Jump to content

Heyman: Sox interested in someone on some team. Nightengale: *nods*


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

So you were arguing with me just to say you don't care if the guy is RH or LH or a Switch hitter . Great ,then feel free to find me an equal or better option who, given our ownership, at 2nd base who has power and helps improve the Sox record against RHP .

According to what SS2K5 posted the record against RHP is 25-21 and against teams over .500 regardless of the handedness of pitchers is 13-15 thus further illustrating my points. I said 25-25 but I was trying to remember what another poster said it was . 25-21 isn't impressive considering the competition . More power from any player will do but considering  that more RHP both starters and relievers on playoff caliber teams are infinitely better pitchers than those teams we have played so far should tell anyone that a LH or SH player is preferable.

Cali, you started this argument with me, not the other way around.  I never once said I am against LHH, Escobar, or anything like that.  I said I want the BEST PLAYER POSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF HANDEDNESS.   If that happens to be Escobar I am fine with that.  I just do not agree that the Sox should only find a left handed hitter to fill that void. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Escobar as depth, or a platoon bat while we deal with so many injuries, but I'm not actually convinced he is much of an upgrade over Mendick.

I think he has 5 seasons with a sub .300 OBP, and he is working on a sixth. His big power seasons almost seem like an outlier.

Not sure about his defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, turnin' two said:

Is there anyone that wouldn't prefer Turner?  Those aren't equivalent pieces, or prices I wouldn't think.  Honestly I don't even think the Sox could get Turner.

He is just an example I used.  I would be all for it but I think he would be cost prohibitive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, bmags said:

Freddy Garcia, Jim Thome. It happens. Can't go big every day.

Thome was 35 and the Phillies gave the Sox $22M and the Sox gave up Rowand and Gio Gonzales . Plus it happened in November not the trade deadline.

Trae Turner is 27 in the prime of his career.

Freddy Garcia I can agree was a big middle of the season trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Cali, you started this argument with me, not the other way around.  I never once said I am against LHH, Escobar, or anything like that.  I said I want the BEST PLAYER POSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF HANDEDNESS.   If that happens to be Escobar I am fine with that.  I just do not agree that the Sox should only find a left handed hitter to fill that void. 

This was your quote discussing it with Lillian " I understand wanting a left handed hitter like "most of the people in the sport".  I am simply not obsessed with it.   Teams win without it.  The Sox were winning with a very right handed Madrigal, and it was fine, and it wasn't imperative to add one .

I pointed out that despite what you said you weren't addressing the team weaknesses or the cause of the winning record:  Weaknesses: Power, LH power and record against RHP against poor competition . Reason for winning record : starting pitching and beating up on LHP.

Fun discussion .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

Where did the Trea Turner rumors come from? Is there reason to think that might actually happen?

No way, the Sox would have to give up pretty much any prospect worth anything that's left in the system to get him.  Wouldn't be a bad idea but I don't see the Sox operating that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

Where did the Trea Turner rumors come from? Is there reason to think that might actually happen?

I wouldnt call it an actual rumor, more posters wishing he were a target.  Can't say I've seen anything hinting that the Nats are looking to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

That stupid HR stat sure is getting a lot of run.  Guess what, on days you don’t hit a HR usually the opposing SP was good, that’s why you lost.

sure get another good hitter but freaking out over a lack of power is silly.  This is a good lineup and has big power coming off the IL in about two months.

Sure but 2 months is about 60 games. The Sox have played 67 so far with a huge contribution from Mercedes in the 1st month and expected contribution from Vaughn below expectations against RHP. You might also factor in that Eloy and Robert may not contribute to the level of performance if they had played the whole season uninjured. Also there's likely no way that the Sox starting pitching continues to be this healthy or this good

There are weaknesses to be addressed . No one is freaking out, simply discussing those weaknesses. The stupid HR stat is just another tool used in that discussion along with other stats that show our weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Sure but 2 months is about 60 games. The Sox have played 67 so far with a huge contribution from Mercedes in the 1st month and expected contribution from Vaughn below expectations against RHP. You might also factor in that Eloy and Robert may not contribute to the level of performance if they had played the whole season uninjured. Also there's likely no way that the Sox starting pitching continues to be this healthy or this good

There are weaknesses to be addressed . No one is freaking out, simply discussing those weaknesses. The stupid HR stat is just another tool used in that discussion along with other stats that show our weaknesses.

It's a really dumb stat that is like doing a "key to the game" that says "The Bears are 10-2 when they win the turnover battle".

Well no shit.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

It's a really dumb stat that is like doing a "key to the game" that says "The Bears are 10-2 when they win the turnover battle".

Well no shit.  

Not that dumb .It's just obvious in today's baseball environment when small ball can no longer win games. It implies that the best HR hitting teams are the likeliest to win and the Sox are the 2nd most likely team not to hit a HR in the AL. Just as teams with a bad giveaway/takeaway ratio in football are likely to be bad teams. The Sox have won because of pitching but acquiring more power will help in the next 60 games should the pitching drop off . A outstanding QB can help a good team rise above the turnovers just like a team with good pitching can overcome a lack of power. 60 games is over 1/3 of the season which is a lot of games to keep expecting the pitching to carry us.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Not that dumb .It's just obvious in today's baseball environment when small ball can no longer win games. It implies that the best HR hitting teams are the likeliest to win and the Sox are the 2nd most likely team not to hit a HR in the AL. Just as teams with a bad giveaway/takeaway ratio in football are likely to be bad teams. The Sox have won because of pitching but acquiring more power will help in the next 60 games should the pitching drop off . A outstanding QB can help a good team rise above the turnovers just like a team with good pitching can overcome a lack of power. 60 games is over 1/3 of the season which is a lot of games to keep expecting the pitching to carry us.

And yet they are .5 back of the best record in baseball and have the best RD and have scored something like the 5th most runs.  Like, do you see how dumb this is now?  You score runs by not making outs.  The Sox are pretty good at that.  Yes, we'd like more power, but not making outs is also a great way to score runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Not that dumb .It's just obvious in today's baseball environment when small ball can no longer win games. It implies that the best HR hitting teams are the likeliest to win and the Sox are the 2nd most likely team not to hit a HR in the AL. Just as teams with a bad giveaway/takeaway ratio in football are likely to be bad teams. The Sox have won because of pitching but acquiring more power will help in the next 60 games should the pitching drop off . A outstanding QB can help a good team rise above the turnovers just like a team with good pitching can overcome a lack of power. 60 games is over 1/3 of the season which is a lot of games to keep expecting the pitching to carry us.

Having the 2nd fewest HR does not necessarily mean homering in the second fewest number of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Having the 2nd fewest HR does not necessarily mean homering in the second fewest number of games.

So whats your point ? I wouldn't imagine its a big difference .

Unless you can show me something that supports your hypothesis it's useless. The fact remain the more games you hit HR's the better chance you have to win. The 2nd worse team in the AL in hitting HR's is likely to be the 2nd worst team record in the AL when they don't hit a HR .So yea hitting more HR's will help just like it always has after the dead ball era. Even more so now that team no longer play small ball or hit for high averages and with a good starting pitching staff . Hitting more HR's would probably help a team like the Sox even more than most teams given that starting pitching.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...