Kurkjian on the AL Central

[SkokieSox]

I think Gardy has something against Rock Paper Scissors. I'm so offended.

 

Although I agree it isn't the best way to determine this, it isn't as if they missed the playoffs to a coin flip. They lost home field advantage, and proceeded to lose the game. They had their chance still...

[NorthSideSox72]

3B (Fields, Betemit, Viciedo) and 2B (Getz, Lillibridge) don't scare me as much as CF does. That is the biggest hole in the lineup, IMO.

 

The two holes this team needs to be concerned about are CF and the 5th starter.

 

[Texsox]

I love Oz as much as most, but no way I could work for someone like that.

[GoSox05]

We still need a lead off hitter. I think that is a big question.

Edited January 27, 2009 by GoSox05

[NorthSideSox72]

We still need a lead off hitter. I think that is a big question.

I don't think the question of who leads off should dictate how you build your team. It only happens once a game, and its more important to field the most talented team you can. THEN you decide who among those are the best table-setters for the 1 and 2 spots.

 

In order, the concerns for this team should be:

 

1. 4th and 5th starting pitchers (partially answered)

 

 

 

 

 

2. CF

 

 

3. 2B

 

4. Backup C

5. Final couple bullpen spots

 

 

[GoSox05]

I don't think the question of who leads off should dictate how you build your team. It only happens once a game, and its more important to field the most talented team you can. THEN you decide who among those are the best table-setters for the 1 and 2 spots.

 

In order, the concerns for this team should be:

 

1. 4th and 5th starting pitchers (partially answered)

 

 

 

 

 

2. CF

 

 

3. 2B

 

4. Backup C

5. Final couple bullpen spots

 

 

I think that having a good 1 and 2 hitter is important though. You need someone to get on base for the big dogs of the lineup. Right now we don't have a clear 1 or 2 hitter. Although I think Getz could be a good number 2 hitter.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that having a good 1 and 2 hitter is important though. You need someone to get on base for the big dogs of the lineup. Right now we don't have a clear 1 or 2 hitter. Although I think Getz could be a good number 2 hitter.

There are 9 (or more) innings where you need table setters, and after the first one, its all a crapshoot as to who leads off. You are talking about a single event in any given game, then its just as likely as all other combinations after that. Yes, you should structure your lineup to get the first inning set in a good way, and also set your lineup to get high numbers of at bats for your best hitters. But its such a small thing (who leads off int he first inning), that I think if you try to dictate your talent search based on that, and trying to fit them into a position on the field as well, you end up causing yourself problems.

 

Now, once in a while, you have the opportunity to pick up someone for a position you need filled AND one that isn't a table-clearing position AND that person is an ideal leadoff hitter (high OBP, some speed). That certainly has value.

 

But if you look at the Sox now, the only leadoff-like hitter available to them is Jerry Owens. Do you choose Owens over a better player because Owens has speed? That's the constraints you are working under.

 

So no, a leadoff hitter isn't important enough to effect your talent search in a big way. Its a nice-to-have.

 

[Pumpkin Escobar]

He can go back to Anaheim and play for his favorite manager. :oldrolleyes

 

So Cabrera the prima donna and Swisher the obnoxious 10-year-old didn't get a long with Ozzie, eh? Shocker.

 

ETA: I'm speculating about Swish. His .219 BA and sudden decline after leaving the 'roids-infested A's may have had something to do with it as well.

 

I don't think that had to do with it. He had a terrible BABIP and that is more likely the cause. He was projected to have a .320+ and hit in the .240's. Which I think was the largest split in the league. It hurt us in many ways, including that we ended up selling low on him.

 

I'm sure this has been posted, but I'll put it up anyways.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/11/1...ght-low-on-nick

 

With regards to the AL central. I've kind of been hoping for a fire sale the last couple years but if everyone's going to keep picking the Indians/Twins/Tigers every year, I have no issues with being the team who actually wins the division as all of them faulter from lofty expectations.

 

It's going to be an open division again, so hopefully we stay healthy and have a couple young kids pan out. Not all, but I wouldn't mind Fields and our 5 starter to be legit.

 

Sidenote: I think Sizemore is a very, very good player but I am so sick of him being the preseason mvp every year. When does it end?

Edited January 27, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[Disco72]

There are 9 (or more) innings where you need table setters, and after the first one, its all a crapshoot as to who leads off. You are talking about a single event in any given game, then its just as likely as all other combinations after that. Yes, you should structure your lineup to get the first inning set in a good way, and also set your lineup to get high numbers of at bats for your best hitters. But its such a small thing (who leads off int he first inning), that I think if you try to dictate your talent search based on that, and trying to fit them into a position on the field as well, you end up causing yourself problems.

 

Now, once in a while, you have the opportunity to pick up someone for a position you need filled AND one that isn't a table-clearing position AND that person is an ideal leadoff hitter (high OBP, some speed). That certainly has value.

 

But if you look at the Sox now, the only leadoff-like hitter available to them is Jerry Owens. Do you choose Owens over a better player because Owens has speed? That's the constraints you are working under.

 

So no, a leadoff hitter isn't important enough to effect your talent search in a big way. Its a nice-to-have.

 

Regardless of the leadoff hitter debate, the team still lacks that OBP before the big boppers. Getz might be able to be one of them, who is the other? The Sox were 17th in MLB in OBP (.332) last season and 18th in average (.263). The team has not really improved on either of those two areas this offseason, depending on the production of the unproven guys that will likely be in the lineup. The Sox can slug the heck out of the ball (#2 in MLB), and that will continue to be the main thrust of this offense. It is going to be an interesting spring training with so many guys competing for jobs on offense (2B, 3B, CF). I hope some of the young guys can step up and provide .350+ OBP.

[NorthSideSox72]

Regardless of the leadoff hitter debate, the team still lacks that OBP before the big boppers. Getz might be able to be one of them, who is the other? The Sox were 17th in MLB in OBP (.332) last season and 18th in average (.263). The team has not really improved on either of those two areas this offseason, depending on the production of the unproven guys that will likely be in the lineup. The Sox can slug the heck out of the ball (#2 in MLB), and that will continue to be the main thrust of this offense. It is going to be an interesting spring training with so many guys competing for jobs on offense (2B, 3B, CF). I hope some of the young guys can step up and provide .350+ OBP.

I certainly agree, that outside some of the big boppers, the team OBP is pretty atrocious. Obviously, I'd love to see the Sox find themselves a CF who can put up a high OBP, but I think that is unlikely at this point. Getz should add OBP at 2B, but neither Fields nor Viciedo look like high OBP guys at the major league level to me (but I hope I'm pleasantly surprised).

 

[mreye]

I don't think the question of who leads off should dictate how you build your team. It only happens once a game, and its more important to field the most talented team you can. THEN you decide who among those are the best table-setters for the 1 and 2 spots.

 

In order, the concerns for this team should be:

 

1. 4th and 5th starting pitchers (partially answered)

 

 

 

 

 

2. CF

 

 

3. 2B

 

4. Backup C

5. Final couple bullpen spots

6. Best Kosher replacement

 

[Dick Allen]

There are 9 (or more) innings where you need table setters, and after the first one, its all a crapshoot as to who leads off. You are talking about a single event in any given game, then its just as likely as all other combinations after that. Yes, you should structure your lineup to get the first inning set in a good way, and also set your lineup to get high numbers of at bats for your best hitters. But its such a small thing (who leads off int he first inning), that I think if you try to dictate your talent search based on that, and trying to fit them into a position on the field as well, you end up causing yourself problems.

 

Now, once in a while, you have the opportunity to pick up someone for a position you need filled AND one that isn't a table-clearing position AND that person is an ideal leadoff hitter (high OBP, some speed). That certainly has value.

 

But if you look at the Sox now, the only leadoff-like hitter available to them is Jerry Owens. Do you choose Owens over a better player because Owens has speed? That's the constraints you are working under.

 

So no, a leadoff hitter isn't important enough to effect your talent search in a big way. Its a nice-to-have.

 

While I agree a leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once a game, you want guys who have a tendancy to get on base more than average hitting in front of your better hitters who can drive them in, and they usually are in the middle of the line-up. I will still be in shock if KW doesn't acquire a real leadoff hitter.

 

[lostfan]

While I agree a leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once a game, you want guys who have a tendancy to get on base more than average hitting in front of your better hitters who can drive them in, and they usually are in the middle of the line-up. I will still be in shock if KW doesn't acquire a real leadoff hitter.

Plus, this guy who you'll want to get on base a lot (regardless of how fast he is) is going to have the most PAs of anybody on the team so it's just simple logic if you put them in front of big bats.

[ptatc]

While I agree a leadoff hitter is only guaranteed to leadoff once a game, you want guys who have a tendancy to get on base more than average hitting in front of your better hitters who can drive them in, and they usually are in the middle of the line-up. I will still be in shock if KW doesn't acquire a real leadoff hitter.

 

this is also where I think speed is essential. Even if a guy gets on base at a good rate, will it take 3 consecutive hits to score him? This is a problem that results in "lack of hitting in the clutch." If this same player can score from first on a double, this team will have a more diverse and effective offense.

 

It doesn't need to be the leadoff hitter but one of the players in the 1 or 2 position needs to have speed, because once it's JD, Thome and Konerko come up, it will take a HR or three hits to score them.

[Dick Allen]

this is also where I think speed is essential. Even if a guy gets on base at a good rate, will it take 3 consecutive hits to score him? This is a problem that results in "lack of hitting in the clutch." If this same player can score from first on a double, this team will have a more diverse and effective offense.

 

It doesn't need to be the leadoff hitter but one of the players in the 1 or 2 position needs to have speed, because once it's JD, Thome and Konerko come up, it will take a HR or three hits to score them.

Exactly. The more often guys are in scoring position for those 3, the more runs the White Sox are going to score, especially if they can run a little bit.

[lostfan]

I want to know though, how many teams have a 3-4-5 that's not slow? #3 hitters who can steal 15-30 bases aren't exactly in excess, but sometimes people get carried away and talk as if we should have 3 or 4 of those guys in our lineup.

[witesoxfan]

Exactly. The more often guys are in scoring position for those 3, the more runs the White Sox are going to score, especially if they can run a little bit.

 

which is when OBP can be overrated and SLG% can be underrated. If Jerry Owens could slug even .350 while getting on at a .330 clip, he'd be atleast adequate in the lineup. The problem from there lies in the fact that he plays mediocre to bad defense in CF and his arm is atrocious.

[ptatc]

I want to know though, how many teams have a 3-4-5 that's not slow? #3 hitters who can steal 15-30 bases aren't exactly in excess, but sometimes people get carried away and talk as if we should have 3 or 4 of those guys in our lineup.

 

this is true. That is why these types are hard to find and why other teams have this problem as well. While we complain about it we are not alone in our complaints.

 

[ptatc]

which is when OBP can be overrated and SLG% can be underrated. If Jerry Owens could slug even .350 while getting on at a .330 clip, he'd be atleast adequate in the lineup. The problem from there lies in the fact that he plays mediocre to bad defense in CF and his arm is atrocious.

 

Slugging could also be over rated if Owens has a good OBP and a high % in SB. He could also score from first on a 2B from someone.

 

you need to have a good OBP with either the higher SLG% (the stats guys prefer this because it is more of a sure thing to measure) or the high % of SB. Either way you have a better chance of scoring with the 3-4-5 hitters not hitting a HR.

 

I personally would prefer the speed guy because he has a better chance of scoring from first or going from first to third on a single and can be in a better position to score more often. However, either scenario would improve the offense.

Edited January 27, 2009 by ptatc

[Steve9347]

Ha.

 

I hate that we're still forced to even remotely discuss Jerry Owens as White Sox fans.

[Balta1701]

which is when OBP can be overrated and SLG% can be underrated. If Jerry Owens could slug even .350 while getting on at a .330 clip, he'd be atleast adequate in the lineup. The problem from there lies in the fact that he plays mediocre to bad defense in CF and his arm is atrocious.

Jerry Owens is more likely to slug .330 and have an OBP of .350 than the other way around. And that's still pushing it with the slugging.

 

Frankly though, if Owens is plugged in to the leadoff spot, I really am never going to look at the OPS or Slug categories to tell how good he's doing in that role. The 2 key lines for Owens will be OBP and SB %age. If we want him to be a successful leadoff man, he needs an OBP at about. 350 or higher, and a SB clip pushing up well over 75%. His defense isn't anything stellar in CF, but it's probably still a step or two up from Swisher and certainly a ways above Griffey. With the bat, his minor league numbers suggest he can put up those numbers. He has a good walk rate, can hit for contact, and has some decent ability to take a pitch at the same time, although not above average. What he needs is to be on base, so that he can a.) use his speed and b.) score runs in front of the boppers. Anything less than .350 or so OBP or worse than a 75% clip with the SB's and he's just costing us runs compared to grabbing someone off the scrap heap and putting them in there.

[Disco72]

I'd rather have the OBP than the speed, if forced to choose. That OBP will give the sluggers more opportunities to hit with runners on base. While the 3 singles to score a guy is frustrating, the middle of the order hits plenty of doubles and HRs. I just want more guys on base when that happens. Ideally, I'd love to add a high average guy to the lineup and some speed also, but I would take OBP and/or average before speed.

[Balta1701]

I'd rather have the OBP than the speed, if forced to choose. That OBP will give the sluggers more opportunities to hit with runners on base. While the 3 singles to score a guy is frustrating, the middle of the order hits plenty of doubles and HRs. I just want more guys on base when that happens. Ideally, I'd love to add a high average guy to the lineup and some speed also, but I would take OBP and/or average before speed.

A guy with a .400 OBP at the top of the Sox's lineup with limited speed would be far more useful than a guy with a .350 OBP and good speed. That was, I think, part of the idea with Swisher last year, unfortunately his suckitude overwhelmed that best laid plan, so we got stuck with Cabrera and his .334 OBP in that slot. I'd love to add a .400 OBP guy to the top of that order, but unless that is Getz/Lillibridge (both of whom have put up decent OBP's in full seasons in the minors, .382 for Getz and about .418 for Lillibridge, both of them a couple years back in the minors) we're just not going to find that person.

[Greg Hibbard]

A guy with a .400 OBP at the top of the Sox's lineup with limited speed would be far more useful than a guy with a .350 OBP and good speed. That was, I think, part of the idea with Swisher last year, unfortunately his suckitude overwhelmed that best laid plan, so we got stuck with Cabrera and his .334 OBP in that slot. I'd love to add a .400 OBP guy to the top of that order, but unless that is Getz/Lillibridge (both of whom have put up decent OBP's in full seasons in the minors, .382 for Getz and about .418 for Lillibridge, both of them a couple years back in the minors) we're just not going to find that person.

 

^^^^^^^

 

Speed is overrated, in some ways. It's nice to have alongside OBP, but unless you have a surefire stolen baser at the top of the lineup healthy, but it's debatable as to how often you should attempt the steals because of the out risk. If the Sox could just lay down bunts and move runners along instead of hitting into DPs almost every other inning, that would go a long way too.

[Balta1701]

^^^^^^^

 

Speed is overrated, in some ways. It's nice to have alongside OBP, but unless you have a surefire stolen baser at the top of the lineup healthy, but it's debatable as to how often you should attempt the steals because of the out risk. If the Sox could just lay down bunts and move runners along instead of hitting into DPs almost every other inning, that would go a long way too.

In front of Q, Thome, and presumably Dye and Konerko and Fields (that's what, 150+ home runs out of those 5 potentially?) I have actually very little urge to see anyone giving up an out deliberately with the bunt. We've seen what that does before...you get your leadoff man on, then the #2 guy bunts him to 2nd, they walk the 3rd place hitter and it sets up the potential to end the inning on a DP if you get the ground ball.