Lillian

We all have to remember that Ozzie can't speak as candidly about players as we can, here in a forum. He has to be supportive of his players, as long as they remain on the team. What would it accomplish to talk about J. P. the way we do? I'm confident that Ozzie and K. W. are contemplating the kind of move that we'd all like to see, but we aren't going to hear anything about it until it happens. I think when the time comes, Ozzie will spin it something like this: "We have to give this kid a chance. He's playing really well at Charlotte, and we have to find a place for him. Juan is struggling right now, so we're going to give the Tank some playing time." If Viciedo can establish himself, they probably don't care any more than we do what they do with Pierre. But in the meantime, they have to do whatever they can to try to instill confidence in Juan's psyche. I think that if we were in Ozzie's shoes, we'd do the same thing. I hope that Juan doesn't read our comments about him. That could negate anything Ozzie might say to try to bolster his confidence. You have to feel a little bad for the guy. I'm one of his biggest detractors, but you have to give him credit for being a hard working, dedicated athlete. If he fails, it sure isn't for the lack of effort. It's a shame that he just doesn't have many tools beyond his diminishing speed.

I'm going to just keep rooting for Viciedo to force the Sox to bring him up. If he hits well enough, and plays acceptable defense, someone in the organization will see to it that he is given a chance to play, and the obvious odd man out would be Pierre. They're not going to play Viciedo at 3RD. That might provide Ozzie with an excuse to bench J. P. He can spin it that it's more a matter of Viciedo needing an opportunity rather than Pierre earning a demotion. If and when he gets a shot in either LF or RF, I don't much care who they let lead off. I still like the idea of getting Lillibridge in the mix. He would be very serviceable at 2ND, with Vizquel or Beckham taking over at 3RD.

If the Sox aren't ready to give Viciedo a shot at LF, there is another feasible in house solution. Ozzie probably won't be satisfied unless he has a legitimate stolen base threat at the top of the lineup. Therefore, why not platoon de Aza and Lillibridge in LF? They both have good speed, stolen base skill, and play good defense. De Aza has hit righties really well the last couple of years, with an OBP consistently over .400, and he's continuing to do so this year at Charlotte. Lillibridge has been very good vs. lefties the last two years, albeit in very limitted playing time. I can't believe that platoon could be anywhere near as bad as J. P. and the defense would be improved tremendously.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 12, 2011 -> 07:17 PM) JP is so bad that he's brought Kalapse out of hiding. How pathetic is it that this guy is going to get 4-5 at bats every game for the rest of the season unless he gets hurt? Bingo!!! I'm hoping for a hamstring. Nothing serious, just enough to keep him off the field

Whether or not we agree, Ozzie will likely not start anyone at leadoff who is not a base stealer. That means that if Pierre sits, either Lillibridge or Rios has to lead off. That was part of my original suggestion of putting Brent in the lineup. If Viciedo takes and OF spot, that means J. P. has to go, and Lillibridge has to play in the infield in order to leadoff. Vizquel should start to get some playing time at either 3RD or 2ND. Why not bench either Morel or Beckham, and let Omar play and bat second, which is where he is best suited? Having Omar's glove on the field at least makes up for any defensive diminution resulting from the switch to Viciedo for J. P. And given Dyan's arm, it may not even degrade the defense in L.F. An infield of Omar at 3RD and Lillibridge at 2ND would be very good defensively. I love Beckham, but this can't be allowed to continue much longer. How many 200 hitters can this team afford to have? If it wouldn't be for Carlos and Paulie, this team wouldn't have any offensive production. I just can't see how a manager lets so many guys play so poorly without some accountability. What the hell is this? Do we now have a tenured system for baseball?

There is another point here regarding something a little less tangible. When you have 4 key players under performing as badly as Pierre, Beckham, Rios and Dunn all have this season, perhaps you need to make a change just to let everyone be reminded that there is such a thing as accountability. You need Rios' defense in CF. Dunn is a big contract, and a potential force, with a very consistent long term track record. He has to be in the lineup if just by virtue of his left handed presence. Beckham has so much promise, and has shown flashes already in his young career. You can justify giving him some slack. Therefore, by process of elimination, J. P. has to sit, or be gone. Moreover, you have to consider the young player toiling in the minors, in an attempt to prove he is worthy of being promoted. What kind of signal does it send to all minor leaguers when they have to remain there even though they are doing their job, while veterans take their spot on the Big League roster, even though they "suck"? Imagine how demoralizing it would be to be putting great numbers at AAA and not be given a chance, because Juan Pierre was "untouchable" at your position. When you put it that way, it really does sound absurd, doesn't it?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 12, 2011 -> 05:56 AM) Maybe. But Ozzie almost always has preferred going with the steady, veteran hand. In this case, he'll defer to Omar Vizquel first. There's just no way with Beckham struggling again offensively and seemingly having adapted to playing an above average MLB 2B that they'll move him again. If you put Viciedo in LF, you're also changing Quentin away from a position he's finally grown comfortable playing. Probably not the wisest idea to do that in the middle of the season, it's more of an off-season move that you prefer him for mentally. If Quentin was also struggling offensively, I'd take a chance and think about moving him to LF, but not at this point in the season. Heck, they might be more likely to stick Dunn in LF and DH Viciedo than they would be to move both Quentin and Beckham again. Ok. So how about Quentin in RF, Viciedo in LF, Vizquel at 3Rd, Lillibridge at 2B and leading off? Bench Pierre, and figure out what to do with Beckham. Maybe he needs some time at AAA. Do you even favor the idea of trying to get Viciedo in the lineup? If so, how would you do it? I don't think that you were really serious about putting Dunn in LF.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 12, 2011 -> 04:31 AM) Because Lillibridge would be overexposed as a starter, and he's hardly ever played 3B in his career. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/profile.asp...llibridge.shtml In fact, he's NEVER played 3B in his life that I can see as a starter. Only SS, 2B and CF. His career at the University of Washington, he spent a lot of time in the outfield but none at hot corner. The White Sox aren't going to risk this kind of grasping for straws move with a $128 milllion payroll. Ozzie will stick with Pierre. You'd have a lot stronger argument if you put Viciedo at 3B again, but they're simply not going to do that, either. In all likelihood, they'll give the playing time to Vizquel first, like last year. I'm not convinced that he couldn't handle the "hot corner", but if you're right, why not consider letting either Beckham or Vizquel play 3RD? Lillibridge could certainly handle Second. You understand that the motive in all of this is to get Viciedo in the lineup. Don't you think that lowest defensive liability would result from putting Viciedo in RF and Lillibridge in the infield?

It appears as though Viciedo has completely recovered from his broken thumb, and has resumed the hot hitting he displayed last year when he was called up, and this year in Spring Training. The problem is how to get him in the lineup. Here's my suggestion: Put him in the outfield, probably in right because of his arm. Move Quentin back to LF. Sit Pierre Now, the team needs a lead off man. One solution would be to give Lillibridge a shot at 3RD Base. Morel hasn't shown much, and his defense has not been as advertized. Lillibridge has played really well, going back to last September, and deserves a shot at some more playing time. He'd probably be at least as good at leading off as Pierre has been, and he's arguably a better all around player. So, why not substitue one Brent for another at 3Rd? The lineup could really be scarey if you add Viciedo, and get the rest of the guys performing up to their normal level. 3RD Lillibridge SS Ramirez LF Quentin DH Dunn 1B Konerko RF Viciedo C A. J. CF Rios 2B Beckham If Beckham and Rios start hitting, they could be moved up in the order. If Beckham doesn't start hitting, Vizquel should be given playing time at Second, and place in the number 2 hole, where he is at his best offensively.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 6, 2011 -> 07:48 PM) If the team doesn't recover by June and someone will take aj, you don't worry about that. Half those pitchers will be leaving too Yes, if they hold a "fire sale" and trade "half" the staff, you're right.

I think that you have to keep A. J. to handle the pitching staff. Changing in mid season would be very problematical Castro could handle the job cabably, but he isn't up to catching the bulk of the schedule.

You would hope that K.W. would point out how consistently good Danks has been in his brief career. He has had more quality starts than any Sox pitcher I can remember in recent history. The Sox have had an incredibly difficult time giving him any run support, even when they were scoring runs for the rest of the staff. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to go somewhere else for that reason alone. He is definitely pitched in "hard luck".

Most of us probably agree that it's time for some kind of shake up. Perhaps they should start by benching a couple of guys. The player who has most earned some time on the bench is Rios. Pierre and Beckham are vying for second place in that race. You simply can't have your leadoff hitter with a .286 OBP, and just 2 extra base hits, while being caught stealing 7 out of 12 attempts. As for Beckham, he just may have been better off spending a couple seasons in the Minors. He'll likely be a star, but these prolonged slumps suggests that he may not be quite ready. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have anyone in the minors who is making a case for a call up. Here's my attempt at a shake up line up: CF Lillibridge 2B Vizquel RF Quentin DH Dunn 1B Konerko SS Ramirez LF Teahen C A. J. 3B Morel So I've benched the 3 worst performing guys, save Dunn, whose LH presence they need in the lineup. Vizquel is a consumate pro, and would be able to handle the #2 hole responsibilities quite capably, while providing stellar defense Lillibridge deserves a chance a some regular playing time. He's already out "slugged" Rios in a quarter as many AB's. Let him play until he earns his way back onto the bench. I put Teahen in LF because at least he hasn't sucked at the plate, and his LH bat would give the lineup better balance, at least until Dunn actually starts to contribute. I know that this represents a pathetic 'stab' at trying to fix what appears to be broken, but maybe it would wake some people up. It's either something like what I'm suggesting, or firing the manager and coaches, or a fire sale. This team simply can't be allowed to perform this badly with complete impunity. Someone has to be held accountable.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) What do Rios, Peavy, and Dunn have in common? They're all way overpaid.

While we're venting, would someone explain to me what is good about Rios' approach at the plate? I've always thought that it's amazing that he ever hits with his mechanics. Do any of you see anything positive about his mechanics? He holds his hands in front of his stomach until the last instant. His crouch is very awkward looking, and his lead foot tapping just makes him way to "busy". Alex needs to have a lot of moving parts be perfectly in sink and timed just right to ever have success with that approach. I can't see how his head can be sufficiently "quiet" with all of those moving parts to his swing. If I were trying to give myself the best chance for success, I'd look at an approach like Konerko's and I'd try to use it as a model of perfection. Now that is a thing of beauty, isn't it? At least when he doesn't have success, you don't have the impression that it was because of his mechanics. Hitting is funny that way. It's one of the few sports activities in which so many different fundamental approaches are acceptable. You can imagine how frustrating it would be for a hitting coach to refrain from trying to get Rios to change his mechanics.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) A lot of Little League coaches have developed and morphed the idea to have their two best starters go 3 innings back-to-back each game I remember most leagues had a 10 IP limit per week, something like that. It's kind of like battling the teachers' unions over tenure. As soon as a single pitcher went down with injury who was a part of your revolutionary system, it would be scrapped. Heck, the World Baseball Classic has been put in jeopardy (and certainly in terms of full participation by all the best American-born players) due to the extra wear and tear of adding 10-14 more days of pitching and injury risk into the season. I think the only way it could be adopted would be if you could find a battery of surgeons like Jobe and Andrews who supported the idea that allocating pitches thrown in this manner would lead to fewer or the same amount of arm/shoulder/elbow/labrum injuries, not MORE. While I agree with the fact that any team picking their 6 best pitchers out of 12, from a statistical probability theory, has some credence...it also falls to pieces when you consider all those starts where the pitcher gets knocked out in under 3 innings pitched. If one of the two guys simply didn't have it, you can't radically recalibrate their pitches thrown allotment without seriously having to rearrange the entire "rotation" from week to week. Then you run the risk of a pitcher coming out of the top 6 or entering the top 6 having an injury because he hasn't fully adjusted. It's hard to imagine your #7 guy getting the kind of work he'd require (it would be all mop-up/blow out) on the major league roster. He'd probably have to be waiting in AAA getting a regular and consistent workload of pitches so he would be ready to jump into the "rotation." So then you'd have agents for pitchers 7-9 on the roster feeling their clients were getting buried in AAA because their workloads were less (not being able to accrue service time and get to arb/FA) or not having the ability to showcase their talents, like in the 50's and 60's when players like Roberto Clemente were "hidden" in the minor league systems of loaded major league teams (in that case, the Brooklyn Dodgers). You raise interesting points. I don't really see that much of a problem regarding the seventh guy, as I think the staff could retain a bullpen with a few arms. However, this system certainly wouldn't require 11 or 12 pitchers. Concerning the issue of a bad start by one of your 6 starters: You would have the option of removing him earlier, if you had a capable starter ready to throw 45 pitches. Then you could turn the game over to your bullpen. Isn't that better than having to make a guy have to try to get in at least enough innings to save the bullpen, or turn the game over to your "long man", who is likely not all that great. In this system, you could pull your starter early enough that you might avoid a blowout. Moreover, that gives your bullpen some of that need work, about which you are understandably concerned. Do you really think that an injury is any more likely because of this system? The whole idea is based upon the assumption that this would not pose any additional injury risk, so that is a critical point which would have to be carefully examined, as you suggested. Regarding the feelings of agents: Would you really care if they or their clients felt slighted? I'd rather see a more cost effective system, which would afford the team more payroll flexibility. You could pay your 6 starters more, if you didn't have to tie up money in an expensive bullpen. Moreover, you would be getting a better return on the investment if your starters could perform a couple of times a week. At any rate, your thoughful comments are well taken and appreciated

One of the other points that I made in the paper I wrote on this subject was that 5 days in between pitching appearances is probably not the optimum time to achieve the best performance. I made that assertion based upon the limited understanding that I have about sports medicine and human physiology. It doesn't take the body that long to recover from strenuous physical activity. Intense weight training is probably about as demanding as any physical activity there is. A weight lifter, or body builder will routinely take 2 days rest in between training any given body part. Squats and other leg exercises are probably the most grueling exercises one can do. Even those exercises can best be performed, with the least amount of soreness, if done every 3rd or 4th day. Pitching 45 to 90 pitches should not be near enough to cause injury, and therefore an athlete should be able to repeat that effort after a couple of days of rest. It is widely recognized that the more frequently the body is asked to perform a task, the better condition in which it will become. Of course, there is a point at which the body is taxed too frequently, and can't sufficiently recover, but 2 or 3 days should be enough rest. In fact, pitchers do throw a side session in between starts. The more frequent performance of a given physical activity, short of over taxing or injuring the body, should result in a better conditioned athlete, and improve the skill performed. How sharp would a basketball player's shooting skills be, if he played once every 5 days? We all know how much more pitchers used to throw in years past. Many of us have long been critical of this notion that a well conditioned athlete can't safely throw more than 100 pitches any more frequently than once every 5 days. If you never allow the body to become conditioned to anything more, it won't be. However, that is not to say that the body can't be conditioned to do more.

Giving Santos an opportunity should be easy to do at this point. Ozzie can spin it in a way that won't be devastating to Thornton's psyche. He can simply say that "Santos has earned a shot at it, by having gone unscored upon all Spring and thus far in the season." It should be more about Santos earning a promotion, than Thornton and the others getting demoted. Of course, who knows if he'll be any better. "Geees", I hope so.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) Lillian I loved your theory. Somebody should do an article on that or ask Bill James his opinion. Awesome stuff. Can you send it to Bill James and ask what he thinks of it? I like your theory. I'm glad you like the idea. It seems pretty compelling to me. It's a lot easier to find and pay 6 really good pitchers, than it is 12. As I stated, I wrote a paper on it which I still have a copy of somewhere. I gave it to Don Cooper at the end of the 2009 season. I have no idea what he thought about it, or even if he really read it, although he promised to do so. I'd be very interested to get the input from some of the astute observers on this board, if they would carefully consider the concept.

I couldn't agree with you more, Greg. The current standard method of managing pitching staffs is very expensive and ineffective. A team can have 5 terrific starters, but unless they pay and get good performances from several relievers, they are likely to experience exactly what has happened to the Sox lately. They are wasting great starts by insisting upon using the pen every game. Since baseball seems reluctant to return to the days of letting pitchers throw 150 pitches per outing, there has to be another way for a team to still get their money's worth out of their high priced starters. A few years ago I devised a method of utilizing pitchers in a more efficient and cost effective way. I wrote a paper on it. The basic idea is to select your 6 best pitchers and divide them into 3 pairs. Each starter goes approximately 80 to 90 pitches and his "partner" finishes the game providing he can do so in 40 to 50 pitches. Since starters routinely have a side session in between starts, this method would utilize that 40 to 50 effort in a game, rather than a bullpen session. The 3 teams of two starters each, working in tandem would take their turn in those first 3 games. The next 3 games would use the same 3 teams of 2 starters each, but with their roles reversed. So the starter who threw 90 pitches, 3 days earlier, would only throw approximately 40 to 50 pitches in his second appearance. The consequence of this system is that a starter would work every 3 or 4 days, taking turns between 90 pitch appearances and 45 pitch efforts. The advantage to this approach is that you get your 6 best pitchers working more often. That means the team is getting more productivity out of them. It also means that you don't need to commit lots of money to an expensive bullpen, to which you must entrust the huge responsibility of preserving a good effort by the starter. The function of the bullpen would be to take over in blow out games, rather than waste both starters in either a hopelessly losing effort, or in a game where the team is coasting, after a huge early lead. Our current staff might look something like this: Game 1 Jackson 90 Danks 45 Game 2 Buerhle 90 Floyd 45 Game 3 Peavy 90 Sale 45 Game 4 Danks 90 Jackson 45 Game 5 Floyd 90 Buerhle 45 Game 6 Sale 90 Peavy 45 The rest of the staff would be reserved for special situations and blow outs. They can all compete to earn a place as a "main pitcher", and always have a chance to take over a spot in the rotation, if they earn it. There would be no need to use 3 or 4 pitchers in a well pitched game, the way starters are routinely automatically removed after 6 innings, with the first reliever pitching the 7th, a second reliever the 8th, and the closer finishing. That is too many pitchers to depend upon being effective. The odds of one of them being off that game are too great. I'd rather depend upon 2 of my best 6 pitchers every day, than one of my best and 3 more lesser guys every game. It seems rediculous to pay a guy $15 million per year to have him throw 100 pitches every 5 days!

I didn't read all of the posts, and I realize that the thread was supposed to be about Pierre. However, regarding Thornton; He doesn't appear to have quite the velocity he has had in the past. I haven't seen many of his fastballs hit 97, which is what he used to consistently throw. He isn't striking people out. Maybe that's the reason that he has thrown so many more breaking balls. Perhaps he realizes his velocity is down. He really doesn't have enough of an assortment of pitches to be a closer, where he has to face all hitters in the 9th. He's much better suited to be a set up man, and can be removed vs right handed hitters. I like Santos as a closer. He appears to have the mentality, and the right assortment of pitches.

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing? I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement. The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table. That looks more like a splitter to me. The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

That slider breaking straight down looks unhittable. That's the best stuff I've seen from a Sox pitcher in a long time.

Have any of you noticed that Carlos is back to extending the thumb on his top hand? He presses that extended thumb right up against the handle. He's the only player whom I can ever remember doing that. I always thought that is was a very dangerous thing to do. If he were to hit an inside pitch on the handle, couldn't he sustain a pretty serious bruise to that thumb? Especially in the Spring, with the cold weather, it would have to really hurt. Then there is the issue of the bat breaking and the portion against which that thumb is pressing breaking in the direction of the extended thumb. Couldn't he hyper-extend it? Is this a legitimate concern?

Floyd looks like he's shot putting the ball. God, you'd think he'd finally have his mechanics down to where he could pitch in his sleep. That 89 mph fastball won't cut it.