What the heck is going on? Will the real JR please stand up? I'm pretty sure that guy was attempting to be funny by trying to sound like an insane caller. I don't think he really believed what he said. If he meant it, though, God bless him. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 05:39 PM) A team with a lot of determination, a crafty GM, some promising young stars. and an idiot for a manager. He's really not, man. If you were watching LaRussa on a daily basis, you'd be scratching your head at quite a bit of what he does. Then you'd realize Ozzie isn't all that different from most managers as for as the perceived insanity of his moves. He's not stupid and, actually, he's fairly standard in terms of his decisions. The problem is that he says crazy stuff and so people tend to think he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to baseball. Trust me, though, he's forgotten a lot more than we'll ever know.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 18, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) Seriously, he's been lights out while Bobby can't do anything with a lead over 1. I also don't care about his SV% because when you have two all-star set up men, you better have a SV% of 120%. How do setup men affect save percentage? You either pitch in a save situation or you don't. Jenks has no control over whether they get the ball to him in the 9th with a 3 run lead or less and it wouldn't affect the percentage of times he's successful. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 18, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Not gonna happen. There's not an organization in sports that exhibits more blind loyalty than ours. I've been saying for the last two years that Jerry Krause, the worst GM of the modern era, would still be the Bulls' GM if he hadn't quit. Totally disagree with this on a baseball level. How many teams do you honestly think would've handled Jenks differently? Most teams give a closer of his track record a number of opportunities. I would argue that there isn't a single organization that would've pulled the plug on him yet if they were given the exact same personnel.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 17, 2010 -> 10:39 PM) Ranger picked a good night to come back. Read the end of the game thread for some hilarity regarding Paulie. Yeah, I don't think I can handle game threads. I only have a certain threshold for pain. BTW, I hope there's some serious goodness in that thread criticizing Ozzie for not asking the umpires to check Pavano's person for a foreign substance. Because, ya know, clearly he was throwing a spitball. I seriously had to explain on the show tonight -- at least twice -- why a Major League manager shouldn't cause a scene by accusing opposing pitchers of doctoring the baseball, unless they had some pretty damn good proof.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 17, 2010 -> 06:11 PM) My gut tells me Andruw, though I think Kotsay would be best (not a defensive replacement, slow, and Teahen is left handed) Jones won't be going anywhere either. They believe he's been too important in keeping Rios comfortable this year.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 07:01 PM) Also forgot one last bit. The most amount of bunts take effect in the first, seventh, eight, and ninth innings. The fact that 12% of all bunts appear in the first inning is disturbing. The 7,8,9 innings are where nearly 50% of bunts do occur. Yeah, unless the pitcher's up, it shouldn't ever happen in the 1st.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) I did a little more digging around for this. From 2000-2004, there were over 5700 bunt attempts with a runner on first and nobody out, which means the batter at least attempted to bunt at a pitch sometime in the at bat. In this case, the batter reached base or advanced the runner 69.1% of the time, meaning he failed 30.9% of the time. Overall, this case had a run expectancy of .831 runs (because these are just at bats where bunts were attempted, some of these at bats could have resulted in the hitter swinging away due to fouling off two strikes, etc). This does not include pitchers bunting. However, of the successful sac bunts, the run expectancy was .7. So there is a .131 run advantage in bunt attempts over actual sac bunts, that alone seems, well, weird, considering that this includes the 30.9% failure rate (getting out with no base advance). Then you have to also think about the run expectancy advantage of just swinging away, where the run expectancy is .875 (not .9). So usually, swinging away has its advantages and generally, sac bunts are bad. This also applies in late inning high leverage situations. The sac bunt, in almost every case, decreases win expectancy (this is from actual data from the 70s, where bunts were still used a lot). The decrease is not gigantic, it's less than 1% in fact, but in general, the bunt in late inning situations does not help you. Of course, you have to take numerous views at this. It really depends on who is pitching, who is running ,and who is hitting. However, keep in mind that the average hitter that bunted from 2000-2004 had a .343 wOBA, above average. Of all these hitters, 40% were mediocre, 40% were bad, and 20% were good (based on wOBA). It seems like some managers are wasting outs. Yeah, I'm aware of this number. But like you said, this is true in general, but it is not true for every specific case. When a team is playing for one run, and one run only, the sacrifice is not a bad bet. If you're playing for multiple runs, it's not a good idea. And like you said, that number does not take into account who's pitching, who's up next, who's in the hole, who's on base, and the situation overall. Every scenario is different.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 09:41 PM) I have a lot of issues with bunting a speedster over to second base. If you want to bunt him to third, that's fine, you'll only increase your run expectancy that way. But when you bunt him to second, you lose run expectancy. Call it broad or what have you, but you never want to give up an out. If the Sox really need that one run, like they're down 1 and it's the 8th or 9th, I'm okay with bunting him over. The risk there of him getting caught stealing is far too large. However, if the Sox need an insurance run or you're at home and the game is tied, you need to take that risk sometimes. Ozzie always lets Pierre and Rios run in the middle of a game no matter what the situation is (including letting Pierre run with a 3-0 count the other day). Why not let them do the same in a tied game or a time where you need an insurance run? In those cases, the game is not exactly on the line. If they do get caught, you're most likely not going to lose a game because of it. But if they succeed, you really increase your chances of winning. I agree sometimes the risk is fine. My point is that it is not ALWAYS the wrong move EVERY time to bunt Pierre. There are times that it can be done. QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) Thing is, most relievers do not hold on runners very well (especially righties). It's not like we're talking about situations with Terry Mulholland or Andy Pettitte on the mound. There's no excuse to be bunting Pierre into 2nd and basically taking the bat out of the hands of Rios. I'll take Konerko up with 1st and 2nd, 1 out and I'll take it every time. The excuse to do it is that you have the potential game-tying or game-winning run on second with one of your team's best hitters at the plate. The alternative is that Pierre attempts a steal, gets thrown out and two batters later you end up with nobody on, 2 out for Rios. I'll take the former scenario any day of the week. And when a reliever doesn't have a good move, that's likely the time you'll see them take advantage of it. Even if that is the case, though, a stolen base is not automatic which sometimes makes the risk too great to attempt it.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) Five times? Wow. I remember a couple instances. But that is pretty sad. JP's got exactly one tool. It should be maximized to the fullest. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) It's still the wrong move. It's not always the wrong move. I know some people are married to the idea that you should never lay down a bunt EVER, but it's simply not that concrete. The statistic that suggests that bunting is always a bad idea is too broad and attempts to generalize a very specific strategic situation. Every potential bunting situation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are occasions that the most important thing to do is get that tying/go-ahead run to second. And while Pierre does have a lot of stolen bases, he is not automatic. It is sometimes too big of a risk in close/late situations to have him get thrown out trying to steal. The only thing worse than runner at 2nd, one out is nobody on, one out. When one run matters, it isn't always a dumb idea to sac the man over...even if that guy is a stolen base threat.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:09 PM) I don't think there is anything wrong with saying "With the way this offense as a whole has performed, it might be time to bring in a hot bat." If it were me, I would have said "With the way this offense has sucked ass, Kenny needs to go get Prince Fielder." Funny, but you would not have said that if it was your team. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 06:27 AM) If they're aware of how he really feels, and the fan base is smart enough to know Ozzie is talking out of his butt and really would like a good LH bat, what purpose does it serve? Again, assuming Oz doesn't actually believe what he said. You say the diplomatic thing because you're trying to keep as much attention off trade talk and as much focus on the field as possible. The moment the manager says, "yeah, we need help" it becomes a daily, distracting topic. I'm aware it could be a bit of a distraction anyway, but the moment the manager admits publicly to needing help, it'll blow up times 10. It's a non-issue. It's a manager telling his team he believes in the team he has. This really isn't shocking.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:24 PM) Like a lot of things in life: I understand it but I don't have to like it. Alright then.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 07:45 PM) Funny you would pick that post out of all of them considering just how tame it is. Why does it annoy me? Because it does, it's a normal human reaction that I can not explain, I read the quote and it irks me. Perhaps I just dislike bulls*** coach speak. I obvious "get it" considering I posted this like 6 posts down from that one: Then why would you say it in the first place? You know why he's doing it, so there's really no reason for it to bother you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) The players are smart enough to realize that, too, so it really serves absolutely no purpose to say something that is not true. Unless Ozzie really does hold that dumb position, which is possible. What if their are players on the team that think the team does need a good LH bat to make a serious run? Of course it serves a purpose. Those guys are aware of whether their manager thinks they're any good or not and they're aware of what he says publicly. There is really no reason to overreact to this.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) Most managers are going to say "i like what we have here". Its the right thing to say, esspecially when the team just won 11 games in a row. However, if KW wants to make a serious run at more than just a division title, he WILL get that hitter. KW will make a trade, I can promise you that. I missed this post, but you said what I did...but you said it first.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 05:18 PM) Even if Ozzie's words mean nothing in the long run -- whether he's blowing smoke or really has no say in personnel -- it's still annoying to read quote such as these. Why does this annoy anybody? Why would a manager ever say, "Yeah I don't think my team is good enough, we could use some help"? Especially while the team is playing well. I never understand this reaction from people. It's talk. Nothing more. Trust me, if there's something available to them and they can swing a deal, they'll make one. Ozzie said the same thing during the offseason, and KW still went hard after Damon.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) It seems to happen to us way more than most teams. That's because you watch your team every single day.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Apr 21, 2010 -> 10:20 PM) Many of us have remarked how poorly the Sox do against pitchers whom they're facing for the first time. In addition, Sox offenses have rarely demonstrated an ability to approach any pitcher, familiar or unfamiliar, with a good game plan. The way the Rays came into tonight's game with a very sound game plan against Buehrle, is just the kind of thing to which I'm alluding. Their right handed hitters took away that outside pitch by going the other way. The absence of any similar kind of sound preparation to face either an unfamiliar pitcher, or to just have a game plan, suggests to me that Sox teams are not as prepared as they should be. I just don't see other teams demonstrating the same consistent lack of preparation. Why is it that other teams don't struggle against any pitcher whom they have never seen? QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 21, 2010 -> 11:20 PM) I really wish some people would realize there is baseball outside of the White Sox. THEY ARE NOT the only team in baseball that struggles against pitchers they see for the first time. Mitch Talbot just shut down the Twins, too. Six innings, 2 H, 0 ER.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 21, 2010 -> 01:10 AM) Where does Ozzie get in his head that Jones can't hit right-handed pitching??? 2009: LHP: 119 AB, .218 AVG, 4 HR (29.7 AB) RHP: 162 AB, .210 AVG, 13 HR (12.4 AB) 2008: LHP: 73 AB, .178 AVG, 2 HR (36.5 AB) RHP: 136 AB,.137 AVG, 1 HR (136 AB) 2007: LHP: 182 AB, .225 AVG, 10 HR (18.2 AB) RPH: 390 AB,.221 AVG, 16 HR (24.3 AB) 2006: LHP: 127 AB, .260 AVG, 10 HR (12.7 AB) RHP: 428 AB, .261 AVG, 31 HR (13.8 AB) 2005: LHP: 125 AB, .256 AVG, 9 HR (13.8 AB) RHP: 461 AB, .265 AVG, 42 HR (10.9 AB) 2004: LHP: 151 AB, .265 AVG, 7 HR (21.6 AB) RHP: 419 AB, .260 AVG, 22 HR (19 AB) 2003: LHP: 131 AB, .260 AVG, 11 HR (11.9 AB) RHP: 464 AB, .282 AVG, 25 HR (18.5 AB) 2002: LHP: 79 AB, .229 AVG, 2 HR (40 AB) RHP: 481 AB, .270 AVG, 33 HR (14.5 AB) Clearly he has been pretty consistent from LHP to RHP, or at least has never shown a reason to say "Wow, this guy can't hit righties". He has maintained similar averages while keeping the power up. So why is Ozzie so stuck on Andruw never seeing a RHP? QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 21, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) I've been saying this all along. Does Ozzie just ignore this stuff because he feels like it? I'm not sure what this proves except that the last time Jones was significantly better at hitting righties was 7 years ago. to me, this isn't useful information for Ozzie.

QUOTE (soreal35 @ Apr 20, 2010 -> 10:41 PM) I personally think it is foolish to worry about a guy who makes $500,000 getting injured....I think it is even more foolish that the Sox brought in a player making five hundo a year to carry an offense, but if he's hot ride him till he's cold. This is a pro sport and Andruw is a guy who is making peanuts...He wants to play well just as much as the Sox want him to play well. There really is no "losing" situation with a guy like this. It would be foolish to ride him until he's hurt. His salary has nothing to do with it in this case. I agree he should be playing as much as possible, but if sitting him out a couple of days a week keeps him healthy and productive for the entire year, well then, they have to do what they have to do. The "losing" would be if they play the guy more than he's capable of playing, he wears down or gets hurt and they "lose" his production. That wouldn't be good.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 21, 2010 -> 12:44 AM) Anyone else notice this? Not sure if he was doing it last year, but this is the first I have really noticed it. Seems like of his 5 HR this year, he has done it in 3 or 4 of them, and it's generally on balls that he pulls. Seriously, it's a momentum kind of thing. It's just a pretty natural motion to make after you take a swing and are trying to straighten up to run to first if you're a right handed hitter. Jermaine Dye did it. I used to do it 100 years ago when I played and I never thought anything of it. I never liked Sammy Sosa and people that hated him used to hate that hop of his. But it was the one thing about him that didn't bother me because I understood it, even though he exaggerated it.