A Fan Writes In On the Subject of the Sox
by Asher B. Chancey, Baseball Evolution
March 19, 2006
Gregory - Hello Asher. I'm a fan of your site, and I stumbled across [the Rowand article] through Scott, who's a friend of mine.
Being a Chicago Cubs fan, I don't think you fully appreciate the nuances of the 2005 White Sox team and that leads you to be a tad inaccurate in your analysis. This is, particularly, what I refer to:
"This seems to be a move which stands in direct contrast to the reason proffered by so many for the White Sox success this year. The Sox have eliminated speed and defense in exchange for power, the reverse of the very formula which so many have said is the reason they won the World Series this year. Remember the Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik trade? Remember not re-signing Magglio Ordonez? This team won with a defense that backed up its pitching, and hitters who could move around the bases and take an extra base when necessary. Simply trading Thomas' injured righty bat for Thome's injured lefty bat can't make up for Rowand's speed and defense in centerfield, can it?"
I do indeed remember these trades, being a huge fan of them. You are correct to a point in regard to the italicized portion, except that it doesn't fully do the White Sox justice. The 2005 Chicago White Sox were not a total Small Ball team -- they had one more homerun overall than the "Big Hitting" Boston Red Sox, for one thing. Their speed was an integral portion, absolutely, but they could swing the bat and well, too, especially considering that they only had one real slugger (Konerko).
But let's look at the underlined portion of your statement that strikes me as unneccessarily dire and analytically inaccurate. Surely you were using the literary tool known as "exaggeration" when making that point. Scott Podsednik is still their leadoff man, and the last that I checked he was quite a speedy player. If he happens to go down to injury, Rob Macowiak is there to back him up, and he's no Paul Slonerko on the basepaths. Juan Uribe is speedy enough, and he's being moved to the second spot -- where he did very well in 2004 -- and so speed is still there, too. Thome, Konerko and Dye are still on the team, and while they've never been called speed freaks, Dye can steal the occasional base when he needs to and the other two players are not there for speed -- they're there to swing. But Thome isn't a slouch -- and while I'm not saying he'll get a stolen base this year (highly unlikely!) but that he can hustle. He's gotten a triple and several doubles this Spring Training, so he's not half-assing his baserunning.
Next we've got Iguchi, who is fast as well, and he is there at the sixth spot. He can steal if needed, and now he's in a spot where he can swing the bat more. He's easily a better fit at his spot than he was at second, because he's a slugger and sluggers shouldn't be put into the spot where he was before. Uribe, on the other hand, has started to show some serious patience, and I think he'll stun people with how well he does in the number two spot. After Iguchi, we've got AJ Pierzynski and Joe Crede -- two players who are still there, last I checked, and so there's no downgrade there. Pierzynski can steal and he can run. Crede's not any more unrealiable in regard to running than last year.
So where on Earth is the huge downgrade you're talking about -- is it the fact that we no longer have Everett, who is faster than Thome? Because if that's the point, that's nonsense as Everett's bat was cold for quite a bit of the second half, and Thome's not likely to play like that. Oh! I see your point. Aaron Rowand, who is oh so renowned as the world's greatest baserunner!, is no longer with the team and that represents a sacrifice of the team's very heart and soul, its formula for victory. Except that it doesn't. Brian Anderson's bat may fall a bit short of Rowand's or he may heat up even more, depending on how well he adapts. Anderson's about as fast as Rowand, and his bat's the biggest variable. As far as fielding, it's not as if suddenly, because Rowand's gone, no one's going to catch the ball in centerfield. I'll miss Rowand, but Anderson's no slouch, and you're quite wrong because of your pessimism in this paragraph:
"Rowand was the White Sox starting centerfielder in 2005, with an above average range factor, and he committed only 3 errors all season. Further, the White Sox pitching staff had a very good year, in which each starting pitcher over-achieved. None of these guys had a particularly dominant, as their K/BB ratios were average to poor, and two of them tied for league lead in wild pitches, which to me is a sign that the defense behind them was a significant factor in their success. Rowand's hitting stats this season were fairly lousy, that much is for sure, but it should not overshadow what he meant to the team defensively."
Conteras overachieved? Buehrle? Garland? Garcia? We'll get to that in a second -- oh, believe you me, we'll get to that! Rowand's going to be missed by me -- I miss him already! -- but Anderson's a young, healthy, solid player. It's not a Cancer in our Clubhouse to replace Rowand with Anderson, who is simply Rowand-young.
Contreras didn't "overachieve" last year. He went about three months with the hottest pitches in baseball. In the second half, he was utterly dominant, better than anyone except possibly Santana. I fully expect Jose to continue that, because he finally worked out how to pitch. Besides, he and the rest of the starters are going to have more run support. As far as the other pitchers -- Garland cooled in the second half because, I think, he had much less run support when Everett was failing all over the plate, Podsednik was injured, and the offense was playing poorly. Buehrle did, too. As far as Garcia, he was a bit rough last year at the end, but Garcia's a consistently good player, and if his showing in the WBC is any example, he'll be very good this year. Buehrle's not a fluke pitcher -- he is consistently solid, and he's young. He's a workhorse.
Your implication, to me, is that their pitchers were lucky and can't be counted on. Well, the Sox now have McCarthy ready to take a spot in the top five at any moment, and he's a star. He's young with rough edges, but he's perfectly capable of stepping in and being a number three, number four starter on just about any team. But you ignore the greatest improvement to the 2005 White Sox: Javier Vazquez, who pitched beautifully in the WBC, too.
So, after all that, tell me where the significant downgrades are.
-Gregory
PS: I don't intend to come off as brash or combative. I am disagreeing with you and making an argument, and I've done it as respectfully as I can. I hope I haven't offended you. And on that note, you can post our email dialogue on BE if you wish to, once we're done. Finally, I'm sorry that this is a reply to an old article, but this is still relevant, I feel, and I barely stumbled across your thoughts, so...yeah.
Asher - Greg,
As for your last point, if you are a friend of Scott's, then I will take nothing you say as "brash" or "harsh," because we debate each other on the topic of baseball with fierceness.
As for your deriding my point, I think you took it too literally. "The Sox have eliminated speed and defense in exchange for power, the reverse of the very formula which so many have said is the reason they won the World Series this year."
When I said "eliminated speed and defense," I didn't mean ALL speed and defense. There are still very good speedsters and very good defenders on that team. What I mean is that the White Sox took speed and defense in the form of Aaron Rowand and exchanged it for power in the form of Jim Thome.
You asked "So where on Earth is the huge downgrade you're talking about?" It is right where I said it was - trading the best defensive centerfielder in baseball for a power hitting first baseman. In another move, the White Sox did not resign Frank Thomas, who is also a power hitting first baseman, so really they are where they were already (Konerko plus another power hitting first baseman) except now they don't have Rowand (the best defensive centerfielder in the league).
Forget heart and soul - defense in centerfield is hugely important to a pitching staff. I made my statements about Rowand's defense before I got my copy of the Fielding Bible. The Fielding Bible shows Rowand to be an even better centerfielder than I thought he was. I hope Anderson will be an adequate replacement. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
Then, you acted incredulous when I said the pitching staff overacheived. "Conteras overachieved? Buehrle? Garland? Garcia?"
Um, yes, kinda, yes, and yes. First of all, all four of these guys had at or near their career best season in 2005, a slight indication of overachievement. I will excuse Buerhle, because he is clearly legit.
Contreras - he got hot in the second half, which is overachievement. He improved in almost every category last season after being not good in 2004. Your guess for the turnaround is as good as mine, but if you think the defense behind him had nothing to do with it, you are being silly.
Garcia - For the fourth year in a row, Garcia was mediocre, but his W-L percentage was pretty good. Over-achievement. His ERA compared to the league went down, as did his K/BB, and he gave up plenty of dingers. He went 14-8, which is better than one would have expect a pitcher with his stats to go.
Garland - You would have to be blind to not Jon Garland as an overachiever last season. He was a dead on average pitcher the last three year, .500 record with a league average ERA, and he had a bust out season. Is this the beginning of a new era for Garland, where he goes from mediocre to outstanding? Maybe. Is it possible that he had a really good year, but overachieved a bit? Definitely.
Orlando Hernandez - well, he's gone, but he was also an overachiever.
I giggled to myself when you offered performance in the WBC as evidence of how these guys are going to do this year.
McCarthy is a stud - I like him a lot. He will also be 22 and in his second year in the bigs. Is he ready? I think so, but stranger things have happened than 22 year hotties not being ready.
As for Vazquez, well we don't know what to expect, do we? He could be the bad-ass that he was in Montreal in 2003, or he could be the mediocre league average guy we saw in New York and Arizona the last two years. He sure does give up a lot of longballs.
In conclusion, I like the White Sox this year, and I think they will finish second in the division. However, I just thought it was funny that the White Sox looked for ways to improve their team, and they came up with tossing their centerfielder in favor of another powerful bat, which was reversing field from exactly the types of moves that got them to the top.
Essentially, I was surprised by how good the Sox were last year, and I am not convinced that it wasn't a fluke.
As for you taking me to task for "Your implication, to me, is that their pitchers were lucky and can't be counted on," all I can is . . . . there is no shortage of literature around right now that indicates that pitchers are exactly that - lucky. More to the point, that a large part of a pitcher's success is the defense behind them, that whether a batted ball becomes a hit has less to do with the pitcher and more to with the fielders behind them. It is why pitchers on the Yankees often do more poorly than they do for other teams. And, to me, it is why the White Sox staff was more successful with Podesednik, Rowand, and Dye in 2005 than they had been with Lee, Everett, and Ordonez in 2003.
The point of my article was to point out that "the little things" that the White Sox were so well known for in 2005 included things like outfield defense, and the White Sox moved away from that big time with the Rowand trade.
The other point is, everyone in the world thinks the Sox will repeat, and I don't think it is that clear.
Gregory - Asher,
I'm pleasantly surprised to see that you consider Aaron Rowand the best Defensive Center Fielder in the Game. I think so, too, and I believe that the Phillies are going to be in excellent shape next year. That division is going to be one hell of a division, between the Mets and the Braves and the Phillies.
Your point that the White Sox "took speed and defense in the form of Aaron Rowand and exchanged it for power in the form of Jim Thome" is still very much a flawed statement. While they were literally traded for one another, Thome is a replacement for Everett/Thomas, and Anderson is the replacement for Rowand. I don't know for sure if Rowand's faster than Anderson, but I do know that their difference isn't significant enough to warrant the alarm your article implies.
Your next point is not only flawed but laughable: "In another move, the White Sox did not resign Frank Thomas, who is also a power hitting first baseman, so really they are where they were already (Konerko plus another power hitting first baseman) except now they don't have Rowand (the best defensive centerfielder in the league)."
Frank Thomas was a first baseman? For one thing, Thomas spends far too much time on the Disabled List to be validly considered a First Baseman. For another, Thomas is always injured, and so they're not where they were before. They've now got a batter who has almost always been healthy, and who can knock a ball to hell and back reliably. Not only that, but they've signed a guy who gets along with everyone who can also spell Konerko at first base every so often.
That is far more than could be said for Thomas.
I very much know that Defense in Centerfield is of incredible importance, and I've always thought Rowand an all-star defensively. I can't credibly state that Anderson is going to, at least, keep the White Sox going strong, because the season's not started, but I'm willing to state that the downgrade from Rowand to Anderson won't be too drastic. It kind of makes me think of a Jermaine Dye/Magglio Ordonez situation. Is it a downgrade? Sure. But not particularly significant.
It's nice to see that we won't be arguing over the Merits of Mark Buehrle.
Contreras was hot in the Second Half, and you call that "overachievement." I'll tell you what. Let's not go around in circles over this -- if Contreras keeps it up, he wasn't "overachieving." If he doesn't, then you're right and he got through the second half in a fluke. Does that sound fair enough?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that thinking "the defense behind him" to have nothing to do with Contreras victories would be silly, but I never said that it didn't have anything to do with it. Defense certainly does, and the Chicago White Sox had, arguably, the best overall defense last year (Juan Uribe is, for my money, the most underrated defensive shortstop). But these very same defenders were standing behind Jon Garland, Orlando Hernandez, Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia, who weren't as hot as Contreras. Contreras victories had to do with his attacking the Strike Zone and becoming a bit more aggressive on that mound more than anything else.
Given your ability to argue honestly on an intellectual level, I'll do the same. Garcia overachieved, I think. His stuff was probably the weakest of all the Sox starters. But, as a caveat, let me state that Garcia is a solid pitcher, I think, and he can eat away innings well while putting up decent stats. I think he can be counted on to even top his last season, but you're right, I fear, that he overachieved last year.
Jon Garland had a breakthrough season last year. Garland is young, and he's got a new manager with more excellent pitchers to mentor him, such as Buehrle. I think he's going to keep up what he did last year. The shift from Jerry Manuel to Ozzie Guillen is undoubtedly positive for him, as is the relationship with AJ Pierzynski.
Orlando Hernandez was an overachiever, sure. He's old as hell and has injury issues. I didn't count him in my incredulous response to your argument that they all "overachieved," however, and so it doesn't matter. I do know that his heroics in Game Three against the Boston Red Sox rival any other moment in baseball for me as far as drama and suspense go.
Why is it amusing to you that my statements regarding the WBC were offered? I didn't say definitively, and I fully understand that the hitters are currently behind the pitchers, but I was merely pointing out that the solid pitching displayed last year is still on display in Freddy Garcia, and in Javier Vazquez.
Quite an outrageous, ridiculous statement I made there. I'm sure I pulled that one out of my ass!
McCarthy isn't ready, in my view. I think he could use the extra year in the bullpen and possibly spend time in Triple A again, or bouncing back and forth. If the Sox have to use him, I think he'll be good enough for the team, but I'd rather give him one more year to train and get ready.
Scott and I were talking about Vazquez, and agreed that he has minor head issues. I think, however, that the Sox can take him and fix him up, head-wise. They did it for Contreras, and I believe they did it with Garland. Vazquez will be fine, and I'm heartened by his showing in the Classic.
The White Sox will be Second in their Division? Ha! You're thinking of the wrong Chicago team and the wrong central division, and probably the wrong placing, too. The Indians are weaker than they were last year, Kansas City is Kansas City, Detroit doesn't have what it takes, and the Twins don't have the pitching depth behind Santana.
The type of moves that got the White Sox to the top involve pitching. If they were still carrying James Baldwin, they'd have never gotten anywhere. "I just thought it was funny that the White Sox looked for ways to improve their team, and they came up with tossing their centerfielder in favor of another powerful bat, which was reversing field from exactly the types of moves that got them to the top."
I consider that to be inaccurate. They have a similar center fielder in the wings and replaced mediocre DHs with a solid one. You're certainly exaggerating the difference.
As for your taking me to task here:
"As for you taking me to task for "Your implication, to me, is that their pitchers were lucky and can't be counted on," all I can is . . . . there is no shortage of literature around right now that indicates that pitchers are exactly that - lucky. More to the point, that a large part of a pitcher's success is the defense behind them, that whether a batted ball becomes a hit has less to do with the pitcher and more to with the fielders behind them. It is why pitchers on the Yankees often do more poorly than they do for other teams. And, to me, it is why the White Sox staff was more successful with Podesednik, Rowand, and Dye in 2005 than they had been with Lee, Everett, and Ordonez in 2003."
There's no shortage of literature arguing that the Chicago Cubs are going to win the World Series each year, or that the Atlanta Braves are finally -- THIS YEAR!! -- due to fall. There's plenty of literature arguing that the Holocaust isn't real, that computers are the devils work, and that Bernie Williams doesn't suck....well, no. On that last one, there ISN'T a lot of literature. But you get the point! ;)
Clearly the Pods, Rowand Dye outfield was very successful. But, to beat a dead Cub, I'd like to stress that Anderson's not going to be that much of a downgrade. I don't think he's rookie of the year caliber, but I think he'll do fine. I know you aren't keen on him, going so far as to draw parallels between him and Corey Patterson, but I'd argue that even if Anderson's batting is weak, his defense will be okay. I dispute your statement that the White Sox "moved away" from their reputation by trading Rowand because Anderson is...well, yeah. You and I know what my point there is, and we will have to wait and see, won't we?
Everyone in the world thinks the Sox will repeat? What? Where on Earth have you been? What people have you met? The only universal, re: the Sox that I know of, is that they will win the Division, but I'm not aware of very many people who are calling the Sox a lock for winning again. I'm of that opinion, sure, but I'm not sure how many other "experts" and the like are.
-Gregory Pratt
Asher - Greg,
Let me be clear - I am a diehard Cubs fan, but I am not from Chicago, so I have never been party to the Cubs vs. White Sox friction. I am actually a big White Sox fan. I was all about the Sox after the drafted Ventura, Thomas, and Alex Fernandez in consecutive years. I was big on Greg Walker and Harold Baines and Carlton Fisk in the 1980s, and I picked the White Sox to win their division for two straight years before they actually did it.
You seemed to think I was biased. But I disgress . . .
"For one thing, Thomas spends far too much time on the Disabled List to be validly considered a First Baseman. For another, Thomas is always injured, and so they're not where they were before."
Um, those are the same point, yes?
"Not only that, but they've signed a guy . . . who can also spell Konerko at first base every so often."
Um, Frank Thomas can spell Konerko at first base "every so often" too, I think. When healthy, Thomas regularly plays first "every so often."
Pop Quiz - if Frank Thomas and Jim Thome, which player missed most of last year due to injury? Both of them. Which player is allegedly fully healthy and ready to go this season? Both of them. Both healthy, which player would I rather have? Thomas.
"Contreras was hot in the Second Half, and you call that "overachievement." I'll tell you what. Let's not go around in circles over this -- if Contreras keeps it up, he wasn't "overachieving." If he doesn't, then you're right and he got through the second half in a fluke. Does that sound fair enough? "
I don't know why you don't get that being hotter than you've ever been for a half a season is over-achieving. Just like Esteban Loiaza over-achieved the year he was with the Sox. But, what you said is EXACTLY how I feel, so yes, fair enough.
"Jon Garland had a breakthrough season last year. Garland is young, and he's got a new manager with more excellent pitchers to mentor him, such as Buehrle. I think he's going to keep up what he did last year. The shift from Jerry Manuel to Ozzie Guillen is undoubtedly positive for him, as is the relationship with AJ Pierzynski. "
I have considered those possibilities. I think they are more coincidence than anything else. Garland was not mounting up to this point - he was exactly the same for three years, and then BAM, an All Star. Fluke, though like you said, lets not go round in circles over this - let's see what happens.
"Why is it amusing to you that my statements regarding the WBC were offered? I didn't say definitively, and I fully understand that the hitters are currently behind the pitchers, but I was merely pointing out that the solid pitching displayed last year is still on display in Freddy Garcia, and in Javier Vazquez."
Its kind of like saying that some one is good because of how well they did in the All Star game. The WBC means very little, I think. But a meaningless point either way.
As for the "no shortage of literature" thing, I am not talking about Right Wing Wackos, Talk Radio Shock Jocks, or Street & Smith's. I am talking about Bill James, SABRmetricians, and the like. There is a very interesting concept called Defense Independant Pitching Stats which is all the rage in baseball right now that you should check out - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878. The theory is straight forward, and it will kind of explain where I am coming from.
There is no shortage of literature on lots of things, I suppose, so I apologize for my sloppy word usage.
"Scott and I were talking about Vazquez, and agreed that he has minor head issues. I think, however, that the Sox can take him and fix him up, head-wise. They did it for Contreras, and I believe they did it with Garland. Vazquez will be fine, and I'm heartened by his showing in the Classic."
Keith and I were talking, and we decided that it may be that pitchers need one full season to comeback from being a Yankees pitcher, kind of like how you need a season and a half to come back from Tommy John surgery. So, this should be Vazquez's year. But you know what? Dwight Gooden was whole lot better than Javier Vazquez early in their respective careers, and Gooden's last good season was 1990, at the age of 25. Vazquez may never make it back. Of course, Vazquez is probably not hooked on cocaine either.
"The White Sox will be Second in their Division? Ha! You're thinking of the wrong Chicago team and the wrong central division, and probably the wrong placing, too. The Indians are weaker than they were last year, Kansas City is Kansas City, Detroit doesn't have what it takes, and the Twins don't have the pitching depth behind Santana."
That assessment is very typical of what lots of people have been saying. I disagree with it. I think the Indians underachieved last year, and the young Indians team is another year older and more mature. But you can read my Indians preview for more on that.
"Everyone in the world thinks the Sox will repeat? What? Where on Earth have you been? What people have you met? "
Well, I am not in Chicago (I am in Alexandria, VA), but I have purchased three baseball preview magazines, and a baseball almanac, and I have been reading mlb.com, and most of what I am hearing is "The White Sox won the World Series, and then only got better." Sorry, but I have met no one who agrees with me that the White Sox have taken a step backwards.
Ah, you've been judged by Scott. Welcome to the club (that was a joke).
Gregory -
You're a Cubs fan, but you're not from Chicago? Does that make you retarded, as well? I'm only teasing.....to a point! ;)
Robin Ventura is my all-time favorite player. But as to thinking you were biased, I thought it played some role, but I don't genuinely think you're prejudiced or anything, mate.
Yes, I made the same point twice. I apologize for sloppiness in a rush. Thomas, however, is far less likely than Thome to spell Konerko because Thomas is very poor at it, and he just might break his foot or something, since his injuries always relate to his lower body.
"Pop Quiz - if Frank Thomas and Jim Thome, which player missed most of last year due to injury? Both of them. Which player is allegedly fully healthy and ready to go this season? Both of them. Both healthy, which player would I rather have? Thomas."
Fair enough that you'd prefer the Big Hurt. But let me just say that Thome is not a career injury player, and Thomas has spent the last several years injuring himself. Thome is far more believable to me because he's not spent much of his career injured, whereas Thomas has. Thome is doing beautifully in Spring Training and looks and plays well. Thomas? Well, he's still warming up with nets because his trainers are worried he might, I don't know, hurt himself farting.
Okay, we've agreed to get back one day to Contreras at the end of the year. I will say, that if he gets traded, which seems likely, I rescind my statements about him. How he does with, I don't know, NYY isn't how I'm predicting. I'm predicting how he'll do with the Sox for one more year. What's the distinction? AJ Pierzynski and Don Cooper, Ozzie Guillen and the other starters.
On that note, Pierzynski is the reason, I believe, that the Sox pitching broke through so well and that they'll continue to soar.
We'll take the same wait-to-see-who-laughs-last approach to Garland, too.
The World Baseball Classic isn't the same as the All-Star Game. The players have far more passion for it, you know that. The players playing were giving it their all, except for about half of the American team (the other half, like Clemens and Chipper Jones, like Veritek, played like it were game seven of the WS).
Vazquez may be hooked on cocaine -- hey, that's how it goes! Maybe that's why he's so erratic! :D
I read your Indians preview. I thought it was wrong as hell. ;)
Arguing that the White Sox got better doesn't mean they were picked to repeat, mate.
Asher - WHOOOAAAAA!!!!!!
WHOOOOOOOAAAAAAA!!!!
The end all be all, the statement to end all statements-->
"Pierzynski is the reason, I believe, that the Sox pitching broke through so well and that they'll continue to soar."
Allow me to say . . . whoa!
After A.J. left Minnesota, the team's ERA dropped from 4.41 to 4.03, or from five percent better than league to 17 percent better than league.
The year he joined the Giants, their team ERA went from 3.73, 15 percent better than league, to 4.29, 2 percent better than league.
I see NOTHING in his career to indicate that the White Sox rotation's success was a result of A.J. Pierzynski.
. . . . .
I love that Ventura is your favorite player. I was a big Ventura fan. Remember when Nolan Ryan beat the crap out of him?
My affinity for the Cubs would only affect my rating of the Cardinals, and I have picked them when no one else would, so go figure.
"Arguing that the White Sox got better doesn't mean they were picked to repeat, mate."
Well, if they won it all last year, and only got better, I am led to only one possible conclusion . . . .
Gregory -
Statistics don't measure everything. AJ Pierzynski gets along well with the pitchers, they rarely call him off on pitches (Buehrle and Garland, for instance, apparently only did it once) and he's reliable. It's a chemistry they have.
Pierzynski was Public Enemy number one in San Francisco, unfairly I believe, and in Minnesota -- well, I don't have an explanation except that, perhaps, his fielders and he weren't as loose with each other.
I wasn't around when Ryan beat the crap out of Ventura, or not old enough to notice it, but I do know about that, sure. .________________.
Do you remember when the Chicago Cubs were Six Out Away from the World Series?
Are you being daffy on purpose with this: ""Arguing that the White Sox got better doesn't mean they were picked to repeat, mate." Well, if they won it all last year, and only got better, I am led to only one possible conclusion . . . ."
That other teams might've gotten better, too? That on-paper baseball rotations and lineups don't equate to victory? That acknowledging assumed approvement isn't the equivelant of picking them to win it all? :P
Asher - Yes, I am sure that a catcher that usually has a negative, if any at all, impact on his pitching staff suddenly became boy wonder with pitchers last season.
Chemistry? Chemistry. Chemistry is a code word for "no proof whatsoever."
"Do you remember when the Chicago Cubs were Six Out Away from the World Series?"
When that play happened, I called a buddy and said it was over, that this was not the type of thing that teams recover from, and that the Marlins were going to the World Series. Somethings are just clear as day.
That on-paper baseball rotations and lineups don't equate to victory? That acknowledging assumed approvement isn't the equivelant of picking them to win it all?
"Are you being daffy on purpose"
No, all I am saying is that everyone I hear talking says that the Sox are headed back. Except, of course, for the idiots who think that the Red Sox winning in 2004 and the White Sox winning in 2005 OBVIOUSLY means it is the Cubs in 2006, with nothing to support it at all.
Gregory - You and I clearly differ in regard to Chemistry. It's always good to have a Catcher who you can trust and feel you can count on, and AJ is that guy for a lot of the starters. I would think that for Garland, especially, that would do a lot.
Asher - No, Chemistry is definitely important. I would just like to see some sort of evidence that Pierzynski has EVER had chemistry anywhere else ever.
You act like A.J. "handles pitchers" well, when really you are saying that he is "buddies with the pitchers," and them getting along is why the Sox did so well. Now, the fact that they had ONE catcher instead of a whole slew like two years ago probably helped, but the fact that they were "buddies" with A.J. . . . not so much.
Gregory - Who gives a shit if AJ didn't have chemistry elsewhere? When someone gets married, do you say to them, "Well, maybe you two are happy, but do you have proof that you've ever had chemistry with someone else?" It's irrelevant that AJ didn't get along particularly well in Frisco. He does with the Sox, and a few of them have said they're glad he has been around. Garland has been fond of saying that, and Guillen loves singling him out for praise.
He's handled the Sox pitchers well, is my point, behind the scenes and off. I cited the example where they haven't had to shake him off.
Asher - You analogy to getting married is, um, silly.
If A.J. gets along with his pitchers, then that is great. I just don't see how it can be said that he handles them particularly well. Well, let me say that I don't think it can be said that GENERALLY he handles pitchers particularly well. He may, since he is such buddies with these guys, handle them well, but I don't generally see him as a great catcher, and great handler of pitchers, and the reason that they were so good last year.
At the beginning of last season, a bunch of Giants were going around singing the praises of Pedro Feliz, saying that it didn't matter that they didn't have Barry Bonds, because Feliz was so good. Pedro Feliz sucks, regardless of what his teammates say about him.
As far as I am concerned, Ozzie Guillen is a bit of an idiot. Now, I won't argue with results - he won a World Series as a manager, so he deserves his due, but I think he is an idiot. That Ozzie Guillen praises A.J. Pierzynski means squat to me.
But I think we simply disagree on this issue. I think having a consistent catcher at all helped them. That is was A.J. Pierzynski is a coincidence.
Gregory -
I didn't say he handles pitchers in general well, and if I did it was a mistake. AJ handles the Sox staff well is what I meant, and I think it's clear that that was what I meant.
Disagree with something? Got something to add? Wanna bring up something totally new? Asher resides in Alexandria, VA, and can be reached at asher@baseballevolution.com.
