perfect article to generate debate about Ozzie Ball

[caulfield12]

Jonathan Broxton might be the best non-Rivera closer in baseball. George Sherrill would be closing for at least a dozen other teams. Hong-Chih Kuo when healthy is basically their Matt Thornton (with a little less velocity on his FB). Throw in Belisario and Troncoso and the Dodgers pen is better with fewer question marks.

 

Broxton=Santos (projecting, it's a premature reach, but I'm being optimistic today)

Sherrill=Putz (when JJ is healthy)

Thornton is the best LHR in baseball now

 

I'd take my chances with Liney and Pena over Belisario and Troncoso.

[Quin]

We have plenty of HR and if Pierre hits like he almost always has in his career, we'll have tons of SB.

 

This lineup isn't that bad once Alexei gets warm weather, and if Quentin & Gordon hit like they were expected to. The big questions of Konerko, Rios, Jones, and Teahen have all been producing...the issue is that Pierre hasn't been close to his .300 average, Gordon isn't progressing as assumed, Quentin is trying to hard, and AJ just seems lost.

 

Plus, Ozzie Ball only worked because that 05 lineup still had power, yet that always seems to get overlooked.

[joeynach]

Alexei has been in the league 2 years, and has hit .290 and .277 in those 2 years. Theriot is a career .290 hitter. In his first 2 seasons, he hit .328 and .266 consecutively. Theriot's worst average month in his career is Sept./Oct, where he hits .254, while he typically hits 70 points better in April/May.

 

Theriot sprays the ball more consistently and strikes out way less. How about comparing their OBP, alexi cant take a walk remember.

[caulfield12]

So who would rather have Theriot as that starting SS over Ramirez?

 

Any volunteers.

 

I will never, ever say that.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Broxton=Santos (projecting, it's a premature reach, but I'm being optimistic today)

Sherrill=Putz (when JJ is healthy)

Thornton is the best LHR in baseball now

 

I'd take my chances with Liney and Pena over Belisario and Troncoso.

 

Or you're just being silly? I like Santos a lot. But let's be realistic now. Putz hasn't been a productive pitcher since 2007. I agree that Thornton is the best LH set-up man in baseball. But Kuo is definitely no slouch. Linebrink would be gone yesterday if we could find a team to take his contract. Belisario > Pena. Pena > Troncoso. Either way, Broxton's dominance tips the scale in the Dodgers favor. Now, IF Bobby rebounds and IF Puts is healthy and IF Santos is the real deal, I'd then be inclined to agree with you.

[witesoxfan]

Theriot sprays the ball more consistently and strikes out way less. How about comparing their OBP, alexi cant take a walk remember.

 

He hasn't walked yet this year, but he drew ~50 in ~600 PA's last year. Alexei can draw walks, it's a matter of him actually working the count and showing a bit of discipline at the plate. He hasn't done that yet this year.

[LVSoxFan]

We should stop calling it Ozzie Ball and call it what it is (what we'd all like to have): Minnesota Ball. They play it year in, year out.

[SoxAce]

That would be the Dodgers.

 

 

With Linebrink's experience as an elite set-up man...Thornton, Putz (if he gets the zip back on his fastball, which will take at least another 2-3 months in all likelihood), Santos, Pena and then Threets (if healthy), I wouldn't trade our mix of experience, youth and raw stuff for the Dodgers' pen.

 

No way.

 

 

Not because I'm a White Sox fan first, just because I think our pen is better. Stick their pen in the AL East and see what happens.

 

If it makes you both feel any better, your both wrong. As far as pure for pure talent.. (and I mean talent/upside/potential/even youth) the Tigers are the best. That doesn't mean they will all realize it however just because they all can hit 98+ with sick breaking pitches.

Edited April 26, 2010 by SoxAce

[fathom]

Ozzie Ball worked in 2005 not because of the offense, but because of the pitching. If your bullpen is absolutely unhittable and your starting pitching dominant during the first few months of the year, scoring 3 runs can win you a lot of games.

[fathom]

So who would rather have Theriot as that starting SS over Ramirez?

 

Any volunteers.

 

I will never, ever say that.

 

In a heartbeat

[Jordan4life_2007]

If it makes you both feel any better, your both wrong. As far as pure for pure talent.. (and I mean talent/upside/potential/even youth) the Tigers are the best. That doesn't mean they will all realize it however just because they all can hit 98+ with sick breaking pitches.

 

They're right there. But I'm looking at RIGHT NOW. Not potential. And not "IF" so and so is healthy when they haven't been for multiple years (Putz, Zumaya). That's why I think it's the Dodgers.

[The Ginger Kid]

ozzie never said he didn't want guys who hit homeruns, he doesn't want to rely on it solely. He's frequently said he wants guys who can avg. 20-25 throughout the lineup instead of one or two with 40-50.

[ThunderBolt]

ozzie never said he didn't want guys who hit homeruns, he doesn't want to rely on it solely. He's frequently said he wants guys who can avg. 20-25 throughout the lineup instead of one or two with 40-50.

"I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs-" Ozzie Guillen.

[Balta1701]

In a heartbeat

 

You'd be complaining constantly about how we needed to upgrade from our weak hitting SS.

[fathom]

 

You'd be complaining constantly about how we needed to upgrade from our weak hitting SS.

 

Yeah, since I never say that I think Theriot does a great job of hitting tough pitching and always starts late rallies for the Cubs. He's a bad fielder, but I don't think Alexei is very special over at SS either. Give me the guy who makes consistent contact, and isn't a liability for the first two months of the season.

[caulfield12]

They're right there. But I'm looking at RIGHT NOW. Not potential. And not "IF" so and so is healthy when they haven't been for multiple years (Putz, Zumaya). That's why I think it's the Dodgers.

'

Zumaya, for all his 99-101 heat, often becomes a one pitch pitcher. Wasn't it Swisher who tagged him for a loss....he's crippled when he gets behind in the count and walks too many.

 

They also lost Lyon and Rodney had filthy stuff when he was on.

 

Perry's talented, but I can't say I would project him to be remarkably better than Pena or Santos. He throws HARD (93-97), but not like Zumaya. If Zumaaya was THAT good, wouldn't they have given him the closer's role? Mentally, Zumaya is a bit soft, he reminds me of Carlos Zambrano for some reason, very fragile guy emotionally. Up and down rollercoaster with him, even moreso than Jenks.

 

Valverde>Jenks (slight edge)

Thornton kicks Phil Coke's ass and hands it back to him effortlessly (BIG ADVANTAGE)

Fu-Te Ni>Williams (but still like a healthy Threets showing moderate command)

Ryan Perry=Putz (when healthy, I'd take experience and overall arsenal of JJ in a heartbeat)

Zumaya=Santos (I would only trade for Zumaya if Cooper was my pitching coach)

Pena>Eddie Bonine (not close on talent)

Linebrink>Brad Thomas (LHP, not as familiar with Thomas, but Linebrink two seasons ago was best RH set-up guy in AL for 3 months)

 

In summary, Cooper working with Zumaya, Perry and Valverde...good results! Having Zumaya and Ryan Perry would be tempting, for sure, for Hanging with Mr. Cecil Cooper.

 

But Zumaya has always been something of an underachieve, like Matt Anderson.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2010 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Yeah, since I never say that I think Theriot does a great job of hitting tough pitching and always starts late rallies for the Cubs. He's a bad fielder, but I don't think Alexei is very special over at SS either. Give me the guy who makes consistent contact, and isn't a liability for the first two months of the season.

 

Do you also want Erstad/Mackowiak/Byrnes as your OF, Aaron Miles/Getz at 2B and Bobby Hill/Kevin Orie/Gary Scott at 3B?

 

JUST JOSHING YOU. (Who's that other Cubs' "grindy" 2B/3B who was so good in 2008 but has faded since then?)

 

Joking....I will always go with the better athlete with the potential to be a difference maker at a premium position.

 

Alexei carried the Sox for two months in 2008, he can find that form again imo. To be an elite or dominant defender and combination of speed and power. And he's in the prime age years of his career. And he has a bargain-basement contract that affords our payroll some breathing room.

Edited April 26, 2010 by caulfield12

[elrockinMT]

As I said in the GT yesterday, the words "Ozzie ball" should be banished forever. We were an "Ozzie ball" team for exactly half a season in 2005 when Podsednik was getting on base at a .380 clip and stealing bases like nobody's business.

 

 

And now he's gone. We need another big bat

[Kalapse]

Well, the thing is...if you have players on base a lot more, you have a lot more chances to get a hit with RISP. I mean, a good average with RISP would be .300, right? So 70% of the time you are failing. And if you have a lot less chances with a runner in scoring position, that 70% seems a lot worse. Kalapse had a great stat that almost seems obvious, but the teams that typically have the highest # of men LOB are usually good offenses in runs scored. It's all about creating a lot of chances in a game. Not executing 100% of the time, because in the MLB that isn't realistic. (or even 50% if that seems too hyperbolic)

That's all Joe Pos. I just love this this segment right here it's really the reason why he's so awesome, what he's saying is so basic but very very true:

 

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/03/15...-damon-detroit/

Fewest Left on Base: 951 wins, 1322 losses, .418 winning percentage (Also: 157 ties).

 

I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising … after all, leaving men on base means that you are GETTING people on base. But when I ran these numbers, I was surprised. I was really surprised. Maybe it’s because we have it jammed down our throats that you can’t win when you are leaving players on base. You have to take advantage of your opportunities!

 

But what this stat tells me is that scoring runs more about creating opportunities than cashing in on them — I think this takes us back to the whole RBI discussion. The RBI is a tempting stat to love because it feels tangible and heroic — to score runs, you usually need to someone to drive ‘em in. But what the numbers consistently seem to show is that if you create enough opportunities, SOMEONE is going to drive in those runs.

 

And if you don’t create as many or more opportunities as your opponent — no player and no team is consistently clutch enough to make up for that gap. Not over a long season. My evolving theory about baseball is like my evolving theory about life. Sure, there are heroics in baseball and in life. But you can’t count on ‘em. You’re better off banging on a lot of doors.

 

Five teams in 2009 left 17 men on base — that was the most in a game. Four of those teams won.

 

He wrote this a month ago but in my mind it basically explains why Ryan Howard just got 125 million dollars, those RBI totals weigh heavy in a lot of minds. Well, you really should have incredible RBI totals when you hit 40+ HR a year and consistently have great OBP guys in front of you.

[caulfield12]

For example, the 2008 White Sox were much better than 2008 Twins....but their overall BARISP, especially in late innings....almost did us in. That's the one thing that stuck out to me the most about that season, and the fact they were so clutch at home.

 

They were insanely good, as bad as we were last year and this year with RISP or in late inning, "clutch" comebacks. WE almost NEVER came back from behind in the late innings in 2009. We've done it 3-4 times already this year, which is a GREAT sign of resilience and team character/chemistry IMO.

 

But what happened to our "clutchability/spurtability" offensively at USCF last year? That's a HUGE mystery for KW and the FO (Gellinger/Hahn, etc.) to solve from a strategic standpoint. It wasn't lower attendance numbers decreasing homefield advantage, that's a stupid and idiotic excuse.

 

Look at Beckham's home and road splits, for example.

 

NOTE TO KW: We could have had Fred Lewis for a LOT cheaper price than Juan Pierre. And signed another hitter w/ the savings. And more players like Adam Lind would be helpful, the most underrated hitter in baseball, or most unknown close to great hitter.

Edited April 26, 2010 by caulfield12

[bmags]

I've read your post 4 times and i have no idea what you are talking about.

 

edit: to caulfield.

Edited April 27, 2010 by bmags

[daggins]

For example, the 2008 White Sox were much better than 2008 Twins....but their overall BARISP, especially in late innings....almost did us in. That's the one thing that stuck out to me the most about that season, and the fact they were so clutch at home.

 

They were insanely good, as bad as we were last year and this year with RISP or in late inning, "clutch" comebacks. WE almost NEVER came back from behind in the late innings in 2009. We've done it 3-4 times already this year, which is a GREAT sign of resilience and team character/chemistry IMO.

 

But what happened to our "clutchability/spurtability" offensively at USCF last year? That's a HUGE mystery for KW and the FO (Gellinger/Hahn, etc.) to solve from a strategic standpoint. It wasn't lower attendance numbers decreasing homefield advantage, that's a stupid and idiotic excuse.

 

Look at Beckham's home and road splits, for example.

 

NOTE TO KW: We could have had Fred Lewis for a LOT cheaper price than Juan Pierre. And signed another hitter w/ the savings. And more players like Adam Lind would be helpful, the most underrated hitter in baseball, or most unknown close to great hitter.

 

Basically we didn't have very many good baseball players in 2009. We seem to have more in 2010.

 

Also I think Josh Willingham is maybe the most overlooked very good hitter. Lind is getting there though.

[The Ginger Kid]

"I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs-" Ozzie Guillen.

which basically has nothing to do with what I posted

[caulfield12]

I've read your post 4 times and i have no idea what you are talking about.

 

edit: to caulfield.

 

And if you don’t create as many or more opportunities as your opponent — no player and no team is consistently clutch enough to make up for that gap. Not over a long season. My evolving theory about baseball is like my evolving theory about life. Sure, there are heroics in baseball and in life. But you can’t count on ‘em. You’re better off banging on a lot of doors.

 

I was responding to Joe Posnanski, my old friend with the Augusta Chronicle and all-around good guy. Specifically, the Twins were ALMOST able to compensate for having an inferior team to the White Sox by being the most "clutch" team in baseball in 2008.

 

Sorry for not clue-ing you in.

[caulfield12]

which basically has nothing to do with what I posted

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Obviously.