fathom Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) Perhaps a more important question...would the Sox be 8 games over .500 if everyone was healthy? No way....the pitching staff has been healthy all season, and the relievers have no significant injuries. No team with as bad of relief as the Sox have could have a good record. We were healthy to start the year off also offensively....and the offense still sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 It's common sense that if there were no injuries things would be better. How much better, no idea. But at least they would be at 100% and the injury issue wouldn't have an opportunity to be an excuse. Regardless, it's silly to think the injuries have nothing to do with the slide. QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) We were healthy to start the year off also offensively....and the offense still sucked. Ummm... they weren't healthy leaving spring training.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) Ummm... they weren't healthy leaving spring training.. Who wasn't healthy....Pods? BTW, I definitely agree that injuries have had a big impact on this team. We're one of the last organizations that could survive so many offensive players going down due to our pathetic developmental system. I believe that if this team could have had average injury issues all year up to this point, they'd be probably 5 or 6 games out of first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Would the Sox be eight games under .500 if everyone was healthy? No, but I still think they would be around .500. Have all of the Sox's opponents been 100% healthy at the time we played them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) Who wasn't healthy....Pods? Crede was also not healthy to start the season. I'm not sure what to say about Dye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) No, but I still think they would be around .500. Have all of the Sox's opponents been 100% healthy at the time we played them? You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Finally! A day where the Sox don't lose a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumu Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) Finally! A day where the Sox don't lose a game. There's always tomorrows game to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong. Which has more to do with the way this team was put together than anything else. When you're putting incredibly injury prone players in important positions and expecting them to stay healthy you can't blame injuries for your team's failures. Injuries have been a major reason as to why this team has been bad but it's not even the #1 reason in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) You can turn it into whatever you want to turn it into, but to say that injuries haven't hurt this team is just wrong. But most of the injuries should have been expected, no? Pods and Erstad are pretty much always hurt. Thome has been banged up each of the past several years. Crede's back shouldn't be a shock to anyone. We laughed at the Cubs counting on Wood and Prior all this time, KW is just as guilty now IMO. I don't see Cleveland crying about Lee and Westbrook being out. Or Detroit with Zumaya and Rogers. They get guys to step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:57 AM) Who wasn't healthy....Pods? BTW, I definitely agree that injuries have had a big impact on this team. We're one of the last organizations that could survive so many offensive players going down due to our pathetic developmental system. I believe that if this team could have had average injury issues all year up to this point, they'd be probably 5 or 6 games out of first place. Sorry, I left for lunch. Scott, Joe, and Jim for starters. Dye had a ton of "treatments" down there as did Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Sorry, I left for lunch. Scott, Joe, and Jim for starters. Dye had a ton of "treatments" down there as did Paul. What was wrong with Thome? And wouldn't you agree that some of those injuries are just these guys getting older, something that KW seemingly failed to take into consideration this offseason when he brought back/in two injury-plagued outfielders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) What was wrong with Thome? And wouldn't you agree that some of those injuries are just these guys getting older, something that KW seemingly failed to take into consideration this offseason when he brought back/in two injury-plagued outfielders? Thome has been injured for 3 seasons. Of course I would. Which is why the stupid ass powers that be should have not sat with their fingers up their butts this off season. Regardless... the point is that injures ARE to blame for some of the demise of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) Which has more to do with the way this team was put together than anything else. When you're putting incredibly injury prone players in important positions and expecting them to stay healthy you can't blame injuries for your team's failures. Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 At this point it's like throwing rocks at the short yellow bus. I've resigned myself to a long summer and watching what should be a competitive divisional race between the tribe and tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson. I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:38 PM) I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health. Well, after listening to Gage I don't think we're going to see Anderson again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Mr. Showtime @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) Well, after listening to Gage I don't think we're going to see Anderson again. Neither do I but that wasn't the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson. I think I'd love to see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in the lineup also. But that .652 OPS he's put up this year makes me sort of wonder when exactly people think this productive Erstad will appear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) Neither do I but that wasn't the question. s***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) I think I'd love to see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in the lineup also. But that .652 OPS he's put up this year makes me sort of wonder when exactly people think this productive Erstad will appear? A .311 OBP is productive when you're also providing an unstoppable veteran presence in the clubhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) I wouldn't, Erstad's only going to end up playing around 3 months this year atleast with Anderson you have some upside and relative health. Erstad's only costing $750k and Anderson was a complete disaster at the plate last season (.225 BA, .290 OBP, 90 K, 30 BB). He was more of an automatic out than many of the pitchers in the NL. No matter how good his glove is, nobody with Anderson's bat is going to start on a team that's supposed to be competitive. Edited June 14, 2007 by WCSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Erstad's only costing $750k and Anderson was a complete disaster at the plate last season (.225 BA, .290 OBP, 90 K, 30 BB). He was more of an automatic out than many of the pitchers in the NL. No matter how good his glove is, nobody with Anderson's bat is going to start on a team that's supposed to be competitive. Brian Anderson's OPS over all last year: .649. Darin Erstad's OPS over all this year: .652. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) Brian Anderson's OPS over all last year: .649. Darin Erstad's OPS over all this year: .652. Anderson's OPS this year: .387 Anderson's career OPS: .532 Despite the career-high OPS in '06, Anderson still struck out 90 times last year (with only 30 walks) in 365 at-bats. Oh, and he can't steal bases either. Erstad is clearly in the twilight of his career and his production has slid significantly, but it isn't difficult to understand why Ozzie didn't want Anderson starting in CF at the beginning of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) Anderson's OPS this year: .387In 17 at bats. Anderson's career OPS: .532 No, it's not. .632. And only 51 of those at bats were outside of 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts