Greg Hibbard

For most people, a "successful season" in major league baseball is solely defined by whether or not their team makes it the postseason. For some others whose teams have frequently been successful and/or set the bar higher, only advancement in the playoffs will constitute a relatively successful season. For the fans of a couple of teams such as the Yankees (and I would argue Red Sox and now possibly Phillies), only winning the World Series constitutes a successful season. To me, this is horribly depressing. Why is it depressing? Well for one thing, baseball is one of the longest, most grueling regular seasons of any of the major sports. I am struck by the disparity between a "successful season" in MLB and a "successful season" in any other sport, because in most other sports, about half the teams go to the playoffs. There are additional levels of playoffs to measure "success" by. In baseball, by most people's definition, 22 of the 30 teams have "unsuccessful seasons" even under the most forgiving terms of the common connotation. As it pertains to the White Sox specifically this season, several people have said this season that mere squeaking into the playoffs by winning the division was not enough for this team - that the expectations were that this team would advance deep in the playoffs because its payroll was relatively high. However, this season, 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll won't go to the playoffs. Is it right to have such an unforgiving standard for "success," where we don't necessarily apply it in other sports? Moreover, is this really the way this sport should really be set up in the postseason? If baseball had 6 teams advance in each league - about equivalent to what it would be in football or basketball, and the White Sox got in as the "6th seed" - would that be some measure of a successful season? More importantly, isn't it time baseball gets its ass into the 21st century and has a greater percentage of teams make the playoffs?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) I'm dubious that he'll hit 12 HR if he puts together a solid season, considering that a bad season has involved 8 HR. A really good season from him, based on this year's numbers, might be in the 20 HR range. I think you're right, for the record. I just think that with the recent success, there's thankfully more ways to get to a good offensive season than just 15+ long balls.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) I've been encouraged by him the whole season, since about May 7 when he started making consistent contact. I might well have been his biggest defender when people were riding him in June/July for his lack of slugging and walks. There's no reason why 15 HR is beyond the pale for him. We'll see. Oh, your initial remark made it seem as though you might have been dubious of his potential.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) He's hit 8 HR this season in a season where even his defenders will admit he's had a disappointing/developmental season. Don't you agree that his splits are more encouraging than discouraging?

QUOTE (spiderman @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 10:38 AM) He's our 3B for next season, but he's got to hit 15 HR at least. You can't play at that spot in that park, and not hit HR's. Ehhh, I'd take 12 homers if he hit 30 doubles, walked 50 times and played stellar defense.

I am a Pierre apologist, but will admit De Aza in a full season is probably going to have a better OPS, wOBA and RC+ than Pierre will have even in a year that Juan hits .300/.350/.340/.690. That's not to say that I think Juan is awful (he wasn't for the last several months). The main reason De Aza is better is his doubles and homers, but the dude also legged out a few triples in very limited time, which is a nice thing for a leadoff guy to have in his toolbox. Real excited about this kid. Hoping for .265/.335/.415/.750.

34 RBIS from the 8/9 hole isn't terrible, especially considering he's going to end up with just 400 ABs. You're only going to max out at 70 or so RBIS from that position with 550 PAs anyway.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Sep 17, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) Nice to see Morel find power, but I've got to believe that if there was any semblance of meaning left in the games the Sox play (there hasn't been for quite some time now) his power would still be a myth. That first Detroit sweep took a lot of pressure off this team. I think Morel was questionable going forward as recently as July, and I think this stretch has proven he's our answer for at least 2012. I'd also like to see what some of these young pitchers can do in ML situations, particularly if we decide to deal Danks or Floyd.

Let's see some development!

I'm more encouraged by the increase in walks recently than anything else I've seen. Walks are so crucial to managing slumps. If we have a hitter on our hands he can eventually draw 70 walks a season, it softens the blow of a .150 month significantly.

I think it's incredibly easy after a disappointing season to see the wheels falling off in all directions. Really, the difference between a 75 game winner and a 90 game winner is sometimes 1-2 players. I'm confident the lineup and staff have enough major pieces to be effective next year, provided they perform, provided that we have new leadership, and provided we obtain some better complimentary pieces.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) If he wants to be back, I seriously doubt the Chairman will say "No" for financial reasons. That makes it quite likely that he would be back. Has he said anything about wanting to be back recently?

Why do a lot of people assume Buehrle will be back? I'm confused on that point.

I really don't think a pure platoon is that bad of an option with AJ and Flowers for 2012, especially if they sprinkle in the occasional PH/DH appearances. They could easily each wind up with 275-300 PAs apiece. AJ also potentially has much more trade value at the deadline next season.

Just once I would like to see him try to honestly answer the ways in which he has done his job.

Let's say I just patently accept that Juan Pierre is 100% to blame for the three games this season in which he dropped a routine fly ball. Now, let's go ahead and ridiculously assign another 2 whole losses to him for his April offense. There, that's 5 of the 22 losses. Who are the other 17 on?

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) This great pitching you say is how many games back and a .500 team not so great Porcello would be the 4th starter easy on the Sox. IMO. This team is a .500 team and how many games back because of the hitting.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Is there much of a difference between batting Dunn or Rios cleanup? No, not really, but there's still a slightly better chance with one. With the future outlook of this team being quite grim, you have to take every little advantage you can. This is assuming that playing to win the last month of the season has no value going forward. I think it has value in terms of evaluating talent, addressing some issues that have come up this season. For example, playing Rios and Dunn as much as possible might win you more games if they come out of their respective slumps which would cost you draft positioning, but it might also set the Sox up for them to have improved 2012 seasons.

Yes, probably replacing management to some extent, but also identifying what can be done about addressing/fixing Dunn and Rios' issues.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) No, because Sox wil draft the cheapest safest pick in round 1. Then why do people want the White Sox to pursue this strategy?

It's clear that even on Sept 2 that the top nine picks were already locked down by Houston, Baltimore, KC, Minnesota, Seattle, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Oakland and Washington. It wasn't going to be possible for the White Sox to win less games than those teams at that point in the season. Is the difference between the #10 overall pick (our lowest conceivable win total at that point) and the #18 overall pick (our highest conceivable finish is 13th best record) really that significant?

I looked at Pierre's gamelog for May, and it did seem like there were missed running opportunities there, so some of the people on the other side of this debate seem to have a point. I didn't realize that he's .342 with runners in scoring position this season, and I wonder where his RBI total ranks for leadoff hitters. He does finally have a positive WAR, for what its worth. I know people will say he righted the ship at a time that it didn't mean anything, but seems like 90% of mlb players' careers are built on statistics accrued when those players aren't playing for anything, since baseball has such an unforgiving playoff structure.

when I say "hitter" - I mean "hitter" in terms of getting hits, not getting on base. The rest of your post is quite good, chw42, and I'll respond to it after the game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) So do the advanced metrics. A higher batting average is inherently beneficial to OBP, OPS etc. It's just that they get a little deeper than what a BA can tell you. I'd agree, but I also believe OPS is a statistic that ultimately weights SLG too highly in comparison with OBP, and that using OPS is especially problematic with traditional leadoff hitters.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) 84% of Rios' at bats this year were from the 5th spot and lower. Thus, his struggles this year have nothing to do with Pierre's inability to steal bases. You might be the first person I've seen suggest that Pierre wasn't ineffective on the bases this year. I do not mean to suggest he is not more ineffective than in previous seasons. I think he has stolen bases at his career clip since May. I think some of the situations have evaporated because of our anemic offense.