If we are talking about non-pitchers with shoulder problems (because I imagine we'd hear about shoulder problems with pitchers), I would guess one of them is Quentin. I would imagine it's uncomfortable to play with, but I also would imagine it's not completely intolerable.

And I know there are people here that simply cannot grasp the concept of professional ballplayers needing a day of rest here and there, but it's absolutely true. Part of the reason is that a lot of these guys have some health issues that none of you will ever hear about. I can tell you that there are at least two guys that are tremendously important to this team that have nagging shoulder problems. Naturally, they will get days off even when it seems to the fans like they shouldn't.

 

Good points. I need to start considering your point about days off and how players do apparently hide their injuries.

I wonder how many teams do the Sunday lineup thing? Just asking. I don't really know. I know a lot of games last year, in our game threads, somebody would post the lineup and a lot of people automatically assumed a loss, which happened seemingly a lot.

I hope this year we go for the jugular if we happen to win the first two games of a three-game series.

 

Good points. I need to start considering your point about days off and how players do apparently hide their injuries.

I wonder how many teams do the Sunday lineup thing? Just asking. I don't really know. I know a lot of games last year, in our game threads, somebody would post the lineup and a lot of people automatically assumed a loss, which happened seemingly a lot.

I hope this year we go for the jugular if we happen to win the first two games of a three-game series.

That drove me CRAZY last year! We just could not nail down a sweep! We won the first 2 a bunch of times, but it just seemed impossible to lock down the third one.

To me Ozzie is both irreplacable but also replaceable. Let me explain: There is nobody that could replace Ozzie in terms of fan adoration, publicity and outrageousness. Sadly, the Sox do get a lot of their national media attention, whether for good or bad, because of something contreversial or funny Ozzie said. You will never be able to replace the personality of Ozzie. Managerial-wise, Ozzie isn't a Bobby Cox, Torre, La Russa or Gardenhire in my mind, so in that respect, I think you could find an alternative to Guillen who will roughly win the same amount of games with the Sox talent. But there is something to be said for having Ozzie and the national attention he brings along. I am in the group that says other. I think this year is big, but not monumental. If this year's team, with the losses that Minny and Detroit have incurred since last year, fails to win, I have no problem putting Ozzie on the hot seat for 2011, making that year make or break.

 

I think Gardenhire and Torre are good managers, but I think they're sometimes dramatically overrated by the folks here. Especially Gardy. He's good, don't get me wrong, but that major league club is more a product of the organization from the bottom-up than it is a product of him. The players like him, and that's part of it, but the guy almost never has to worry about who he inserts into the lineup. Even their "bums" are capable of getting it done. And Torre was not considered one of the best managers in the game until he went to New York. He managed for the first time in the late 70's, but didn't have a 90-win season until the Yankees hired him. So, what was the difference? How about some excellent talent. Don't you find it striking that he was a big league manager for all (or parts) of 15 seasons, but wins the World Series in his first year in NY, then goes on to win 3 more there?

 

I mean, would he really do any better with this Sox club? A manager is pretty much at the mercy of his players.

 

I think it's just a matter of the-grass-is-always-greener.

 

If we are talking about non-pitchers with shoulder problems (because I imagine we'd hear about shoulder problems with pitchers), I would guess one of them is Quentin. I would imagine it's uncomfortable to play with, but I also would imagine it's not completely intolerable.

 

Quentin was actually not one of the guys I was talking about. It's not something to worry about, but it's a reason to cut some of these guys a break (and cut Ozzie a break) when they are missing from the lineup.

 

Good points. I need to start considering your point about days off and how players do apparently hide their injuries.

I wonder how many teams do the Sunday lineup thing? Just asking. I don't really know. I know a lot of games last year, in our game threads, somebody would post the lineup and a lot of people automatically assumed a loss, which happened seemingly a lot.

I hope this year we go for the jugular if we happen to win the first two games of a three-game series.

 

I think people automatically assumed a loss for just about every lineup they put out there. You don't have to take my word for it, so take a look around baseball at daily lineups. You'll notice for teams that don't have supreme talent (like you-know-who) there are a lot of lineup alterations from day-to-day. This isn't just an Ozzie Guillen thing.

Edited March 25, 201015 yr by Ranger

To me Ozzie is both irreplacable but also replaceable. Let me explain: There is nobody that could replace Ozzie in terms of fan adoration, publicity and outrageousness. Sadly, the Sox do get a lot of their national media attention, whether for good or bad, because of something contreversial or funny Ozzie said. You will never be able to replace the personality of Ozzie. Managerial-wise, Ozzie isn't a Bobby Cox, Torre, La Russa or Gardenhire in my mind, so in that respect, I think you could find an alternative to Guillen who will roughly win the same amount of games with the Sox talent. But there is something to be said for having Ozzie and the national attention he brings along. I am in the group that says other. I think this year is big, but not monumental. If this year's team, with the losses that Minny and Detroit have incurred since last year, fails to win, I have no problem putting Ozzie on the hot seat for 2011, making that year make or break.

And you probably could find a ton of managers who could win more games with the sox talent that they could have had. Ozzie shaped this team with his BS rotating DH idea. As much as i want the sox to win, i don't see us winning a title with this lineup. We could have had a much better team had we signed somebody like Jack Cust or Nick Johnson, easily. Instead we get a bunch of grindy bench players who Ozzie "loves" that are going to be playing as the DH.

And you probably could find a ton of managers who could win more games with the sox talent that they could have had. Ozzie shaped this team with his BS rotating DH idea. As much as i want the sox to win, i don't see us winning a title with this lineup. We could have had a much better team had we signed somebody like Jack Cust or Nick Johnson, easily. Instead we get a bunch of grindy bench players who Ozzie "loves" that are going to be playing as the DH.

 

No, the lineup is as such because they couldn't find an alternative they liked better at a price that suits them. The understanding here is that they (KW) are willing to go into the season with this lineup, but they would prefer something more concrete. The evidence of that is the push they made for Damon. If they could've signed him, they would have. They didn't let him go to Detroit because Ozzie wants the team as is. They let him go to Detroit because they couldn't sign him.

No, the lineup is as such because they couldn't find an alternative they liked better at a price that suits them. The understanding here is that they (KW) are willing to go into the season with this lineup, but they would prefer something more concrete. The evidence of that is the push they made for Damon. If they could've signed him, they would have. They didn't let him go to Detroit because Ozzie wants the team as is. They let him go to Detroit because they couldn't sign him.

You don't think we could have afforded Jack Cust's $2.65 million dollar contract? Russell Branyan was pretty cheap too. Look at Thome. Ozzie said he would love to have him, but would barely be able to find him any at bats, due to his brain dead rotating DH idea. There were plenty of cheaper, MUCH better alternatives to what we have now. KW gave Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and that was talent lacking "grinders" like Omar Vizquel and Mark Kotsay. We could have used the money we spent on them to sign Cust or Branyan, or possibly even matched the Tigers offer to Damon with the extra couple million we would save.

Edited March 25, 201015 yr by Ultimate Warrior

You don't think we could have afforded Jack Cust's $2.65 million dollar contract? Russell Branyan was pretty cheap too. Look at Thome. Ozzie said he would love to have him, but would barely be able to find him any at bats, due to his brain dead rotating DH idea. There were plenty of cheaper, MUCH better alternatives to what we have now. KW gave Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and that was talent lacking "grinders" like Omar Vizquel and Mark Kotsay. We could have used the money we spent on them to sign Cust or Branyan, or possibly even matched the Tigers offer to Damon with the extra couple million we would save.

 

There was no way they were going to pay Damon as much as the Tigers paid for him.. I also even question how serious they were in bringing Damon in..

 

And either way, Vizquel and Kotsay are making this roster so if we don't sign them and use that extra money to sign Damon who is going to fill those two spots?

 

Cust is the exact same player as Thome, low BA high OBP and power.. they didn't want Thome anymore, why would they bring in the same type of player? Branyan doesn't solve any problems for us either, so your plan for us is no better than whats going on anyways..

You don't think we could have afforded Jack Cust's $2.65 million dollar contract? Russell Branyan was pretty cheap too. Look at Thome. Ozzie said he would love to have him, but would barely be able to find him any at bats, due to his brain dead rotating DH idea. There were plenty of cheaper, MUCH better alternatives to what we have now. KW gave Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and that was talent lacking "grinders" like Omar Vizquel and Mark Kotsay. We could have used the money we spent on them to sign Cust or Branyan, or possibly even matched the Tigers offer to Damon with the extra couple million we would save.

 

Jack Cust sucks. He's a poor, poor man's Adam Dunn. His OPS has been in steady decline for three straight years (while his K% remains ridiculously high). Russell Branyan? He's so injury prone that Nick Johnson might point and laugh. He had a career year (a good first half) at 34. No thanks. And I'm glad KW didn't overpay for Damon. I'm not saying I'm crazy about our current DH situation. But those other alternatives aren't at all appealing.

Edited March 25, 201015 yr by Jordan4life

That's because they WERE pitching BP, they were getting reps in working with certain pitches and focusing not on results, but mechanics. And the offense is still warming up.

 

The season may or may not go badly, but you are putting far too much weight on ST results.

 

Coop was interviewed during yesterday's TV broadcast and said Peavy was throwing nothing but fastballs to build up arm strength.

Russell Branyan was pretty cheap too.

Branyan hasn't had an at bat this spring and it appears he probably won't. The ideal place for him right now is somewhere like Cleveland...place with an oft-injured DH, place with very little legitimate chance of competing this season, place where he can take it easy for 1-2 months and then maybe they can move him at the deadline to a team needing a DH if he's back to healthy.

Since the late 50's when I became a fan of the Sox, I count 15 managers. I don't count Les Moss, Bill Adair, or Doug Rader who were there for a short time as fill ins before a replacement was chosen. I can honestly and in good conscience only rate Ozzie as high as 5th on that list of 15. Worse yet, to me at least he seems to be regressing. Sox fans waited a long time for a championship so Ozzie is going to get the benefit of the doubt with most fans. It also appears to me that short of committing a felony neither KW or Ozzie will ever get canned by their boss. I just hope that by the time the year 2093 rolls around Sox fans won't be wishing and praying for another elusive championship.

Edited March 25, 201015 yr by SI1020

Since the late 50's when I became a fan of the Sox, I count 15 managers. I don't count Les Moss, Bill Adair, or Doug Rader who were there for a short time as fill ins before a replacement was chosen. I can honestly and in good conscience only rate Ozzie as high as 5th on that list of 15. Worse yet, to me at least he seems to be regressing. Sox fans waited a long time for a championship so Ozzie is going to get the benefit of the doubt with most fans. It also appears to me that short of committing a felony neither KW or Ozzie will ever get canned by their boss. I just hope that by the time the year 2093 rolls around Sox fans won't be wishing and praying for another elusive championship.

I think its pretty clear that KW is among the best GM's in the game. So I'm not sure why you'd lump him in there.

 

I think its pretty clear that KW is among the best GM's in the game. So I'm not sure why you'd lump him in there.

You're right I probably shouldn't have mentioned him in that vein, although I stand by my original point. I agree the KW has been a definite plus. After a rocky start he got better, and he doesn't have all the chips to play with that some of his competitors do. One of the biggest reasons that the Sox have not fallen off the baseball map is that they've for the most part had such resourcefully good GM's starting with Frank Lane.

 

 

That's because they WERE pitching BP, they were getting reps in working with certain pitches and focusing not on results, but mechanics. And the offense is still warming up.

 

The season may or may not go badly, but you are putting far too much weight on ST results.

93% of the pitches Peavy threw were fastballs.

There was no way they were going to pay Damon as much as the Tigers paid for him.. I also even question how serious they were in bringing Damon in..

I too question whether we were ever going to actually bring him in. I never really believed the hype.

 

And either way, Vizquel and Kotsay are making this roster so if we don't sign them and use that extra money to sign Damon who is going to fill those two spots?

Nix can play every infield position, just like Vizquel. Teahen could play 1st base and somebody like De Aza could play outfield positions. We had no need for Kotsay and Vizquel. Neither of them are good players.

Cust is the exact same player as Thome, low BA high OBP and power.. they didn't want Thome anymore, why would they bring in the same type of player? Branyan doesn't solve any problems for us either, so your plan for us is no better than whats going on anyways..

BA means nothing. Thome was our most productive hitter last year. Cust would rake in the cell, sadly he has been playing in the coliseum. How can you honestly say either of those players would make us no better? Either of those three would easily put up a top 3 OPS on the team this year. Instead, we are stick with a rotating DH with washed up players who will be lucky to put up a .750 OPS.

Edited March 25, 201015 yr by Ultimate Warrior

Jack Cust sucks. He's a poor, poor man's Adam Dunn. His OPS has been in steady decline for three straight years (while his K% remains ridiculously high). Russell Branyan? He's so injury prone that Nick Johnson might point and laugh. He had a career year (a good first half) at 34. No thanks. And I'm glad KW didn't overpay for Damon. I'm not saying I'm crazy about our current DH situation. But those other alternatives aren't at all appealing.

At how little we would have had to pay them, it would be worth it. Sure they would be question marks, but would you rather have the current rotating DH thing, or that? The rotating DH is more than just a question mark, chances are it won't even be good.

I too question whether we were ever going to actually bring him in. I never really believed the hype.

 

 

Nix can play every infield position, just like Vizquel. Teahen could play 1st base and somebody like De Aza could play outfield positions. We had no need for Kotsay and Vizquel. Neither of them are good players.

 

BA means nothing. Thome was our most productive hitter last year. Cust would rake in the cell, sadly he has been playing in the coliseum. How can you honestly say either of those players would make us no better? Either of those three would easily put up a top 3 OPS on the team this year. Instead, we are stick with a rotating DH with washed up players who will be lucky to put up a .750 OPS.

Perhaps in the same sense that Mark Teahen could also play every infield position. Vizquel is a truly elite defensive player at SS, and above average at 2B and 3B. Nix is supposed to be above average at 2B (but didn't look it last year), and is bad at SS and 3B. Nix and Vizquel are not in the same universe defensively.

 

I too question whether we were ever going to actually bring him in. I never really believed the hype.

 

 

Nix can play every infield position, just like Vizquel. Teahen could play 1st base and somebody like De Aza could play outfield positions. We had no need for Kotsay and Vizquel. Neither of them are good players.

 

BA means nothing. Thome was our most productive hitter last year. Cust would rake in the cell, sadly he has been playing in the coliseum. How can you honestly say either of those players would make us no better? Either of those three would easily put up a top 3 OPS on the team this year. Instead, we are stick with a rotating DH with washed up players who will be lucky to put up a .750 OPS.

Being capable of playing ever infield position and being able to do it well are two very different things. Nix absolutely can not be trusted to play SS where as Vizquel is above average at all 3 positions.

 

And batting average means nothing? Um, no. To say there's no value in hits per AB is just ludicrous.

At how little we would have had to pay them, it would be worth it. Sure they would be question marks, but would you rather have the current rotating DH thing, or that? The rotating DH is more than just a question mark, chances are it won't even be good.

I guarantee you, if Jones and Kotsay falter for the first 2 months and we're still in the thick of things you'll see a big lefty bat acquired to take over that role. Keep an eye on Lance Berkman and how he bounces back from knee surgery, that guy makes a ton of sense.

I guarantee you, if Jones and Kotsay falter for the first 2 months and we're still in the thick of things you'll see a big lefty bat acquired to take over that role. Keep an eye on Lance Berkman and how he bounces back from knee surgery, that guy makes a ton of sense.

I know, i would really like that, but i just think it would be better to acquire one cheaply when we had the chance. We would probably have to give up some legitimate prospects to get that in the middle of the season.

I know, i would really like that, but i just think it would be better to acquire one cheaply when we had the chance. We would probably have to give up some legitimate prospects to get that in the middle of the season.

He'd be 100% worth a few good prospects, there was no one on the free agent market that can even come close to his production from the left side of the plate (not to mention the fact that he's a switch hitter [though not a great one], giving him another distinct advantage over the other lefty bats on the market who struggle mightily against lefties).

Being capable of playing ever infield position and being able to do it well are two very different things. Nix absolutely can not be trusted to play SS where as Vizquel is above average at all 3 positions.

 

And batting average means nothing? Um, no. To say there's no value in hits per AB is just ludicrous.

 

I don't put any value into BA. It doesn't give bigger hits like doubles, triples, or homeruns any extra value, and it doesn't count walks. Adding walks into the equation alone give it much more value, hence OBP. A walk is just as good as a single.

 

I'm sure you have seen something like this before.

http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/07...stats-with-runs

 

I just don't even bother with avg anymore. OPS is way better at evaluating how talented the hitter is.

I think Gardenhire and Torre are good managers, but I think they're sometimes dramatically overrated by the folks here. Especially Gardy. He's good, don't get me wrong, but that major league club is more a product of the organization from the bottom-up than it is a product of him. The players like him, and that's part of it, but the guy almost never has to worry about who he inserts into the lineup. Even their "bums" are capable of getting it done. And Torre was not considered one of the best managers in the game until he went to New York. He managed for the first time in the late 70's, but didn't have a 90-win season until the Yankees hired him.

 

I agree on Torre, disagree on Gardy as I view him as a terrific manager. There is alot of things he did right for player's development over the years, and who he viewed as regular players and the others "Paranas." I have no doubt in my mind that if Guillen managed the Twins, Gomez would had been leading off for them last season even with the emergence of Span. Trying to just summarize all this, but Guillen is a micro-manager, in fact he reminds me alot of Dusty Baker except he's outstanding in dealing with pitching staffs. You can add Scoisia (some would say Francona also) and even Maddon to the list as well and Wakamatsu very soon when he's more proven, as I'm a big fan of his.

I don't put any value into BA. It doesn't give bigger hits like doubles, triples, or homeruns any extra value, and it doesn't count walks. Adding walks into the equation alone give it much more value, hence OBP. A walk is just as good as a single.

 

I'm sure you have seen something like this before.

http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/07...stats-with-runs

 

I just don't even bother with avg anymore. OPS is way better at evaluating how talented the hitter is.

 

Just because it doesn't give any value to doubles, triples, homers, or walks doesn't leave it worthless. There are other statistics to be used, but if faced with a hypothetical scenario of choosing between a .280/.340/.460/.800 and a .240/.340/.460/.800 hitter, I'm going to take the former. Hell, depending upon the makeup of the team, I may take a .280/.330/.445/.775 hitter over a .240/.340/.460/.800 hitter. The name of the game is scoring runs, and while a higher OBP and SLG will produce more runs independent of everything else, a .280 hitter could very easily produce more runs than .240 hitter if the lineup surrounding said hitter is good.

 

I don't particularly care for Jeff Francoeur as a hitter, but you simply cannot deny that his bat and other offensive performance in 2007 helped produced 170 runs. It's a very rough way of looking at it, and I'm not saying Francoeur is a guy I want to finalize my lineup, but average itself does help produce runs.