Perhaps a more important question...would the Sox be 8 games over .500 if everyone was healthy?

 

No way....the pitching staff has been healthy all season, and the relievers have no significant injuries. No team with as bad of relief as the Sox have could have a good record. We were healthy to start the year off also offensively....and the offense still sucked.

It's common sense that if there were no injuries things would be better. How much better, no idea. But at least they would be at 100% and the injury issue wouldn't have an opportunity to be an excuse. Regardless, it's silly to think the injuries have nothing to do with the slide.

 

We were healthy to start the year off also offensively....and the offense still sucked.

 

 

Ummm... they weren't healthy leaving spring training..

Ummm... they weren't healthy leaving spring training..

 

Who wasn't healthy....Pods?

 

BTW, I definitely agree that injuries have had a big impact on this team. We're one of the last organizations that could survive so many offensive players going down due to our pathetic developmental system. I believe that if this team could have had average injury issues all year up to this point, they'd be probably 5 or 6 games out of first place.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would the Sox be eight games under .500 if everyone was healthy?

No, but I still think they would be around .500.

 

Have all of the Sox's opponents been 100% healthy at the time we played them?

Who wasn't healthy....Pods?

Crede was also not healthy to start the season. I'm not sure what to say about Dye.

No, but I still think they would be around .500.

 

Have all of the Sox's opponents been 100% healthy at the time we played them?

 

You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong.

Finally! A day where the Sox don't lose a game.

Finally! A day where the Sox don't lose a game.

 

There's always tomorrows game to lose.

You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong.

Which has more to do with the way this team was put together than anything else. When you're putting incredibly injury prone players in important positions and expecting them to stay healthy you can't blame injuries for your team's failures. Injuries have been a major reason as to why this team has been bad but it's not even the #1 reason in my book.

You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong.

But most of the injuries should have been expected, no? Pods and Erstad are pretty much always hurt. Thome has been banged up each of the past several years. Crede's back shouldn't be a shock to anyone. We laughed at the Cubs counting on Wood and Prior all this time, KW is just as guilty now IMO. I don't see Cleveland crying about Lee and Westbrook being out. Or Detroit with Zumaya and Rogers. They get guys to step up.

Who wasn't healthy....Pods?

 

BTW, I definitely agree that injuries have had a big impact on this team. We're one of the last organizations that could survive so many offensive players going down due to our pathetic developmental system. I believe that if this team could have had average injury issues all year up to this point, they'd be probably 5 or 6 games out of first place.

 

 

Sorry, I left for lunch.

 

Scott, Joe, and Jim for starters. Dye had a ton of "treatments" down there as did Paul.

Sorry, I left for lunch.

 

Scott, Joe, and Jim for starters. Dye had a ton of "treatments" down there as did Paul.

 

What was wrong with Thome? And wouldn't you agree that some of those injuries are just these guys getting older, something that KW seemingly failed to take into consideration this offseason when he brought back/in two injury-plagued outfielders?

What was wrong with Thome? And wouldn't you agree that some of those injuries are just these guys getting older, something that KW seemingly failed to take into consideration this offseason when he brought back/in two injury-plagued outfielders?

 

Thome has been injured for 3 seasons.

 

Of course I would. Which is why the stupid ass powers that be should have not sat with their fingers up their butts this off season. Regardless... the point is that injures ARE to blame for some of the demise of this team.

Which has more to do with the way this team was put together than anything else. When you're putting incredibly injury prone players in important positions and expecting them to stay healthy you can't blame injuries for your team's failures.

 

Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson.

At this point it's like throwing rocks at the short yellow bus.

 

I've resigned myself to a long summer and watching what should be a competitive divisional race between the tribe and tigers.

Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson.

I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health.

I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health.

 

Well, after listening to Gage I don't think we're going to see Anderson again.

Well, after listening to Gage I don't think we're going to see Anderson again.

Neither do I but that wasn't the question.

Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson.

I think I'd love to see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in the lineup also.

 

But that .652 OPS he's put up this year makes me sort of wonder when exactly people think this productive Erstad will appear?

Neither do I but that wasn't the question.

 

s***.

I think I'd love to see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in the lineup also.

 

But that .652 OPS he's put up this year makes me sort of wonder when exactly people think this productive Erstad will appear?

A .311 OBP is productive when you're also providing an unstoppable veteran presence in the clubhouse.

I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health.

 

Erstad's only costing $750k and Anderson was a complete disaster at the plate last season (.225 BA, .290 OBP, 90 K, 30 BB). He was more of an automatic out than many of the pitchers in the NL. No matter how good his glove is, nobody with Anderson's bat is going to start on a team that's supposed to be competitive.

Edited June 14, 200718 yr by WCSox

Erstad's only costing $750k and Anderson was a complete disaster at the plate last season (.225 BA, .290 OBP, 90 K, 30 BB). He was more of an automatic out than many of the pitchers in the NL. No matter how good his glove is, nobody with Anderson's bat is going to start on a team that's supposed to be competitive.

Brian Anderson's OPS over all last year: .649.

 

Darin Erstad's OPS over all this year: .652.

Brian Anderson's OPS over all last year: .649.

 

Darin Erstad's OPS over all this year: .652.

 

Anderson's OPS this year: .387

Anderson's career OPS: .532

 

Despite the career-high OPS in '06, Anderson still struck out 90 times last year (with only 30 walks) in 365 at-bats. Oh, and he can't steal bases either.

 

Erstad is clearly in the twilight of his career and his production has slid significantly, but it isn't difficult to understand why Ozzie didn't want Anderson starting in CF at the beginning of the season.

Anderson's OPS this year: .387

In 17 at bats.

Anderson's career OPS: .532

No, it's not. .632. And only 51 of those at bats were outside of 2006.