The Man in Blak Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 I won't repost the entire article, but here's the section of interest: Everett is a big fan of the changes general manager Kenny Williams and Guillen have made to a style that will put more emphasis on manufacturing runs instead of depending on the longball. Even though the White Sox set a franchise record with 242 home runs last season, Everett felt that waiting for the 3-run homer helped contribute to the team falling short of getting to the playoffs. "I think a lot of teams depend on power too much," Everett said. "Yeah, the longball, I think, killed us. Trying to hit the home run actually killed us because there were situations when a single would get the guy in. "I think too much is expressed on the home run throughout baseball, period. They say that's what the fans want, but it's not what the teams that are going to win want. I don't agree with the longball as a way to try and win." ... "I've always believed that speed kills," Everett said. "Defenses don't like speed and pitchers don't like speed. "If you have speed on your team you can score from any base. Not too many teams win on home runs. We had a team last year with three or four guys in a row who played station to station. In tight ballgames, you can't win that way." The Yankees also had 242 home runs last year.
Vern Gagne Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 It hasn't worked for the White Sox. May as well try a new approach.
Guest Failed Mascot Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 The Red Sox for a long time built their line-up around the 3-run homer and it wasn't until they emphasised OBP that they were able to win. Main thing is you need guys who can get on base if they don't hit that homer. Chicago didn't have that.
Bored Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 I think their manager's belief in small ball cost the White Sox plenty. They led the league in sacrafice bunts and were second in caught stealing. Also the White Sox offense might not have been quite as powerful as it appeared by playing in the homerun haven that is Comiskey.
Vern Gagne Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 The change is pretty much because the Twins play that style of baseball, and they've won the Central 3 straight seasons.
Bored Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 That's rather pointless since the Twins success has been mainly due to their pitching, in fact the Twins offense was not very good at all last year. But whatever it's Kenny Williams and the White Sox.
The Czech Republic Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 who the hell are the "White Sox."
Guest webmasterofwrestlegame Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 I think you should play a system that suits the players - I don't think it is a matter of one system over another.
The Czech Republic Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 Big boys don't play small ball.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Very funny Czech, but sadly true. God can't the White Sox just disappear and make the Cubs the only team in Chicago. And I'm a White Sox fan!
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 White boys don't play ball in the sun. Edited for accuracy...
The Man in Blak Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Posted January 18, 2005 Here's a couple of numbers that I stole from BTF: Correlation of Home Runs to Wins: 0.441 Correlation of Singles to Wins: 0.197
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 I can't blame the Sox for giving up on the three run homer approach this season, since they got rid of everyone even remotely capable of hitting one. also, KKK's picture made me pee a little.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 I think Everett's been misunderstood here. Of course, the home run is better than the single, no doubt. But when you TRY to hit the home run, it can backfire. Who would you rather have, Ichiro Suzuki or Tony Batista?
Bruiser Chong Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Or just look at the entire 2004 Chicago Cubs.
The Man in Blak Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Posted January 18, 2005 Better question. Who would you rather have - Carlos Lee or Scott Podsednik?
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Carlos Lee, and Ozzie Guillen.
The Man in Blak Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Posted January 18, 2005 Or just look at the entire 2004 Chicago Cubs. It is kind of ironic that both Chicago teams hit a ton of home runs, but didn't have anybody that got on consisently enough to make them really hurt. On top of that, both Chicago teams got hammered by injuries, and didn't have anybody in the bullpen to hold on to the slender lead provided by said home runs. Maybe it's something in the water?
Fuzzy Dunlop Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Or just look at the entire 2004 Chicago Cubs. It is kind of ironic that both Chicago teams hit a ton of home runs, but didn't have anybody that got on consisently enough to make them really hurt. On top of that, both Chicago teams got hammered by injuries, and didn't have anybody in the bullpen to hold on to the slender lead provided by said home runs. Maybe it's something in the water? Also, the Bulls, Bears, and Cubs all had/have great defense and/or pitching, but lack on offense. That's fucking creepy.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Or just look at the entire 2004 Chicago Cubs. It is kind of ironic that both Chicago teams hit a ton of home runs, but didn't have anybody that got on consisently enough to make them really hurt. On top of that, both Chicago teams got hammered by injuries, and didn't have anybody in the bullpen to hold on to the slender lead provided by said home runs. Maybe it's something in the water? Well, the White Sox do have Frank Thomas, and they live and die based on if he's healthy and in the lineup.
Matt Young Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Exactly... That was the White Sox' downfall last season- The long term injuries to Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez. It's all just as well, though, because if they would have stayed healthy, the Sox would've ended up trading away Mags and most of the other good players at the deadline while sitting 3-4 games out of the division lead. God, it's really depressing being a baseball from Illinois who has watched the Cubs and Sox since day 1. At least the Cardinals are good.
The Czech Republic Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 God, it's really depressing being a baseball from Illinois who has watched the Cubs and Sox since day 1. At least the Cardinals are good. This statement is just a big bowl of wrong.
Bruiser Chong Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 The Cubs have offense, they just don't utilize it. When everyone from the leadoff hitter down to the number eight hitter is trying to constantly launch one out of the park, the results aren't pretty. No one really knew their roles last season. You need some established power guys, but you need people ahead of them to strive to get on base for the real damage to be done. Small ball wasn't the answer, but there were so many situations last season where little things would've helped. Getting a basehit, for instance, became an exercise in futility for a lot of the Cubs last year. They lived and died by the longball, which is great when you play in Wrigley and wind's blowing out. It's just a bitch when the wind's blowing in or you've got an ace going up against you.
The Czech Republic Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Yeah, well said. Patterson and Walker are capable of hitting homers, but they don't need to. They just have to get on base for the 3-4-5-maybe6 hitters.
The Czech Republic Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Oh by the way here's how our (!!!! OMG kill me) lineup is looking: 1 CF Patterson 2 2B Walker 3 SS Garciaparra 4 1B Lee 5 RF Sosa 6 3B Ramirez 7 C Barrett 8 LF Hollandsworth 9 Pitcher Umm I'm not as convinced as I ought to be.
sfaJack Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 I'd actually go Ramirez-Lee-Sosa for 4-5-6, but maybe that's just me. I think the Cubs will be ok offensively. They did win 89 games with basically this same lineup last year. Given (hopefully) full seasons from Prior and Wood, they should be the Central favorite. Just need to tweak that bullpen....
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 Oh by the way here's how our (!!!! OMG kill me) lineup is looking: 1 CF Patterson 2 2B Walker 3 SS Garciaparra 4 1B Lee 5 RF Sosa 6 3B Ramirez 7 C Barrett 8 LF Hollandsworth 9 Pitcher Umm I'm not as convinced as I ought to be. Remember that DuBois will play left field much of the time. I know he is not a name to you Cub fans, but he has serious power in his bat. He hit 31 home runs in Iowa last season, and two different projection systems think has can slug .500 in the majors next season. The real problem with the Cubs last year was their lack of OBP (11th in the NL). They finished seventh in the league in runs scored, despite leading the league in home runs, and finishing second in slugging percentage. The biggest problem was lack of bench production. You can live with s guy like Corey Patterson, but you can not tolerate an entire bench of guys like Tom Goodwin, Neifi Perez, Paul Bako, and Jose Macias. Of course, that they re-signed Perez and Macias is a problem, but as long as the lineup stays healthy, I really think the Cubs should win the Central. Most teams in the league don't have an infield as good as Lee, Walker, Garciaparra, and Ramirez. There are few holes in the lineup, the rotation is the best in the league, and while the bullpen is maligned, its not going to kill the team.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 18, 2005 Report Posted January 18, 2005 An added note about the lineup. Alot of people are concerned about Sosa as the clean-up hitter, but most studies and simulations have shown little correlation between runs scored and the batting order.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now