I can't blame Ozzie anymore....this is ALL on Kenny

[zimne piwo]

I'm all for change, but the Sox wouldn't have been any worse had they kept all

the players from the world championship team instead of the tinkering they've done.

The players we've acquired with the exception of Jim Thome haven't done squat.

And as much as I like Thome, don't you all agree he's no longer capable of carrying a

lineup? He's getting older and definitely hasn't hit many homes in bunches this season.

 

I'm surprised anybody would want Oz and/or KW fired however.

Again ... they led us to a World Series title.

This franchise and this city hasn't done squat with the exception of the Oz-KW led

title season.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. For better or worse, one of the by-products of winning the World Series in '05 is that we've raised the bar substantially higher, and with that the overall tolerance level of the fan base is going to be much lower than it has been in years.

[caulfield12]

I'm all for change, but the Sox wouldn't have been any worse had they kept all

the players from the world championship team instead of the tinkering they've done.

The players we've acquired with the exception of Jim Thome haven't done squat.

And as much as I like Thome, don't you all agree he's no longer capable of carrying a

lineup? He's getting older and definitely hasn't hit many homes in bunches this season.

 

I'm surprised anybody would want Oz and/or KW fired however.

Again ... they led us to a World Series title.

This franchise and this city hasn't done squat with the exception of the Oz-KW led

title season.

 

 

But nobody we've traded has done anything either, and therein lies the dilemma.

 

Did you really advocate at the time for keeping Frank Thomas and Carl Everett? Seriously?

 

Essentially, McCarthy and Young are the only talented players we've lost that we would still want to have in 2-3 years.

 

We've gained Danks, Masset, Gio, Vazquez and Thome.

 

Vazquez > Garcia

Danks > McCarthy

Gio + Masset = Chris Young (I'm sure this could be debated, but most scouts would take young pitching)

Thome > Rowand

 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. For better or worse, one of the by-products of winning the World Series in '05 is that we've raised the bar substantially higher, and with that the overall tolerance level of the fan base is going to be much lower than it has been in years.

 

 

Right, otherwise this would look exactly like every White Sox season the past 20+ years, with the exception of 1983, 1990, 1993/94, 2000 and 2005/06.

 

Of the past twenty five years or so, we've had 7 very good to great seasons, or 28%.

 

If you eliminate the late 80's and late 90's duds, most of those non-contending teams have all fallen into that 75-85 win range.

[Kalapse]

I'm all for change, but the Sox wouldn't have been any worse had they kept all

the players from the world championship team instead of the tinkering they've done.

The players we've acquired with the exception of Jim Thome haven't done squat.

And as much as I like Thome, don't you all agree he's no longer capable of carrying a

lineup? He's getting older and definitely hasn't hit many homes in bunches this season.

 

I'm surprised anybody would want Oz and/or KW fired however.

Again ... they led us to a World Series title.

This franchise and this city hasn't done squat with the exception of the Oz-KW led

title season.

As of a week ago Thome had a 1.227 OPS, in case you don't know, that is insanely high. Before his injury Jim Thome had created more runs than any other player in baseball, A-Rod included. Jim is perfectly capable of carrying a lineup, hell he nearly pulled it off for the entire month of April. He just needs to get over this oblique injury which is pretty obviously still bothering him.

[Dick Allen]

2005 shows you the importance of having a strong bullpen. That bullpen was amazing. A lot of people thought Vicaino sucked, but his 2005 performance would make him a star on this year's team. Politte and Cotts were sensational. Shingo struggled, but he was 8 for 9 in save opportunities before losing the closer role and did help win a couple of games before falling apart again. Hermanson was unbelievable and when his back finished him Jenks didn't miss a beat. KW built the pitching staff back then from back to front. He does the opposite now. The current bullpen, I don't know how many times they are going to have to be brutal to convince everyone, sucks. When the Sox won it all, they didn't blow too many leads in games. Once they got ahead, the game was over. Not anymore. KW ignored the bullpen after 2005 and while I give him credit for at least doing something, went cheap on it after it showed its weaknesses in 2006. He is paying the price now.

[Wealz]

Not anymore. KW ignored the bullpen after 2005 and while I give him credit for at least doing something, went cheap on it after it showed its weaknesses in 2006. He is paying the price now.

 

The only way to build a bullpen is on the cheap. That's because relievers aren't consistent year-to-year and if they're bad they need to be replaced ASAP. Impossible to replace a reliever who just signed a 3y/$15M free-agent contract for example.

[whitesoxfan101]

Just based on memory, and without looking at BAPIP, it sure seemed like Hermanson was a lot luckier with regards to line drives hit right at people. I don't know what was in Politte's right arm in 2005, but he had an amazing slider and a great two-seam fastball.

 

But yeah... that year was really something to behold.

 

Politte had a season so fortunate numerically in 2005 that the vast majority of numerical historians have agreed that his season was THE luckiest season out of a bullpen since extensive statistical analysis started about a quarter century ago. Cliff had a .208 BABIP in 2005 (the average BABIP is .290), and when you keep in mind it takes luck for 95 percent of pitchers to attain a .208 batting average against, that is even better perspective. He also had a periphial ERA of 3.90 in 2005, very similar to his pera of 4.01 in 2004, yet his ERA dropped from 4.39 to 2.01 in that 2 year spean.

 

Moving on to Hermanson and Cotts, it's a pretty similar story. Hermanson had a BABIP of .247 and periphial era of 3.86, but an actual ERA of 2.04. Cotts had a BABIP of .242 and pera of 3.26, but a true ERA of 1.94. And another factor of good forture for those 2 were Hermanson gave up only 4 HR in 57 IP and Cotts 1 HR in 60 IP, and both pitchers acquired as many groundouts as flyouts (Cotts gave up 13 HR in 2004 and 12 in 2006 in similar innings pitched for example, and Hermanson gave up 15 in San Francisco in a sample size that says he'd have give up only 8 in 2005 had he pitched the same amount of innings).

 

Now I'm sure a lot of people here will excuse all of that as over analying stats. But the stats do not lie here, yeah they were all REALLY good in 2005 but they were also REALLY lucky and there is a reason none of the 3 ever have or ever will have seasons anything like 2005, and they happened to do it at the same time luckily for us. Kinda a side note is a guy like Bobby Jenks, who managed to put up very good years in 2005 and 2006 despite BABIP's of .316 and .347. To have a .347 BABIP in a 41 save year like Bobby did last year is a sign of true staying power among a relief pitcher, because the numbers say his luck will actually get better.

Edited June 3, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[The Ginger Kid]

We needed a re-built bullpen. Kenny gambled, and threw ace-deuce.

 

But I don't think you take the dice out of his hand. I still like him to do what it takes to put this team back on top. He deserves criticism for this failure but he certainly doesn't deserve to lose his job over it.

[Wedge]

Politte had a season so fortunate numerically in 2005 that the vast majority of numerical historians have agreed that his season was THE luckiest season out of a bullpen since extensive statistical analysis started about a quarter century ago. Cliff had a .208 BABIP in 2005 (the average BABIP is .290), and when you keep in mind it takes luck for 95 percent of pitchers to attain a .208 batting average against, that is even better perspective. He also had a periphial ERA of 3.90 in 2005, very similar to his pera of 4.01 in 2004, yet his ERA dropped from 4.39 to 2.01 in that 2 year spean.

 

Moving on to Hermanson and Cotts, it's a pretty similar story. Hermanson had a BABIP of .247 and periphial era of 3.86, but an actual ERA of 2.04. Cotts had a BABIP of .242 and pera of 3.26, but a true ERA of 1.94. And another factor of good forture for those 2 were Hermanson gave up only 4 HR in 57 IP and Cotts 1 HR in 60 IP, and both pitchers acquired as many groundouts as flyouts (Cotts gave up 13 HR in 2004 and 12 in 2006 in similar innings pitched for example, and Hermanson gave up 15 in San Francisco in a sample size that says he'd have give up only 8 in 2005 had he pitched the same amount of innings).

 

Now I'm sure a lot of people here will excuse all of that as over analying stats. But the stats do not lie here, yeah they were all REALLY good in 2005 but they were also REALLY lucky and there is a reason none of the 3 ever have or ever will have seasons anything like 2005, and they happened to do it at the same time luckily for us. Kinda a side note is a guy like Bobby Jenks, who managed to put up very good years in 2005 and 2006 despite BABIP's of .316 and .347. To have a .347 BABIP in a 41 save year like Bobby did last year is a sign of true staying power among a relief pitcher, because the numbers say his luck will actually get better.

 

What is a peripheral ERA? The projected ERA based on walks, strike-outs, etc?

[WCSox]

The only way to build a bullpen is on the cheap.

 

There's definitely some truth to that, especially when the starting rotation was taking up near $60 million in payroll last year.

 

The Sox got lucky as hell with their 'pen two years ago. Hermanson, Cotts, Politte, and Vizcaino all pitched at a higher level than their career averages. Agreed that Kenny should've foreseen Cotts taking a dive in '06 and added another setup man. Then again, Kenny has also managed to get Jenks and Thornton off the scrap heap and got production out of them. And I don't think that anybody would've foreseen a decent reliever like MacDougal pitching like he is right now.

[gosox41]

Whenever fans of other teams would say the 2005 team was a fluke I defended them. Nothing to say anymore.

 

 

I'm starting to see more and more that KW is aggressive but not very bright. In fact he might be the dumbest GM in the AL Central now that KC got rid of Baird.

 

 

Bob

[whitesoxfan101]

What is a peripheral ERA? The projected ERA based on walks, strike-outs, etc?

 

The way they do peripheral ERA is they take your eqERA, EqH9, EqBB9, EqSO9, and EqHR9, which are your projected HR's allowed/9, projected K's/9, projected BB's/9, projected hits/9, and then projected ERA based on all those other stats. The k and bb per 9 numbers are just taken directly out of the pitchers real stats since there is no ballpark affect for those 2 things, but they take into account the ballparks you pitched in and use a formula to devise what your home run, hits, and thus era numbers would be had you pitched in a exactly neutral setting every time you threw a pitch to the plate. (hence the Eq abbreviation) (1.000 is neutral, .999 or less is pitcher friendly, 1.001 or more is hitter friendly) So to be fair, our pitchers will always seem to be "a bit lucky" since they pitch half their games in a ballpark so friendly to hitters, but those peripheral to real ERA splits for our pen in 2005 were nothing like I have ever seen, and nothing like guys who look at this stuff for their job have even ever seen.

 

Oh and a random correction, we are only 0 for our last 47 against bullpens.

Edited June 3, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[Wedge]

The way they do peripheral ERA is they take your eqERA, EqH9, EqBB9, EqSO9, and EqHR9, which are your projected HR's allowed/9, projected K's/9, projected BB's/9, projected hits/9, and then projected ERA based on all those other stats. The k and bb per 9 numbers are just taken directly out of the pitchers real stats since there is no ballpark affect for those 2 things, but they take into account the ballparks you pitched in and use a formula to devise what your home run, hits, and thus era numbers would be had you pitched in a exactly neutral setting every time you threw a pitch to the plate. (hence the Eq abbreviation) (1.000 is neutral, .999 or less is pitcher friendly, 1.001 or more is hitter friendly) So to be fair, our pitchers will always seem to be "a bit lucky" since they pitch half their games in a ballpark so friendly to hitters, but those peripheral to real ERA splits for our pen in 2005 were nothing like I have ever seen, and nothing like guys who look at this stuff for their job have even ever seen.

 

Oh and a random correction, we are only 0 for our last 47 against bullpens.

 

Thanks! I appreciate it. Yeah, that 2005 bullpen was historically amazing. I doubt we'll ever live to see anything quite like that again.

[whitesoxfan101]

Well Day threw 2 scoreless after the Masset 3 run inning, so the pen ERA improved as it was 9.00 today. And hey, we ended the 0 for 61 against pens so it's now only 1 for 65, and we only left a man on 3rd with 1 out twice today. I see progress at least, Day was good and Danks was solid. lol.

 

Thanks! I appreciate it. Yeah, that 2005 bullpen was historically amazing. I doubt we'll ever live to see anything quite like that again.

2005 pen=historically good

2007 pen=historically bad

Edited June 3, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[winninguglyin83]

scouting and development.

 

it all starts there.

 

we suck in both departments.

[iamshack]

Ozzie basically has no chance at this point. He's going to have to adjust his use of Jenks and Thornton for the time being IMO (though he won't) by using them in critical situations earlier in games when we have a lead. That's basically the only chance we have. Otherwise, Jenks will never get any work anyways the way things are going now.

 

Blaming this all on Kenny is a bit harsh IMO. Bottom line, players have to perform. How Kenny is expected to know that Macdougal would become completely useless and that Aardsma would have such opposite fortunes as he had at the end of last season is BS. Building bullpens in the AL especially is speculative and volatile in the first place, let alone when a guy like Macdougal (who has been historically effective when healthy) implodes as he has. While the Twins and the Angels have managed to consistently build solid pens in the AL, not too many other clubs have been able to do it with any certainty. The manager and GM absolutely get more credit when things are going well and more blame when things are not, but this comes down to our players not getting it done, and the majority of the blame must lie with them.

 

Kenny has built a team that should be performing at a much higher level than it is, and Ozzie has done all he can to try and get these guys going. It just isn't happening.

 

Unfortunately, at some point things have to be shaken up for the sheer sake of change, but there is absolutely NO POINT in dealing guys away at their lowest historical trade value (unless they never really had much). Dealing Crede at this point would be giving him away. Trading Dye at this point would be a collosal mistake.

 

The best thing Kenny and Ozzie can do at this point is try to find someone who can do a reasonable job out of the pen in critical situations such as Jenks/Thornton/Logan/Day? and possibly some of the other kids down in Charlotte. Perhaps it would be the best move to deal Dye/Crede/Buehrle eventually this year, but IMO you have to at least allow Dye and Crede to heat up a bit and let teams get more desperate as the deadline approaches. Mark is probably the one guy who could be moved whenever, but unfortunately his value will be hindered somewhat by his impending FA status in this ridiculous market for starting pitching. In the mean time, continue giving Fields starts at 3b at Charlotte and try to find who the hell is going to play OF for this team in the future.

[dagotony06]

There's enough blame to go around. Everyone should be held accountable, players, coaches, manager, and GM, and everyone in between.

[fathom]

Ozzie not bringing in Logan to face Lind was his worst managerial move of the week (high praise after how poorly he coached on this road trip). When you have Rios on deck there, you have to try and get their weakest hitter against LHP out. There's one thing that Logan can do, and it's get lefty hitters out. Now, I'm sure someone will say: how do you know he would have got Lind out? YOU DON'T! However, you have to play the match-up in that situation when someone is basically twice as good of a hitter against righty pitchers as he is lefties.

[iamshack]

Ozzie not bringing in Logan to face Lind was his worst managerial move of the week (high praise after how poorly he coached on this road trip). When you have Rios on deck there, you have to try and get their weakest hitter against LHP out. There's one thing that Logan can do, and it's get lefty hitters out. Now, I'm sure someone will say: how do you know he would have got Lind out? YOU DON'T! However, you have to play the match-up in that situation when someone is basically twice as good of a hitter against righty pitchers as he is lefties.

 

Agreed, however, I think he was trying to get out of the inning so he could still use Masset for another inning or two. The way things have been going, had he made the move to get Logan, someone else would have come in and blown the game anyway- I doubt he brings in Day if we still have the lead in the 7th. As I said earlier though, you've got to do what you've got to do to get the critical outs- I don't care what inning it is anymore.

[klaus kinski]

We were no fluke in 2005

 

Then WHY did the GM get rid of one third of that team in the immediate off season?

[iamshack]

We were no fluke in 2005

 

Then WHY did the GM get rid of one third of that team in the immediate off season?

 

If you recall, he brought back the same bullpen. Two members of that bullpen sucked, and one was injured nearly the entire year. He also brought back the same starters, even adding one. Unfortunately, those same starters didn't come close to replicating their performances of the year before.

 

It had nothing to do with getting rid of anyone. It had everything to do with the same guys not producing.

[caulfield12]

We were no fluke in 2005

 

Then WHY did the GM get rid of one third of that team in the immediate off season?

 

 

So if we had Rowand, Perez, Blum, El Duque, Thomas, Everett, Harris, Vizcaino and Marte, we would have won in 2006?

 

I don't think so.

[fathom]

So if we had Rowand, Perez, Blum, El Duque, Thomas, Everett, Harris, Vizcaino and Marte, we would have won in 2006?

 

I don't think so.

 

It's hard to tell....Thomas ended up having a fairly equal season to Thome. Our CF position was a disaster, so Rowand would have helped that. Rowand isn't great, but he's better than what we had last year. McCarthy very easily could have put up better numbers than Vazquez, especially given the run support that Vazquez received.

[caulfield12]

It's hard to tell....Thomas ended up having a fairly equal season to Thome. Our CF position was a disaster, so Rowand would have helped that. Rowand isn't great, but he's better than what we had last year. McCarthy very easily could have put up better numbers than Vazquez, especially given the run support that Vazquez received.

 

 

But having AJ as our only lefty with any power, an injured Rowand and a 5-7 games over .500 record for April and May with Thomas instead of Thome, I don't think that Thomas' second half surge would have been enough alone to reverse 8 games under .500 to, let's say 20 games OVER .500, if you're willing to make the assumption that Thomas versus Thome in the first two months would have been a huge difference with the way the season played out.

 

But we'll never know. And we still would have been without a CF when Rowand went down, which was just as likely to happen here as in Philly, just like man suspected Pods and Erstad, for instance, to go down.

[fathom]

But having AJ as our only lefty with any power, an injured Rowand and a 5-7 games over .500 record for April and May with Thomas instead of Thome, I don't think that Thomas' second half surge would have been enough alone to reverse 8 games under .500 to, let's say 20 games OVER .500, if you're willing to make the assumption that Thomas versus Thome in the first two months would have been a huge difference with the way the season played out.

 

But we'll never know. And we still would have been without a CF when Rowand went down, which was just as likely to happen here as in Philly, just like man suspected Pods and Erstad, for instance, to go down.

 

Rowand got injured on a collision....not exactly the same type of injury frequency as Pods pulling a groin, etc.

[caulfield12]

Rowand got injured on a collision....not exactly the same type of injury frequency as Pods pulling a groin, etc.

 

 

But isn't it all part of his "reckless" style of play that contributes to those type of injuries occuring? I don't think any Sox fan is shocked when they see Rowand is injured yet again, any more than Cubs fans are with Prior or Wood.