Four hits, nice job boys

[BrandoFan]

REPOSTED:

 

*Eye-roll*....Let's put it this way: coming into this season if you were to ask ANY self-respecting scout, hitting coach or a manager a following question:

 

"Do you think Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, Paul Konerko and Joe Crede are gifted hitters with high ceiling or are they in fact overrated low-talents?"

 

How many do you think would go with the former?

 

 

I didn't see the game last night so I don't know if Crede's hits were flukes or not, but the (grim, sad) reality remains:

 

Konerko OPS (1999-2002) - 855

Konerko OPS (2003) - 560

 

Lee OPS (00-02) - 825

Lee OPS (2003) - 765

 

Maggs OPS (00-02) -940

Maggs OPS (2003) -800

 

Crede OPS (2002) -825

Crede OPS (2003) -560

 

 

If that doesn't fall into "severe underachieving" in your book, then what does?

 

 

 

Lee was 23-25 during his "talented days"; Maggs 26-28; Joe 24; and Koney 24-26...........DO YOU THINK THOSE HITTERS TOPPED OUT AT THE TENDER MEDIAN AGE OF 25?

last time i checked you won or lost with 25 guys, not 4. Yes those players are underachieving, so what? The fact remains, this team has about average talent, and below average winning spirit. Their record speaks for itself.

1. I think you're not getting something here- if those four perform anywhere near their capabilities (as shown by the 3-4-year breakdown), Sox are 12+ games over .500. Easily.

 

2. Our pitching has been pretty solid, certainly better than in 2000. Check the stats, then add to it the fact that Koch and White can only improve at this point...The problem is the offense, specifically what we are not getting from our LF-RF-1B-3B spots....you simply can't argue with that.

I will repeat myself. Those 4 players HAVE let me down, and other players are doing better than expected. Overall, based on record alone, the sox are performing a little worse than i expected. Of late? They are horrifying me.

Pray tell me just WHO it is that is so blatantly over-performing to the point where it compensates (as far as aggregate effect on the success of this team) for the horrific dropoffs in production from 4-7 spots/LF-RF-1B-3B as detailed in the above post?

 

Are Wunsht and Marte doing a bit better than expected? No, because both have enough blown saves and inherited runners scored to overshadow their ridiculously good ERAs. Olivo? Not really. Borchard? Yeah right. Garland/Wright? Gethef***oureheah. Valentin? No way. Koch? Gordon? Glover? Burly? Colon? Maybe Daubach and Rios? Rowand? Harris? I am listening, ears all open...

 

Outside of Loaiza, Jimenez is only one I can think of who's been better than expected and yet even he is in a prolonged slump now. Sure Thomas also seems to be doing better than expected, but since his RISP numbers are so sad, we can safely conclude that he has padded his stats and in fact has been in line with what was expected off him. Maybe a little worse.

 

 

So my larger point remains: considering how many winnable games we ended up squandering, if our middle of the line-up peformed to the B level (notice I am not asking them to improve, just to saty the stay), Sox are in first place. Plain and f***ing simple.

[BrandoFan]

k and like 3 or 4 overachievers. Like i said, we are doing worse than expected, but not at the level Brando is saying...

 

1. Put down your phantasi b-ball sheetz and join the rest of the commonsense-endowed world. I may not have seen or taped all games, but I've seen enough.

 

2. Considering how many 2-1, 4-3-type games we lost and how many RISP we stranded early on....the only team that has outplayed us was Seattle and even in that series had our hitter done ANYTHING close (forget about improvement) to what they used to do in previous years, they would be easily won and Gordon/Koch wouldn't ven get the chance to blow them. I can safely say that we should have absolutely DESTROYED Detroit, Baltimore, KC and Minnesota and we should have taken 4 out of 6 against Oakland, 2 out of 3 against D-Backs, 3 of 4 at Toronto, etc. 2000 team certainly won a bulk of those "winnable" games.

 

3. Not that it matters in the end, but you are flaout wrong about how many overachievers this team has: Jimenez and Loaiza are the only ones as I pointed out before. Yet even their contribution pales in comparison to how much Sox did NOT get from the manyt under-achievers. For someone who prides himself on statistical prowess, you sure as hell ignore a lot of vital numbers like RISP, OPS-against, rolling 3-year RC average, etc. You are also wrong in your underestimating the adverse aggregate effect that Konerko/Crede/Ordonez's cumulative 850 point (OPS-wise) drop-off had on the team. That probably comes to 40 RBI that Sox didn't get from those 3 players alone.

 

4. When it comes to offense, you CAN'T underestimate the chain-reaction effect one or two big hits/hitters can have on the REST of the team. Do you rememeber how many times Sox batted around first half 2000? Do you remember one 2-put hits galvanized the entire team and we blew people out mercilessly. Therefore just a couple of severely underachiving hitters can go a long way in f***ing up the entire offense, especially considering that Olivo and Borchard are just learning and shouldn't be counted on save the day- it's the job of 1-7 hitters.

 

 

Sorry, but this team is INFINITELY worse than the most conservative fan had any right to expect. This team is WAY more talented than 2001 one that won 84 games. You're just stubborn to admit it because you were selling this team short pretty much since the beginning and your "rep" is at stake.

[Bmr31]

1.  Put down your phantasi b-ball sheetz and join the rest of the commonsense-endowed world.  I may not have seen or taped all games, but I've seen enough.

 

2.  Considering how many 2-1, 4-3-type games we lost and how many RISP we stranded early on....the only team that has outplayed us was Seattle and even in that series had our hitter done ANYTHING close (forget about improvement) to what they used to do in previous years, they would be easily won and Gordon/Koch wouldn't ven get the chance to blow them. I can safely say that we should have absolutely DESTROYED Detroit, Baltimore, KC and Minnesota and we should have taken 4 out of 6 against Oakland, 2 out of 3 against D-Backs, 3 of 4 at Toronto, etc.    2000 team certainly won a bulk of those "winnable" games. 

 

3.  Not that it matters in the end, but you are flaout wrong about how many overachievers this team has:  Jimenez and Loaiza are the only ones as I pointed out before.  Yet even their contribution pales in comparison to how much Sox did NOT get from the manyt under-achievers.  For someone who prides himself on statistical prowess, you sure as hell ignore a lot of vital numbers like RISP, OPS-against, rolling 3-year RC average, etc. You are also wrong in your underestimating the adverse aggregate effect that Konerko/Crede/Ordonez's cumulative 850 point (OPS-wise) drop-off had on the team.  That probably comes to 40 RBI that Sox didn't get from those 3 players alone.

 

4.  When it comes to offense, you CAN'T underestimate the chain-reaction effect one or two big hits/hitters can have on the REST of the team.  Do you rememeber how many times Sox batted around first half 2000?  Do you remember one 2-put hits galvanized the entire team  and we blew people out mercilessly. Therefore just a couple of severely underachiving hitters can go a long way in f***ing up the entire offense, especially considering that Olivo and Borchard are just learning and shouldn't be counted on save the day-  it's the job of 1-7 hitters.

 

 

Sorry, but this team is INFINITELY worse than the most conservative fan had any right to expect. This team is WAY more talented than 2001 one that won 84 games.  You're just stubborn to admit it because you were selling this team short pretty much since the beginning and your "rep" is at stake.

hmm i was right now wasnt i?

[BrandoFan]

No you weren't.

 

 

Like I said before, seeing today Sox pouring it on one the best pitching teams in the majors simply because 2 players came through clutch (Graff and Hurt) early on and the effect it had on the rest of the guys, only re-enforces my point:

 

 

If Crede-Konerko-Lee-Maggs hit ANYWHERE near what they've shown in the past they are capable off, Sox would be in first place, pulling away from Minny Mediocritites with each game.

 

With out the Gary Ward cancer factor (the sight of Sox hitters actually recognizing breaking pitches and putting mechanically sound, level swing on the ball is a pure delight in light of what's been happening up to this point with our formerly mighty O), this is indeed a 95+ win team as I expected it be coming into this season. Too bad they are perfoming like a 65-win team so far. Let's hope things change.

[Bmr31]

No you weren't. 

 

 

Like I said before, seeing today Sox pouring it on one the best pitching teams in the majors simply because 2 players came through clutch (Graff and Hurt) early on and the effect it had on the rest of the guys, only re-enforces my point:

 

 

If Crede-Konerko-Lee-Maggs hit ANYWHERE near what they've shown in the past they are capable off, Sox would be in first place, pulling away from Minny Mediocritites with each game. With out the Gary Ward cancer factor (the sight of Sox hitters actually recognizing breaking pitches and putting merchanically-sound, level swing on the ball is a pure delight in light of what's been happening so far), this is indeed a 95+ win team as I expected it be coming into this season.  Too bad they are perfoming like a 65-win team so far.

I said 85 wins at best. If we are LUCKY, the sox will get to that. I was SO right lol.