Greg Hibbard

Anyone else feel like last night was a near perfect microcosm of what we have on our hands with each player?

I said no, but I think the Sox COULD win the division now, whereas in March I thought they had no chance. Podsednik and Beckham could not have been predicted.

Also, since the 0/13 in the first 4 games, he's batting .323/.408/.467/.875 over the next 20 games/62 ABs

I guess "leveling off" is a mischaracterization. I guess I feel like Getz has at best a .700 OPS and Fields generally has a .750+ OPS in him.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) Hope he shows some signs of being a MLB hitter and trade him to some team desperate for a young 3B, like Oakland. And how would you recommend having him show some signs of being an MLB hitter if he's permanently relegated to a major league bench in favor of another guy hitting .240ish? I'm not sure I understand what exactly your plan with Fields is. His trade value has bottomed out, so why would any team take him for anything? To me this seems clear: Getz seems to be leveling off at his current value, Fields is hitting about as bad as we could possibly expect and is still in the same ballpark OPS wise. Fields has way more upside, so even if you do want to jettison him, get his trade value up.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 03:39 PM) I would agree if he should any resemblance to a major league hitter at bat, but he hasn't. Until he learns how to swing a bat properly and gain some bat speed, I don't see how we can have much hope for him. So what should the organization do with him then?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) The thing is, Fields has shown no ability what-so-ever to be the .250, 30 home run hitter in the past 2 years. And quite frankly, it'll never happen unless one morning he finally finds out how to hit a fastball. I'm not sure the 232 ABs he had in 08-09 is enough to condemn him. Don't we need more of a sample size? He has always had a low average and suspect defense, but his OPS of .728 is very respectable given that low average, and it should improve. Joe Crede has a career OPS of .754 (yes I realize he is a superior defender). He's played a little over a full season's worth of games and has something like 600 ML abs. Shouldn't we be giving him at least one more half to full season before drawing any conclusions?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 02:48 PM) Of course he would be playing if he was hitting .250 and projected to his 30 homers... but he's not. In that case, the type of hitter he is has nothing to do with the conversation, because typically speaking that's what sluggers do...they hit about .250 and 25-30 jacks. See Joe Crede without the defense. My point is that Getz at 2b and Fields at 3b seem exactly comparable, even though they are different types of player. The difference in my eyes is that Getz is always going to be this Graffanino low ceiling player and Fields obviously has the ability to crush the ball if he gets his s*** together and have a way higher OPS. I'm not sold that the "intangibles" (which I admittedly like in Getz) justify the opportunity cost of Fields' ceiling. The defensive downgrade of playing Beckham at 2b and Fields at 3b v. playing Beckham at 3b and Getz at 2b seems negligible to me as well

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Maybe if we don't replace guys like Thome, Dye, and Konerko. But right now, we don't need the thumpers. Podsednik, Beckham, Ramirez all aren't thumpers. We have some other guys more like Getz in our lineup too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Getz fits the needs of the team better right now. Getz gives the team a bat who makes contact most of the time, can handle the bat a bit, and can run. Fields is another one dimensional power bat. With the middle of the line up that we have, we need guys who are threats in other ways. I intangibly agree with this, but if Fields was hitting .250 and projected to hit 30 homers, would you feel like you could bench him for a different type of hitter?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 30, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) since when is 3b a tougher position defensively? Yeah you have to deal with screaming line drives, but major league players should be able to handle those. 2B involves ranging quite a bit to both your left and right, which I think takes a bit more athletic ability I think of 3b as being slightly tougher because typically you have less reaction time. For RH batters (the majority of hitters), if they hit it to the right side they are pulling the ball at a higher velocity whereas if they hit it to the left side they are hitting it off the end of the bat at a lower velocity.

hitting: Getz: .243/.303/.338/.641 Fields: .233/.314/.351/.666 fielding: Getz: 6 errors at an easier position/.978 fielding percentage Fields: 8 errors at a tougher position/.941 fielding percentage in one scenario, beckham stays at third, in the other, beckham moves to ss with alexei going to second or beckham moves to second. In one scenario, our speed and flexibility is compromised with fields, but on the other the power numbers and ceiling go way up. Yes, I know we stick with the hot lineup. If and when we come off this streak, does it make sense to rethink some things? I'm not convinced Fields still does have a much higher ceiling, even though he said some stupid things the other week. Fields is an idiot, but he's an idiot capable of hitting 27 home runs a season. Chris Getz arguably has a much lower ceiling and has similar offensive issues. As a side note: is Fields now going to be consigned to a suite in the Anderson Doghouse?

There were at least four pitches he threw last night where I exclaimed "holy s***, where did that come from", sweeping curves for third strikes, dotting corners. I honestly never knew this guy had this in him based on April and May and his career numbers, despite the relatively less amount of success he was able to have. I don't think at any point during last season he was close to this dominant for this many starts in a row. This is the strangest turnaround I've ever seen in one season from one player. Can anyone else think of a player who put such bad numbers up for six weeks, and then incredible numbers? I guess Paul Konerko 2003 comes to mind.

The good news is that we're beating the teams we should be beating. The bad news is that soon enough we'll be playing better teams. The NL Central and Cleveland represent mediocre to poor competition If we can start consistently beating Detroit again we'll be in great shape though

FWIW, I put up a thread essentially giving Gavin props. I still don't understand how a guy can have a 7+ era for two months and then have a 1 era for the third. I'm also not sold that he's not the Rex Grossman of baseball, an extremely high variance headcase.

I am so disappointed he wasn't given the opportunity to go out on his own terms. He's still good enough to play on a lot of AL teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/sto...ce=MLBHeadlines

The stat is strange because we lost a 4 game series 1-3 and a five game series 2-3 (against the Tigers). When you look at the fact that the team was 15-22 after we got swept by Toronto and is now 20-15 since, it also seems weird. It's really tough to know where this team is at right now.

we are 7-3-1 in our last 11 series. Anyone else would have guessed this?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) I don't understand how one game is going to be the difference between us being in the hunt and completely done. The closer to .500 the better, but this division is so bad that the Sox could lose ground and still have a shot. If the Sox are back at .500 by the break, I'll be feeling good about their chances. I think at 43 wins they still have an outside shot - not a good shot, but an outside shot I think at 42 wins the shot becomes too long I'm just talking about the threshold here.

we are 33-36 with 19 left til the break... how many wins do you think we need going into the second half to be in it? I think 43 is the minimum number, so we need to go 10-9. If we are 43-45 we still have a shot. 42-46 or worse and I think we're probably not going to make a serious run at the division.

Line*brink, Scott - see Bill "Inherited Runners Scored" Simas

Man, that was sweet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) Viciedo, Danks, Beckham, Getz, and Ramirez aren't enough to consider those goals addressed for the long-term as well as possible? There's certainly no guarantee that they'll all succeed, but they're all talented, under our control for a number of years, and several of them can fill those spots you worry about. And let's say 1 or 2 of them do bust...then we have the guy we just drafted this year, or maybe we have some luck from somewhere else in the draft...or finally, we have a good amount of financial flexibility because we have 3-4 cheap young guys in our lineup and so we can go out and buy a guy to fill in the spot. I think we're on fairly sound footing for the long-term...it's just a question of developing these guys we already have and seeing who sticks and who doesn't. - I think getting rid of the glut of dh's and getting back talent for it is a must this season. It is a rebuilding year in disguise. - I think we can rely on 1-2 prospects out of every 10 talented prospects as working out long term. Even Mike Caruso, who worked out for one season, wasn't really much more than a flash in the pan because after 1998-1999, he didn't do anything. You look at a trade like the white flag, and how much long term value did Mike Caruso or Lorenzo Barcelo truly have? Granted, Howry and Foulke certainly panned out as top flight relievers. - Ramirez is a middle infielder, so are Beckham and Getz. Beckham may be able to be a 3b, but do we really know? Is it a good idea to play him there? I think the jury is out. Danks and Viciedo are way too far away to know yet. CF and 3B need major league solutions for 2010 and 2011 and we don't currently have good ones for next year. I'm hoping Beckham works out there, because it would obviously be amazing if he did. - None of your points address my point about Quentin, which is why not shut him down this season, regardless of how in this race we are, when we have a very small realistic chance of doing much in the postseason, and his injury concerns are very real? We have probably a 30-40% of winning the division, maybe even 50%, even with a healthy Q, then we have a smaller percentage of advancing, and so on. You multiply all those out and it gets to be really negligible. Stan - kudos. Keep it real yourself and I'll do the same.

To step back from this ridiculous argument a bit, would I be happy if the Sox won the division? Sure I would, if the Sox were addressing long term goals as well. Would I be happy with a division title at the expense of risking Quentin's health and not addressing the glut of dh's, the 3b problem, the CF problem? Absolutely not. 79 wins could win the AL central, so I guess another point I would make is why not majorly retool with the division being as insanely takeable as it is?