The O's would have to like Dayan as they'll have openings at both 1b and 3b, with Wigginton and Tejada both FA's after 2010. Scott is arb. eligible through 2012, and Kenny has liked him since he was with Houston in 07. If the sox could get both Guthrie and Scott, for Dayan +, [wihtout giving up Hudson, maybe Teahen would be a fit], I'd be down with that.

I could see Guthrie as an option. He's doing OK this year. Yet had sub 4.00 ERA's in his 1st 2 full seasons in the rotation, in '07 and '08. With Guthrie signed for 2011, he may be looked at to replace Freddy next yr. Freddy is likely to get a better offer than the sox somewhere else.

 

He could be a good back of the rotation guy if we didn't have to give up much to get him

He could be a good back of the rotation guy if we didn't have to give up much to get him

 

everytime I read your name I see "asthmatics"

The O's would have to like Dayan as they'll have openings at both 1b and 3b, with Wigginton and Tejada both FA's after 2010. Scott is arb. eligible through 2012, and Kenny has liked him since he was with Houston in 07. If the sox could get both Guthrie and Scott, for Dayan +, [wihtout giving up Hudson, maybe Teahen would be a fit], I'd be down with that.

 

The O's also have Bell, Moore, Snyder, Aubrey, and Hughes to fill those spots next year and they are at a point where they need to see what they have in those guys, especially in the case of Bell and Snyder. I would think they would look to continue stockpiling young pitching to fill out the rotation and bullpen eventually.

Meaningless because the fact that he has hit well in 22 at bats against Minnesota in no way indicates that he will continue to hit well against them.

Would it be meaningless if he went 0 for 22 vs the sox top competitor this year? No. Success [or failure] vs. Minn. pitching is relevant if the sox added a player. I'm not saying it should be THE factor. But success or failure--even limited on a limited basis--should be considered. Esp. if we're just looking at having success this year. A hitter has a comfort factor facing a pitcher they've hit well off of. Things may change year by year. But Scott seems to have a comfort level facing Twins pitchers-whether its because they have mostly RHP or throw a lot of offspeed stuff, who knows. IMO, I'd rather have a guy who has had some success off AL pitching [twins included] than getting a NL guy [i.e. Dunn] who hasn't faced much AL pitching.

Would it be meaningless if he went 0 for 22 vs the sox top competitor this year?

Yes.

 

The Twins caught him at the absolute wrong time (.319/.391/.606/.997 over his previous 26 games, 6/12 in the series prior vs Tampa) he was absolutely white hot when that series got going and he just kept it up for 4 more days (7/15 in the series), doesn't really mean anything in the long term. Just that Luke Scott is a streaky hitter who when hot can destroy any pitching for good stretches of time.

Would it be meaningless if he went 0 for 22 vs the sox top competitor this year? No. Success [or failure] vs. Minn. pitching is relevant if the sox added a player. I'm not saying it should be THE factor. But success or failure--even limited on a limited basis--should be considered. Esp. if we're just looking at having success this year. A hitter has a comfort factor facing a pitcher they've hit well off of. Things may change year by year. But Scott seems to have a comfort level facing Twins pitchers-whether its because they have mostly RHP or throw a lot of offspeed stuff, who knows. IMO, I'd rather have a guy who has had some success off AL pitching [twins included] than getting a NL guy [i.e. Dunn] who hasn't faced much AL pitching.

 

 

Yes. It would. 22 at bats is not a statistically relevant sample and cannot be counted on to be representative of how Scott will hit against the Twins. Our expectations of how Scott plays against the Twins should not change if he is 0 for 22 or 9 for 22. There is far too much room for random variation within a sample that small.

Yes.

 

The Twins caught him at the absolute wrong time (.319/.391/.606/.997 over his previous 26 games, 6/12 in the series prior vs Tampa) he was absolutely white hot when that series got going and he just kept it up for 4 more days (7/15 in the series), doesn't really mean anything in the long term. Just that Luke Scott is a streaky hitter who when hot can destroy any pitching for good stretches of time.

I disagree. If a hitter gets dominated by a team, or hits well off the team, it makes a difference going forward. Esp. the same year they face that pitcher. Which for the sox adding a hitter, is this year. Hitters know who they hit well off, and may match up better vs. some pitchers based on what they throw. That said, Scott may match up better vs. the twins staff for a variety of reasons, that is heavily RHP, control, off speed type pitchers.

Yes. It would. 22 at bats is not a statistically relevant sample and cannot be counted on to be representative of how Scott will hit against the Twins. Our expectations of how Scott plays against the Twins should not change if he is 0 for 22 or 9 for 22. There is far too much room for random variation within a sample that small.

Our expectations, maybe. A ballplayers? It's relevant. Tell me what a ball player would say if you asked them this question: Would you rather hit off a pitcher you have dominated against or have drawn the collar against?

What is your end game here? Does his 7/15 performance in the recent Twins series increase KW's interest in Scott? If not then who cares?

 

To take it a bit further he hit Blackburn, Slowey, Baker, Rauch and Slama.

 

He's now:

 

3/14 vs Baker

 

4/9 vs Blackburn

 

3/6 vs Slowey

 

1/3 vs Rauch

 

1/1 vs Slama

 

So what exactly does this change?

What is your end game here?

Simply that adding a guy like Scott who has had success vs Twins pitching could be an additional positive, counting in all the other factors. While adding someone who hasn't faced much Twins pitching or has not had success could be a negative.

Jim Thome has a career 1.038 OPS against Minnesota (784 PAs, so it's significant). You would think that if the Sox were concerned about how a hitter has done against the Twins, they would have looked at that when considering resigning Thome.

Jim Thome has a career 1.038 OPS against Minnesota (784 PAs, so it's significant). You would think that if the Sox were concerned about how a hitter has done against the Twins, they would have looked at that when considering resigning Thome.

 

 

This seems like an entirely different situation. Thome was let go because Ozzie didn't want him clogging the bases the times he didn't strike out or homer.

 

I think the poster is simply stating that Luke Scott mashing Twins' pitching can only be seen as a positive. In no way can it be a bad thing. Nobody advocates signing Scott purely based on this either.

This seems like an entirely different situation. Thome was let go because Ozzie is a f***ing idiot clogging the bases the times he didn't strike out or homer.

 

I think the poster is simply stating that Luke Scott mashing Twins' pitching can only be seen as a positive. In no way can it be a bad thing. Nobody advocates signing Scott purely based on this either.

 

Fixed.

This seems like an entirely different situation. Thome was let go because Ozzie didn't want him clogging the bases the times he didn't strike out or homer.

 

I think the poster is simply stating that Luke Scott mashing Twins' pitching can only be seen as a positive. In no way can it be a bad thing. Nobody advocates signing Scott purely based on this either.

 

Mark Kotsay = slow, can't run, can't hit. So why does it even matter?

Mark Kotsay = slow, can't run, can't hit. So why does it even matter?

He's never on base so he doesn't clog the bases. He also helps clear the bases of base cloggers by hitting into plenty of double plays.

This seems like an entirely different situation. Thome was let go because Ozzie didn't want him clogging the bases the times he didn't strike out or homer.

 

I think the poster is simply stating that Luke Scott mashing Twins' pitching can only be seen as a positive. In no way can it be a bad thing. Nobody advocates signing Scott purely based on this either.

It is a positive. There will always be people who argue anything you say. If he was 0-22 and you didn't recommended him . There would be those who say " Get him he's due. " Just like limited sample sizes with how you hit with the bases loaded or 2 outs RISP , you just feel better about it when it's really good as opposed to really bad. Confidence in those situations means a lot.

Edited July 29, 201015 yr by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

He's never on base so he doesn't clog the bases. He also helps clear the bases of base cloggers by hitting into plenty of double plays.

 

Don't give the anti-Thome people anything to use.

It is a positive. There will always be people who argue anything you say. If he was 0-22 and you didn't recommended him . There would be those who say " Get him he's due. " Just like limited sample sizes with how you hit with the bases loaded or 2 outs RISP , you just feel better about it when it's really good as opposed to really bad.

 

It's not a bad thing to be good against a certain team. But that shouldn't be a reason why you make a move.