Rios Might Hit 3rd...

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo

Again, it's all situational. It's not a big deal if Dunn strikes out with the bases empty in the first inning. It's a huge deal if he strikes out with two outs in the ninth inning with the tying run at third base.

Exactly

[TDog]

Originally Posted by doublem23

And I would argue anyone who watched the Sox last year and thought "man, this team strikes out too much" has no comprehension of baseball outside of the Sox (and therefore, a distorted view of the game) because the Sox didn't actually strike out that much. Not near the league lead.

The idea that the White Sox struck out too much last season came from the White Sox manager.

[russ99]

Originally Posted by blandman

And going a little further, what you said about sacrificing...the numbers overwhelmingly show that sacrificing an out leads to less overall runs scored. Sure, there are instances where it makes sense to do it (like late in a game for a go ahead run), but there is solid, irrefutable statistics that show giving up outs leads to less runs scored in the long run.

This is where stats are a bit to the detriment of the game. Runs are what count, and in a close/late situation, it's smarter to go for one or two more likely runs than to expect one to appear based on normal at-bats/percentages without strategy. Actions of the players and indirectly, the manager are what drive the game results, not raw percentages.

Yet we all have our preferences. I loved Earl Weaver as a manager, but thought his insistence waiting for a 3 run homer as a bit of stupidity. IMO, sometimes you have to try to make things happen to win.

As for strikeouts the issue here isn't the raw numbers, it's the skill of the players involved. We have too many 3/4 outcome hitters, with a K as one of them.
The amount of times we've struck out are middle of the league, but too often players dig a hole with poor plate patience, poor strike zone judgement and poor situational hitting that a strikeout ends up a more likely occurrence (especially when behind in the count) as a successful at-bat.

If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.

[SI1020]

Originally Posted by russ99

Yet we all have our preferences. I loved Earl Weaver as a manager, but thought his insistence waiting for a 3 run homer as a bit of stupidity. IMO, sometimes you have to try to make things happen to win.

I must have missed that guy because the Earl Weaver I watched and followed was anything but passive. Yes he preferred pitching, defense and the three run homer, but he also like to study stats and trends and use them accordingly. He was a hybrid, part old time baseball man, part ahead of the curve when it came to the use of stats. Earl didn't have a computer and spreadsheets, but he studied his own guys and his opponents. He wasn't above pulling a rabbit out of a hat like he did in this game against our Sox. Was I ever mad. If you weren't paying attention to what you were doing Earl would make you pay.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bo...97908150.shtml

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&pg=845,137344

As a manager Earl Weaver was the total package and his personality and managing style were both forward thinking and aggressive.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by russ99

If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.

How long you been on this board?

[sullythered]

Originally Posted by russ99

If we had guys hitting .300/.390/.600 we wouldn't care if they had 150-200 Ks.

Soooo, striking out is OK, but ONLY i you're Miguel Cabrera. Got it.

[SI1020]

Originally Posted by sullythered

Soooo, striking out is OK, but ONLY i you're Miguel Cabrera. Got it.

I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by SI1020

I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

The point is valid. If a player's production offsets the fact that something good can happen less than 1% of the time when a strikeout occurs, as opposed to the at least 30% of the time (conservative guesstimate) when a ball is hit in play, then so be it. Very few players fall into that category, however, which is why it is beneficial for the vast majority of players to avoid striking out. It is why every single MLB organization works with developing players to reduce their strikeout rates.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by SI1020

I thought his point was a valid one. If you're going to strike out a lot you need to balance that with some serious run production. Like Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome, and Willie Stargell. It's not so great if you're Dave Kingman, Rob Deer or Adam Dunn of recent vintage.

.300/.390/.600 is still pretty over the top expectations

[russ99]

Originally Posted by doublem23

.300/.390/.600 is still pretty over the top expectations

Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by russ99

Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

Between?!?! So you mean to say that if someone posted that slash-line, but struck out more than 150 times, they didn't have a good season?

[sullythered]

Originally Posted by russ99

Well, maybe I put that bar higher than I should.

Somewhere between that and Rios' .304/.334/.516 last season is closer to reality.

Anybody who posted a line better than that would get MVP votes, no matter how many times they struck out.

[PorkChopExpress]

Back to the original thread topic, i.e., Rios hitting third, and/or other suggestions:

Originally Posted by WhiteSoxNation

I'm a fan of....

DeAza<-------Best leadoff since Raines/Durham IMO
Beckham<-----hopefully sees a lot of FBs w/ DeAza onbase.
Paulie<-----Perfect #3, good eye, power, contact, avg....
Dunn<-----"swing bat hard ball go far"
Rios<----Can knock in runs if Dunn Ks......
Keppy<-----like the bat control w/ Rios in front of him.
Ramirez<----back to silver slugger form....I hope....
Viciedo<------30HR from the 8 spot.
Flowers<-------Give me .250/20/60 I'm happy

I'm all for this lineup. If Keppinger must bat 2nd, I would send Beckham to 8th moving the Cubans to 6th and 7th.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Originally Posted by PorkChopExpress

Back to the original thread topic, i.e., Rios hitting third, and/or other suggestions:

I'm all for this lineup. If Keppinger must bat 2nd, I would send Beckham to 8th moving the Cubans to 6th and 7th.

I like Viciedo and Flowers right after Dunn, with Alexei and Beckham 8 and 9. Viciedo and Flowers hit LHP well. Having them follow Dunn might force opposing managers into a conundrum: Do I burn the LOOGY just to face Dunn, and then make another change, or do I keep the RHP in the game to face Dunn?

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by sullythered

Anybody who posted a line better than that would get MVP votes, no matter how many times they struck out.

Hell, Jim Rice made it to COOPERSTOWN with career slashlines of .298/.352/.502