You know a guy by the name of Joe Crede batted 8th for us & gave our line-up a lot of clutch hits. I'm still torn, not sure if Becks should stay in the 9th hole.

You know a guy by the name of Joe Crede batted 8th for us & gave our line-up a lot of clutch hits. I'm still torn, not sure if Becks should stay in the 9th hole.

 

Joe Crede hit 8th because he was a very mediocre hitter who didn't get on base enough and would hit the occasional home run mixed in with a bunch of infield pop ups. Yes, he thrived under high leverage situations, but there was a good reason why he hit 8th.

 

Gordon Beckham is not the same hitter as Joe Crede and I'm glad he's not.

His swing is starting to look like last year again. If we see him in the 9 hole again tonight I am going to flip. It's time to get him more at bats during the game and start getting on base for the big boys...or consider putting him in the 6 slot instead of Kotsay...

Guess you're going to flip again.

I'd move him just to show the Sox aren't afraid to make changes.

s***, standing completely pat is not a good idea the rest of the way.

 

I'd move him just to show the Sox aren't afraid to make changes.

s***, standing completely pat is not a good idea the rest of the way.

How exactly is standing pat bad? Lets fix something that aint really broke considering were 2.5 games up.

I'd move him just to show the Sox aren't afraid to make changes.

s***, standing completely pat is not a good idea the rest of the way.

 

KW tinkered a lot going into 2006, and what did it get him?

 

 

I didn't see the game last night as it started at 4 AM my time, however, I assume Kotsay with his 0 for 4 had a few 3 hoppers to second base? Why is he batting in the 6 hole? GB couldn't hit a thing until 2 weeks ago and is already hitting 14 pts higher than him. This is really a joke, the only reason to keep him at #9 is if we're superstitious and think the kid has no mettle which we all know isn't true

I didn't see the game last night as it started at 4 AM my time, however, I assume Kotsay with his 0 for 4 had a few 3 hoppers to second base? Why is he batting in the 6 hole? GB couldn't hit a thing until 2 weeks ago and is already hitting 14 pts higher than him. This is really a joke, the only reason to keep him at #9 is if we're superstitious and think the kid has no mettle which we all know isn't true

 

According to the press Kenny has made an offer to Washington for Adam Dunn offering everything we have in the minors including Dan Hudson.

I think he believes the production from left side that Dunn brings to the table will be greater than pitching provided by Daniel.

If that happens all sings point to Kotsay being the odd man out.

 

On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised of trade made totally somewhere else and us not seeing it coming, more Kenny style.

KW tinkered a lot going into 2006, and what did it get him?

A 90+ win team, a pennant race, some really exciting baseball, and a team that was a couple of Mackowiak benchings from a playoff team.

A 90+ win team, a pennant race, some really exciting baseball, and a team that was a couple of Mackowiak benchings from a playoff team.

 

In my opinion, 2006 was prolly Ozzie's worst yr managing. To bench good defense (BA) for another bat in the lineup full of 6 guys that hit 30 HRs each made no damn sense. I can still see bloopers dropping in front of Mackowiak and Freddy having the WTF face....

 

And keeping with the topic, move Gordo up to 6th and drop Kotsay (the Mackowiak move of 2010) to 9th. Vizquel is still a pain in the ass to opposing pitchers from the 2 hole so let's keep that going.

You have to start moving Beckham up in the lineup. You're wasting his bat in the 9th spot.

GBeck with another solid game yesterday.

You have to start moving Beckham up in the lineup. You're wasting his bat in the 9th spot.

THIS. You already have Pierre being awful at the top with a .329 OBP why kill the top of the order more with Vizquels not much better .333 OBP.

A 90+ win team, a pennant race, some really exciting baseball, and a team that was a couple of Mackowiak benchings from a playoff team.

Wait, did you just intimate that the 2006 Sox missed the playoffs because of Mack in CF? Seriously? I know this is off topic, but it couldn't be ignored. That is insane.

 

THIS. You already have Pierre being awful at the top with a .329 OBP why kill the top of the order more with Vizquels not much better .333 OBP.

 

They've both been pretty good since May 1 though.

Wait, did you just intimate that the 2006 Sox missed the playoffs because of Mack in CF? Seriously? I know this is off topic, but it couldn't be ignored. That is insane.

I'll go to my grave saying that if Rob Mackowiak hadn't played CF for the 2006 Sox after June 1, 2006, that Sox team makes the playoffs.

 

I can't prove it in the stats, so don't ask me to. But every bloody game, every time there was a big inning, one of the first 2 runners on got there on a misplay by Mack, or the biggest hit came on a ball Anderson would have caught. Every time he played in CF he was worth 2 runs and 25 extra pitches on the starter.

I'll go to my grave saying that if Rob Mackowiak hadn't played CF for the 2006 Sox after June 1, 2006, that Sox team makes the playoffs.

 

I can't prove it in the stats, so don't ask me to. But every bloody game, every time there was a big inning, one of the first 2 runners on got there on a misplay by Mack, or the biggest hit came on a ball Anderson would have caught. Every time he played in CF he was worth 2 runs and 25 extra pitches on the starter.

 

"You can't prove it with stats" but claim that? Cmon, he was bad but you can't make a statement like that. I'd blame it more on the pitching not being there all year

I'll go to my grave saying that if Rob Mackowiak hadn't played CF for the 2006 Sox after June 1, 2006, that Sox team makes the playoffs.

 

I can't prove it in the stats, so don't ask me to. But every bloody game, every time there was a big inning, one of the first 2 runners on got there on a misplay by Mack, or the biggest hit came on a ball Anderson would have caught. Every time he played in CF he was worth 2 runs and 25 extra pitches on the starter.

OK, you are welcome to feel that way. I disagree. Anderson's offense was SO bad, that Ozzie had no choice but to play Mack out there every second or third game, IMO. The real problem with that team was the pitching implosion in the second half, the fall off of certain players on offense. Those were the big keys. or hell, blame Anderson.

 

But its off-topic, and as you say, it can't be proven one way or the other.

 

I'll go to my grave saying that if Rob Mackowiak hadn't played CF for the 2006 Sox after June 1, 2006, that Sox team makes the playoffs.

 

I can't prove it in the stats, so don't ask me to. But every bloody game, every time there was a big inning, one of the first 2 runners on got there on a misplay by Mack, or the biggest hit came on a ball Anderson would have caught. Every time he played in CF he was worth 2 runs and 25 extra pitches on the starter.

 

I'm with Balta on this one. I still can see Mack not getting to a ball multiple times, costing our staff extra pitches and leading to a complete breakdown on that end in '06. The part I still don't understand to this day is Ozzie why stuck with BA while he hit .150 the first 3 months (While playing stellar defense), then when BA finally showed signs of life, Ozzie benched him for Mackowiak.

The 2006 Sox collapse was caused by the collapse of the offense, as well as the general suckitude of our pitching staff (particularly our bullpen). But I tend to side with Balta in the sense that I feel it's fair to say Mack's defense in CF lost that team several games. And considering we finished 5 out of the playoffs IIRC, that's a big thing. Mack actually had a good offensive year that season too, and it's not his fault Ozzie kept putting him out there even though he sucked at playing CF, so I always felt kind of bad for him though.

THIS. You already have Pierre being awful at the top with a .329 OBP why kill the top of the order more with Vizquels not much better .333 OBP.

You know what's scary though? If someone told you before the season Pierre had a .329 OBP, one would probably assume he was hitting .290ish. He's at .258. If his average continues to rise, hopefully we'll see that OBP move up too.

You know what's scary though? If someone told you before the season Pierre had a .329 OBP, one would probably assume he was hitting .290ish. He's at .258. If his average continues to rise, hopefully we'll see that OBP move up too.

His OBP is padded by HBP, don't get too excited. He doesn't have a great control over those. His walk rate is still low.

Edited July 20, 201015 yr by chw42

The 2006 Sox collapse was caused by the collapse of the offense, as well as the general suckitude of our pitching staff (particularly our bullpen). But I tend to side with Balta in the sense that I feel it's fair to say Mack's defense in CF lost that team several games. And considering we finished 5 out of the playoffs IIRC, that's a big thing. Mack actually had a good offensive year that season too, and it's not his fault Ozzie kept putting him out there even though he sucked at playing CF, so I always felt kind of bad for him though.

 

The lack of pitching and offense down the stretch hurt that team a lot more than Mackowiak in CF.

 

His OBP is padded by HBP, don't get too excited. He doesn't have a great control over those. His walk rate is still low.

I'm aware. Either way, I don't care how he gets on base as long as he does.

I'm aware. Either way, I don't care how he gets on base as long as he does.

 

Pierre's OBP from 2005-2009 (3028 PAs) is .334. So there's basically no upside here. The .327 OBP he's currently sporting is basically as good as it's going to get.