hi8is Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 i think it is very important not to over look the fact that we left 19 men on base today and only lost by 1 run. people are quick to blame the pitching but that number is completely unacceptable and will change. its staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(hi8is @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:18 PM) i think it is very important not to over look the fact that we left 19 men on base today and only lost by 1 run. people are quick to blame the pitching but that number is completely unacceptable and will change. its staggering. That's pretty awful, but once again, if we allow 10 runs per game then it's not going to matter what the offense does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Did we really leave that many guys on? That doesn't sound right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxfan1986 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:20 PM) That's pretty awful, but once again, if we allow 10 runs per game then it's not going to matter what the offense does. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:20 PM) That's pretty awful, but once again, if we allow 10 runs per game then it's not going to matter what the offense does. I didn't see the game (tried to follow via internet), but the thing that sticks out to me was Iguchi's failed bunt attempt. EXECUTION, EXECUTION, EXECUTION....I thought that's what we focused on in ST? It really doesn't matter if our pitching (both starting and bullpen) doesn't improve, though. This is a game the 2005 club locks down. The more "air" we give to Cleveland early on, the more likely they are to be in this thing all season long. They started out "okay" their first two weeks last year and hit a wall. We started off terribly (1-4 I think it was) and righted the ship, but going out to the West Coast next isn't exactly the recipe for a quick recovery from this mini tailspin that started in ST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:22 PM) Did we really leave that many guys on? That doesn't sound right. That's because it's not right. The team left 8 runners on base, the players individual left 19 on base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) I didn't see the game (tried to follow via internet), but the thing that sticks out to me was Iguchi's failed bunt attempt. EXECUTION, EXECUTION, EXECUTION....I thought that's what we focused on in ST? It really doesn't matter if our pitching (both starting and bullpen) doesn't improve, though. This is a game the 2005 club locks down. The more "air" we give to Cleveland early on, the more likely they are to be in this thing all season long. They started out "okay" their first two weeks last year and hit a wall. We started off terribly (1-4 I think it was) and righted the ship, but going out to the West Coast next isn't exactly the recipe for a quick recovery from this mini tailspin that started in ST. I think someone has added the total LOB per batter (from a box score), which is not the ACTUAL number. Just a guess. Cleveland outhit us by a decent margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) That's because it's not right. The team left 8 runners on base, the players individual left 19 on base. I'm confused as to what that means? Say Player A is on base, and Player B and C both fail drive him in. That counts as players individually leaving 2 on base? Can we pull any positives out of the first two games? Edited April 4, 2007 by StrangeSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 If anyone is looking to vicariously blame Podsednik for our loss, when he was caught stealing second base off the noodle-arm of Martinez there were several straight hits afterwards. We lost by one run. CUT HIS ASS, NOwZERS!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) I'm confused as to what that means? Say Player A is on base, and Player B and C both fail drive him in. That counts as players individually leaving 2 on base? Can we pull any positives out of the first two games? Erstad and Aardmsa... MacDougal looked pretty sharp as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) I'm confused as to what that means? Say Player A is on base, and Player B and C both fail drive him in. That counts as players individually leaving 2 on base? Can we pull any positives out of the first two games? If Erstad leads off the inning with a single then Thome Ks, that's 1 LOB for him, Konerko pops out, 1 LOB for him, Dye grounds out, 1 LOB for him. Since Erstad was still on the bases at the end of the inning that is 1 LOB for the team but 3 LOB for the players individually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) If anyone is looking to vicariously blame Podsednik for our loss, when he was caught stealing second base off the noodle-arm of Martinez there were several straight hits afterwards. We lost by one run. CUT HIS ASS, NOwZERS!!!! As one of like, well, I'm the only Pods supporter on this board. I can't even excuse or justify that. Pods should just forget about stealing bases right now. Get on base. That's it. I only saw a couple of his at-bats. But I did like that he was atleast working the pitchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The 9th inning is really what pissed me off. What more can you want in an opportunity to win a 1 run close game in the bottom of the 9th than having your 2 get on base and having Thome, Konerko, Dye and Crede all have a shot to drive in some runs to win or just tie the game. If you cant take advantage of that situation in a close game youll pick up a lot of losses throughout the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) As one of like, well, I'm the only Pods supporter on this board. I can't even excuse or justify that. Pods should just forget about stealing bases right now. Get on base. That's it. I only saw a couple of his at-bats. But I did like that he was atleast working the pitchers. If you call barely taking 2 swings working the pitchers... well then pods really worked them over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:34 PM) If you call barely taking 2 swings working the pitchers... well then pods really worked them over! Like I said, I only saw two of his at-bats. The walk in the first inning and his last at-bat. I was trying to work and watch the game at the same time. You know how that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) As one of like, well, I'm the only Pods supporter on this board. I can't even excuse or justify that. Pods should just forget about stealing bases right now. Get on base. That's it. I only saw a couple of his at-bats. But I did like that he was atleast working the pitchers. Is there a difference between working the count and just not swinging? It didn't seem like he was really getting anywhere, he would just watch the pitches into the glove until he either K'd looking or found the courage to hit the ball weakly somewhere. I never got the feeling he was really taking pitches with the intent to put himself in a better position to get on base, unlike Erstad who looked like a champ at the plate today, s*** in the field but a champ at the plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Time to bench Prancer Podsednik, stick BA in center and Erstad in left field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa1334 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Can we pull any positives out of the first two games? yea; i know its early but joe "blow" borowski doesnt look too good. its way different pitching in th a.l. than the n.l. i thought he would struggle and he got lucky today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(aboz56 @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) Time to bench Prancer Podsednik, stick BA in center and Erstad in left field. I really think if Pods went 0 for April, Ozzie might still not bench him. The fact that we have to even consider this thought saddens me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa1334 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Is there a difference between working the count and just not swinging? It didn't seem like he was really getting anywhere, he would just watch the pitches into the glove until he either K'd looking or found the courage to hit the ball weakly somewhere. I never got the feeling he was really taking pitches with the intent to put himself in a better position to get on base, unlike Erstad who looked like a champ at the plate today, s*** in the field but a champ at the plate. ^^^^^ he was really making me mad. it seemed like he saw 50 pitches and only swung 5 times. so many were right down the middle. i think the sox would be perfectly fine with erstad leading off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Ryan Sweeney will pwn once he makes it to the show... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:42 PM) Ryan Sweeney will pwn once he makes it to the show... No he won't. Atleast not right away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Pods without the ability to steal makes him underly useless. His defense is bad, despite his one nice catch today, he doesnt get on base enough for a leadoff man amongst other things. Back when he could turn a single into a triple and keep pitchers on edge by forcing them to keep an eye on him is what made him worthwhile, without that hes seriously hurting the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 05:34 PM) The 9th inning is really what pissed me off. What more can you want in an opportunity to win a 1 run close game in the bottom of the 9th than having your 2 get on base and having Thome, Konerko, Dye and Crede all have a shot to drive in some runs to win or just tie the game. If you cant take advantage of that situation in a close game youll pick up a lot of losses throughout the year. My feelings exactly. You couldn't ask for a better situation being down one run. Thome is just not a clutch hitter. I hope Oz doesn't wait til August again to move him out of the 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Is it time to change the title to this post to Pods Must Go: Ozzie and KW please read. Or should we just call this AntiPodsTalk.com ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.