October 5, 200520 yr Was it silly for the White Sox to play for one run in the first inning against the Red Sox yesterday and end up winning 14-2? Scott Podsednik led off with a hit by pitch, was bunted over to second base and stole third before scoring on a groundout. My question is this: Was giving away an out and risking a rally-killing out at third base worth it just to set the tone and score first? Or was it a case of Ozzie Guillen overmanaging? The White Sox ranked fourth in the AL this season with 200 homers (one more than Boston) but first in caught stealing (66) and sac bunts (53). It's safe to say their overall run production (738, ninth in AL) suffered because of all the outs they gave away. Ozzie is vindicated because the score was lopsided? The method of baseball that this guy is disputing scored two quick runs before the homerun fireworks even started. btw, you can respond to this blog on SI.com if you want. There is a salty minnesota fan about halfway through the responses.
October 5, 200520 yr I think that playing for a run whenever you can get them is the way to go for the WHite Sox. There are no universals. I wouldn't make that move if I were Joe Torre with his lineup (although Tito should have Renteria bunt over Damon with Edgars struggles). I think that Ozzie should continue to be aggressive. I think that we can get burned and not have a cloud over us because the team bounces back when Ozzie keeps the pressure on. If you want to see the WHite Sox trying to hit the 3 run bomb and not hit/run or steal-watch our offense for much of Auguest and September-ugh.
October 5, 200520 yr QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 5, 2005 -> 02:20 PM) I think that playing for a run whenever you can get them is the way to go for the WHite Sox. There are no universals. I wouldn't make that move if I were Joe Torre with his lineup (although Tito should have Renteria bunt over Damon with Edgars struggles). I think that Ozzie should continue to be aggressive. I think that we can get burned and not have a cloud over us because the team bounces back when Ozzie keeps the pressure on. If you want to see the WHite Sox trying to hit the 3 run bomb and not hit/run or steal-watch our offense for much of Auguest and September-ugh. That was the perfect move for many reasons. First it took pressure off of Pods to steal, 2nd it put pressure on Clement to make good pitches, 3rd it sent a message that they are going to do whatever it takes to score a run and are not going to sit around waiting for the 3-run HR. Because they exploded yesterday does that now mean they should not be aggressive on the base paths, not sacrifice and wait for the HR? I say HELL NO! That didn't work the last 4 years. Scoring that first run was huge imo 'cuz it relieved some pressure and I think the key AB of the game was RowDog's single...hit a tough pitch and plated another run and set up AJ for the bunt attempt....giving Clement a false sense of security. lol
October 5, 200520 yr Author Did someone respond to that column? The post on the bottom from Michael in Chicago has a soxtalk feel to it.
October 5, 200520 yr This wise-ass from Sports Illustrated obviously hasn't been watching the Sox this year. This is how they play and how they got to 99 wins. So, before writing stupid s*** like this, STFU and get to know the team you're dealing with, dillweed.
October 5, 200520 yr How bout Iguchi grounds into a double play, the rally never happens and the White Sox lose. Moron. By playing for one run they set up the big inning. God I want that job so I could make money for being an idiot.
October 5, 200520 yr Author QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Oct 5, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) Linkage please? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...tter/index.html
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.