The speedy and available...

[caulfield12]

The speedy and available: Brian Roberts, Ichiro Suzuki (maybe), Coco Crisp, Nick Punto, Willy Taveras, Jerry Hairston Jr., Juan Pierre, Randy Winn, Bobby Abreu, Luis Castillo, Corey Patterson, Julio Lugo, and Cesar Izturis.

 

source: mlbtraderumors.com

 

Of course, Roberts and Ichiro.

 

But Izturis is an interesting name to me, because he knows how to play NL style ball, he's not as old, and he wouldn't be as expensive to acquire.

 

Crisp and Lugo might be worth taking a look at as well.

 

Patterson for 4th/5th outfielder (if Wise/Anderson go)

 

Punto for Uribe's "supersub" position, but not as a starter (I think Minnesota will probably pick up his option/offer arbitration)

[Felix]

But Izturis is an interesting name to me, because he knows how to play NL style ball, he's not as old, and he wouldn't be as expensive to acquire.

Who cares? We're in the American League and this fascination that people have with bunts is disgusting. Bunts are designed to give outs to the other team. The whole point of offense is to not get out. I don't get what's so hard to understand here. Yes, they can be helpful in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on second and no outs, but to use them as much as some people here seem to want would be ridiculous and insane when the rest of the team is built on power.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Felix

[clyons]

Who cares? We're in the American League and this fascination that people have with bunts is disgusting. Bunts are designed to give outs to the other team. The whole point of offense is to not get out. I don't get what's so hard to understand here. Yes, they can be helpful in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on second and no outs, but to use them as much as some people here seem to want would be ridiculous and insane when the rest of the team is built on power.

 

Some of us care because its an important aspect of the sport of baseball, and the only guys on our team this year that could do it with semi-regularity were bench players who only started due to injuries (Wise and Uribe). Well balanced teams need guys at the top of the order (i.e., 2 spot) who can advance runners. Hitting to the right side and laying down bunts are typically the two best ways to do that, and we have sucked at the latter for a long time.

 

Remember: "Its amazing sometimes what a bunt can do!"

Edited October 9, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Reddy]

Some of us care because its an important aspect of the sport of baseball, and the only guys on our team this year that could do it with semi-regularity were bench players who only started due to injuries (Wise and Uribe). Well balanced teams need guys at the top of the order (i.e., 2 spot) who can advance runners. Hitting to the right side and laying down bunts are typically the two best ways to do that, and we have sucked at the latter for a long time.

 

Remember: "Its amazing sometimes what a bunt can do!"

 

i'm with felix. fine, it doesn't hurt to have a guy who can do it, but we should NEVER be giving them outs to get a guy from first to second. a homer scores 'em anyway... stupid ozzie.

 

[Texsox]

You can't teach speed.

It's not how, it's how many. (cuts both ways, for bunts and home runs)

Balance works

There is a reason bunting is still around.

The whole point of offense is to score runs before the third out, not just to avoid outs. (splitting hairs I know)

[Reddy]

You can't teach speed.

It's not how, it's how many. (cuts both ways, for bunts and home runs)

Balance works

There is a reason bunting is still around.

The whole point of offense is to score runs before the third out, not just to avoid outs. (splitting hairs I know)

there's a reason it's around - it's because people can't let go of the past and it "looks good".

 

it's been statistically proven to be useless. counterproductive even. personally i'm ok with doing it on no outs with a runner on 2nd to get him in sac fly position. but otherwise giving up the out to just HOPE that another guy gets a single (any other hit would have scored him from first) is just kind of ludicrous.

[Texsox]

there's a reason it's around - it's because people can't let go of the past and it "looks good".

 

it's been statistically proven to be useless. counterproductive even. personally i'm ok with doing it on no outs with a runner on 2nd to get him in sac fly position. but otherwise giving up the out to just HOPE that another guy gets a single (any other hit would have scored him from first) is just kind of ludicrous.

 

Last April, stats also proved that the Sox were a third or fourth place team this year.

 

You can use the stats or you can have the stats use you. The better managers know when each is appropriate. But if the team could be solely guided by stats, there would be no need for a human manager. Just have a computer spit out the probabilities and go from there.

[GoSox05]

Brian Roberts and Ichro would be nice, but I think Coco Crisp is more likely to happen. I want nothing to do with Corey Patterson. .205 and 100 plus k's is no good.

[G&T]

The speedy and available: Brian Roberts, Ichiro Suzuki (maybe), Coco Crisp, Nick Punto, Willy Taveras, Jerry Hairston Jr., Juan Pierre, Randy Winn, Bobby Abreu, Luis Castillo, Corey Patterson, Julio Lugo, and Cesar Izturis.

 

source: mlbtraderumors.com

 

Of course, Roberts and Ichiro.

 

But Izturis is an interesting name to me, because he knows how to play NL style ball, he's not as old, and he wouldn't be as expensive to acquire.

 

Crisp and Lugo might be worth taking a look at as well.

 

Patterson for 4th/5th outfielder (if Wise/Anderson go)

 

Punto for Uribe's "supersub" position, but not as a starter (I think Minnesota will probably pick up his option/offer arbitration)

 

Well I think this list shows why Swisher was leading off last year.

Izturis is bad. Really bad. .319 OBP isn't going to help the top of the order. Getz would probably be a better option.

Roberts would be awesome, but there are no guarantees with the Orioles, and I don't know if we have the ammo.

Ichiro isn't available.

 

Taveras is probably the best option, despite his awful year last year. I don't know if there is a reason for that, but he'll only be 27 next year.

[clyons]

I don't think anybody's saying the Sox should turn themselves into the 1982 Cardinals. We are and always will be a home run hittting team tailored to our park. But bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL, just like executing run downs is a FUNDAMENTAL. Regardless of how often you do them (and I think bunt situations occur more often in games than run downs), you improve your chances of winning if you're good at fundamentals, and hurt them if you're bad. The White Sox have been bad at both bunting and rundowns. Is anyone prepared to argue that the team shouldn't try to improve itself at rundowns? Why shouldn't we try to get better at both?

 

It seems to me that a team can get better at a fundamental skill one of two ways; by helping the players you have aquire it, or acquiring players who already have it. The first approach isn't working, so I'd like us to get a least one speedy infielder via free agency who can execute a run down and bunt.

 

I understand the whole Billy Beane "outs are precious and you don't give them up" argument. You still need to be able to lay down bunts to win close games. Again, the White Sox are bad at this and need to get better. They aren't getting better through practice, so they need to get better via free agency or trade. That's all I'm sayin'.

[scenario]

there's a reason it's around - it's because people can't let go of the past and it "looks good".

 

it's been statistically proven to be useless. counterproductive even.

 

It's a good example of where stats "lie".

 

The research suggests that there isn't a positive correlation between bunts and runs scored.

 

What it really means is that excessive bunting (bunting anytime anybody gets on) is not going to lead to more runs, and could in fact lead to less.

 

It does NOT mean to avoid bunting in all situations. There are many situations where it does make sense... close games where you're trying to move runners into scoring position, etc.

 

The "lie" or mistake in the analysis is the impression created that a generalized "rule" pulled from those stats applies equally to all situations. It does not.

Edited October 9, 2008 by scenario

[YASNY]

I don't think anybody's saying the Sox should turn themselves into the 1982 Cardinals. We are and always will be a home run hittting team tailored to our park. But bunting is a FUNDAMENTAL, just like executing run downs is a FUNDAMENTAL. Regardless of how often you do them (and I think bunt situations occur more often in games than run downs), you improve your chances of winning if you're good at fundamentals, and hurt them if you're bad. The White Sox have been bad at both bunting and rundowns. Is anyone prepared to argue that the team shouldn't try to improve itself at rundowns? Why shouldn't we try to get better at both?

 

It seems to me that a team can get better at a fundamental skill one of two ways; by helping the players you have aquire it, or acquiring players who already have it. The first approach isn't working, so I'd like us to get a least one speedy infielder via free agency who can execute a run down and bunt.

 

I understand the whole Billy Beane "outs are precious and you don't give them up" argument. You still need to be able to lay down bunts to win close games. Again, the White Sox are bad at this and need to get better. They aren't getting better through practice, so they need to get better via free agency or trade. That's all I'm sayin'.

 

Fundamantals need to addressed up and down the organization. Situational hitting, bunting, hitting the cutoff man, thinking ahead on defense. These are organizational weaknesses from top to bottom and I hoping that Buddy Bell changes things for the better.

[Texsox]

Fundamantals need to addressed up and down the organization. Situational hitting, bunting, hitting the cutoff man, thinking ahead on defense. These are organizational weaknesses from top to bottom and I hoping that Buddy Bell changes things for the better.

 

We just have to look to the strongest program in our division for conformation.

[clyons]

Fundamantals need to addressed up and down the organization. Situational hitting, bunting, hitting the cutoff man, thinking ahead on defense. These are organizational weaknesses from top to bottom and I hoping that Buddy Bell changes things for the better.

True, and although I'm a big fan of Kenny, the lack of fundamentals throughout the organization has to be laid on him. Either we are drafting too many players who are fundamentally unsound, or our minor league instructors are incompetent. I think these things can be practiced and learned, so I pick the second.

 

Bell's hoped for changes will largely be made downstream and probably won't bear fruit at the major league level for several years. All the more reason to make sure our offseason acquisitions can already do the things we haven't been able to teach.

[StrangeSox]

Last April, stats also proved that the Sox were a third or fourth place team this year.

 

Those are educated guesses looking forward, not statistical analysis of what has happened (and, if Detriot and Cleveland had performed as expected, the Sox would be a 3rd or 4th place team with this record). Historically, bunting has *usually* been a bad idea because you give away more potential runs than you gain. There are situations where it makes sense (bottom 9th, extra innings where one run = win/tie vs. lose), but bunting a runner from 1st to 2nd in the 5th inning? In a power-hitting, HR dominating lineup? That's just not very smart.

 

Having a little speed is different. It's frustrating to know that it'll probably take 2-3 more hits to score Thome/ Konerko/ AJ/ Dye/ Hall/ others from 1st.

Edited October 9, 2008 by StrangeSox

[southsideirish71]

How about a line drive hitter who is a tough out and can go gap to gap and hit doubles over the singles guy who is a track star and can bunt.

 

 

[scenario]

True, and although I'm a big fan of Kenny, the lack of fundamentals throughout the organization has to be laid on him. Either we are drafting too many players who are fundamentally unsound, or our minor league instructors are incompetent. I think these things can be practiced and learned, so I pick the second.

 

I think the failure in fundamentals is problem that many minor league systems struggle with.

 

There was a very interesting mlb.com article last year about the systems Neal Huntington was putting in place in Pittsburg to help turn their system around.

 

The first thing he did was bring in all the minor league people and give them "the book" of terms to be used... so that at every level, everybody used the same language to describe the same things. Very smart organizational thinking. It allows young players to move from level to level and have what they learned in the prior year reinforced rather than changed. Might seem to some like a small thing... but it's not... at ALL. If you look at teams that do a great job at development, they all do something similar.

 

I think that with Buddy at the helm... the Sox are moving in a similar positive direction.

 

[Melissa1334]

how about orlando hudson?

[Texsox]

Those are educated guesses looking forward, not statistical analysis of what has happened. Historically, bunting has *usually* been a bad idea because you give away more potential runs than you gain. There are situations where it makes sense (bottom 9th, extra innings where one run = win/tie vs. lose), but bunting a runner from 1st to 2nd in the 5th inning? In a power-hitting, HR dominating lineup? That's just not very smart.

I agree.

And the statement that having someone who can bunt is worthless is also an educated guess looking forward. If the lineup is a power hitting lineup, bunting is silly. But the question in October is thus, should the team make an adjustment and move slightly away from power hitting by adding some speed and small ball capability. Obviuously some people believe no, that bunting is always a wasted out. Others disagree.

[StrangeSox]

I agree.

And the statement that having someone who can bunt is worthless is also an educated guess looking forward. If the lineup is a power hitting lineup, bunting is silly. But the question in October is thus, should the team make an adjustment and move slightly away from power hitting by adding some speed and small ball capability. Obviuously some people believe no, that bunting is always a wasted out. Others disagree.

 

Statistical data would show that power hitting lineups tend to out-produce small ball lineups, no?

 

[YASNY]

Statistical data would show that power hitting lineups tend to out-produce small ball lineups, no?

 

A major league ballplayer should know how to put down a sacrifice bunt, unless it's a pitcher that never has a bat in his hands.

[StrangeSox]

A major league ballplayer should know how to put down a sacrifice bunt, unless it's a pitcher that never has a bat in his hands.

 

But that gets back to the issue - why would you want a good hitter sac bunting? You slightly increase the potential for one run while drastically lowering the chance for more than one run.

Edited October 9, 2008 by StrangeSox

[scenario]

Statistical data would show that power hitting lineups tend to out-produce small ball lineups, no?

 

If by out-produce, you mean score more runs on average over the course of a season.... yes.

 

But consistency of production is just as important in producing wins as raw numbers of runs scored.

 

For example: Look at the Tigers this year. They were one of the top teams in baseball in runs scored. But they also lead MLB in the number of times they were shut out. Score 19 runs in one game... zero in the next. Boom or bust doesn't get it done when it comes to wins, no matter how impressive the total number of runs put up at year end.

 

Give me a team that scores fewer runs but has greater consistency any day.

 

Edited October 9, 2008 by scenario

[YASNY]

But that gets back to the issue - why would you want a good hitter sac bunting? You slightly increase the potential for one run while drastically lowering the chance for more than one run.

 

Because with a runner on second with no out in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game, you want to get that run home. Putting him on third with allows him to score on a wild pitch, pass ball, sac fly, grounder ball to the right side, etc. Everybody that regularly has a bat in their hands and is on a major league roster should have the ability to lay down a sac bunt.

[Steve9347]

Rickie Weeks