I'm in no way saying we'd be here w/o Furcal's bat. He's been awesome.
However, that blown double play was blown because he didn't come in on a
ball and the play was out run by a 48 year-old. That play cost us two runs.
It should be a 2-1 ball game.

For all you guys who want nothing but bats remember the sacrifice of D
especially up the middle. You simply have to have great D up the middle to
win championships.

--
"Despair begins with the division of the will." Kierkegaard

Triple wrote:

Everyone puts TOO much stock in hitting. Good pitching trumps good
hitting every time. Fuck furcal and his bat I'll take top tier pitching
and D and average hitting every time. As can be seen in the last 2
games.

"Mike De Leon" <lazlo98@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1160107667.801679.190630@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...

Totally correct. Just look at Dodger teams that one championships...nuff
said

"Derek" <therage80@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IImdnd_DGbrCSrjYnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

So where you guys when I kept touting my speed, D and pitching theory of
winning championships? You left me hanging! <grin>

Sorry Triple, but do you think the Dodgers would even be here if the
powerful Izzy was at shortstop instead of Furcal? Me thinks not. His bat
was instrumental down the stretch. Unfortunately what we are seeing is
Dodger baseball during the playoffs, i.e., can't win.

Sorry Brad, did you see the first line of that post? I said, "I'm in no way
saying we'd be here w/o Furcal's bat. "

That being said, getting here and winning are two different things. You
simply do not win with sloppy defense up the middle and questionable
pitching. You get offensive production everywhere else but when you spend
dollars for bats up the middle you get teams like the Dodgers who can't win
the playoffs. You spend for bats at 1st, 3rd, right, left and maybe center
(if the D is good enough). You spend for defense at 2nd and SS.


"Brad Machado" <KYLERSGRANDPA@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25450-45263936-791@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...

Triple wrote:

Well I'd rather see them spend for pitching first them for D up the
middle to back them up. But I completely agree with you. Everyone has
ragged on Izzy and Cora but I'd take those two over what is there now
if the the team had the pitching. You don't have to hit a ton to win
games but you do have to have good pitching.

On 6 Oct 2006 16:45:24 -0700, "Mike De Leon" <lazlo98@earthlink.net>
wrote:


Izturis over Furcal?

When healthy, Furcal is not that far from how Izturis fielded before
the injury - thanks partially to an exceptionally strong arm.

Incidentally, the jury's still out on whether Izturis will ever field
that well again - his arm strength still wasn't fully there by the end
of the season, and thanks to the arthritis may never be at full
strength again.

Meanwhile, even in a season where he started off slowly thanks to
injuries Furcal still hit far better than Izturis ever had.


Well, you have to score more than your opponent - either by preventing
runs or scoring a bunch. The best teams tend to be solid or better in
both respects.

Hard to be solid offensively though if a third of the lineup
(including the pitcher) are offensive holes.

"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49rdi2pb2qbfq6ae3ro3mq5d9mpkmmga8m@4ax.com...

This may change as steroids leave the game. We'll go back to the days when
30 HRs was a lot. With fewer home runs, speed and defense will come back.
Izzy and Cora were offensive holes. However, you don't always create a hole
by adding D. You just take a guy with a bit less of a bat and a bit more of
the glove in those positions.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:27:38 -0700, "Triple" <rhager4@comcast.net>
wrote:


Sure. But a healthy Furcal is above average defensively, AND can hit
well (at least for a shortstop).

The change in what was expected of hitting isn't related to steroids
anyway - the demand for shortstops who weren't black holes offensively
started before that, when Ripken showed he could hit (at times, at
least) AND could field.

IF izturis didn't have the arm problems, AND he showed he could
consistently hit like 2004, he would be a good solution. But he
hasn't shown an ability to consistently hit decently for a shortstop,
AND there are real and significant questions about him going forward.
It's sad, but arthritis tends to be progressive, and the docs
discovered evidence of arthritis in his elbow when the TJ surgery was
performed. A weak hitting shortstop with serious questions about his
arm is NOT somebody to build around - it saddens me, since I was an
Izturis advocate when almost the entire newsgroup wanted him hanged,
but realism is important. Injuries are the nature of pro sports,
after all.

My big objection to Furcal is that he was injured when he signed -
which lessened the rational for signing him at a premium. But now
that he's healthy, he's certainly one of the better shortstops in
baseball - and at a level that Izturis never quite reached, and likely
will never reach now with the arm injury.