PDA

View Full Version : Girardi Does Not Use Modern Understanding of the Game



rajah
07-06-08, 04:55 PM
I do not know whether Girardi is going to be a successful manager or not. Like Torre he has the advantages of the Y's financial resources. Whether he has the people skills to get the most out of his players is impossible for me to assess from afar, at least at this point. He has made some stupid in-game decisions, but notwithstanding my pique, I think he deserves a chance to improve.

But one thing seems clear and it is disappointing to me: he is clearly not in tune with the modern understanding of the game supported by simple statistical analysis. Two things make this clear to me:

1) His allowing, or perhaps even encouraging, Jeter and others to give away outs early in game with sacrifice bunts.

2) His leading off Gardner in the absence of Damon, rather than moving up Jeter and those who follow and tagging on Gardner at number 9. We all know that it is better to give your better hitters with higher OBP more at bats. That doesn't necessarily mean putting ARod and Giambi, your best sluggers, one and two, but it certainly means that you don't put a new guy who has not yet shown that he is transitioned to the MLB level at number one. Girardi is showing his old school colors doing this. Gardner is fast and takes pitches, so he should lead off, I suppose. But he would be in front of Jeter batting 9th as well.

NYYFAN
07-06-08, 05:30 PM
I agree...

R.V.47
07-06-08, 05:35 PM
What is the modern understanding of the game? What Bill James says it is? The old school approach to baseball still works. If you dont think so just look at some of the past World Series winners. The Red Sox didnt become world beaters until they realized speed and being able to manufacture runs plus great pitching equals championships. For years they put out lumbering slugging offensive clubs they thought would fit Fenway, and never won anything until they added players like Dave Roberts in 04 or Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsubry last year. The White Sox and Angels both won championships with very little offensive firepower but with good fundamentals and managers that understand the little things to win ballgames. Also I dont think I should have to mention that we won 4 championships here with maybe one of the most fundamentally sound teams ever that could manufacture runs better than anyone rather than just rely on home runs. Girardi is of that same ilk and I think he has the right vision for how to win games, he will get more criticism because he is much more proactive than Torre and takes more risks. He has made some mistakes undoubtedly like sitting Abreu and Giambi in favor of inferior right handed hitters but for the most part he has done what he can to help the team win.

destro
07-06-08, 05:38 PM
if you know so much more about the game, how come you aren't managing?

primetime714
07-06-08, 05:44 PM
I disagree. No one on this team is hitting with RISP so he is using small ball to try and produce runs by bunting. And he actually hasn't done this that often.

As for Gardner hitting leadoff, Gardner does fit the profile of a leadoff hitter its just a matter of seeing if he can carry that level of play to the majors. If so he is the best fit in that spot with Damon out. But yea it probably does make a little more sense to put him in the 9 hole until he proves himself.

Yankees1962
07-06-08, 05:48 PM
if you know so much more about the game, how come you aren't managing?
Yup, but he knows the modern understanding of the game unlike Girardi.:)

JDPNYY
07-06-08, 05:55 PM
if you know so much more about the game, how come you aren't managing?

Maybe no one will give him a chance.

NelsonMuntz
07-06-08, 05:57 PM
This is going out of your way to find something to complain about. Jeter is hardly an ideal leadoff hitter with the way he is approaching at bats this season (i.e., his propensity to swing at the first pitch). His OBP is only .345. I know Gardner's OBP is much lower at the moment but he's been incredibly unlucky with balls in play. If we lose a game it is not going to because Gardner batted leadoff.

NYJets37
07-06-08, 06:16 PM
This is going out of your way to find something to complain about. Jeter is hardly an ideal leadoff hitter with the way he is approaching at bats this season (i.e., his propensity to swing at the first pitch). His OBP is only .345. I know Gardner's OBP is much lower at the moment but he's been incredibly unlucky with balls in play. If we lose a game it is not going to because Gardner batted leadoff.

There's a lot of decisions that probably aren't going to be the single reason we'll lose a game, that doesn't mean they aren't the wrong decisions.

Now Gardner has been having good at bats, and he's patient, so I'm not that upset with him hitting leadoff, it could work. But iirc, he's also led off Melky a few games this year despite him having an awful year, which is ridiculous.

ppa79
07-06-08, 06:28 PM
I do not know whether Girardi is going to be a successful manager or not. Like Torre he has the advantages of the Y's financial resources. Whether he has the people skills to get the most out of his players is impossible for me to assess from afar, at least at this point. He has made some stupid in-game decisions, but notwithstanding my pique, I think he deserves a chance to improve.

But one thing seems clear and it is disappointing to me: he is clearly not in tune with the modern understanding of the game supported by simple statistical analysis. Two things make this clear to me:

1) His allowing, or perhaps even encouraging, Jeter and others to give away outs early in game with sacrifice bunts.

2) His leading off Gardner in the absence of Damon, rather than moving up Jeter and those who follow and tagging on Gardner at number 9. We all know that it is better to give your better hitters with higher OBP more at bats. That doesn't necessarily mean putting ARod and Giambi, your best sluggers, one and two, but it certainly means that you don't put a new guy who has not yet shown that he is transitioned to the MLB level at number one. Girardi is showing his old school colors doing this. Gardner is fast and takes pitches, so he should lead off, I suppose. But he would be in front of Jeter batting 9th as well.

Gardner was an OBP machine in the minors.

TheYankee
07-06-08, 06:32 PM
if you know so much more about the game, how come you aren't managing?Good one. Really. Good one.

I agree with the thread starter. Is "modern understanding of the game" the best way to phrase it? Maybe not, but his point stands. We've come to a point where statistical analysis has allowed managers to better play the odds, and often times, Girardi doesn't. I hope that changes.

TheYankee
07-06-08, 06:33 PM
Gardner was an OBP machine in the minors.And this is the majors...

ppa79
07-06-08, 06:48 PM
And this is the majors...

And he only has like 10 at bats.

rajah
07-06-08, 06:49 PM
1) I know that Gardner had better than a .400 OBP at AAA this year. But he obviously has been struggling thus far to make the adjustment. If and when he makes the adjustment, he would indeed be a great choice to lead off. My point is that Girardi seems to have Gardner in his mind as a leadoff-type guy without considering the likelihood of what he is going to do now. He has guys slotted. This is the way managers have thought for a long time. If Gardner bats 9th while he adjusts, it is like he leads off the next time through the lineup. He gets fewer at bats that way, and everyone else like Jeter, Abreu and ARod are moved up and getr more at bats while he transitions. Don't we waqnt Arod to have more at bats than Gardner?

2) I don't want to argue with the two points I made about bunting and using OBP to pick your lineup order. If you disagree, fine. I think a lot of posters here, especially many of the more active ones, will agree with these points. And my point here is simply that Girardi, for all the claims for him being a new breed from Torre and other traditional ex-ball player managers, seems not to agree.

3) As for me being a manager: I am not an ex-ball player, I cannot evaluate athletes beyond looking at stat's, I could not motivate athletes or earn their respect. I would be a terrible manager. Luckily, I have had a job and still have a job I like more.

None of this means I cannot criticize Girardi, does it?

NelsonMuntz
07-06-08, 06:58 PM
I'm still not getting the argument that not slotting Jeter into the leadoff spot is some sort of bonehead decision on Girardi's part. Since Gardner was called up, Jeter has drawn exactly one more walk than Gardner with 8 more at-bats. Gardner is seeing more pitches per plate appearance than Jeter, and Gardner has a great OBP track record in the minor leagues. If anything Girardi is probably basing the decision to bat Gardner leadoff on Gardner's minor league OBP numbers vs. Jeter's OBP this year.

rajah
07-06-08, 07:08 PM
I never said that Girardi was a bone head. I said that he makes a lineup in a traditional manner.

The argument against the traditional lineup is that statistical analysis shows that you get the most runs by giving the most at bats for your best hitters. Some would argue that ARod should lead off and Giambi bat second because the two of them have the highest OPB and OPS on the team. Maybe this is wrong because doing so would sacrifice RBIs and you would not have the better OBP guys (Damon, Jeter or Abreu) in front of them, unless you batted them last.

But having two good OBP people in front of AROD should suffice. If you have three, Damon, Jeter (normally at least) and Abreu, all of whom can run, fine. But thus far Gardner does not qualify. So bat him last and move ARod and Giambi up a notch so they bat more quickly.

This, admittedly, is unlikely to make a difference over a few games and is a small point. I just think it reveals something about Girardi as not being unconventional, thats all.

Also, I hope that Gardner gets on base every time up tonight. If he does, and the Yankees win, I will be happy, regardless of the posts here.

AMYanks
07-06-08, 07:13 PM
I'm still not sure how it's so obvious Gardner's struggled to make the adjustment. Off the top of my head, I can think of three different balls he's hit very hard but was robbed of a base hit by luck (right back to the pitcher) or great defense (Lugo).

It'll even out by an infield single here and a blooper there. He's looked fine so far, imo.

GimeMoMuny
07-06-08, 07:16 PM
I think it's way too soon to tag him with any particular style of managing.

I liked the idea of Girardi as Yankees manager because I believe that as he grows into the role, he'll apply the right balance of statistical analysis and traditional baseball wisdom.

rajah
07-06-08, 07:17 PM
He has looked good enough to continue in the lineup. That isn't the point.

But would you rather that he get at bats over Arod or Abreu or Jeter? For instance, if the game is one run in the 9th, would you rather ARod bat fourth or third?

(I use the word transitioning, however, because if he continues to hit as he has, even with better luck, he is not going to stick in the majors.)

AMYanks
07-06-08, 07:20 PM
He has looked good enough to continue in the lineup. That isn't the point.

But would you rather that he get at bats over Arod or Abreu or Jeter?

(I use the word transitioning, however, because if he continues to hit as he has, even with better luck, he is not going to stick in the majors.)

He probably should be batting #9 until he proves he can play at this level, but if (or when) he does he'd be a very good leadoff hitter.

rajah
07-06-08, 07:22 PM
He probably should be batting #9 until he proves he can play at this level, but if (or when) he does he'd be a very good leadoff hitter.

I agree.

NelsonMuntz
07-06-08, 10:42 PM
He looked like a pretty good leadoff hitter tonight ;)

AMYanks
07-06-08, 10:45 PM
He scolds the ball and can't buy a hit, then he hits a little grounder up the middle to win the game.

It all evens out.

machphantom
07-06-08, 10:49 PM
Right, and let's not forget that also to Girardi, old school worked tonite. He got ejected, and all of a sudden the Yanks offense was on fire

bomber999
07-06-08, 11:17 PM
I disagree. No one on this team is hitting with RISP so he is using small ball to try and produce runs by bunting. And he actually hasn't done this that often.

As for Gardner hitting leadoff, Gardner does fit the profile of a leadoff hitter its just a matter of seeing if he can carry that level of play to the majors. If so he is the best fit in that spot with Damon out. But yea it probably does make a little more sense to put him in the 9 hole until he proves himself.

I'm pretty glad that he was hitting in that spot tonight.

For a rookie, he appears to have a great approach at the plate, and his ABs against Papelbon this weekend were excellent. BG looks like he may be one of these players who fouls off tons of pitches and frustrates the heck out of opposing pitchers. There is no one on the Yankees at present whom I believe would do a better job in the leadoff position.

Hellsing
07-07-08, 10:48 AM
2) His leading off Gardner in the absence of Damon, rather than moving up Jeter and those who follow and tagging on Gardner at number 9. We all know that it is better to give your better hitters with higher OBP more at bats. That doesn't necessarily mean putting ARod and Giambi, your best sluggers, one and two, but it certainly means that you don't put a new guy who has not yet shown that he is transitioned to the MLB level at number one. Girardi is showing his old school colors doing this. Gardner is fast and takes pitches, so he should lead off, I suppose. But he would be in front of Jeter batting 9th as well.

Brett is the only one fast enough to reliably steal bases and keep Jeter's GIDP low. :P

Dustin563
07-07-08, 11:35 AM
Brett is the only one fast enough to reliably steal bases and keep Jeter's GIDP low. :P

Haha, that's so true. I'm okay with BG hitting leadoff. He consistently has good atbats. The sac fly he hit on Saturday was huge as well.

As for bunting early in the game, have you all seen the offense lately? Girardi has definitely taken on more of a small ball approach compared to Torre and I like that he has some guys moving on the basepaths.

rajah
07-07-08, 01:07 PM
I am of course very happy that Gardner got a couple of hits last night, especially the last one. I think that he had a great at bat against Papelbon and remain hopeful that he is going to stick and help the Yankees.

But I will stick by my post, which many people still seem not to understand. In the absence of Damon, I think that he should bat in front of Jeter, which he would do if he batted 9th and Jeter batted first. It is not about the hitting order or whether Gardner plays; it is about who gets more at bats. If, because he got a big hit last night, you think that he has arrived as a leadoff hitter and would rather Gardner get more at bats than Jeter and Abreu and ARod, fine. Maybe that is the traditional baseball response; I don't know. But I do know that it is not managing by statistical analysis, and that is my only point. For better or for worse, in my opinion the latter, Girardi seems not to be different than the typical ex-ball player manager like Torre with respect to using modern statistical analysis.

NelsonMuntz
07-07-08, 04:23 PM
I am of course very happy that Gardner got a couple of hits last night, especially the last one. I think that he had a great at bat against Papelbon and remain hopeful that he is going to stick and help the Yankees.

But I will stick by my post, which many people still seem not to understand. In the absence of Damon, I think that he should bat in front of Jeter, which he would do if he batted 9th and Jeter batted first. It is not about the hitting order or whether Gardner plays; it is about who gets more at bats. If, because he got a big hit last night, you think that he has arrived as a leadoff hitter and would rather Gardner get more at bats than Jeter and Abreu and ARod, fine. Maybe that is the traditional baseball response; I don't know. But I do know that it is not managing by statistical analysis, and that is my only point. For better or for worse, in my opinion the latter, Girardi seems not to be different than the typical ex-ball player manager like Torre with respect to using modern statistical analysis.
1) I'm fairly certain there was a recent sabermetric analysis conducted that essentially concluded that the batting order makes little difference on runs scored over the course of a season (although someone please correct me if that is not what the study said).
2) Gardner is a temporary solution until Damon comes off the DL.
3) Gardner's minor league numbers indicate that he has the ability to get on base at a better rate than what Jeter is showing this year, so I'm still not getting how batting him leadoff is strictly "old school" thinking completely devoid of "modern statistical analysis".

Toaderly
07-07-08, 04:27 PM
Right, and let's not forget that also to Girardi, old school worked tonite. He got ejected, and all of a sudden the Yanks offense was on fire


I knew the Yanks had the game won right here.


http://www.nypost.com/photos/galleries/sports/yankees/20080707_yankees/photo06.jpg

Michaels07
07-08-08, 03:44 PM
Gardner should leadoff vs Righties and bat 9th vs lefties, and bunt at least 3 times a game.

Slioman
07-08-08, 04:52 PM
All in all, lineup order is not going to make a large difference over the course of the year. As long as he doesn't do anything catastrophic like have Giambi and A-Rod as our 8th and 9th hitters, it won't make a sizable difference over the course of the year.

goin for 27
07-08-08, 04:57 PM
What is the modern understanding of the game? What Bill James says it is? The old school approach to baseball still works. If you dont think so just look at some of the past World Series winners. The Red Sox didnt become world beaters until they realized speed and being able to manufacture runs plus great pitching equals championships. For years they put out lumbering slugging offensive clubs they thought would fit Fenway, and never won anything until they added players like Dave Roberts in 04 or Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsubry last year.

Isn't that the point though? The Red Sox were old school, getting RH power bats to pepper the wall, not caring a whit about defense, etc.

However, since the new ownership took over, Epstein/James, etc. they look to steal when the success rate is high enough, value defense, and have a strong rotation/closer. They have adapted, no? Old School = going on instincts, etc. The Red Sox don't do that, they chart everything under the sun. Girardi? I can't tell, but he definitely has seemed to go on hunches often.

rajah
07-08-08, 05:14 PM
What do those who still claim that Girardi is anything but an old timer have to say about him leading off with Melky against the lefty Kazmir?

Would you rather have Melky get the last at bat in the 9th inning or Jeter? Would you rather have ARod batting third and getting the last at bat after Jeter and Abreu, or would you rather have Abreu getting the last at bat, with ARod in the on-deck circle because Melky batted before Jeter and Abreu?

Again, I'm not saying that Girardi does not have strengths or will not be successful. But, at least thus far, he is no more in tune with statistical analysis of the game than was the last Joe.

rajah
07-08-08, 05:19 PM
Gardner should leadoff vs Righties and bat 9th vs lefties, and bunt at least 3 times a game.

He shouldn't bunt down the third base line three times a game if the third baseman is half up the line as the third basemen have been, at least before two strikes. It might be different if he could drag a bunt past the pitcher the way Mickey used to do, and then amazingly for a guy who could hit the ball farther than anyone else, also get down to first faster than anyone from the left side.

Anyway, I have absolutely no problem with Gardner bunting for base hits early in the game. I, based on pretty clear analysis of probabilities from past games, have problems with sacrifice bunts early in the game.

JavyVazquezIsSick
07-08-08, 06:40 PM
Not as advanced as I thought but I don't agree with your reasoning. I also think he is trying to build a strong foundation with his players which is getting in the way of decisions he would make with his head.

KENMonteSS86
07-17-08, 09:28 AM
1) His allowing, or perhaps even encouraging, Jeter and others to give away outs early in game with sacrifice bunts.

2) His leading off Gardner in the absence of Damon, rather than moving up Jeter and those who follow and tagging on Gardner at number 9. We all know that it is better to give your better hitters with higher OBP more at bats. That doesn't necessarily mean putting ARod and Giambi, your best sluggers, one and two, but it certainly means that you don't put a new guy who has not yet shown that he is transitioned to the MLB level at number one. Girardi is showing his old school colors doing this. Gardner is fast and takes pitches, so he should lead off, I suppose. But he would be in front of Jeter batting 9th as well.


I can agree with # 2, but not with # 1 in the LEAST...

I've had this type of discussion, rather heated at times (right, Jim?? LMAO!) numerous times on these boards--one of the reasons for my signature. I'm sorry, but I'll say this until I die (which hopefully is a LONG time off)...some people just do NOT understand that there is more to baseball than just numbers!!!!

Mr. Mxylsplk
07-17-08, 09:55 AM
Sweet.

THEBOSS84
07-17-08, 10:09 AM
I can agree with # 2, but not with # 1 in the LEAST...

I've had this type of discussion, rather heated at times (right, Jim?? LMAO!) numerous times on these boards--one of the reasons for my signature. I'm sorry, but I'll say this until I die (which hopefully is a LONG time off)...some people just do NOT understand that there is more to baseball than just numbers!!!!

Hey Joe Morgan!!

How was the ASG the other night?

IronCaballo4
07-17-08, 10:10 AM
I hear he has a butter churn in his office too

rajah
07-17-08, 11:33 AM
I can agree with # 2, but not with # 1 in the LEAST...

I've had this type of discussion, rather heated at times (right, Jim?? LMAO!) numerous times on these boards--one of the reasons for my signature. I'm sorry, but I'll say this until I die (which hopefully is a LONG time off)...some people just do NOT understand that there is more to baseball than just numbers!!!!

I agree with you that there is more to managing than just numbers. This includes maintaining the respect of your players, being able to communicate with them, and motivate them. From what I could tell, Torre did these things very well. He must have or he could not have brought them back from deficits in past years -- such as last year when the Yankees with their pitching woes were in an even bigger hole. We will see whether Girardi has these kinds of human relations skills. I think that there is good reason to believe that he does, but it is too early to tell; even one season with the Y's is not sufficient to tell.

My point is that for me, and I think for others who believe that modern statistical analysis can revise some of the old managerial assumptions, Girardi thus far has been a disappointment.

As for the bunting: Damon leads off the game with a double and Jeter (third all time in hits for the Yankees) lays down a sacrifice bunt. Can you justify this, with "more than just numbers"?

KENMonteSS86
07-17-08, 11:56 AM
As for the bunting: Damon leads off the game with a double and Jeter (third all time in hits for the Yankees) lays down a sacrifice bunt. Can you justify this, with "more than just numbers"?


On first glance, to bunt early in the game, no, but....

What if the pitcher has had Jeter's number his entire career, but Abreu owns the guy? Even better, now all Abreu has to do at worst is loft a decent fly ball, and there's a run...

What if (like lately) the Yanks have had trouble scoring runs, and you want to get a run on the board quickly to start the game? This makes even more sense if the pitcher out there is someone like Roy Halladay or A.J. Burnett, pitchers the Yankees have historically had trouble scoring runs off of...

Just there, 4 reasons why...

Sometimes, I feel the statheads need to realize that sitting around and waiting for the 3-run HR is just NOT going to work, particularly in the playoffs, where runs are even more of a premium--since the pitchers on the playoff teams are usually of a much higher caliber.

How many times have I gone over in the past 7 years how, the "big bat" teams often fail to win the World Series, or win much fewer than ones thinks they should've? Good pitching will stop good hitting just about every time...and when you're struggling to hit, to be able to score runs without having to rely on a hit makes a lot of sense. It's THOSE types of runs that win you the 3-2, 2-1, 1-0 ballgames..................

KENMonteSS86
07-17-08, 11:59 AM
Hey Joe Morgan!!

How was the ASG the other night?


Hey, when the pitchers strike out 34 batters and dominated the game far more than the batters, being able to play small ball once in a while makes sense.......

Mr. Mxylsplk
07-17-08, 12:55 PM
On first glance, to bunt early in the game, no, but....

What if the pitcher has had Jeter's number his entire career, but Abreu owns the guy?
So in saying it's "more than just numbers" you present a scenario ... based on numbers? TheBoss was really on to something.

KENMonteSS86
07-17-08, 02:15 PM
So in saying it's "more than just numbers" you present a scenario ... based on numbers? TheBoss was really on to something.


Forget it...numbers have a place, but there's more to it than just that...

Yes, sometimes you have to go with your gut...sometimes you give up the out, a battle in the game, to win the war...........

rajah
07-18-08, 06:35 AM
KenMonte, here is what the statistical analysis of the history of ML baseball tells us:

1) If Jeter, or any other number two hitter, is so bad against a pitcher that he feels he has to give away an out with a sacrifice in the first inning, he ought to be given the day off, or at least moved down in the batting order.

2) If you are facing an ace like Pedro in his prime, the last thing you want to do is give him a one pitch out through a sacrifice bunt.Your best chance is to go for a crooked number in an inning when you make him throw a lot of pitches. Your own pitcher better be Ron Guidry in 1978 if you are going to play the entire game as if you are already in the 9th looking for one run.

ajra21
07-18-08, 08:00 AM
What is the modern understanding of the game? What Bill James says it is? The old school approach to baseball still works. If you dont think so just look at some of the past World Series winners. The Red Sox didnt become world beaters until they realized speed and being able to manufacture runs plus great pitching equals championships. For years they put out lumbering slugging offensive clubs they thought would fit Fenway, and never won anything until they added players like Dave Roberts in 04 or Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsubry last year. The White Sox and Angels both won championships with very little offensive firepower but with good fundamentals and managers that understand the little things to win ballgames. Also I dont think I should have to mention that we won 4 championships here with maybe one of the most fundamentally sound teams ever that could manufacture runs better than anyone rather than just rely on home runs. Girardi is of that same ilk and I think he has the right vision for how to win games, he will get more criticism because he is much more proactive than Torre and takes more risks. He has made some mistakes undoubtedly like sitting Abreu and Giambi in favor of inferior right handed hitters but for the most part he has done what he can to help the team win.

this is an excellent post. i'm jealous.

goin for 27
07-18-08, 10:55 AM
[quote=KENMonteSS86]On first glance, to bunt early in the game, no, but....

What if the pitcher has had Jeter's number his entire career, but Abreu owns the guy? Even better, now all Abreu has to do at worst is loft a decent fly ball, and there's a run...
[quote]

You mean look at statistics?

goin for 27
07-18-08, 10:56 AM
[quote=KENMonteSS86]On first glance, to bunt early in the game, no, but....

What if the pitcher has had Jeter's number his entire career, but Abreu owns the guy? Even better, now all Abreu has to do at worst is loft a decent fly ball, and there's a run...
[quote]

You mean look at statistics?

In Mo I Trust
07-18-08, 11:06 AM
The Red Sox didnt become world beaters until they realized speed and being able to manufacture runs plus great pitching equals championships. For years they put out lumbering slugging offensive clubs they thought would fit Fenway, and never won anything until they added players like Dave Roberts in 04 or Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsubry last year.

The 2004 Red Sox finished 11th in the AL in stolen bases and 12th in sac bunts. The 2007 Red Sox ranked 7th in stolen bases. Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz and the long ball have much more to do with their recent success than Dave Roberts, Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsbury do.


The White Sox and Angels both won championships with very little offensive firepower but with good fundamentals and managers that understand the little things to win ballgames.

The White Sox had very little offensive firepower? They hit 200 home runs in 2005 (4th in the AL) and had the highest percentage of runs come as a result of the home run. They had plenty of firepower, that's what their offense was based around, the long ball.

CJTaKoZ26
07-18-08, 12:51 PM
People who cite the White Sox winning in 2005 because of Ozzie Guillen and doing the little things and playing small-ball etc etc:

They did not win because of this. They won in spite of this.

Their pitching rotation and bullpen was so much better than everyone else's in baseball that it didn't matter that they were giving away precious outs. As long as they were scoring 2 runs a game, they were fine. Check the stats of their pitchers that year. They are ridiculous.