From: jds23971@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Neff)
Subject: Re: George Bell
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:55:26 GMT
Keywords: What IS it about this site?

zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay) writes:
>>First of all, if you are saying that Bell basically sucks, "Thomas and 
>>company" is reduced to basically Thomas because I've seen lots of Sox games 
>>this year, and Bell has been the second best hitter in that lineup
>>no matter what you and the stats say.

>Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?  What you are basically
>saying here is "My observations are considerably more thorough and
>reliable than not only David Tate's, but also all those other people
>that write down EXACTLY what George Bell did in each at bat."  I'm not
>putting words in your mouth, either...  This is a direct implication
>of what you're saying.

First of all that sentence sounded much better when I wrote it then
it does now.  I wish I had written something to the effect of
"Bell has done a lot of things that stats such as OBP can not measure".
That's all.  I think Ventura is a better hitter, but that Bell was more
productive this year.  My opinion.  I didn't mean to sound like "Dave can
go to hell".  Sorry it reads this way.

>>One more
>>win does the Sox absolutely NOTHING.

>And therefore, an extra win is undesirable?  Get outta town.  Are you
>saying that that 'extra' win (whatever THAT means) is expendable, in
>order to get George Bell into the lineup?

Again my point is misunderstood.  I guess a better way to put this is that
Bell's increasing his on-base percentage a couple of points produces
a negligable effect, if any.  I would love for Bell to stop swinging at
bad pitches and get more walks.  I really would.  But I don't think you
can say the guy had a bad year just because he's hitting .255 and isn't
drawing a lot of walks.

>>Third, you missed my point completely.  Everybody on a team has a role.
>>George Bell is there to DRIVE IN RUNS.

>The role of EVERY player on a ballclub is the same -
>to help the team WIN GAMES.  (Or, as Mike Fester will point out,
>correctly, to put butts in the seats.)  If Bell has a different agenda
>than this, sit his butt on the next plane to San Francisco.

I'm not backing down here.  George Bell bats behind Thomas BECAUSE Thomas
is going to give him a lot of opportunities with men on base.  That's
why there's a batting order.  Look at some of Bobby Knight's basketball
players.  Steve Alford could do one thing.  Shoot.  He couldn't dribble,
pass or play defense.  Does this mean he wasn't helping his team win? No.
Would Bobby knight have liked it if Alford COULD play defense and dribble?
Sure he would have.  Did Steve Alford have a good year at Indiana?  According
to you, no.  A few years ago Knight had a player named Sloan. Could Sloan
shoot?  Hell no.  Could the guy pass?  Don't know, he never got the ball.
Could Sloan set screens for other guys to get open?  OH yeah.  Did Sloan
help Indiana win?  Yes.

I know you're saying "that's basketball, this is baseball".  Crap.  Guys
can specialize at something, be good at it, and help their teams win in
any sport.  Never did I say there aren't more rounded players then George
Bell.  Never did I say "I would rather have George Bell on my team then
any other player in the world".  I said that the Sox traded for Bell
because they needed a solid hitter with some pop to hit behind Thomas.
Not because he was going to hit .320.  Not because he was going to get
on base for guys like Pasqua to drive him in.
I don't see how you can say he hasn't done exactly what the Sox wanted.


>He's been a generic DH [tm].  If he's the best you've got, great.  But
>he's not.  Give Newson the same PT as Bell got, and I GUARANTEE you
>that the Sox would have won AT LEAST one more game.  

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are here, guy.  You really
made some good points up to now, but Warren Newson is not going to improve
the Sox record by replacing Bell.  Replacing Pasqua on the other hand..... 

>>*                                  *     Sandberg is OVERRATED!!           *

>I've bashed Sandberg as much as the next guy, but what the hell do you
>want from the guy?  I said I didn't like him because his power wasn't
>good enough for a HoF caliber player, and he started bashing the ball.
>Then, I said he didn't walk enough.  Lo and behold, he started
>walking.  Even after park adjusting his stats, the man can play ball.

The man CAN play ball, but I'm quite tired of Harry treating him like
the second coming of canned beer.  The guy makes a play on a ball 6"
to his right and Harry's damn near ready to use his big fat lips to
give Sandberg a nice wet one on the ass.  I'm also tired (I believe this
to be a direct descendant of the first point) of Cub fans (and I deal with
lots of them, Gary buddy) telling me he's 
1) the best player in the game today at any position.
2) the best 2nd baseman ever to play the game.

I've even heard Harry call him "THE best player of all time".

That, IMHO, makes him OVERRATED.

Anyway, I guess my last article didn't properly convey what I meant to
say.  For this I apologize.  Now I think my point has been made clear.
Fire away, Gary.

Neff

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball