The fundamental error in this new philosophy

[sox-r-us]

I know that we have not accomplished much in our last 4 years with the HRs we were hitting. So we decided to change the philosophy to "small ball" based on "necessity" (KW's quote). I am not saying this small ball will not work and I am not saying we should bash them for their O performance based on 2 games.

 

BUT, here are my concerns regarding this change:

 

a) Last year, up until Maggs and Frank were lost for the season we had as good a chance to win the division. Say what you want, but you cannot replace guys who hit 100+ RBIs.

 

B) Except for the last two years, the Cell has not behaved like a poor person's Coors field.

 

So making this change now to "small ball" because we have not done well the last 4 to 5 years does not reconcile with these two facts.

 

I am hoping this new philosophy works and I know we have a fixed salary to go off so we had to let go of salary to get pitching + offensive philosophy re-structuring. But those two facts above have me worried about this season. Using "small ball" + pitching can work provided you have high quality small ball players. The only team thast has made it work has been the Marlins but you cannot tell me our pitching is as good as theirs was nor our small ball players as good as theirs. Also, "small ball" can back fire on our "pitching" because now it forces pitchers to pitch perfectly every time.....yes it worked last night, but see what happened to Garcia in Seattle last year when their O sucked.

 

We can still make this work, in my opinion, if at the trade deadline we get a vet 3rd B who can hit HRs to replace Crede (unless Crede suddenly plays at 0.300+ and 30+ HR level...not something I am counting on right now)

 

To support my theory, look at the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Astros (all ALCS/NLCS teams) from last year and then tell me which team played small ball there?

 

Then look at the Twins (who we seem to be copying) and see their repeated failures in the playoffs.

 

Flame away....

Edited April 7, 2005 by sox-r-us

[3E8]

We're still not a small ball team. We only have a few small ball elements. Guys like Konerko, Rowand, Dye, Everett, Thomas (when healthy) help maintain a large semblance of the slugging we've been used to for awhile.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I share the same concerns and anyone who definitively says otherwise is full of it. Nobody knows anything right now. Can you play smaller ball in a hitters park in the AL? We just don't know yet. Is that style of baseball more consistent? It seems like it would but this is sort of an experiment in prgress. Hopefully it works and a lot of people , myself included will be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier.

[The Critic]

I think the frustration was with the offense's inconsistency - 14 one night, 1 the next. I think there was an unspoken reliance on the bomb, and not enough guys getting on base. That's what the Sox have tried to address.

I disagree with this notion that the White Sox have somehow "abandoned" the home run - they have at least 5 or 6 guys with the capability of hitting 20 to 30 each. They're not going to go from first in the majors to dead last.

[Wedge]

I know that we have not accomplished much in our last 4 years with the HRs we were hitting. So we decided to change the philosophy to "small ball" based on "necessity" (KW's quote). I am not saying this small ball will not work and I am not saying we should bash them for their O performance based on 2 games.

 

BUT, here are my concerns regarding this change:

 

a) Last year, up until Maggs and Frank were lost for the season we had as good a chance to win the division. Say what you want, but you cannot replace guys who hit 100+ RBIs.

 

B) Except for the last two years, the Cell has not behaved like a poor person's Coors field.

 

So making this change now to "small ball" because we have not done well the last 4 to 5 years does not reconcile with these two facts.

 

I am hoping this new philosophy works and I know we have a fixed salary to go off so we had to let go of salary to get pitching + offensive philosophy re-structuring. But those two facts above have me worried about this season.

 

We can still make this work, in my opinion, if at the trade deadline we get a vet 3rd B who can hit HRs to replace Crede (unless Crede suddenly plays at 0.300+ and 30+ HR level...not something I am counting on right now)

 

Flame away....

 

 

Small Ball by necessity is interesting phrasing. Yes, we were doing very well with Frank and Maggs, but the fact is that they both got hurt and we tanked. Our pitching got a lot worse as last season wore on. I'm not sure Williams was saying small ball by necessity because we need to be a small ball team... rather, I believe he said it because by switching to a small ball team, we could improve our pitching staff a lot. Consider, losing Valentine, Maggs, and Lee freed up a ton of cash. Plus, it directly added Posednik and Viz, via trade. Additionally, we were able to add AJ, Gooch and El Duque. I think you have to believe that our baseball team from an overall stand point (viewing it in 4 categories: offense, defense, starting pitching, relief pitching) is greater than it was last year in 3 out of 4 categories. We may not have the power of last year, but I feel like we are going to be a much more offensively consistent baseball team this season: no more 32412352135 runs 1 game and get blanked for the next week. Playing powerball like we did the last 5 years, it's like going all-in on every hand in texas hold'em. Sure, you're going to win some hands and maybe even win some games. In the long run, that approach will lose you more money that it's going to win you... small ball tends to score you runs more consistently than powerball.

 

Additionally, we do get Frank back. At that point, we do have some big hitters in our lineup: Frank, Jurassic, Konerko, Dye. Maybe that's not quite as much power potential in a given game as Frank, Konerko, Maggs, Lee, Valentine, but it is quite a bit.

 

I think the one position we really need to upgrade is 3B. Crede is absolutely killing us there and has been for 2 years. If he sucks this year, we gotta upgrade there (maybe Fields is the answer, maybe not). So we do agree there. 3B is really the hinge that this season is going to swing on, I feel. We have just enough everywhere else where it COULD work, but man, if we get that 3B I think we show up in the ALCS.

[TheBigHurt35]

The Sox's payroll increased by over $10 million this year, so I'm not buying into Moronotti's financial argument.

 

Agreed that going from a '98 Indians-type team to a '98 Yankees-type team isn't easy and this might be a transition year of sorts. We'll probably score less runs, but our starting pitching and long relief is significantly better than last year. Maggs was probably going to leave without or without the injury and the secrecy regarding his surgery and his comments after being released made the decision that much easier. I'm still not happy about us trading Carlos, but I'm happier having the sum of Dye, Pods, Tad and A.J. I'm also happier with the latter two in the lineup in place of perrenial rally-killers like Ben Davis and Willie Harris.

[jackie hayes]

We're still not a small ball team.  We only have a few small ball elements.  Guys like Konerko, Rowand, Dye, Everett, Thomas (when healthy) help maintain a large semblance of the slugging we've been used to for awhile.

I half-agree with you -- the skills composition of the team hasn't changed very much, so it's pretty funny when people remark that the Sox have been remade in a speed+defense mold. It's just not true -- we brought in Podsednik, but to do so we gave up someone with decent speed. And we brought in one of the slowest catchers we've had in years. Similar arguments can be made for defense.

 

But that doesn't mean that the philosophy of the team hasn't changed. If Rowand starts regularly laying down sac bunts, if everyone's stealing twice as much as last year, we will see a difference. And Ozzie seemed very sac/steal-happy in st, so I'm thinking this is a real change. (We won't be certain until we start seeing some baserunners in real games, though: Job #1.)

[sox-r-us]

More Cowbell....I understand your argument. It is a standard statistical dillemma.

 

What you are saying is that we are going for less "game to game score variation" (standard deviation). Yes, we need that (last year we had too many weeks of an avg of 8 run games followed by weeks of 2 run games on avg)....

 

HOWEVER, in the process of improving the standard deviation, my fear is we are going to reduce our "mean" scoring too. If we can maintain our mean scoring we will be fine, but I doubt it.

 

You said you did not want us getting blanked out in games after scoring lots in other games. But we just got blanked for 17 out of 18 innings in a poor man's Coors field. Think about that...

[Punch and Judy Garland]

My worry is that we are a pitching heavy team (payroll wise) whose pitching is in question. We only have two long-term starters (and that isn't really long term) so hopefully we'll be able to replace Jose-Dukes-Contreras in 1-2 years with B-Mac and two wise choices.

[Texsox]

I am beginning to think small ball is more marketing hype and a poor way to sell this team.

 

IMHO what we did was take away some offense to add to our pitching. We may have improved attitude (I don't want to open that can), consistency, and future considerations.

 

Some of this was necessity. Maggs was gone, the injury just made it easier to say good bye. Frank is hurt and another year older (and closer to the HoF). Some of this was monetary.

 

I don't care why the team made changes. I know this team is going to be entertaining and competitive in the Central.

[Wedge]

More Cowbell....I understand your argument. It is a standard statistical dillemma.

 

What you are saying is that we are going for less "game to game score variation" (standard deviation). Yes, we need that (last year we had too many weeks of an avg of 8 run games followed by weeks of 2 run games on avg)....

 

HOWEVER, in the process of improving the standard deviation, my fear is we are going to reduce our "mean" scoring too. If we can maintain our mean scoring we will be fine, but I doubt it.

 

You said you did not want us getting blanked out in games after scoring lots in other games. But we just got blanked for 17 out of 18 innings in a poor man's Coors field. Think about that...

 

You're right that we were scoreless in 17 of 18, argue with facts, but that's just a fact of baseball. Even tthe Cardinals last year had innings where they went down 1-2-3. You can't infer too much about the team based on 2 games, because so much happens in a season. IF we get the sweep today, that just means that we look like we're in good shape early this season. But there's so many variables in a baseball season... you almost have to look at it as four seasons, plus the post season. I guess we'll see what plays out. I'm reserving my judgement on anything until 10 games have been played, minimum. That gives all the starters pitchers 2 appearances and probably most of the pen gets a work out, too.

 

And let's not forget that after the "first season" we get reinforcements in the form of Frank the Tank.

[greg775]

It would help if Joe Crede becomes a stud hitter.

If not ... we coulda got Randa for what, 3 mill? Does anybody know what Randa earns?

Joe Crede's emergence or lack of it, could be vital to whether our smallball attack is really small. Should we have picked up Randa?

[Punch and Judy Garland]

this week notwithstanding, I finda Randa a guy that might be a little suckey if he played here. Just a gut feeling

[DBAHO]

It would help if Joe Crede becomes a stud hitter.

If not ... we coulda got Randa for what, 3 mill? Does anybody know what Randa earns?

Joe Crede's emergence or lack of it, could be vital to whether our smallball attack is really small. Should we have picked up Randa?

I've said reguarly during the off-season, that if Joe Crede struggles, Joe Randa will probably the guy we'll go after. He only signed a 1 year $3 mill deal IIRC, plus Josh Fields could be ready next season, but that's doubtful. And Joe could hit .280-.290 for us which would be a welcome return from 3B.