PDA

View Full Version : Brian Anderson sucks at hitting


Pages : [1] 2

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 12:06 AM
He's hitting a whopping .236 with a valuable .270 on base percentage.
Rant away obsessive Brian Anderson lovers.
Yes, I am aware he is a very good fielder.

Parrothead
06-26-2008, 12:09 AM
he really has not had the chance to show that he blows on a regular basis this year. But he is dangerously close to regular suckage.

QCIASOXFAN
06-26-2008, 12:10 AM
No real news here, I've known this for 2 years now.:dunno:

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 12:13 AM
No real news here, I've known this for 2 years now.:dunno:
Haha, me too. Just telling 75% of WSI.

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 12:14 AM
he really has not had the chance to show that he blows on a regular basis this year. But he is dangerously close to regular suckage.
He played seven out of ten games recently and went 4-27.

Optipessimism
06-26-2008, 12:24 AM
Yep, flame away on Brian Anderson, even though he doesn't have much at all to do with the way we've been playing.

:dtroll:

Tragg
06-26-2008, 12:24 AM
I love how he gets called out after a game in which the whole team got 4 hits.

Where's the call out of Uribe? Of Ozuna? These clowns have been hitting terribly for years. Uribe started at 2b unfettered for nearly 2 months. Not a word. Where was the call out of the offense that was shut down the other night by THE Ryan Dempster?


And in typical fashion, the game he plays is against the pitcher with the sub 2 ERA...reminds me of the 2nd half of 2006, when he would start against lefties, so he'd get Sabathia and Santana.

This is the same BS we heard with Crede. I don't know what will happen, but least Crede got the chance to play.
I don't know if Anderson can hit or not. But I do know that the ability of this field staff to judge offensive talent (owens better than Ramirez who is better than Quentin; Uribe better than Ramirez; Sweeney useless; ) and to improve young hitters is dubious at best.

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 12:26 AM
This thread has nothing to do with the loss. There are people who think the season is over after tonights loss.

Optipessimism
06-26-2008, 12:28 AM
He played seven out of ten games recently and went 4-27.
What about the career .249/.359/.441 hitting first baseman we have playing over him in CF? He hasn't been all that great either. Maybe if some of the other bats in the lineup were doing what they are paid to do you wouldn't be tempted to create a stupid thread about the performance of our 4th OF.

JB98
06-26-2008, 12:40 AM
What about the career .249/.359/.441 hitting first baseman we have playing over him in CF? He hasn't been all that great either. Maybe if some of the other bats in the lineup were doing what they are paid to do you wouldn't be tempted to create a stupid thread about the performance of our 4th OF.

The offensive performance of our fourth outfielder really isn't an issue. In fact, Brian Anderson isn't really an issue.

He is what he is: A strong defensive player and a poor hitter.

I get labeled a "hater" all the time by BA's legion of fans. I really don't have a problem with anything BA has done this year. He's hitting .230 and playing good defense. That's about all I expect from him.

I do have a problem with WSI posters who think Anderson should play every day. He ain't that good.

HebrewHammer
06-26-2008, 12:51 AM
but, but, but, but, but HE HAS A GREAT GLOVE!!! We would have lost 5, -3 if we didn't have his glove out there! Open your eyes people!

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 02:29 AM
This has nothing to do with the Sox losing, Nick Swisher, or slumping hitters. This has to do with the WSI fanbase being completely obsessed with him. He is a fourth outfielder! What has u guys druling about him. Everyone around here complains when he is not playing but he doesn't make an impact when he does play. Why did this get roadhoused?

balke
06-26-2008, 08:33 AM
2 weeks ago he was doing better than Swisher in my mind. I said give Swisher a week at home, and if the trend continues play Brian.

The trend changed, and Swisher has gotten a little better, as Brian got worse.

That being said, a good 2 games for Brian would shoot his batting average back up. I'm just sick of Swisheresque batters. I wish the Sox could get a .300 hitter with good Defense, if all you get from Swisher is this.

Is it time to trade back for Jeremy Reed?

kittle42
06-26-2008, 11:25 AM
This has nothing to do with the Sox losing, Nick Swisher, or slumping hitters. This has to do with the WSI fanbase being completely obsessed with him. He is a fourth outfielder!

All correct.

Defending someone by saying "Look at that guy - he sucks, too!" is not a very good defense.

munchman33
06-26-2008, 04:46 PM
Why did this get roadhoused?

Because Brian is capable of being a contributer to a major league quality ballclub competing for a championship.

SoxNation05
06-26-2008, 05:00 PM
Because Brian is capable of being a contributer to a major league quality ballclub competing for a championship.
I've hated every one of your posts besides this one.

kittle42
06-26-2008, 05:08 PM
I've hated every one of your posts besides this one.

Honesty rules! :bandance:

chisoxfanatic
06-26-2008, 07:16 PM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here. First off, he does not get REGULAR playing time enough to get in any sort of rhythm. Secondly, his defense has been outstanding, saving our pitching at times, limiting the lengths of innings. Thirdly, it's not like he's hitting like friggen Luis Terrero. Yea, he has his flaws in that he can't seem to draw walks; but, is it really worth it getting all fussy over it when he makes up for it in other ways such as his defense?

Some people have gotta stop bashing BA. With more consistent playing time, he WOULD have a higher OBP and BA.

JB98
06-26-2008, 07:58 PM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here. First off, he does not get REGULAR playing time enough to get in any sort of rhythm. Secondly, his defense has been outstanding, saving our pitching at times, limiting the lengths of innings. Thirdly, it's not like he's hitting like friggen Luis Terrero. Yea, he has his flaws in that he can't seem to draw walks; but, is it really worth it getting all fussy over it when he makes up for it in other ways such as his defense?

Some people have gotta stop bashing BA. With more consistent playing time, he WOULD have a higher OBP and BA.

Luis Terrero in 2007:
117 ABs, .231 avg., 5 HRs, 12 RBIs

Brian Anderson in 2008
113 ABs, .221 avg., 3 HRs, 11 RBIs

Yes, he is hitting like Luis Terrero.

From June 12-20, Anderson started seven out of eight games. He went 4-for-26. That's no way to make a case for more regular playing time.

Right now, Anderson is in a 4-for-34 tailspin. He can't hit.

voodoochile
06-26-2008, 10:28 PM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here. First off, he does not get REGULAR playing time enough to get in any sort of rhythm. Secondly, his defense has been outstanding, saving our pitching at times, limiting the lengths of innings. Thirdly, it's not like he's hitting like friggen Luis Terrero. Yea, he has his flaws in that he can't seem to draw walks; but, is it really worth it getting all fussy over it when he makes up for it in other ways such as his defense?

Some people have gotta stop bashing BA. With more consistent playing time, he WOULD have a higher OBP and BA.

I'm just curious, but what do you base this on? Oh and how much higher?

Got to figure that even if he were starting every day he'd make 2-3 plays a month that Wise or Swisher wouldn't get to. Even if the number is as high as 5 a month and all of them are doubles, it's still not enough to justify putting up with his bat.

As BA approaches one full year's worth of at bats, all of the same problems continue to plague him and man do I wish it weren't so, but unfortunately it is. The kid can't hit consistently. It's a damned shame too because he's got a great glove and fantastic defensive instincts. That's enough to play him right as he has been. A few times a week and as a defensive substitute, but that's it. He's a 25th man, but honestly if the Sox can find someone who can play the position and hit better, I'd have no problem cutting ties with BA.

DumpJerry
06-26-2008, 10:31 PM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here. First off, he does not get REGULAR playing time enough to get in any sort of rhythm. Secondly, his defense has been outstanding, saving our pitching at times, limiting the lengths of innings. Thirdly, it's not like he's hitting like friggen Luis Terrero. Yea, he has his flaws in that he can't seem to draw walks; but, is it really worth it getting all fussy over it when he makes up for it in other ways such as his defense?

Some people have gotta stop bashing BA. With more consistent playing time, he WOULD have a higher OBP and BA.
Sorry, but he had that chance last year before they shipped him to Charlotte.

Yes, BA is a pretty good outfielder, however, he is no better than a AAAA hitter.

gobears1987
06-26-2008, 11:26 PM
I will say this. BA's glove would be worth if it the rest of the offense was not struggling so much. If the other 8 guys in the line-up could hit consistently, then no one would complain about BA getting to start each day in CF. The fact is that no one save for a select few players has been consistent. When we have so much inconsistency in the line-up, you have to start the hotter hitter and right now that is Wise. We can't afford to sit a hot hitter when everyone else is struggling.

This isn't BA hate, this is the simple truth. I'd love it if everyone else was hitting. Then we could start BA every day.

JB98
06-26-2008, 11:40 PM
I will say this. BA's glove would be worth if it the rest of the offense was not struggling so much. If the other 8 guys in the line-up could hit consistently, then no one would complain about BA getting to start each day in CF. The fact is that no one save for a select few players has been consistent. When we have so much inconsistency in the line-up, you have to start the hotter hitter and right now that is Wise. We can't afford to sit a hot hitter when everyone else is struggling.

This isn't BA hate, this is the simple truth. I'd love it if everyone else was hitting. Then we could start BA every day.

Yeah, I've always said you can afford to carry one guy who is all-glove, no-hit if you've got a strong lineup 1-8. That's just not the case for the Sox this season.

We can't have any non-threats offensively, which is part of the reason why Uribe rarely sees the light of day anymore. Justifiably so.

drewcifer
06-26-2008, 11:44 PM
This isn't BA hate, this is the simple truth. I'd love it if everyone else was hitting. Then we could start BA every day.

Tried that in '06 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/anderbr03.shtml). Probably the most ABs he'll ever get (at least with this team).

He's a White Sox bench player/plug-in. Nothing more.

CLR01
06-27-2008, 10:18 AM
Sorry, but he had that chance last year before they shipped him to Charlotte.


Had what chance last year? :scratch:

voodoochile
06-27-2008, 10:30 AM
Had what chance last year? :scratch:

Okay, so last year, no. The year before he had plenty of time to prove he belonged and failed. Then this year he's living down to those numbers while getting close to half the starts/AB in CF and continuing to strike out 25% of the time.

Do we really need to give this kid 3 straight months of starts so he can prove once and for all that he does or does not belong as a major league starter?

Can we at least wait until the team is hopelessly out of contention before we do that?

soxfan13
06-27-2008, 10:31 AM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here. First off, he does not get REGULAR playing time enough to get in any sort of rhythm. Secondly, his defense has been outstanding, saving our pitching at times, limiting the lengths of innings. Thirdly, it's not like he's hitting like friggen Luis Terrero. Yea, he has his flaws in that he can't seem to draw walks; but, is it really worth it getting all fussy over it when he makes up for it in other ways such as his defense?

Some people have gotta stop bashing BA. With more consistent playing time, he WOULD have a higher OBP and BA.

Yeah is almost as maddening as you and some others blind hatred of the Cubs.

CLR01
06-27-2008, 10:58 AM
Okay, so last year, no. The year before he had plenty of time to prove he belonged and failed. Then this year he's living down to those numbers while getting close to half the starts/AB in CF and continuing to strike out 25% of the time.

Do we really need to give this kid 3 straight months of starts so he can prove once and for all that he does or does not belong as a major league starter?

Can we at least wait until the team is hopelessly out of contention before we do that?


Close to half my ass.


But sure, I guess we can wait until the team is hopelessly out of contention before allowing the centerfielder to hit .230 and strike out 25% of the time.

DumpJerry
06-27-2008, 11:09 AM
I am getting sick and tired of the constant BA bashing that goes on here.

It will stop when he is off the team.

Had what chance last year? :scratch:
He was given the starting job last year. Lost it pretty quickly. On a pretty lousy team, no less.

CLR01
06-27-2008, 11:27 AM
That happened when?

chisoxfanatic
06-27-2008, 11:27 AM
He was given the starting job last year. Lost it pretty quickly. On a pretty lousy team, no less.
BA only played in 13 games (only starting in 4 of those) with 17 at bats last season. Yea, that's giving the guy a chance. :rolleyes:

DumpJerry
06-27-2008, 11:37 AM
BA only played in 13 games (only starting in 4 of those) with 17 at bats last season. Yea, that's giving the guy a chance. :rolleyes:
Like I said, pretty quickly.

VenturaFan23
06-27-2008, 11:48 AM
BA only played in 13 games (only starting in 4 of those) with 17 at bats last season. Yea, that's giving the guy a chance. :rolleyes:

So that must've been a different Brian Anderson that played in 134 games in '06 then I guess.

soxpride724
06-27-2008, 11:50 AM
So that must've been a different Brian Anderson that played in 134 games in '06 then I guess.


I think he has been a LITTLE better than 2006, not much though.

chisoxfanatic
06-27-2008, 11:52 AM
So that must've been a different Brian Anderson that played in 134 games in '06 then I guess.
He had just about as much playing time in 2005 as he did in 2007. 2006 was pretty much the ONLY season where he got decent playing time. He was basically a rookie that year! But, yea, that's plenty of time for him to get into any sort of a rhythm. A rookie needs to be perfect immediately out of the gate. Give me a break! :rolleyes:

oeo
06-27-2008, 11:52 AM
Why do I get the feeling that if Anderson was traded and on a different team right now, most would have him written down as a bust?

Anderson is no different than Jeremy Reed. Highly touted, and completely flopped.

Sweeney appears to be coming into his own in Oakland (still no power, though), and Chris Young is still only hitting homeruns (no average, can't walk...homerun or nothing). It just looks like that great future outfield we were supposed to have turned out to be complete garbage.

Blame the players, blame the development system...it doesn't matter. That future outfield isn't looking so hot anymore.

What do you people still see in Anderson? He does the same crap at the plate he did two years ago.

Dan Mega
06-27-2008, 11:56 AM
So if the Sox are just to give up on a guy that has a terrific glove but trouble with the bat, why haven't Crede and Uribe been released already?

VenturaFan23
06-27-2008, 11:59 AM
What do you people still see in Anderson? He does the same crap at the plate he did two years ago.

Blasphemy!

voodoochile
06-27-2008, 12:00 PM
Close to half my ass.


But sure, I guess we can wait until the team is hopelessly out of contention before allowing the centerfielder to hit .230 and strike out 25% of the time.

My bad. I thought he had more AB than that, okay, good, he's only on pace to get enough AB to be a 1/3 time starter. Works for me...

voodoochile
06-27-2008, 12:02 PM
It will stop when he is off the team.

I'll go one better. It will dramatically decline the moment the FOBA stop trying to cram him down everyone else's throat at the expense of more proven players.

Jerko
06-27-2008, 12:10 PM
Don't forget, Anderson only sucked last year because he was only asked to face Santana and Sabathia. BA is in a tough spot. He needs ABs to prove he can hit MLB pitching, but he is on a team that can't afford to use 1/3 of the season as a "tryout". It's just not gonna happen.

voodoochile
06-27-2008, 12:16 PM
So if the Sox are just to give up on a guy that has a terrific glove but trouble with the bat, why haven't Crede and Uribe been released already?

I don't know what the coaches saw in Crede to allow him to work through his early struggles. Of course by the time he reached 500 AB (the number BA has now) Crede was putting up an OPS 100 points higher than BA. Just to be clear, if BA was putting up those numbers, he'd be starting a lot more than he has been. In Crede's first extended look he put up an OPS of .826 over 200 AB. That's 30% higher than BA has acheived for his career and 20% higher than the best stretch BA ever showed (second half of 2006 when he almost cracked .700 over 183 AB).

Uribe was a needs must situation. They traded for him when they really had no one else to fill the position and he put up an .833 OPS his first year with the team and .713 during 2005, so the argument that either of these guys were given chances when their bats sucked is moot. Notice the moment Uribe proved to be on a major offensive decline, they replaced him and were planning on dumping him altogether before Richar got hurt then the minute Ramirez proved he could out hit Uribe, they went with Ramirez full time regarldess of him still learning the position on a major league level.

Finally, I don't know what goes on in the locker room. There have been numerous indications through his career with the Sox that BA was treating the job like he didn't need to work hard at it, not the least of which was his own admission this past off season that he was finally taking things seriously. If that is in fact true (and I'll take his own words at face value) then he came in with two strikes against him and a proven veteran that had been acquired to take his position in front of him on the depth chart. How many chances does this kid deserve and can ANYONE point to ANY stat that shows he deserves to be the every day starter?

DumpJerry
06-27-2008, 12:26 PM
:rowand
Hey man, stop stealing my thunder. I am the legend in Sox' fans' minds.
:anderson:
Oh be quiet. I'm cuter.

JB98
06-27-2008, 12:41 PM
He had just about as much playing time in 2005 as he did in 2007. 2006 was pretty much the ONLY season where he got decent playing time. He was basically a rookie that year! But, yea, that's plenty of time for him to get into any sort of a rhythm. A rookie needs to be perfect immediately out of the gate. Give me a break! :rolleyes:

I don't see Alexei Ramirez getting overmatched in his ABs, and he's a rookie. Not only that, he's adjusting to living in another country with a different language and a much different culture. But we don't have to make excuses for him because he goes out and produces.

Anderson has started more often than not here the last few weeks. He's responded with a 4-for-34 slump. Life is about seizing opportunities, and Anderson has done nothing to earn more playing time based on his performance this season. In particular, this last stretch has been disappointing. Go back and look at the game logs. He's been getting regular playing time in June.

In fact, as his playing time has increased, his average has plummeted from .263 to .221. He needs to be spotted in matchups that are favorable for him. He's not capable of playing everyday because his offense is just too weak.

He and Uribe both belong on the bench. They are both glove specialists who can't hit with any consistency at all.

DumpJerry
06-27-2008, 12:55 PM
I don't see Alexei Ramirez getting overmatched in his ABs, and he's a rookie. Not only that, he's adjusting to living in another country with a different language and a much different culture. But we don't have to make excuses for him because he goes out and produces.

Anderson has started more often than not here the last few weeks. He's responded with a 4-for-34 slump. Life is about seizing opportunities, and Anderson has done nothing to earn more playing time based on his performance this season. In particular, this last stretch has been disappointing. Go back and look at the game logs. He's been getting regular playing time in June.

In fact, as his playing time has increased, his average has plummeted from .263 to .221. He needs to be spotted in matchups that are favorable for him. He's not capable of playing everyday because his offense is just too weak.

He and Uribe both belong on the bench. They are both glove specialists who can't hit with any consistency at all.
That pretty much sums it up right there. This is not AA ball, you have to come prepared to play.

VenturaFan23
06-27-2008, 01:04 PM
That pretty much sums it up right there. This is not AA ball, you have to come prepared to play.

:jerry
"I couldn't have said it better myself!"

RCWHITESOX
06-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Why do I get the feeling that if Anderson was traded and on a different team right now, most would have him written down as a bust?

Anderson is no different than Jeremy Reed. Highly touted, and completely flopped.

Sweeney appears to be coming into his own in Oakland (still no power, though), and Chris Young is still only hitting homeruns (no average, can't walk...homerun or nothing). It just looks like that great future outfield we were supposed to have turned out to be complete garbage.

Blame the players, blame the development system...it doesn't matter. That future outfield isn't looking so hot anymore.

What do you people still see in Anderson? He does the same crap at the plate he did two years ago.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head; could not have said it better. Brian Anderson is a poor man's Jim Landis at best!!!!

Nellie_Fox
06-28-2008, 12:33 AM
Yeah is almost as maddening as you and some others' blind hatred of the Cubs.You find Cubs hatred maddening on a WHITE SOX board?

CLR01
06-28-2008, 02:05 AM
You find Cubs hatred maddening on a WHITE SOX board?


Yes








Anderson '08

UofCSoxFan
06-28-2008, 12:07 PM
Anderson was terrible in 34 at-bats in 2005, atrocious in 2006, bad in 17 at-bats in 2007, went to the minors and hit a whopping .255 with a .318 OBP in the minors that year (what's the excuse for that....the bus rides were too long?), had a good spring and barely made the team, and has been terrible at the plate in 2008.

What has he done outside of a .295 season in 2005 Charloette that makes any of you think he will ever be a good hitter? I like him as a late inning defensive replacement, but there are few people that have ever looked as bad as Anderson on a consistant basis that turn it around. I mean Crede at least showed signs when he was younger and Hell, it wasn't like people were clamouring for him to play over Herbert Perry. Even in college he had only one year he hit over .300.

That's the thing that gets me most about Anderson....the fact that people bitch and moan that he isn't getting a fair shake and that if you just gave him another 1000 at-bats he would be good. If people just accepted him as a 4th outfielder that should get a spot start here and there to stay sharp and spell someone, we wouldn't have to have these arguements. I really don't get the obsesson.

One final thought: If Anderson were a 14th round draft pick would people still be beating the drum for him or would they have written him off by now. Furthermore, if he were a 14th round draft pick, would he even still be in the organization? I say no. to the first, and maybe to the second.

kittle42
06-28-2008, 01:16 PM
I don't know what the coaches saw in Crede to allow him to work through his early struggles. Of course by the time he reached 500 AB (the number BA has now) Crede was putting up an OPS 100 points higher than BA. Just to be clear, if BA was putting up those numbers, he'd be starting a lot more than he has been. In Crede's first extended look he put up an OPS of .826 over 200 AB. That's 30% higher than BA has acheived for his career and 20% higher than the best stretch BA ever showed (second half of 2006 when he almost cracked .700 over 183 AB).

Uribe was a needs must situation. They traded for him when they really had no one else to fill the position and he put up an .833 OPS his first year with the team and .713 during 2005, so the argument that either of these guys were given chances when their bats sucked is moot. Notice the moment Uribe proved to be on a major offensive decline, they replaced him and were planning on dumping him altogether before Richar got hurt then the minute Ramirez proved he could out hit Uribe, they went with Ramirez full time regarldess of him still learning the position on a major league level.

Finally, I don't know what goes on in the locker room. There have been numerous indications through his career with the Sox that BA was treating the job like he didn't need to work hard at it, not the least of which was his own admission this past off season that he was finally taking things seriously. If that is in fact true (and I'll take his own words at face value) then he came in with two strikes against him and a proven veteran that had been acquired to take his position in front of him on the depth chart. How many chances does this kid deserve and can ANYONE point to ANY stat that shows he deserves to be the every day starter?

This post should be stuck at the top of every forum here. VDC is dead-on.

fquaye149
06-28-2008, 06:10 PM
this thread is fantastic.

Of all the lousy hitting on the team, we're ripping a guy hitting .230 in 100 some AB's of sporadic playing time?

Oh but wait, he also struggled two years ago, in his rookie year!

That proves that those stupid "FOBA" wondering why a bunch of other lousy players who can't hit much better are starting in CF are just "delusional" and "obsessed" and "trying to ram some scrub down the throats of others for no good reason."

Ridiculous.:rolleyes:

And before everyone starts going "But da fans of BA dey are da ones who are obsessed, we are just being rational about da White Sox!"--what's the topic of this thread?

Ripping a ****ing sub with 500 MLB AB to his record for having a mediocre batting average in extremely limited time.

Pathetic.

Daver
06-28-2008, 06:27 PM
this thread is fantastic.

Of all the lousy hitting on the team, we're ripping a guy hitting .230 in 100 some AB's of sporadic playing time?

Oh but wait, he also struggled two years ago, in his rookie year!

That proves that those stupid "FOBA" wondering why a bunch of other lousy players who can't hit much better are starting in CF are just "delusional" and "obsessed" and "trying to ram some scrub down the throats of others for no good reason."

Ridiculous.:rolleyes:

And before everyone starts going "But da fans of BA dey are da ones who are obsessed, we are just being rational about da White Sox!"--what's the topic of this thread?

Ripping a ****ing sub with 500 MLB AB to his record for having a mediocre batting average in extremely limited time.

Pathetic.

These people are baseball experts, just ask them.

rdivaldi
06-28-2008, 07:14 PM
Some people knew that BA was not a major league hitter a long time ago. Goofy mechanics, deer in the headlights approach, alarmingly high strikeout totals. Not exactly a winning combination.

JB98
06-28-2008, 07:19 PM
this thread is fantastic.

Of all the lousy hitting on the team, we're ripping a guy hitting .230 in 100 some AB's of sporadic playing time?

Oh but wait, he also struggled two years ago, in his rookie year!

That proves that those stupid "FOBA" wondering why a bunch of other lousy players who can't hit much better are starting in CF are just "delusional" and "obsessed" and "trying to ram some scrub down the throats of others for no good reason."

Ridiculous.:rolleyes:

And before everyone starts going "But da fans of BA dey are da ones who are obsessed, we are just being rational about da White Sox!"--what's the topic of this thread?

Ripping a ****ing sub with 500 MLB AB to his record for having a mediocre batting average in extremely limited time.

Pathetic.

Frankly, I thought I gave a pretty good explanation as to why Anderson shouldn't be playing every day.

I don't have a problem with what Anderson has done this year. I've said that several times, if people would choose to read that. I'm just totally baffled by posters who believe Anderson deserves a greater role on the team than the one he has. :scratch:

Brian Anderson = fourth outfielder.

fquaye149
06-28-2008, 07:42 PM
Frankly, I thought I gave a pretty good explanation as to why Anderson shouldn't be playing every day.

I don't have a problem with what Anderson has done this year. I've said that several times, if people would choose to read that. I'm just totally baffled by posters who believe Anderson deserves a greater role on the team than the one he has. :scratch:

Brian Anderson = fourth outfielder.

I wasn't targeting you since your post was pretty evenhanded and logical and didn't spend like 250 words railing against Anderson and FOBA for seemingly no reason at all.

I can see why people would think that BA shouldn't start and I certainly wouldn't call people like you a "BA hater" (You're a BA hater for different reasons:redneck). But certainly it shouldn't seem ridiculous that other people, people like me, think it wouldn't hurt to have BA out there most of the time since he isn't hitting terribly for an elite defensive CF, and our other CF options can't field well and hit only slightly better.

However, it's obviously a ridiculous concept to certain people in this thread that anyone could look at an excellent defensive CFer putting up a .236 BA in limited opportunities (:shrug:) and say "hey maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if that player played more often." In fact it's so ridiculous to them that they have to start a thread and get all excited about it.

Congratulations to those people!

kittle42
06-28-2008, 10:13 PM
In fact it's so ridiculous to them that they have to start a thread and get all excited about it.

Congratulations to those people!

Agreed on that point. There may as well be a huge thread about DeWayne Wise or Adam Russell. They are of just as much importance to this team.

voodoochile
06-28-2008, 10:24 PM
Agreed on that point. There may as well be a huge thread about DeWayne Wise or Adam Russell. They are of just as much importance to this team.

Again, people aren't starting threads about those folks because there isn't a loud vocal minority screaming to play them 4-6 times a week like there is with the FOBA.

People aren't booing BA, they are booing the FOBA.

I remember when I was at a music camp in 7th grade. One night they gathered up all the boys and took us to a concert in the girls side of camp. Both from the same age range 10-13 or whatever. Both groups put on about 6 solo performances from the best in their group. The boys applauded nicely no matter who performed, but the girls exploded with standing ovations and screams of delight every time a girl finished her piece. After 5 solos we boys in the audience were flat fed up with the over exuberance and after the 6th girls solo there was a fairly loud "boooooo" heard from the boys section. I didn't boo, but I damned well felt like booing and again, it didn't matter about the girl who performed or how well she did. It could have been the female Mozart up there performing an original first time ever piece of music that was destined to rewrite musical history. The boys who booed didn't boo the girl, they booed the girls who were screaming their asses of.

Needless to say, we didn't get to go to the ice cream store that night...:tongue:

FarWestChicago
06-29-2008, 12:05 AM
People aren't booing BA, they are booing the FOBA.Many times I have said I like BA and hope he really turns into Mick Jr. But, the FOBA can almost make you hate the guy. There is something seriously wrong with them. It's like a collective delusion; mass hysteria.

DumpJerry
06-29-2008, 12:15 AM
Many times I have said I like BA and hope he really turns into Mick Jr. But, the FOBA can almost make you hate the guy. There is something seriously wrong with them. It's like a collective delusion; mass hysteria.
:rowand
My lawyer tells me that is my intellectual property. I should collect a licensing fee from Brian.

TornLabrum
06-29-2008, 09:19 AM
Many times I have said I like BA and hope he really turns into Mick Jr. But, the FOBA can almost make you hate the guy. There is something seriously wrong with them. It's like a collective delusion; mass hysteria.

Now that it's obvious that Rowand won't ever be back, they have to put all of their hopes and dreams somewhere....

kittle42
06-29-2008, 09:25 AM
Many times I have said I like BA and hope he really turns into Mick Jr. But, the FOBA can almost make you hate the guy. There is something seriously wrong with them. It's like a collective delusion; mass hysteria.

"Collective delusion" is the best way to put it. A while back, I remember asking if any other team could have a subset of insane fans who waste their time on some non-entity, backup player, claiming they would be a worldbeater if X, Y, and Z didn't keep happening. Someone came back within minutes with a link to a Yankee fan board re: Shelley Duncan. It was a great moment!

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 11:06 AM
"Collective delusion" is the best way to put it. A while back, I remember asking if any other team could have a subset of insane fans who waste their time on some non-entity, backup player, claiming they would be a worldbeater if X, Y, and Z didn't keep happening. Someone came back within minutes with a link to a Yankee fan board re: Shelley Duncan. It was a great moment!

Lol...I'll take my medicine that I'm excessively enthusiastic about this organization's mismanagement of a player who will never be a worldbeater--after all it is a rather minor point that BA should be starting compared to the other woes of this team past and present.

However, if I take that lump you should take the lump that you're absolutely full of **** about "insane fans...claiming [BA] would be a worldbeater if X,Y, Z didn't keep happening."

That's absolute BS. Most of BA's supporters merely say he'd probably be hitting serviceably and playing sensational defense if he were given a chance to play. Maybe you're thinking of 3 years ago when he was still a top prospect. At this point most people recognize that BA's ceiling is probably hitting .280 with 20-something HR. His ceiling.

If you'd ask some of these people you accuse of "claiming [BA] woudl be a world beater" what their realistic expectations are of him if he started the entire season they'd probably tell you "hitting .250, .330 OBP, 15 HR while playing excellent defense at a key defensive position." I'd be shocked if anyone would tell you "der he's going to be a world beater"

Since he's not hitting abysmally (just poorly) and is already playing sensational defense, it's clear that that's not a ridiculous claim to make. (It may be a wrong claim to make, but that's a different story).

Yes, people like me and others maybe are devoting a little too much attention to BA's continual underutilization by Ozzie, but so what? There's a lot of small things to nitpick on a team, and I choose the fact that Ozzie continues to obsess over going with slight improvements in batting average by Wise and Swisher (and ****ing Alexei Ramirez) instead of sacrificing 10-20 BA points and actually putting someone in CF who can play the position at an elite level.

So what? :rolleyes: It's certainly less odd to continually be bothered by the BA sitting than to be continued to be bothered by posters' grammar, Greg Walker's employment, or a perceived melange of dark clouds.

Frontman
06-29-2008, 11:40 AM
He's hitting a whopping .236 with a valuable .270 on base percentage.
Rant away obsessive Brian Anderson lovers.
Yes, I am aware he is a very good fielder.

But he did really really well reading the lineup for the Fox broadcast; so he's contributing something!

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 12:13 PM
That's absolute BS. Most of BA's supporters merely say he'd probably be hitting serviceably and playing sensational defense if he were given a chance to play. Maybe you're thinking of 3 years ago when he was still a top prospect. At this point most people recognize that BA's ceiling is probably hitting .280 with 20-something HR. His ceiling.

If you'd ask some of these people you accuse of "claiming woudl be a world beater" what their realistic expectations are of him if he started the entire season they'd probably tell you "[B]hitting .250, .330 OBP, 15 HR while playing excellent defense at a key defensive position." I'd be shocked if anyone would tell you "der he's going to be a world beater"

See, there is absolutely NOTHING in his MLB service time that makes those numbers seem likely to me. That's the part that gets super frustrating. You toss those numbers out, like ho hum, he can do this and I am forced to answer, "based on what?" If he'd actually shown that capability, you'd have far less people jumping on you and the other FOBA for pushing for more PT, but he's never even come close to showing that kind of potential. What was that stat rivaldi threw out? He hit .295 in AAA one year. Um, that generally doesn't translate to a .280/20+ hitter in the majors.

Love the kids glove. His bat is just plain bad. Assuming he can actually hit like an average MLB player seems delusional. Sorry if that's harsh, but seriously, based on what do you simply make the leap to the numbers you posted above? Have you watched this kid swing the bat? Have you checked out his ridiculous K totals? He chases high and away. He chases low and away. He chases off speed in the dirt. He simply doesn't have the eye or the patience to do what you are suggesting, IMO.

Aren't these the same floors we set for Uribe who has at least shown the ability to hit those numbers in the past? Should he be playing too?

BA

Can't

Hit

It's that simple. People suggesting otherwise must be drinking some new kind of Kool-Aid...

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 12:27 PM
See, there is absolutely NOTHING in his MLB service time that makes those numbers seem likely to me. That's the part that gets super frustrating. You toss those numbers out, like ho hum, he can do this and I am forced to answer, "based on what?" If he'd actually shown that capability, you'd have far less people jumping on you and the other FOBA for pushing for more PT, but he's never even come close to showing that kind of potential. What was that stat rivaldi threw out? He hit .295 in AAA one year. Um, that generally doesn't translate to a .280/20+ hitter in the majors.

Who the **** said it was likely? I said his ****ing ceiling is .280. You know, what we can hope for in our wildest dreams. What he is capable of if everything clicks at its absolute best. I said I personally expect him to hit around .250 if he had regular playing time.

You know why there's nothing to say those numbers are likely?

Because his only season where he's had more than 150 at bats he was a ****ing rookie.

Because he's never had a season where he wasn't platooned.

I never said those numbers were likely, and if I did it wouldn't be "based on any statistical evidence." I said that's what I expect. You may disagree, but certainly you don't think it's ridiculous to think in regular playing time BA could hit around .250 +/- 10 points and hit 15 HR +/- 5


Love the kids glove. His bat is just plain bad. Assuming he can actually hit like an average MLB player seems delusional.

No one said he could hit like an average MLB player. He could conceivably. Right now, LIKE I ****ING SAID, it's more likely that his 2008 would be something like .250/.330. Which is well below average.


Sorry if that's harsh, but seriously, based on what do you simply make the leap to the numbers you posted above? Have you watched this kid swing the bat? Have you checked out his ridiculous K totals? He chases high and away. He chases low and away. He chases off speed in the dirt. He simply doesn't have the eye or the patience to do what you are suggesting, IMO.

Who's leaping to numbers? That's what I'd expect. Remember in the preseason when you "expected" things out of Floyd and Danks? Based on what? "oh well based on what i've seen from them and based on the fact that they did x,y, and z in selected sample sizes, and based on visual evidence i've collected watching them play and blah blah blah blah blah." Well, that's the way baseball works. You look at a player, like BA, who has shown he's capable of having success against MLB pitching (cough, second half of 2006, cough), who has had a reasonable amount of success in the minors, who is still young, who has looked at times awful and at times moderately competent at the plate, and you can sometimes say "gee it wouldn't surprise me if in regular playing time a guy who is hitting ****ING .236 (aka 14 points below what I guessed) in limited time might raise his batting average 14 points.

See how that works? That's like you saying "well gee whiz, yeah Danks had a lousy year in 2007, but it's possible he could lower his ERA by a a run or so"


Aren't these the same floors we set for Uribe who has at least shown the ability to hit those numbers in the past? Should he be playing too?

If the question were "who plays at SS, Juan Uribe or Pablo Ozuna," then yes, Uribe should be playing at SS.

Thanks for proving my point :rolleyes:


BA

Can't

Hit

Glad that's settled. Thanks, Jesus, or God, or Unifying Principle, or whoever it is who knows that which has been and that which always will be :rolleyes:


It's that simple. People suggesting otherwise must be drinking some new kind of Kool-Aid...

Oh my bad. I didn't realize it was that simple. Thanks so much for breaking it down for me.

Here I thought this was the point:

BA struggles at the plate, but is still well over the mendoza line despite being given no real chance to succeed with regular at bats.

BA plays an excellent CF, but right now he's not getting in the game despite that the people who ARE getting in the game at CF

a.) can't hit all that much better than BA
b.) play lousy CF
c.) CF is one of three positions on the baseball field that are predominately defense-based, and that if you were to sacrifice defense for offense there, the player in question better be damned well offensively superior than the other player by a pretty wide margin

See I thought that was the issue. I didn't realize it was so simple.

BA can't hit! It's all so clear to me now :rolleyes:

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 12:53 PM
Just a few quick points...

.330 is MLB average for OBP or close enough for spitting distance. Based on your power projections for 15 HR and a smattering of doubles he'd likely have an OPS over .700 which is starting to push into MLB average again and if he could do that, I wouldn't care.

Just to be picky, he's currently hitting .221 which is actually pretty damned close to Mendoza's career average, IIRC. Still we've definitely changed the line of acceptable level of play... BA - he's above the Mendoza line! I can see the bumper stickers now.

In addition to hitting .221, his OBP is .254 so you not only expect him to raise his average 30 points, but add on another 50 points to his avg/OBP differential. Over 560 career PA, BA isn't close to those numbers and the single best stretch he had (second half of 2006 he posted a .694 OPS with an OBP of .301 (44 points above his average). All of these stats come with a guarantee that the player in question will strike out one of every four times he comes to the plate.

So I ask again, where do you even get the confidence to throw out your expected numbers (not your expected celing numbers) but the lower ones? I agree he would probably hit the 15 HR he might even get to 35 doubles, but where do you see the other stuff coming from. He's never shown the patience or eye to put up the numbers you suggest.

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 01:08 PM
Just a few quick points...

.330 is MLB average for OBP or close enough for spitting distance. Based on your power projections for 15 HR and a smattering of doubles he'd likely have an OPS over .700 which is starting to push into MLB average again and if he could do that, I wouldn't care.

Just to be picky, he's currently hitting .221 which is actually pretty damned close to Mendoza's career average, IIRC. Still we've definitely changed the line of acceptable level of play... BA - he's above the Mendoza line! I can see the bumper stickers now.

:rolleyes:
It's not that .221 is acceptable.

It's that .221+excellent defense>.235+mediocre defense (Swisher)
or
.221+excellent defense>career .207 hitter + lousy defense (Wise)

Try to keep up.

The one thing that supposedly kept BA off the field was his inability to crack the Mendoza. Well he's done it, and all the other CF options aren't hitting much better (yeah, Wise is hitting .300 in 30 AB, but his career numbers are worse than BA's...AND he's 30...AND he's a lousy CF)


In addition to hitting .221, his OBP is .254 so you not only expect him to raise his average 30 points, but add on another 50 points to his avg/OBP differential. Over 560 career PA, BA isn't close to those numbers and the single best stretch he had (second half of 2006 he posted a .694 OPS with an OBP of .301 (44 points above his average). All of these stats come with a guarantee that the player in question will strike out one of every four times he comes to the plate.

Keep harping on that .330 point as if it was the lynchpin of the discussion (hint: it ****ing wasn't).


So I ask again, where do you even get the confidence to throw out your expected numbers (not your expected celing numbers) but the lower ones? I agree he would probably hit the 15 HR he might even get to 35 doubles, but where do you see the other stuff coming from. He's never shown the patience or eye to put up the numbers you suggest.

I get the confidence based on the fact that it's not ridiculous to think he can hit .250 and start drawing more walks one he gets regular playing time.

What else do you want me to say? You've made your decision, even though your position (that Swisher and Wise have somehow earned shared playing time in CF and that Anderson ought not be there) is pretty tenuous, to say the least.

Daver
06-29-2008, 01:11 PM
See, there is absolutely NOTHING in his MLB service time that makes those numbers seem likely to me. That's the part that gets super frustrating. You toss those numbers out, like ho hum, he can do this and I am forced to answer, "based on what?" If he'd actually shown that capability, you'd have far less people jumping on you and the other FOBA for pushing for more PT, but he's never even come close to showing that kind of potential. What was that stat rivaldi threw out? He hit .295 in AAA one year. Um, that generally doesn't translate to a .280/20+ hitter in the majors.

Love the kids glove. His bat is just plain bad. Assuming he can actually hit like an average MLB player seems delusional. Sorry if that's harsh, but seriously, based on what do you simply make the leap to the numbers you posted above? Have you watched this kid swing the bat? Have you checked out his ridiculous K totals? He chases high and away. He chases low and away. He chases off speed in the dirt. He simply doesn't have the eye or the patience to do what you are suggesting, IMO.

Aren't these the same floors we set for Uribe who has at least shown the ability to hit those numbers in the past? Should he be playing too?

BA

Can't

Hit

It's that simple. People suggesting otherwise must be drinking some new kind of Kool-Aid...


People spent three years saying the exact same thing about Joe Crede.

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 02:03 PM
People spent three years saying the exact same thing about Joe Crede.

By the time Crede got to 560 PA, he was outhitting BA by 100 OPS points and had a 200 AB run 30% higher than BA's current career OPS average and 20% better than BA's best 200 AB stretch. This perception that Crede got off to a bad start offensively doesn't really hold up. Yeah, he went what 0-43 in his first full season as a starter, but by the end of the year he was hitting at MLB average level.

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 02:16 PM
:rolleyes:
It's not that .221 is acceptable.

It's that .221+excellent defense>.235+mediocre defense (Swisher)
or
.221+excellent defense>career .207 hitter + lousy defense (Wise)

Try to keep up.

The one thing that supposedly kept BA off the field was his inability to crack the Mendoza. Well he's done it, and all the other CF options aren't hitting much better (yeah, Wise is hitting .300 in 30 AB, but his career numbers are worse than BA's...AND he's 30...AND he's a lousy CF)



Keep harping on that .330 point as if it was the lynchpin of the discussion (hint: it ****ing wasn't).



I get the confidence based on the fact that it's not ridiculous to think he can hit .250 and start drawing more walks one he gets regular playing time.

What else do you want me to say? You've made your decision, even though your position (that Swisher and Wise have somehow earned shared playing time in CF and that Anderson ought not be there) is pretty tenuous, to say the least.

No, my position is that Swisher should be the starting CF with BA as the 4th OF getting 1-2 starts a week and filling in late innings defensively. You're the one who keeps trying to shoehorn him into the starting lineup based on some weird belief that after almost a full season of AB in the majors in his career, BA is going to magically flip a switch and turn into a solid MLB hitter.

Swisher is an average to above average defensive CF. Wise isn't.

Swisher is outhitting BA by 100 OPS points most of that in the OBP category where he is actually slightly above league average this year (his worst in the majors). Oh and I love how you're using Swish's single year stats and Wise's career stats to justify your arguments. It's a great way of shading the stats in your favor, but it's pure bull****. You are also throwing out the OBP and the power numbers and acting like batting average is the be all and end all of offensive stats. Why you are doing that when I know you know better is beyond me. I can only assume the Kool-Aid was tasting extra good today...:tongue:

BA's ceiling is Swisher's average major league season and that's strictly from a batting average perspective. BA can't sniff Swisher's jock offensively for his career and like it or not, there isn't a glove in the world that is worth 150 OPS points provided the player with the higher OPS can actually play the defensive position competently which Swisher can. And just to prove I'm willing to give BA the benefit of the doubt, the actual number is 200 points on a career level. That's not something you take out of the lineup on a whim or even a gut instinct...

Now go ahead, make the next logical leap... Well Swisher can play 1B and Paulie can go to the bench after all, he's having the worst year of his career and is still only outhitting your buddy by 60 points of OPS...

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 02:16 PM
By the time Crede got to 560 PA, he was outhitting BA by 100 OPS points and had a 200 AB run 30% higher than BA's current career OPS average and 20% better than BA's best 200 AB stretch. This perception that Crede got off to a bad start offensively doesn't really hold up. Yeah, he went what 0-43 in his first full season as a starter, but by the end of the year he was hitting at MLB average level.

You're missing the point yet again.

Crede struggled mightily for 4 out of his first 5 years. Just because

a.) He had stretches of success in there (2002 for instance)
b.) Even when he was bad, he was still better than BA

don't disprove the idea that saying that a young player who was once regarded as a superstar has already "shown he can't hit" after 1.5 seasons of bad production is just plain silly.

It was silly with Ventura, it was silly with Crede (shoota) and it's silly now.

Will BA ever be good? Maybe maybe not. Will he ever be as good as Crede (Which to be accurate, isn't even all that great)? Probably not.

However, to have written off a player after

a.) a lousy rookie campaign where he had 360 ****ing atbats
b.) 17 AB in 2007
c.) 113 AB this year

is just plain ridiculous. It's just, as Daver pointed out, as stupid as people like Shoota who thought that after hitting .265 and .239 in his first two seasons, that Joe Crede had proven he could never be a starting 3B.

"But but but but but BA's even worse."

Keep missing the point....

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 02:25 PM
No, my position is that Swisher should be the starting CF with BA as the 4th OF getting 1-2 starts a week and filling in late innings defensively. You're the one who keeps trying to shoehorn him into the starting lineup based on some weird belief that after almost a full season of AB in the majors in his career, BA is going to magically flip a switch and turn into a solid MLB hitter.

Who's trying to shoehorn anyone in anywhere?

I, like most people who are supposedly "FOBA" are simply wondering why a guy who is average at best at CF and who can play 1B (a position where, last I checked, we had an opening) is not playing 1B and making room for a guy who can actually play CF at a high level.


Swisher is an average to above average defensive CF. Wise isn't.

Swisher is a below-average to average defensive CF.


Swisher is outhitting BA by 100 OPS points most of that in the OBP category where he is actually slightly above league average this year (his worst in the majors). Oh and I love how you're using Swish's single year stats and Wise's career stats to justify your arguments. It's a great way of shading the stats in your favor, but it's pure bull****. You are also throwing out the OBP and the power numbers and acting like batting average is the be all and end all of offensive stats. Why you are doing that when I know you know better is beyond me. I can only assume the Kool-Aid was tasting extra good today...:tongue:

I'm not using stats at all. I'm asking why a guy (Swisher) who isn't a great defensive CF and is clearly struggling at the plate, AND can play 1B (where we have an opening) is playing CF

I'm also asking why a guy (Wise) who is a lousy defensive CF AND a lousy hitter is playing CF


BA's ceiling is Swisher's average major league season and that's strictly from a batting average perspective. BA can't sniff Swisher's jock offensively for his career and like it or not, there isn't a glove in the world that is worth 150 OPS points provided the player with the higher OPS can actually play the defensive position competently which Swisher can. And just to prove I'm willing to give BA the benefit of the doubt, the actual number is 200 points on a career level. That's not something you take out of the lineup on a whim or even a gut instinct...

I like Swisher a lot, but you're missing the point yet again.

All the hilariously awesome Kool aid jokes won't change that. Why not try a churro joke instead. I hear they're hilarious.

The point is, with an opening at 1B, why is Swisher playing CF at all?

The point is, when Swisher doesn't play CF, why is Dewayne Wise playing CF?

It's not like

a.) We have a 1B right now
b.) Since we "do" have a 1B, Swisher is playing the OF 2 out of 3 or 3out of 4 games and Anderson is playing the other game.

No. Here's what's happening

a.) We have no 1B because Paulie's hurt
b.) Swisher still plays CF
c.) When Swisher DOESN'T play CF, Wise or Anderson plays it.

But go ahead, make another kool aid joke as if they're funny.


Now go ahead, make the next logical leap... Well Swisher can play 1B and Paulie can go to the bench after all, he's having the worst year of his career and is still only outhitting your buddy by 60 points of OPS...

When did I say that?

But with Thome struggling, why not have Swisher DH and have the best possible OF out there every now and then so Thome can rest and stay healthy all season long.

(Cue the posts where Voodoo must have somehow thought I was arguing that BA is better than Thome).

The point, the point which you are too busy labeling people and making unfunny jokes to see, is:

Given how lousy are offense is roundly, there are few arguments to be made why BA can't be in the lineup more than he is.

Swisher has been playing mediocrely, AND is versatile enough to help play around the field. We have been hurt at 1B and Swisher can play there. Additionally, Dewayne Wise has been getting plenty of starts in the OF. There is no excuse for that.

BA needs to be on the field more. His glove is worth a significant amount of runs in any given season, and if he can hit his weight, a player would have to have a significant advantage offensively over him to warrant him sitting on the bench.

You act like it's Swisher OR him in the lineup any given day. Well, if that were the case, then Swisher's 100+ OPS advantage would probably warrant Swisher playing over ANderson. But the point is, that there are more days than not when Anderson sits on his ass when Swisher AND Anderson could easily be in the lineup.

You rail against the supposed "FOBA" for being irrational and blinded by their biases. Well guess what: You have spent your last 5 posts arguing that somehow Dewayne Wise should have started (and played the entire) last two games in CF over BA, trying instead to convince your deluded self that you are really arguing Swisher over BA. Oops. Guess what: you're not.

That, to me is ridiculous. But it must only be ridiculous to me because I have been drinking the imagined Kool-aid of a hilarious VC quip.

:o:

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 02:41 PM
Swisher hasn't played CF since PK went down. He's played exclusively 1B and no one else has.

I don't know why OB decided to give Wise a chance, but he's been holding up his end offensively as well as adding a speed element to the lineup that otherwise hasn't been there.

Since 6/17 (when PK went down and Wise was recalled)

Wise stats: 9/24 (.375) 4 R, 2B, 3B, HR, 3 RBI, 2 SB, 2 BB, 7 K

Anderson stats: 2/21 (.095) R, 2B, HR, RBI, 0 SB, 0 BB, 6 K

I'm not saying I understand why OG did what he did, but the numbers justify him having done so. If Anderson had showed a solid improvement this year at the plate, I doubt it would have happened, but he hasn't and Ozzie took a chance. He hit a hot streak for Wise and rode it.

Daver
06-29-2008, 03:03 PM
By the time Crede got to 560 PA, he was outhitting BA by 100 OPS points and had a 200 AB run 30% higher than BA's current career OPS average and 20% better than BA's best 200 AB stretch. This perception that Crede got off to a bad start offensively doesn't really hold up. Yeah, he went what 0-43 in his first full season as a starter, but by the end of the year he was hitting at MLB average level.

Yeah, because he played everyday, something Brian has never done.

russ99
06-29-2008, 03:21 PM
Lol...I'll take my medicine that I'm excessively enthusiastic about this organization's mismanagement of a player who will never be a worldbeater--after all it is a rather minor point that BA should be starting compared to the other woes of this team past and present.

However, if I take that lump you should take the lump that you're absolutely full of **** about "insane fans...claiming [BA] would be a worldbeater if X,Y, Z didn't keep happening."

That's absolute BS. Most of BA's supporters merely say he'd probably be hitting serviceably and playing sensational defense if he were given a chance to play. Maybe you're thinking of 3 years ago when he was still a top prospect. At this point most people recognize that BA's ceiling is probably hitting .280 with 20-something HR. His ceiling.

If you'd ask some of these people you accuse of "claiming [BA] woudl be a world beater" what their realistic expectations are of him if he started the entire season they'd probably tell you "hitting .250, .330 OBP, 15 HR while playing excellent defense at a key defensive position." I'd be shocked if anyone would tell you "der he's going to be a world beater"

Since he's not hitting abysmally (just poorly) and is already playing sensational defense, it's clear that that's not a ridiculous claim to make. (It may be a wrong claim to make, but that's a different story).

Yes, people like me and others maybe are devoting a little too much attention to BA's continual underutilization by Ozzie, but so what? There's a lot of small things to nitpick on a team, and I choose the fact that Ozzie continues to obsess over going with slight improvements in batting average by Wise and Swisher (and ****ing Alexei Ramirez) instead of sacrificing 10-20 BA points and actually putting someone in CF who can play the position at an elite level.

Wow, that's a simply awful generalization.

First off, no one will be confused between the fielding of Brian Anderson and a true elite defensive CF, like Lofton was in his prime, or even Torii the last few years.

He's very good defensively, but let's be honest here. There isn't that drastic a drop-off between BA and Wise, although there certainly is when it comes to Swisher playing pretty much out of position.

Also, how can you rip on Alexei Ramirez, when a year after defecting from Cuba, he took advantage of limited playing time and raised the level of his game, when Mr. First Rounder who's been handed everything to him obviously can't do the same. Mismanagement doesn't enter into the conversation - he's been given many chances (like starting CF for half the 2006 season) and has yet to develop into a regular.

Truth be told, even if Anderson was able to play every day (again), I have serious doubts he could be the good hitter some of you make him out to be, or this all-star many of you think he'll develop into.

I also have a suspicion that Kenny will do something about our CF situation, either before the deadline or in the offseason. But for now, the platoon in CF is working.

I'm not a hater, either. I'll cheer for Brian when he plays and especially so when he does well, but I'm not deluded as to how good he is either. I think he has a lot to contribute to the Sox as a 4th or 5th outfielder, and quite valuable as a defensive replacement. Any good hitting days and occasional homers I'll gladly take as a bonus.

UofCSoxFan
06-29-2008, 03:22 PM
Yeah, because he played everyday, something Brian has never done.

2006?

Oh that's right, that doesn't count because he was a rookie. Crede played everyday b/c we didn't have other options. We do have other options in CF.

For all the people that correctly state BA's batting average is only 10 points below Swisher's you are conviniently ignoring the OBP, SLG, and OPS comparisons. Those tell a lot more than batting average and they aren't even close. A .270 OBP from BA is horrendous.

Unfoturnately the way baseball works on a first place team is you show something in limited at-bats, when circumstances aren't ideal, and you earn more playing time and if you keep producing you crack the starting lineup and stay there. This is what happened with Carols Quinten and Alexei Ramirez.

On first place teams, you don't gift playing time to people and hope they do enough to justify it.

As many others have stated here, I actually like Anderson as a late inning replacement/spot starter. I just can't stand the argument that Anderson will be a .280 hitter with 25 home runs if he gets to start everyday based on the fact that a) it is easier to hit when playing everyday than not and b) some other players have started slow and had fine careers....FOBA can point to nothing specific to Brian Anderson that shows he can turn the corner.

kittle42
06-29-2008, 03:35 PM
So what? :rolleyes: It's certainly less odd to continually be bothered by the BA sitting than to be continued to be bothered by posters' grammar

You really just will never let it go, will you? The whole rest of your post is now tainted by your single-minded attempt to rip on my pet peeves. :cool:

kittle42
06-29-2008, 03:44 PM
I like Brian Anderson. I would love him to be a great player in a Sox uniform, despite whether or not I think that's likely.

That being said, threads like this make me think the day he gets traded/released/etc. will be a good day for me.

Hey, Sammy Sosa was my least favorite Sox player of all time. I could be wrong twice.

MarySwiss
06-29-2008, 03:58 PM
Gosh, all the time I spent reading this thread, I could have been cleaning my oven. Damn! :cool:

I know there's no poll in this thread, but if there were and FWIW, I'd be voting with the 4th OF/spot starter/late inning replacement school. I'd really like to believe his hitting will come around, but most of the time, he just looks lost at the plate.

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 04:46 PM
Swisher hasn't played CF since PK went down. He's played exclusively 1B and no one else has.

I don't know why OB decided to give Wise a chance, but he's been holding up his end offensively as well as adding a speed element to the lineup that otherwise hasn't been there.

Since 6/17 (when PK went down and Wise was recalled)

Wise stats: 9/24 (.375) 4 R, 2B, 3B, HR, 3 RBI, 2 SB, 2 BB, 7 K

Anderson stats: 2/21 (.095) R, 2B, HR, RBI, 0 SB, 0 BB, 6 K

I'm not saying I understand why OG did what he did, but the numbers justify him having done so. If Anderson had showed a solid improvement this year at the plate, I doubt it would have happened, but he hasn't and Ozzie took a chance. He hit a hot streak for Wise and rode it.

Once again you miss the point. This isn't about Swisher OR BA.

It's about why BA isn't in CF :rolleyes:

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 04:50 PM
Once again you miss the point. This isn't about Swisher OR BA.

It's about why BA isn't in CF :rolleyes:

sigh.... because his bat sucks so badly that they can't afford to play his great glove...

and around the tree we go again...

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 04:51 PM
Wow, that's a simply awful generalization.

First off, no one will be confused between the fielding of Brian Anderson and a true elite defensive CF, like Lofton was in his prime, or even Torii the last few years.

He'd immediately be one of the 5 best, if not THE best starting CF in baseball (defensively speaking only) if he started starting.

Also, your choice of Kenny Lofton and Torii Hunter as, like, the definitive "awesome defensive CF" shows your depth of knowledge about CFers...

He's very good defensively, but let's be honest here. There isn't that drastic a drop-off between BA and Wise,

You know that round white thing with red stitches on it? It's called a baseball.

BA is very good at fielding them in CF. Wise is very bad at it.


Also, how can you rip on Alexei Ramirez, when a year after defecting from Cuba, he took advantage of limited playing time and raised the level of his game, when Mr. First Rounder who's been handed everything to him obviously can't do the same. Mismanagement doesn't enter into the conversation - he's been given many chances (like starting CF for half the 2006 season) and has yet to develop into a regular.

I love Alexei. As a 2B or a SS. He has no ****ing business starting the first two games of the season in CF, and he made that abundantly clear by playing embarrassingly bad CF defense.

Not his fault, but he's still not a CF.


Truth be told, even if Anderson was able to play every day (again), I have serious doubts he could be the good hitter some of you make him out to be, or this all-star many of you think he'll develop into.

You have no clue what anyone is trying to claim about BA.

No one thinks he's going to be a good hitter this year, or any time in the near future, nor does anyone think he's about to blossom into an allstar by getting steady playing time.

What people DO think is that he will give you, IF GIVEN REGULAR ABs, acceptable offensive production and outstanding defensive production. That may or may not be the case, but what IS NOT THE CASE is that anyone's claiming the only thing keeping BA from being an all-star is Ozzie :rolleyes:


I also have a suspicion that Kenny will do something about our CF situation, either before the deadline or in the offseason. But for now, the platoon in CF is working.

Oh it is? How many games ahead of Minnesota were we 2 weeks ago?

How many games ahead are we now?


I'm not a hater, either. I'll cheer for Brian when he plays and especially so when he does well, but I'm not deluded as to how good he is either. I think he has a lot to contribute to the Sox as a 4th or 5th outfielder, and quite valuable as a defensive replacement. Any good hitting days and occasional homers I'll gladly take as a bonus.

Neither is anyone here, unless you think "thinking that it's plausible that if BA got regular at bats he could hit around .250" is delusional :rolleyes:

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 04:52 PM
sigh.... because his bat sucks so badly that they can't afford to play his great glove...

and around the tree we go again...

Ok...so his bat is so bad that you replace him with this guy in CF:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wisede01.shtml

OH BUT HE HAS 10 HITS IN 30 AB SO FORGET ABOUT THIS THIRTY YEAR OLD NEVER-WAS'S CAREER NUMBERS!!!!!1

Maybe if you would ****ing pay attention we wouldn't be going around the tree :rolleyes:

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 04:55 PM
2006?

Oh that's right, that doesn't count because he was a rookie. Crede played everyday b/c we didn't have other options. We do have other options in CF.


BA had 365 AB in 2006.

Doesn't sound like any everyday player I've ever heard of.

Oh wait, he must have gotten injured halfway through the season right?

That must be why an everyday player in 2006 only has 360 AB, right?

:rolleyes:

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 04:59 PM
Ok...so his bat is so bad that you replace him with this guy in CF:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wisede01.shtml

OH BUT HE HAS 10 HITS IN 30 AB SO FORGET ABOUT THIS THIRTY YEAR OLD NEVER-WAS'S CAREER NUMBERS!!!!!1

Maybe if you would ****ing pay attention we wouldn't be going around the tree :rolleyes:

I didn't replace him with Wise. I don't have a problem with BA getting more AB while PK is injured. I want Swisher out there when PK comes back. That's all. All I pointed out was that for these past 2 weeks while splitting time, Wise has been more than acceptable offensively and that's coming up cold from AAA with bad career stats behind him.

If Wise can continue to put up numbers like he as these past 14 days, then yes, by all means, keep him and send BA down where he can get those precious regular AB and possibly develop into the average player you think he can be.

Oh and great use of completely jumping the shark in the last reply.

Of course it's all because of the CF problem that the Sox have lost their lead... :rolleyes:

Honestly, at least try to stay on point...

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 05:05 PM
I didn't replace him with Wise.

I think it should be understood that when I criticize lineup decisions, I'm talking about a mistake on Ozzie's part, not yours :rolleyes:


Oh and great use of completely jumping the shark in the last reply.

Of course it's all because of the CF problem that the Sox have lost their lead... :rolleyes:

Well dude said "But for now, the platoon in CF is working."

If I said "No it's not, we have a ****ty CFer in CF and he's making lousy plays in CF" he probably would have JABRCHed me and said: "der...da sox are in firt pwace so i tink dat its wuhking"

It had to be said.

We have a ****ty CFer in CF AND we are losing games. :shrug:


Honestly, at least try to stay on point...

Honestly? Level with me...is that what's important? Staying on point?

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 05:33 PM
I think it should be understood that when I criticize lineup decisions, I'm talking about a mistake on Ozzie's part, not yours :rolleyes:



Well dude said "But for now, the platoon in CF is working."

If I said "No it's not, we have a ****ty CFer in CF and he's making lousy plays in CF" he probably would have JABRCHed me and said: "der...da sox are in firt pwace so i tink dat its wuhking"

It had to be said.

We have a ****ty CFer in CF AND we are losing games. :shrug:



Honestly? Level with me...is that what's important? Staying on point?

Well yes, or at least try to not make your particular cause equal effect. What else has happened in the last 2 weeks aside from the season wrecking platoon?

Exactly 2 weeks ago 6/15 entering game play, the Sox were 38-30 and held a 4.5 game lead over Minnesota who was 34-35.

Since then the Sox have increased their record to 45-35 by going 7-5. If they do this the rest of the year, the Sox will end up at 93 wins.

Meanwhile Minnesota has been out of their mind going 10-2 to get to 44-37. I'll take my chances that the Twinkies won't continue to play .833 ball the rest of the year and if they do, you simply have to tip your caps to them and aim for 2009.

The Sox aren't losing ground to Minnesota, Minnesota is making up ground on the Sox by playing great otherworldly baseball against a group of crappy teams.

Your insistence that it's the fault of the CF platoon only adds to the feeling that the FOBA will say anything to justify their position.

Madscout
06-29-2008, 06:23 PM
BA had 365 AB in 2006.

Doesn't sound like any everyday player I've ever heard of.

Oh wait, he must have gotten injured halfway through the season right?

That must be why an everyday player in 2006 only has 360 AB, right?

:rolleyes:
To back up your point, what was our record in the first part of '06, when he played regularly vs the second half where he was platooned? That team needed defense behind them, as Garcia was our only real tested and true strikeout pitcher. Buehrle need's his D. Same with Contreras. Vasquez would blow up the first sign of a error. Garland had the same struggles.

How much do you think it gets into the pitching staff's head when they think, "That guy in CF can't catch the ball, so I can't make that pitch". It sounds Hawkish, but you won't see a stat on this, but it shows up in the flow of a game in the pitches pitched, the location of those pitches, and when mistakes come, where those mistakes are.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2008, 07:06 PM
Yeah, because he played everyday, something Brian has never done.

It is an empirical fact that BA hits better against RHP. It's also a fact that most of his recent starts have been against LHP.

When Mackowiak was on the team, the CF platoon benefited Mackowiak and disadvantaged BA.

Now that Wise is on the team, the CF platoon (with PK on the DL) benefits Wise and disadvantages BA.

One need not be a FOBA to recognize these factual truths.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-29-2008, 07:11 PM
Many FOBAs were created, historically, by the pain of watching horrid play in CF cost the Sox games at a time in 2006 when it still mattered and when the line-up was hitting well enough that SOME people -- not all, but some -- thought that we could afford his bat to have his sparkling defense. Reasonable minds could differ on this. It is possible. It doesn't mean that people are stupid or deluded.

Well, fast forward to now and all sorts on insults are being hurled, and people being accused of ruining the site? For supporting a Sox player?

BA is not going to get enough playing time for the people who feel he never got enough playing time. He is going to have to make the best of what it is. I'll be hoping he does what he can and I'll be happy when a tough play needs to be made in CF and he happens to be there that day, or that inning.

UofCSoxFan
06-29-2008, 07:21 PM
BA had 365 AB in 2006.

Doesn't sound like any everyday player I've ever heard of.

Oh wait, he must have gotten injured halfway through the season right?

That must be why an everyday player in 2006 only has 360 AB, right?

:rolleyes:

You're kidding me right?

First off, he played in 134 games in 2006...thats pretty damn close to a full year. Second, he played full time for the first 2/3 of the year until we just couldn't live with it anymore because he was terrible.

I'm trying to have a rational conversation with you about this but unless you want to make a point that actually makes sense I'm done.

UofCSoxFan
06-29-2008, 07:26 PM
To back up your point, what was our record in the first part of '06, when he played regularly vs the second half where he was platooned? That team needed defense behind them, as Garcia was our only real tested and true strikeout pitcher. Buehrle need's his D. Same with Contreras. Vasquez would blow up the first sign of a error. Garland had the same struggles.


How much do you think it gets into the pitching staff's head when they think, "That guy in CF can't catch the ball, so I can't make that pitch". It sounds Hawkish, but you won't see a stat on this, but it shows up in the flow of a game in the pitches pitched, the location of those pitches, and when mistakes come, where those mistakes are.

There's a phrase in statistics that's pretty powerlful: correlation is not the same as causation. Just because they won a lot while BA was playing everyday doesn't mean they were winning because he was out there. They won 90 games as a team in 2006, so they didn't really "tank" when BA started platooning and they would have won more if they had a better CF out there. That's why they started platooning him in the first place.

Again, I acutally like Anderson in his role, but it's getter harder and harder for me to differentiate between the irritation, to put it nicely, I have with the FOBA on here and the player himself.

I mean come on people. The guy is a below average major league player.

Daver
06-29-2008, 07:28 PM
You're kidding me right?

First off, he played in 134 games in 2006...thats pretty damn close to a full year. Second, he played full time for the first 2/3 of the year until we just couldn't live with it anymore because he was terrible.

I'm trying to have a rational conversation with you about this but unless you want to make a point that actually makes sense I'm done.

How many innings did he play?

Your using meaningless numbers to prove a stupid point.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2008, 07:48 PM
Many FOBAs were created, historically, by the pain of watching horrid play in CF cost the Sox games at a time in 2006 when it still mattered and when the line-up was hitting well enough that SOME people -- not all, but some -- thought that we could afford his bat to have his sparkling defense. Reasonable minds could differ on this. It is possible. It doesn't mean that people are stupid or deluded.

Well, fast forward to now and all sorts on insults are being hurled, and people being accused of ruining the site? For supporting a Sox player?

BA is not going to get enough playing time for the people who feel he never got enough playing time. He is going to have to make the best of what it is. I'll be hoping he does what he can and I'll be happy when a tough play needs to be made in CF and he happens to be there that day, or that inning.

Great post. Bad CF defense directly and specifically cost the Sox at least three or four games in 2006.

Brian26
06-29-2008, 07:51 PM
You're kidding me right?

First off, he played in 134 games in 2006...thats pretty damn close to a full year.

If he came in to play in the bottom of the 9th as a defensive substitute for Mackowiak, that was counted as a game. That stat doesn't prove your point at all. You need to look at innings played or at-bats.

Second, he played full time for the first 2/3 of the year until we just couldn't live with it anymore because he was terrible.

Well, that's just not true. He played 50/50 for the first half of the season with Mackowiak. He didn't play CF everyday for the first four months of the season. That's just misleading and incorrect.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2008, 07:58 PM
If he came in to play in the bottom of the 9th as a defensive substitute for Mackowiak, that was counted as a game. That stat doesn't prove your point at all. You need to look at innings played or at-bats.

Well, that's just not true. He played 50/50 for the first half of the season with Mackowiak. He didn't play CF everyday for the first four months of the season. That's just misleading and incorrect.

Precisely. In fact, at one point during the season, Ozzie was asked about benching BA for the second game of the year after he had a great Opening Night. Ozzie replied that it had been his plan all along to give Mackowiak regular starts in CF against pitchers whom Ozzie thought Mack would hit well. The demonstrably proves that not only was BA platooned from the beginning, but in a platoon specifically designed to benefit Mackowiak. I'm not complaining that this was somehow unfair to BA. I am, however, still pissed that bad CF defense cost the Sox several games in 2006.

I'm not interested in fariness to any particular player. I am interested in having the best possible up-the-middle defense on the field because good defense up the middle helps the pitchers prevent baserunners and prevent runs.

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 08:26 PM
THAT PROVES IT!

BENCH SWISHER TRADE KONERKO DEMOTE WISE!

It's All BA ALL THE TIME BABY!!!!!!!

voodoochile
06-29-2008, 08:35 PM
THAT PROVES IT!

BENCH SWISHER TRADE KONERKO DEMOTE WISE!

It's All BA ALL THE TIME BABY!!!!!!!
LOL

Oh and excellent work around on the no all-caps software. Took me a minute to see it...

fquaye149
06-29-2008, 08:38 PM
LOL

Oh and excellent work around on the no all-caps software. Took me a minute to see it...

Now that the BA dispute has been settled, might as well close the thread.

What say we have a Core of the Core party at BA's enshrinement in 2027?

SoxandtheCityTee
06-29-2008, 08:40 PM
What say we have a Core of the Core party at BA's enshrinement in 2027?

I'm in.

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2008, 08:54 PM
I'm in.

SoxandtheCityTee, maybe the two of us could design t-shirts for the event! You game?

SoxandtheCityTee
06-29-2008, 09:00 PM
SoxandtheCityTee, maybe the two of us could design t-shirts for the event! You game?

I'm going to wear my one-of-a-kind WSI Fest T-shirt from last year (8/20).

I was the only person who ordered one -- they made it for me anyway.

MeteorsSox4367
06-29-2008, 09:00 PM
chisoxfanatic: Here's a hypothetical for you. Given your passion for hockey, what kind of NHLer would Brian Anderson make? Fourth-line grinder, 50-goal scorer?

Thoughts...

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2008, 09:05 PM
chisoxfanatic: Here's a hypothetical for you. Given your passion for hockey, what kind of NHLer would Brian Anderson make? Fourth-line grinder, 50-goal scorer?

Thoughts...
He's this team's Duncan Keith. Speedy great defense, not getting the full credit he deserves.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2008, 09:06 PM
chisoxfanatic: Here's a hypothetical for you. Given your passion for hockey, what kind of NHLer would Brian Anderson make? Fourth-line grinder, 50-goal scorer?

Thoughts...

Star goaltender. Great glove, no stick, but not in the game for his offense...

Huisj
06-29-2008, 09:06 PM
I think there's a flaw with the idea of platooning Anderson and Wise in CF: Anderson doesn't hit well against lefties. He's a career .194 hitter vs. lefties, and this year he's hitting around .140 against them. He's always been a lot better against righties.

Of course this will all probably be a moot point as soon as Konerko comes off the DL.

MeteorsSox4367
06-29-2008, 09:07 PM
He's this team's Duncan Keith. Speedy great defense, not getting the full credit he deserves.

Yeah, but who's got better hair?

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2008, 09:10 PM
Yeah, but who's got better hair?
Neither...I'll give that to TCQ. :cool:

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2008, 09:12 PM
Neither...I'll give that to TCQ. :cool:

Lego Hair? :D:

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2008, 09:15 PM
Lego Hair? :D:
The "chicken or egg" question of the evening:

Did TCQ inspire Lego hair, or did Lego hair inspire TCQ? :cool:

Nellie_Fox
06-30-2008, 01:38 AM
How many games ahead of Minnesota were we 2 weeks ago?

How many games ahead are we now?Explain to me how the White Sox center field situation contributed to the Twins winning 11 of their last 12. :scratch:

oeo
06-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Explain to me how the White Sox center field situation contributed to the Twins winning 11 of their last 12. :scratch:

Brian Anderson has super powers.

UofCSoxFan
06-30-2008, 03:30 PM
If he came in to play in the bottom of the 9th as a defensive substitute for Mackowiak, that was counted as a game. That stat doesn't prove your point at all. You need to look at innings played or at-bats.



Well, that's just not true. He played 50/50 for the first half of the season with Mackowiak. He didn't play CF everyday for the first four months of the season. That's just misleading and incorrect.

Mackowiak was brought in to be a super utility guy/bat off the bench. He started playing everyday in center because Brian Anderson was hitting like a pitcher in the 9 spot and the 5 balls a month he gets too over an average centerfielder wasn't making up for the fact.

I mean doesn't it say something that we were willing to play Rob Mackowiak in center everyday (who isn't exactly Soriano at the plate) instead of Anderson? I mean there was a reason he wasn't out there.

When they traded Rowand, Brian Anderson was the guy and through his poor play and self-admitedly poor dedication to the the game he lost the job. Poor kid.

You people make it sound like 500 career at-bats is a trivial amount. There are plenty of people that don't get a fifth of that before they are written off. It's not like he has steller minor league numbers to back it up and make you think he'll turn it around (like say Crede did).

And yes this is focussing on his offense, but can we all please stop overrating his defense in an attempt to justify his playing time. He is a good to very good defensive OF but when people are making comments like "He'd instantly be the best defensive OF in MLB if he were an everyday starter" that's a little absurd. The guy gets good jumps and and reads and has a good arm, but he has only above average speed, which will keep him from truly being the best in the game. Or at the very least, could someone quote a defensive efficiency rating for me for Anderson to prove that he is such a vastly superior defensive OF? Again I think he is good, and compared to the crap we have out there defensively, he's by far our best, but compared to the whole league he's probably in the top quartile but not higher.

kittle42
06-30-2008, 04:25 PM
And yes this is focussing on his offense, but can we all please stop overrating his defense in an attempt to justify his playing time. He is a good to very good defensive OF but when people are making comments like "He'd instantly be the best defensive OF in MLB if he were an everyday starter" that's a little absurd. The guy gets good jumps and and reads and has a good arm, but he has only above average speed, which will keep him from truly being the best in the game. Or at the very least, could someone quote a defensive efficiency rating for me for Anderson to prove that he is such a vastly superior defensive OF? Again I think he is good, and compared to the crap we have out there defensively, he's by far our best, but compared to the whole league he's probably in the top quartile but not higher.

He's an "elite" defender. :D:

Frontman
06-30-2008, 04:51 PM
Explain to me how the White Sox center field situation contributed to the Twins winning 11 of their last 12. :scratch:

If Brian Anderson started; they would of lost 13 out of 12.

UofCSoxFan
06-30-2008, 05:27 PM
He's an "elite" defender. :D:

OK....anything to back that up? I mean like I said I think he's in the top 25% of all CF, but I'll just throw this out there, I think we may overrate him because a) the Sox OF has been bad for years (when Aaron Roward is considered an elite OF for your organization it says a lot), and b) his offense is so bad that people that want to see him succeed latch onto the good part of his game and make it even better in their minds. This may not be the case, but I'd like someone to give me some kind of stat besides observation (which has been far from objective regarding this player on both sides of the debate) that points to why he is an elite defender? I don't have a subscription to baseball prospectus, but their defensive efficiency ratio, which rates how many balls the fielder fields compared to an average fielder, depending where they are hit, is pretty good and can help differentiate if a guy is truly elite or if he has to make great plays to make up for his short comings (see Dye, Jermaine). Even something as simple as outfield assists or fielding percentage against the league (which really only telll a fraction of the story, for example Man Ram has a ton of assists b/c people try to run on him after he misplays balls whereas no one tries to run on Ichiro) would be beneficial.

Just give me something tangible as to why he is an elite OF worthy of playing in a small ballpark (which diminishes the value of a good defensive OF) despite a .220 average? I'm sorry, but the "I can tell by just observing argument" isn't going to convince me because I'm seeing the same stuff and woud call him very good, but not elite.

For what its worth, I thought Edmonds and Rowand were overrated OF's too simply b/c they had to make great plays often to make up for unremarkable speed and poor routes, wheras guys like Lofton on Jones in their prime would make the play easily, so maybe I'm just a tough sell.

Daver
06-30-2008, 05:34 PM
OK....anything to back that up? I mean like I said I think he's in the top 25% of all CF, but I'll just throw this out there, I think we may overrate him because a) the Sox OF has been bad for years (when Aaron Roward is considered an elite OF for your organization it says a lot), and b) his offense is so bad that people that want to see him succeed latch onto the good part of his game and make it even better in their minds. This may not be the case, but I'd like someone to give me some kind of stat besides observation (which has been far from objective regarding this player on both sides of the debate) that points to why he is an elite defender? I don't have a subscription to baseball prospectus, but their defensive efficiency ratio, which rates how many balls the fielder fields compared to an average fielder, depending where they are hit, is pretty good and can help differentiate if a guy is truly elite or if he has to make great plays to make up for his short comings (see Dye, Jermaine). Even something as simple as outfield assists or fielding percentage against the league (which really only telll a fraction of the story, for example Man Ram has a ton of assists b/c people try to run on him after he misplays balls whereas no one tries to run on Ichiro) would be beneficial.

Just give me something tangible as to why he is an elite OF worthy of playing in a small ballpark (which diminishes the value of a good defensive OF) despite a .220 average? I'm sorry, but the "I can tell by just observing argument" isn't going to convince me because I'm seeing the same stuff and woud call him very good, but not elite.

For what its worth, I thought Edmonds and Rowand were overrated OF's too simply b/c they had to make great plays often to make up for unremarkable speed and poor routes, wheras guys like Lofton on Jones in their prime would make the play easily, so maybe I'm just a tough sell.


The stat your looking for is called a scouting report.

kittle42
06-30-2008, 05:47 PM
OK....anything to back that up?


I hate using teal.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2008, 06:07 PM
The stat your looking for is called a scouting report.

I'm no expert, and I don't have access to scouting reports (other than what you and a few others provide), but at least I know to trust the scouts, especially when they evaluate defense.

Also, even though I'm no expert and don't get to watch the Sox that much, I do trust my eyes.

It's too bad some folks only trust "assessments" in the form of nifty little percentages.

Tragg
06-30-2008, 06:26 PM
I see that this thread has no received at least its third forum downgrade.
It's entertaining reading, though. LOL

Free Brian Anderson!

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2008, 07:07 PM
I see that this thread has no received at least its third forum downgrade.
It's entertaining reading, though. LOL

Free Brian Anderson!

Some of the hate of a Sox player and Sox fans who like him isn't even worthy of the Roadhouse's Roadhouse... :(:

CLR01
06-30-2008, 07:07 PM
I see that this thread has no received at least its third forum downgrade.
It's entertaining reading, though. LOL

Free Brian Anderson!


This thread has only received one forum downgrade and it only got that because there were already two other active threads discussing how much Ando sucks at life.

Everytime he takes a breath a new born dies.

Daver
06-30-2008, 07:11 PM
I'm no expert, and I don't have access to scouting reports (other than what you and a few others provide), but at least I know to trust the scouts, especially when they evaluate defense.

Also, even though I'm no expert and don't get to watch the Sox that much, I do trust my eyes.

It's too bad some folks only trust "assessments" in the form of nifty little percentages.

I am not a scout, and I don't play one on TV, hell I didn't even stay in Holiday Inn Express last night.

I do know several scouts, including one that works part time for the Minnesota Twins.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2008, 07:25 PM
I am not a scout, and I don't play one on TV, hell I didn't even stay in Holiday Inn Express last night.

I do know several scouts, including one that works part time for the Minnesota Twins.

The fact that you do know several scouts - and given that you played ball as a catcher - means I generally trust your analysis more than 99% of the other WSI members. (I also trust ondafarm's analysis, because he also caught professionally and knows many scouts.)

As long as this is related to the topic of the thread, what do the scouts you know say about BA?

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2008, 07:56 PM
Interesting tidbit:

BA's SLG: .397
PK's SLG: .368
:o:

Daver
06-30-2008, 08:27 PM
The fact that you do know several scouts - and given that you played ball as a catcher - means I generally trust your analysis more than 99% of the other WSI members. (I also trust ondafarm's analysis, because he also caught professionally and knows many scouts.)

As long as this is related to the topic of the thread, what do the scouts you know say about BA?

The Cliff's Notes version.

Offensive; struggles with offspeed pitching, doesn't see lefties well, good power when he makes contact, above average speed.

Defensive; above average fielder, reads the ball off the bat well, moves to the ball rapidly, above average arm, former pitcher can get the ball where he wants it.

oeo
06-30-2008, 09:20 PM
This thread has only received one forum downgrade and it only got that because there were already two other active threads discussing how much Ando sucks at life.

Everytime he takes a breath a new born dies.

That's cute.

Tragg
06-30-2008, 09:30 PM
The Cliff's Notes version.

Offensive; doesn't see lefties well,

That's what he hits against primarily. And in 06, it was a lot of Sabathia and Santana

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2008, 09:35 PM
The Cliff's Notes version.

Offensive; struggles with offspeed pitching, doesn't see lefties well, good power when he makes contact, above average speed.

Defensive; above average fielder, reads the ball off the bat well, moves to the ball rapidly, above average arm, former pitcher can get the ball where he wants it.

Are there adjustments that he can make that can help him see lefties better?

Similarly, what kind of adjustments must he make to handle offspeed pitches better?

fquaye149
07-01-2008, 07:39 AM
Explain to me how the White Sox center field situation contributed to the Twins winning 11 of their last 12. :scratch:

If you saw the post I quoted you would see that was a response to that poster's "all is well in CF so why worry about it" comment, not an assertion that the reason we coughed up 5 games to the Twins was because Dewayne Wise was in CF :rolleyes:

fquaye149
07-01-2008, 07:40 AM
I hate using teal.

Wow. You really think that BA isn't an elite defender, huh.

Either your judgment is severely clouded by your "objectivity that helps your realize that BA isn't good" or you don't understand the game of baseball.

It's clear as day to anyone who watches him play CF that he's one of the best defensive CF's in baseball today.

fquaye149
07-01-2008, 07:41 AM
Interesting tidbit:

BA's SLG: .397
PK's SLG: .368
:o:

oh brother now you've done it!

kittle42
07-01-2008, 10:10 AM
Wow. You really think that BA isn't an elite defender, huh.

Either your judgment is severely clouded by your "objectivity that helps your realize that BA isn't good" or you don't understand the game of baseball.

It's clear as day to anyone who watches him play CF that he's one of the best defensive CF's in baseball today.

"Elite" is a stretch. Is he top 25%? Sure. I don't watch enough games not involving the Sox to say he's elite.

UofCSoxFan
07-01-2008, 11:40 AM
The Cliff's Notes version.

Offensive; struggles with offspeed pitching, doesn't see lefties well, good power when he makes contact, above average speed.

Defensive; above average fielder, reads the ball off the bat well, moves to the ball rapidly, above average arm, former pitcher can get the ball where he wants it.

That's exactly how I see him. How that translates into "elite" is beyond me. Maybe he is "elite" for this team. That scouting report describes a valuable 4th OF/late inning replacement, which is what I want BA to be on this team. On a different team, or in a different season, he may be more...he might not.

I feel like in this discussion, I can look at the same "data" as others, interpret the same way, and still have an argument over how much playing time the man should get. It's pretty perplexing.

And spare me the "I played baseball so I know what I'm talking about argument." I played ball in college which is more than a 99% of people to ever pick up a glove, and that doesn't qualify me more than anyone to view talent. There are plenty of people that play pro ball that know nothing about the game and are just tremendous atheletes (I wouldn't trust Tyrus Thomas' basketball analysis, for example, just b/c he played in the NBA).

UofCSoxFan
07-01-2008, 11:48 AM
Interesting tidbit:

BA's SLG: .397
PK's SLG: .368
:o:

BA's Career SLG: .363
PK's Career SLG: .490

That's the difference.

Paulie has a track record and Anderson does not. No one here is going to argue that Paulie doesn't need to pick up his game this year, but again, the argument that BA should play b/c other people are underperforming just as bad as him really isn't much of an argument. It may say we need to bring other people in, but it doesn't really make Brian Anderson a good option, now does it?

UofCSoxFan
07-01-2008, 11:52 AM
More Baseball Reference Fun:

Brian Nikola Anderson (White Sox OF)
Career Batting Average: .219 (535 ABs)

Brian James Anderson (Pitched 13 Seasons)
Career Batting Average .137 (255 ABS)

Both were in there for their defense, but only 1 could lay down a bunt.

Daver
07-01-2008, 07:26 PM
"Elite" is a stretch. Is he top 25%? Sure. I don't watch enough games not involving the Sox to say he's elite.

I have never said he is elite, but he is among the tops in the league. He's the best the Sox have had at that position in a lot of years.

UofCSoxFan
07-01-2008, 09:11 PM
I have never said he is elite, but he is among the tops in the league. He's the best the Sox have had at that position in a lot of years.

Daver, I know you didn't say elite...someone else did and I was using your quote to refute that claim...sorry for the confusion.

And you are correct, he is the best we've had out there in awhile. That's for sure, but again the bar isn't exatcly set very high.

I will give you guys that Anderson has looked solid the past couple games at the plate. Hopefully it's something he can build on.

kittle42
07-01-2008, 09:12 PM
I have never said he is elite, but he is among the tops in the league. He's the best the Sox have had at that position in a lot of years.

Daver, I know you didn't say elite...someone else did and I was using your quote to refute that claim...sorry for the confusion.

And you are correct, he is the best we've had out there in awhile. That's for sure, but again the bar isn't exatcly set very high.

I will give you guys that Anderson has looked solid the past couple games at the plate. Hopefully it's something he can build on.

Agreed and agreed. But according to other posters, Daver, you of course then obviously know nothing about baseball.

Daver
07-01-2008, 09:18 PM
Agreed and agreed. But according to other posters, Daver, you of course then obviously know nothing about baseball.

Oh trust me, I know nothing about baseball. Nothing.

chisoxfanatic
07-02-2008, 11:35 PM
I will give you guys that Anderson has looked solid the past couple games at the plate. Hopefully it's something he can build on.
And, he looked pretty solid at the plate again tonight in getting a clutch 2 RBIs when we needed them. He's looking a bit more comfortable out there this homestand. I hope Ozzie decides to start him during the Oakland series a couple games at least.

It's Dankerific
07-03-2008, 12:03 AM
And, he looked pretty solid at the plate again tonight in getting a clutch 2 RBIs when we needed them. He's looking a bit more comfortable out there this homestand. I hope Ozzie decides to start him during the Oakland series a couple games at least.

4 straight games starting, .333 avg, 1 hr, 4 rbi.

Cuck the Fubs
07-03-2008, 12:08 AM
4 straight games starting, .333 avg, 1 hr, 4 rbi.

We are not going to project anything based on 4 games are we? Your own sig holds pretty damning info on BA.......

With Brian Anderson starting in CF : 16-15
With ANY one else starting in CF : 33-20

I like Brian a lot, but at this point he's a 4th outfielder...he seems to have adjusted very nicely to his current role.

It wouldn't shock me to see him have full time duties in CF in 2009.

Can't we all just get along?

ilsox7
07-03-2008, 12:11 AM
I like Brian alot, but at this point he's a 4th outfielder...he seems to have adjusted very nicely to his current role.

It wouldn't shock me to see him have full time duties in CF in 2009.

Can't we all just get along?

This would be the logical post. But when you have people going over the edge on either side, you rarely get logic.

It's Dankerific
07-03-2008, 12:17 AM
We are not going to project anything based on 4 games are we? Your own sig holds pretty damning info on BA.......

With Brian Anderson starting in CF : 16-15
With ANY one else starting in CF : 33-20

I like Brian alot, but at this point he's a 4th outfielder...he seems to have adjusted very nicely to his current role.

It wouldn't shock me to see him have full time duties in CF in 2009.

Can't we all just get along?


You cant have it both ways. When the stats skewed for brian, the answer was correlation doesnt equal causation. Now its a descriptive stat.

But yes, we're going to talk about 4 straight games when last week was all about Wise "taking advantage of his opportunities". Well guess what, BA is playing right back.

Cuck the Fubs
07-03-2008, 12:43 AM
You cant have it both ways. When the stats skewed for brian, the answer was correlation doesnt equal causation. Now its a descriptive stat.

But yes, we're going to talk about 4 straight games when last week was all about Wise "taking advantage of his opportunities". Well guess what, BA is playing right back.

I'm not a Brian basher, so I'm not trying to turn it one way or the other...he had a rough ride in 06, 07 was tough on him as well.

He bounced back very nicely in ST this year, and he's continued to make positve strides in his play, and more importantly in his attitude.

If Brian keeps this going throught 08 he'll have an honest to goodness shot to be the every day CF in 2009.

The biggest thing is he's contributing on offense and defense when needed, the bottom line is team wins!

voodoochile
07-03-2008, 09:34 AM
And, he looked pretty solid at the plate again tonight in getting a clutch 2 RBIs when we needed them. He's looking a bit more comfortable out there this homestand. I hope Ozzie decides to start him during the Oakland series a couple games at least.

I hope BA continues to hit regularly too. It can only mean good things for the team, but that pitch he hit the double on was a cookie. I mean center cut belt high no motion. He continues to struggle with off speed stuff that moves. He simply cannot lay off the low sliders, curves and cutters. CC screwed up and BA hit it. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. As soon as PK returns, BA gets 1-2 starts a week and that is as it should be.

balke
07-03-2008, 10:28 AM
I hope BA continues to hit regularly too. It can only mean good things for the team, but that pitch he hit the double on was a cookie. I mean center cut belt high no motion. He continues to struggle with off speed stuff that moves. He simply cannot lay off the low sliders, curves and cutters. CC screwed up and BA hit it. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. As soon as PK returns, BA gets 1-2 starts a week and that is as it should be.


This is the truth, but it doesn't take anything away from the hit. He could've easily missed that cookie and the Sox lose. I hope BA gains confidence from this and the Cubs game and loosens up out there. Get some swagger, I hear that stuff is contagious.

It's Dankerific
07-03-2008, 01:04 PM
Not many hitters are going to hit CC's good stuff. hitters make careers out of hitting pitcher's mistakes, its the nature of the game. But we have to be excited that instead of fouling it back or "just missing it" with a flyball to the outfield: he was short and quick and hit a clutch double. we also have to give him props for learning from being dominated on earlier at bats and laying off the pitches in that sequence that allowed him to get the fastball.

as long as PK comes back HEALTHY.


I hope BA continues to hit regularly too. It can only mean good things for the team, but that pitch he hit the double on was a cookie. I mean center cut belt high no motion. He continues to struggle with off speed stuff that moves. He simply cannot lay off the low sliders, curves and cutters. CC screwed up and BA hit it. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. As soon as PK returns, BA gets 1-2 starts a week and that is as it should be.

This is the truth, but it doesn't take anything away from the hit. He could've easily missed that cookie and the Sox lose. I hope BA gains confidence from this and the Cubs game and loosens up out there. Get some swagger, I hear that stuff is contagious.

kittle42
07-03-2008, 01:27 PM
I think we should start separate threads for each at-bat our 4th outfielder gets. Maybe even each pitch, if that doesn't work. This all definitely needs to be discussed more fully.

balke
07-03-2008, 02:13 PM
Well, for people who wanna talk about it, it deserves to happen in the Roadhouse in a thread with his name in the title. I just hate when every thread about anything else comes back to the 4th OFer or Rowand or grammar.

kittle42
07-03-2008, 02:52 PM
Well, for people who wanna talk about it, it deserves to happen in the Roadhouse in a thread with his name in the title. I just hate when every thread about anything else comes back to the 4th OFer or Rowand or grammar.

Actual talk of Rowand has pretyty much subsided. Now it's all jokey.

The 4th OF over-over-over-analysis shows no signs of slowing down.

As for grammar, Nellie and I may never fully give up on that. :D:

munchman33
07-03-2008, 03:14 PM
I just hate when every thread about anything else comes back to the 4th OFer or Rowand or grammar.

Dude, think about what would happen if we traded Anderson for Rowand straight up. We can DH Paulie and ship out Thome for Cheeseburgerathia. Cleveland fans would laud Kenny for sending him home.

Rowand for life.

DumpJerry
07-03-2008, 03:20 PM
Actual talk of Rowand has pretyty much subsided. Now it's all jokey.

The 4th OF over-over-over-analysis shows no signs of slowing down.

As for grammar, Nellie and I may never fully give up on that. :D:
I guess that's ok as long you don't branch off into spelling.......:tongue:

kittle42
07-03-2008, 06:48 PM
I guess that's ok as long you don't branch off into spelling.......:tongue:

I've always tried to make exceptions for the obvious typos. :cool:

Frater Perdurabo
07-03-2008, 07:32 PM
Kudos to the Mod(s) who fixed the thread title and put this thread back in the Clubhouse.

:rolling:

SoxNation05
07-03-2008, 07:46 PM
Could the mods take my name off the title please.

Daver
07-03-2008, 07:48 PM
Could the mods take my name off the title please.


No.

soxpride724
07-03-2008, 07:49 PM
Dude, think about what would happen if we traded Anderson for Rowand straight up. We can DH Paulie and ship out Thome for Cheeseburgerathia. Cleveland fans would laud Kenny for sending him home.

Rowand for life.


I think you might be on to something......:D:

SoxNation05
07-03-2008, 07:56 PM
No.
typical.

Daver
07-03-2008, 08:01 PM
typical.

Can't be done, the software won't allow it, but please continue to blame the fascists that keep this place going for free.

SoxNation05
07-03-2008, 08:03 PM
Can't be done, the software won't allow it, but please continue to blame the fascists that keep this place going for free.
Then can you change the title? That is not what I said nor the idea I want people to think.
Also: How did I blame the mods for anything? I just didn't want to be accredited for something I did not write.

FarWestChicago
07-03-2008, 08:22 PM
Then can you change the title? That is not what I said nor the idea I want people to think.
I fixed it for you. I left it here as a compromise with the FOBA staff member who went over the top with the move and title change. :smile:

CLR01
07-03-2008, 08:27 PM
I fixed it for you. I left it here as a compromise with the FOBA staff member who went over the top with the move and title change. :smile:

Thanks. We'd hate for someone to get the impression he supports a member of the White Sox.

FarWestChicago
07-03-2008, 08:55 PM
Thanks. We'd hate for someone to get the impression he supports a member of the White Sox.:flameswing

Sox-are-Champs
07-03-2008, 10:05 PM
Brian hasnt been consistant but hes came thro in the clutch many games and hes very FAST which all was hepls or comes in hand for late inning steals that can get him in scoring position for game winning single..

chisoxfanatic
07-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Brian hasnt been consistant but hes came thro in the clutch many games and hes very FAST which all was hepls or comes in hand for late inning steals that can get him in scoring position for game winning single..
Just so you know, FOBA stands for Fans Of Brian Anderson. Welcome to the club!

thomas35forever
07-03-2008, 10:45 PM
When was the last time a thread was revived from the Roadhouse back to the Clubhouse?

JB98
07-03-2008, 10:47 PM
When was the last time a thread was revived from the Roadhouse back to the Clubhouse?

I don't know, but I'm ignoring this thread from now on.

It was stupid when it started. It continues to be very stupid.

chisoxfanatic
07-03-2008, 10:48 PM
When was the last time a thread was revived from the Roadhouse back to the Clubhouse?
Brian Anderson has super powers.

voodoochile
07-03-2008, 10:52 PM
Brian Anderson has super powers.

Yeah, too bad one of them isn't the ability to hit a baseball with authority with any regularity...

Edit: but he does seem to be very capable at holding down benches. Perhaps he can start using that super ability soon and help the team prevent the benches in the dugout from flying away...

It's Dankerific
07-03-2008, 11:19 PM
Yeah, too bad one of them isn't the ability to hit a baseball with authority with any regularity...
...

He does have a current 4 game hit streak, against some tough pitching: including a former cy young winner and probable all star game starter....

he is batting .333 during that span....

you can only hit regularly if you play regularly...

voodoochile
07-04-2008, 08:32 AM
He does have a current 4 game hit streak, against some tough pitching: including a former cy young winner and probable all star game starter....

he is batting .333 during that span....

you can only hit regularly if you play regularly...

bull****... but keep trying to make it seem like he hasn't gotten a chance to prove himself...

Cuck the Fubs
07-04-2008, 08:47 AM
bull****... but keep trying to make it seem like he hasn't gotten a chance to prove himself...

2006 never happened :redneck

Madscout
07-04-2008, 09:41 AM
2006 never happened :redneck
I think we all know what happened in 2006. He was the starting CF the first half, and was platooned the second, just as he was starting to figure it out. Then he was sent down to the minors/injured/got 17 AB in 2007, and has been benching it and playing here and there ever since. Hardly enough for anyone to find a rhythm.

Just for clarification, we of the FOBA don't think he can hit .300 every year, just an average number once he figures out a few things. But he hasn't been given that chance.

VenturaFan23
07-04-2008, 09:41 AM
2006 never happened :redneck

That's not enough time though. He needs at least 10-15 years to develop into a superstar!

TomBradley72
07-04-2008, 09:48 AM
I think we all know what happened in 2006. He was the starting CF the first half, and was platooned the second, just as he was starting to figure it out. Then he was sent down to the minors/injured/got 17 AB in 2007, and has been benching it and playing here and there ever since. Hardly enough for anyone to find a rhythm.

Just for clarification, we of the FOBA don't think he can hit .300 every year, just an average number once he figures out a few things. But he hasn't been given that chance.

He's hitting ~.230 after 500+ ABs in the majors, in 2006 he was given almost 200 ABs before the All Star break and hit .192...he's been given plenty of chances...he has not taken advantage of those opportunities. You can't have an accurate summary of BA without including his own SELF ASSESSMENT that his work ethic and attitude were not where they needed to be prior to this season.

I like him as a 4th OF....he has no one to blame but himself for not being a starting CF.

redsand22
07-04-2008, 09:51 AM
Yeah, too bad one of them isn't the ability to hit a baseball with authority with any regularity...

Edit: but he does seem to be very capable at holding down benches. Perhaps he can start using that super ability soon and help the team prevent the benches in the dugout from flying away...
Uribe is already holding that job.

Jurr
07-04-2008, 09:53 AM
This is an absolutely crazy thread. Anderson is a good defensive outfielder that can contribute offensively AT TIMES. He has stepped up in some big moments, and the White Sox have won a few games this year from his contributions. That's all you can ask for. Is he the lynchpin to an offense? Nope.

Tragg
07-04-2008, 09:58 AM
He does have a current 4 game hit streak, against some tough pitching: including a former cy young winner and probable all star game starter....

he is batting .333 during that span....

you can only hit regularly if you play regularly...
Absolutely correct. He's also had 2 huge hits in those 4 games.

IN 2.5 major league seasons he's had the equivalent of 1 full major league season of at bats. He was pulled in and out of the lineup from day 1 in 2006. And for whom? For Rob Mackowiak. For Darin Erstad in 07. Instead of letting a young player develop, they opted for the guaranteed below average - don't want to miss out on the opportunity to get a .320 Obp from Erstad. Plenty of young players don't produce immediately and take a couple of years to develop. He was immature? So are a lot of young players. That's one of the challenges of management - deal with and develop it - don't ostracize it.
Thank goodness 3rd string Quentin produced immediately. Thank goodness.
Notice how Wise's 350 at bats of .240 OBP are ignored; but Anderson's 500 at bats are considered dispositive.

voodoochile
07-04-2008, 10:06 AM
Uribe is already holding that job.
He's apparently about to be cut or traded, so we'll need a new guy to stop the benches from soaring off into the night...

TomBradley72
07-04-2008, 10:30 AM
Plenty of young players don't produce immediately and take a couple of years to develop. He was immature? So are a lot of young players. That's one of the challenges of management - deal with and develop it - don't ostracize it.


True enough. And the challenge of entering any profession is to take advantage of the opportunities when they are presented. Whether you're a young athlete, or new to any profession. It's a two way street. Nothing in your assessment seems to put any of the responsibility on BA himself...it's all the big bad management team of the White Sox. You know, the management team that has done such a bad job with other young talent like: Quentin, Ramirez, Jenks, Thornton, Floyd, Danks, Masset, Logan.

I don't see how they've ostracized BA..he's been on the roster all season... they've given him 125 ABs and he's appeared in 55 games, the most of any player outside the starting 9. He's been given a lot of chances the last 30 days while PK has been out...but, again, he hasn't capitalized on the opportunity, hitting .226, lowest on the team (besides Hall) in that span.

jabrch
07-04-2008, 10:41 AM
BA is fine for a 4th OF.

Wise is fine for a 4th OF.

I can't understand why people get worked up over either of them. Neither belong every day in a lineup at this point in time - and after Paulie is done rehabbing, neither will be in a lineup every day here.

voodoochile
07-04-2008, 10:42 AM
Just wanted to add one more thing. Just because there are some great players who started out slowly doesn't mean that every player who starts out slowly will turn into a good player. See Chris Singleton, Chris Snopek and Joe Borchard as guys who were touted highly when they arrived in Chicago who all had good to great defensive ability and none of whom developed into anything worth an everyday slot in the lineup.

For every Joe Crede there are 10 Chris Snopeks...

Edit: Heck a few years ago some people (posters around here even) were comparing Rex Grossman's numbers with early Peyton Manning numbers. (shooting for a BA sucks 2 thread here)

munchman33
07-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Just wanted to add one more thing. Just because there are some great players who started out slowly doesn't mean that every player who starts out slowly will turn into a good player. See Chris Singleton, Chris Snopek and Joe Borchard as guys who were touted highly when they arrived in Chicago who all had good to great defensive ability and none of whom developed into anything worth an everyday slot in the lineup.

For every Joe Crede there are 10 Chris Snopeks...

Edit: Heck a few years ago some people (posters around here even) were comparing Rex Grossman's numbers with early Peyton Manning numbers. (shooting for a BA sucks 2 thread here)

And as I've said on a number of occassions, Brian Anderson is essentially a Chris Singleton clone. Same swing, same hole, same great reads, etc.

kevingrt
07-04-2008, 12:37 PM
BA is fine for a 4th OF.

Wise is fine for a 4th OF.

I can't understand why people get worked up over either of them. Neither belong everyday in a lineup at this point in time - and after Paulie is done rehabbing, neither will be in a lineup every day here.

I completely agree that neither is an everyday line-up type of player now. But I do believe Brian Anderson can develop into an everyday player. Remember, he was what only like 26 years old and this is his second full year in the bigs.

He may not be Aaron Rowand or One Dog, but he BA may develop into a nice starting CF.

DickAllen72
07-04-2008, 01:39 PM
This is an absolutely crazy thread. Anderson is a good defensive outfielder that can contribute offensively AT TIMES. He has stepped up in some big moments, and the White Sox have won a few games this year from his contributions. That's all you can ask for. Is he the lynchpin to an offense? Nope.
Sometimes I don't know who is worse, the "FOBAs" or the "Anderson Haters". It's good to read a sensible post regarding BA once in a while.

Tragg
07-04-2008, 02:12 PM
True enough. And the challenge of entering any profession is to take advantage of the opportunities when they are presented. Whether you're a young athlete, or new to any profession. It's a two way street. Nothing in your assessment seems to put any of the responsibility on BA himself...it's all the big bad management team of the White Sox. You know, the management team that has done such a bad job with other young talent like: Quentin, Ramirez, Jenks, Thornton, Floyd, Danks, Masset, Logan.

I don't see how they've ostracized BA..he's been on the roster all season... they've given him 125 ABs and he's appeared in 55 games, the most of any player outside the starting 9. He's been given a lot of chances the last 30 days while PK has been out...but, again, he hasn't capitalized on the opportunity, hitting .226, lowest on the team (besides Hall) in that span.
This field management had Quentin at 3rd string for 3rd outfielder. He hit immediately - immediately. There was no patient development associated with Quentin.
Ramirez you say? He has 2 bad games, then basically sat on the bench behind Uribe for nearly 2 months. That's the essence of my point...despite the extremely low opportunity cost to develop young players, this field staff has no patience for it. Look who they play ahead of them (Ramirez and Anderson over the last few years): Erstad, Mack, Owens, Uribe. When the sure thing is so low, the risk is in letting young players play is low, so why not do it?

Young pitchers - the rest on your list - are a different animal. They use them (except for the strange reliance on Bukvich and Myers last year). There is a first-rate, mature, pitching coach on this field staff...I don't know if that's the reason for the difference or not, but it might be.

As for Anderson, he's never been in the position of - CF is yours, just go play. He was yanked in game 2 of 2006, and after midseason, he hit basically against the stud lefties of the central division. Maybe that's the right approach - maybe not.

TomBradley72
07-04-2008, 04:12 PM
This field management had Quentin at 3rd string for 3rd outfielder. He hit immediately - immediately. There was no patient development associated with Quentin.
Ramirez you say? He has 2 bad games, then basically sat on the bench behind Uribe for nearly 2 months. That's the essence of my point...despite the extremely low opportunity cost to develop young players, this field staff has no patience for it. Look who they play ahead of them (Ramirez and Anderson over the last few years): Erstad, Mack, Owens, Uribe. When the sure thing is so low, the risk is in letting young players play is low, so why not do it?

Young pitchers - the rest on your list - are a different animal. They use them (except for the strange reliance on Bukvich and Myers last year). There is a first-rate, mature, pitching coach on this field staff...I don't know if that's the reason for the difference or not, but it might be.

As for Anderson, he's never been in the position of - CF is yours, just go play. He was yanked in game 2 of 2006, and after midseason, he hit basically against the stud lefties of the central division. Maybe that's the right approach - maybe not.

He's been given ample time to play over the past 30 days...he delivers .226.

If the only way BA can succeed is to be allowed to play for months at a time, every day, regardless of performance, he'll need to be traded to a non-contender where that's an option.

kittle42
07-04-2008, 04:14 PM
That's not enough time though. He needs at least 10-15 years to develop into a superstar!

1,000 at-bats.

kittle42
07-04-2008, 04:16 PM
BA is fine for a 4th OF.

Wise is fine for a 4th OF.

I can't understand why people get worked up over either of them. Neither belong everyday in a lineup at this point in time - and after Paulie is done rehabbing, neither will be in a lineup every day here.

Hooray for logic!

Daver
07-04-2008, 04:17 PM
He's been given ample time to play over the past 30 days...he delivers .226.

If the only way BA can succeed is to be allowed to play for months at a time, every day, regardless of performance, he'll need to be traded to a non-contender where that's an option.

Ample time? He plays against left handed pitching and that's about it, that is not ample, it's a joke.

whitesox901
07-04-2008, 04:22 PM
IIRC He batted .226 in 2006 as a starting CF, before the All-Star Game he batted .192, and after the All-Star Game be batted .257.

Daver
07-04-2008, 04:34 PM
IIRC He batted .226 in 2006 as a starting CF, before the All-Star Game he batted .192, and after the All-Star Game be batted .257.

He wasn't the starter, he was platooned.

Tragg
07-04-2008, 08:04 PM
He's been given ample time to play over the past 30 days...he delivers .226.

If the only way BA can succeed is to be allowed to play for months at a time, every day, regardless of performance, he'll need to be traded to a non-contender where that's an option.
That's how young players get better - by letting them play. And for all of the yak about his last 30 days, his last 4 days have been productive, including 2 key, clutch hits.
Hey people wanted Joe Randa in here in 2005.
As thin as this team is, giving away young players is a dubious idea.
I see Ryan Sweeney, another player this field staff had enough of after a month, swinging it pretty well for Oakland - not super, but better than the Ozunas, Erstads and the other mediocre veterans the Sox could dig up in his stead. Sweeney will take a walk once in a while and even has 6 steals this year (versus none last year for a team that supposedly likes to run)

soltrain21
07-04-2008, 08:18 PM
Yeah, too bad one of them isn't the ability to hit a baseball with authority with any regularity...

Edit: but he does seem to be very capable at holding down benches. Perhaps he can start using that super ability soon and help the team prevent the benches in the dugout from flying away...


Why do you like Richar so much yet hate Anderson so much?

jenn2080
07-04-2008, 10:24 PM
Ah I love the random BA hate threads. I think after 50 of them we all get where everyone is coming from on the BA sceen.

FarWestChicago
07-04-2008, 10:44 PM
Just so you know, FOBA stands for Fans Of Brian Anderson. Welcome to the club!Except for the fact it stands for Friends of Brian Anderson.

FarWestChicago
07-04-2008, 10:48 PM
:tool

I'm creating a new rule where Brian Anderson is able to bat in all 9 positions for the Sox. This applies to no other player on any other team. If BA bats at least 27 times per game, perhaps we can get a decent sample size for the FOBA before 2015. This has got to stop.

voodoochile
07-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Why do you like Richar so much yet hate Anderson so much?

Sigh... I don't hate BA. I don't understand what the FOBA see in him to cause such loyalty. I am fine with BA as a 4th OF. That means he rides the bench except for 1 and sometimes 2 starts a week and late inning defensive substitution. He's fine in that role, anything more is bad for the teams chances to win, IMO.

I thought I saw something really special in Richar last summer. Too bad he got hurt. I don't think we'll see him this year and the only way he probably gets regular PT is if the Sox decide to move Ramirez back to SS and let OC walk. I'd personally like to see OC back in a Sox uniform and if that's the case will be fine if they decide to trade Ricar or move him into the IF utility role.

Unlike the FOBA, if the Sox bring back OC and leave Ramirez at 2B, I won't be crying, moaning or wringing my hands over the lack of PT for Richar.

gowhitesox
07-05-2008, 12:12 AM
I have never been much of a Brian Anderson fan. I could do without him on the roster.

kittle42
07-05-2008, 04:35 AM
Sigh... I don't hate BA. I don't understand what the FOBA see in him to cause such loyalty.


Voodoo,you just don't get it. If you aren't a person who thinks that Anderson will hit .250+ and be an "elite" defender if he was allowed to play every day and get his necessary 1,000 at-bats to be able to assess his major-league talent, you are an idiot.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 07:03 AM
Frankly I'm fine with how BA has been used this year. Swisher has been servicable in CF, and he's now hitting well, too.

I think BA would put up somewhat better numbers if he was getting more ABs against RHP; he's just not as good against LHP and during Paulie's absence Ozzie has used him mostly against LHP.

Also, and this is not a call to make BA a starter right now, but we all agree that BA has trouble hitting an MLB breaking ball, right? So how is anyone- especially a young player - supposed to learn to hit an MLB breaking ball if he doesn't get to face MLB pitchers very often?

Finally, as a baseball fan, I like watching players play great defense. Excuse me. I think that's more admirable than spending so much of my time and energy ripping on other Sox fans.

:rolleyes:

Save McCuddy's
07-05-2008, 09:07 AM
Voodoo,you just don't get it. If you aren't a person who thinks that Anderson will hit .250+ and be an "elite" defender if he was allowed to play every day and get his necessary 1,000 at-bats to be able to assess his major-league talent, you are an idiot.


Why is it that TCQ who was drafted the same year and 14 slots behind BA didn't need 1000 MLB AB's to show that he could hit?

The threshold for at bats is actually 2000 with college and minor league appearances counting in that 2000. Let's face it, the sample size is adequate to know that "the title of this thread" is fact. However, I have no problem accepting that there is a legitimate debate as to whether a .230 hitter with marginal power and plus defensive skills in CF should be considered for a starting role. Considered, he was. Just as logical is the current stance of management that it's quite difficult to win in the AL with that type of production out of an everday player.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 09:25 AM
Every player is different, but you can "lump" certain kinds of players together. Some players are pure hitters and not counted on for great defense. Frank, PK, TCQ, etc. came up and hit right away. These are the guys who generally play corner OF/1B/DH: positions where you expect/need great hitting. I'm of the opinion that guys who are good/great with the glove and can play middle IF, C, CF or even 3B if they are really great (Ventura, Crede) deserve more time - I arbitrarily set the bar at 1,000 MLB ABs - to demonstrate if they can develop as hitters. (Yes, I know that Crede hit better than BA at an earlier age/stage of development. I'm not comparing the two so you don't have to post his stats.) What I am saying is that Crede got time to develop. It's not as if BA never could hit when he was in high school, college or the minors. It's not as if before he came to the majors he was only a defensive replacement. He hit before. Adjusting to MLB pitching takes time for some players. Some never figure it out. Some figure it out after 100 ABs. Others may need 500 ABs to figure it out, and the next 500 ABs are more indicative of a player's potential. Early on we all figured out that BA needed to adjust his attitude (which he did) and make adjustments to MLB breaking balls (TBD). I'm willing to give him 1,000 ABs. If you want to make judgments based on fewer at bats, or even just one at bat, fine, that's your opinion.

Some of us like to root for players the Sox drafted to succeed. Some of us are obsessed with Sox players, good and bad. Still others are obsessed with other posters. :rolleyes:

ilsox7
07-05-2008, 09:29 AM
Every player is different, but you can "lump" certain kinds of players together. Some players are pure hitters and not counted on for great defense. Frank, PK, TCQ, etc. came up and hit right away. These are the guys who generally play corner OF/1B/DH: positions where you expect/need great hitting. I'm of the opinion that guys who are good/great with the glove and can play middle IF, C, CF or even 3B if they are really great (Ventura, Crede) deserve more time - I arbitrarily set the bar at 1,000 MLB ABs - to demonstrate if they can develop as hitters. (Yes, I know that Crede hit better than BA at an earlier age/stage of development. I'm not comparing the two so you don't have to post his stats.) What I am saying is that Crede got time to develop. It's not as if BA never could hit when he was in high school, college or the minors. It's not as if before he came to the majors he was only a defensive replacement. He hit before. Adjusting to MLB pitching takes time for some players. Some never figure it out. Some figure it out after 100 ABs. Others may need 500 ABs to figure it out, and the next 500 ABs are more indicative of a player's potential. Early on we all figured out that BA needed to adjust his attitude (which he did) and make adjustments to MLB breaking balls (TBD). I'm willing to give him 1,000 ABs. If you want to make judgments based on fewer at bats, or even just one at bat, fine, that's your opinion.

Some of us like to root for players the Sox drafted to succeed. Some of us are obsessed with Sox players, good and bad. Still others are obsessed with other posters. :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for a list of times your slandered PK . . . :cool:

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 10:22 AM
Some of us like to root for players the Sox drafted to succeed. Some of us are obsessed with Sox players, good and bad. Still others are obsessed with other posters. :rolleyes:

I think ALL of us root for the players the Sox drafted to succeed. Thinking otherwise is simply foolish. No one is rooting against BA. However, there are people on this board who apparently are willing to give BA every chance to succeed even if it costs the team a better chance to succeed.

I want every player who ever wears the Black and Silver to turn into Frank Thomas with BA's glove ability. However, the first and foremost thing is for the team to succeed and I'm willing to cut my losses or accept that a player I liked (it's happened too many times to count) just isn't all that and the chips cost extra. Do I whine or cry or scream to give him more PT so he can develop in the midst of a pennant contending season at the expense of proven MLB players? Do I scream management conspiracy? Do I moan about the injustice of my Boy not getting a fair shake? **** NO! I root for another Sox win and trust management to make the right decision.

All the supposedly great OF prospects the Sox have had in the past few years - Borchard, Reed, Young, Sweeney and Anderson... Which one is still on the team? Looks like every other GM the Sox have traded an OF prospect to recently chose BA last. Just one more piece of data that might tell the FOBA's they are backing a second place horse...

Cuck the Fubs
07-05-2008, 10:29 AM
However, there are people on this board who apparently are willing to give BA every chance to succeed even if it costs the team a better chance to succeed.


I could not have said it better, Brian's current role gives the team the best chance to succeed.

I don't see how the FOBAs can justify Anderson in the line up over Konerko, Dye, Swisher or Quentin. :scratch:

Daver
07-05-2008, 10:35 AM
All the supposedly great OF prospects the Sox have had in the past few years - Borchard, Reed, Young, Sweeney and Anderson... Which one is still on the team? Looks like every other GM the Sox have traded an OF prospect to recently chose BA last. Just one more piece of data that might tell the FOBA's they are backing a second place horse...


You are of course assuming he was available in any of those trades.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 10:37 AM
You are of course assuming he was available in any of those trades.

There is that. Perhaps management thought so highly of him they steered other teams to the other prospects and held on to BA on purpose. That would in turn give hope to the FOBA that BA will see increased PT in the future as his bat adapts to major league pitching...

Tragg
07-05-2008, 11:58 AM
IAll the supposedly great OF prospects the Sox have had in the past few years - Borchard, Reed, Young, Sweeney and Anderson... Which one is still on the team? Looks like every other GM the Sox have traded an OF prospect to recently chose BA last. Just one more piece of data that might tell the FOBA's they are backing a second place horse...
That's assuming that it's the other GM who gets to choose the prospect out of all prospects. That clearly wasn't true with Borchard. My guess is that that was only true with Young.
Another nice job of talent evaluation by the field staff on Sweeney. But Jerry Owens, their number 1 guy, didn't slip by them.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 12:30 PM
However, there are people on this board who apparently are willing to give BA every chance to succeed even if it costs the team a better chance to succeed.

I'm loyal to the the team first. Individual players are second. I've always thought that it was more important to have a balanced team with good defense up the middle (and at 3B) and power on the corners, with a 3-4 base stealers, than to have power hitters 1-9. Defense is an important part of any successful team. BA's CF defense actually helps teams win games because it turns some singles into outs, turns some doubles into singles, and turns a handful of triples into doubles. Over the course of a season, this prevents runs. It also helps pitchers go deeper into games, can prevent pitchers from getting into jams, and can reduce a pitchers' workloads. It can be the difference between a "hard" inning and an "easy" one. But because this isn't easily quantified into neat little statistical packages like OPS, it's ignored.

As for hitting, I expect/hope that he will be a career .250 hitter, who in a full season will hit 30+ doubles with 15-20 HR and steal 10-15 bases. Basically I expect him to be a Mike Cameron / Lloyd Moseby / Dave Henderson kind of hitter. So let's compare:

Cameron hit .184/.091/.259/.210 his first four MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his fifth season, 1999, when he hit .256).

Moseby hit .229/.233/236 his first three MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his third season, 1982, when he hit .236).

Henderson hit .167/.253/.269 his first three MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his fourth season, 1984, when he hit .280).

BA has hit .176/.225/.118/.232 his first four MLB seasons, one of which (2007) was cut short by injury. He currently has 541 MLB ABs. Who knows what will happen during his next 459 ABs?

There is no guarantee BA will turn out to be like Cameron, Moesby or Henderson. Their stats have no bearing on what BA will do.

But they do demonstrate the wisdom of waiting until a player has ~1,000 ABs before declaring that he "sucks at hitting." Each struggled early on but developed into decent MLB players. But the anti-FOBA people would have mocked those who counseled patience with those three players.
:rolleyes:

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 01:04 PM
(snip)

BA's CF defense actually helps teams win games because it turns some singles into outs, turns some doubles into singles, and turns a handful of triples into doubles. Over the course of a season, this prevents runs. It also helps pitchers go deeper into games, can prevent pitchers from getting into jams, and can reduce a pitchers' workloads. It can be the difference between a "hard" inning and an "easy" one. But because this isn't easily quantified into neat little statistical packages like OPS, it's ignored.

As for hitting, I expect/hope that he will be a career .250 hitter, who in a full season will hit 30+ doubles with 15-20 HR and steal 10-15 bases. Basically I expect him to be a Mike Cameron / Lloyd Moseby / Dave Henderson kind of hitter. So let's compare:

Cameron hit .184/.091/.259/.210 his first four MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his fifth season, 1999, when he hit .256).

Moseby hit .229/.233/236 his first three MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his third season, 1982, when he hit .236).

Henderson hit .167/.253/.269 his first three MLB seasons (he got his 1,000th AB during his fourth season, 1984, when he hit .280).

BA has hit .176/.225/.118/.232 his first four MLB seasons, one of which (2007) was cut short by injury. He currently has 541 MLB ABs. Who knows what will happen during his next 459 ABs?

There is no guarantee BA will turn out to be like Cameron, Moesby or Henderson. Their stats have no bearing on what BA will do.

But they do demonstrate the wisdom of waiting until a player has ~1,000 ABs before declaring that he "sucks at hitting." Each struggled early on but developed into decent MLB players. But the anti-FOBA people would have mocked those who counseled patience with those three players.
:rolleyes:

I'd take Swisher in CF over any of the players you mentioned. The 10 hits saved a year total isn't going to make up for the extra run production.

Gavin
07-05-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm loyal to the the team first. Individual players are second. I've always thought that it was more important to have a balanced team with good defense up the middle (and at 3B) and power on the corners, with a 3-4 base stealers, than to have power hitters 1-9. Defense is an important part of any successful team. BA's CF defense actually helps teams win games because it turns some singles into outs, turns some doubles into singles, and turns a handful of triples into doubles. Over the course of a season, this prevents runs. It also helps pitchers go deeper into games, can prevent pitchers from getting into jams, and can reduce a pitchers' workloads. It can be the difference between a "hard" inning and an "easy" one. But because this isn't easily quantified into neat little statistical packages like OPS, it's ignored.

Arguing in hypotheticals is pointless. Sure, he hypothetically saved runs with his defense but he also actually failed to get hits.

TomBradley72
07-05-2008, 03:57 PM
Why is it that TCQ who was drafted the same year and 14 slots behind BA didn't need 1000 MLB AB's to show that he could hit?



Because BA needs to be tucked in at night, have his nose wiped, and needs to be able to play every day regardless of his .230's batting average and his self described poor attitude/work ethic (before this year). When Quentin was given his "shot" he delivered. BA has now been given several opportunities across three seasons of baseball...each time it's the same result...great defense, and a low .200's batting average. He still has the chance to be a starting OF in the big leagues, but for now, he has the role that he's earned based on his performance...4th OF.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 04:35 PM
I'd take Swisher in CF over any of the players you mentioned. The 10 hits saved a year total isn't going to make up for the extra run production.

How do you know it's ten hits?

Your M.O. seems to be: When something with which you disagree can't be quantified, minimize it.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 04:37 PM
Arguing in hypotheticals is pointless. Sure, he hypothetically saved runs with his defense but he also actually failed to get hits.

You win. Let's put Rob Mackowiak in center field. Maybe we can also put Jim Thome at shortstop and David Ortiz at second, OK? After, runs prevented are just hypothetical, right?
:rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 04:42 PM
Because BA needs to be tucked in at night, have his nose wiped, and needs to be able to play every day regardless of his .230's batting average and his self described poor attitude/work ethic (before this year). When Quentin was given his "shot" he delivered. BA has now been given several opportunities across three seasons of baseball...each time it's the same result...great defense, and a low .200's batting average. He still has the chance to be a starting OF in the big leagues, but for now, he has the role that he's earned based on his performance...4th OF.

Your hyperbole in your first statement doesn't help your argument.

I don't have a problem with the way he's been handled this year.

I do have a problem with the haters prematurely pissing their pants and saying that they are certain that "he can't hit." Dave Henderson, Lloyd Moseby and Mike Cameron all "couldn't hit" either in their first 1,000 ABs.

Daver
07-05-2008, 05:23 PM
The 10 hits saved a year total isn't going to make up for the extra run production.

Where did you come up with this number from?

Tragg
07-05-2008, 05:29 PM
Because BA needs to be tucked in at night, have his nose wiped, and needs to be able to play every day regardless of his .230's batting average and his self described poor attitude/work ethic (before this year). When Quentin was given his "shot" he delivered. BA has now been given several opportunities across three seasons of baseball...each time it's the same result...great defense, and a low .200's batting average. He still has the chance to be a starting OF in the big leagues, but for now, he has the role that he's earned based on his performance...4th OF.
I would buy that (maybe) if the Sox were consistent in that approach. But when it comes to many hitters, "produce now" doesn't apply.
Jerry Owens didn't produce a lick last year. Incredibly he was pencilled in to start this season - ahead of Carlos Quentin. And Uribe? He was left unfettered for 2 months at 2nd. He'd proven for years that his O was way below par for a 2nd baseman. It didn't apply to Erstad last year - he was terrible, but he was given chance after chance to produce despite being obviously on the decline.
"Produce now" did apply to Sweeney, however. They were done with him after 3 weeks. I would have applied to Quentin, no doubt - what if he hit his first month like he has the last month? Ramirez and Uribe would likely be in the lineup now. At least young players offer some sort of investment for their non-production.

ilsox7
07-05-2008, 05:32 PM
I would buy that (maybe) if the Sox were consistent in that approach. But when it comes to many hitters, "produce now" doesn't apply.
Jerry Owens didn't produce a lick last year. Incredibly he was pencilled in to start this season - ahead of Carlos Quentin. And Uribe? He was left unfettered for 2 months at 2nd. It did apply to Sweeney, however. They were done with him after 3 weeks. At least young players offer some sort of investment for their non-production.

Part of the answer is that there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we have no idea about. I think that is one thing a lot of folks around here forget: we have very limited information as fans.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 06:49 PM
You win. Let's put Rob Mackowiak in center field. Maybe we can also put Jim Thome at shortstop and David Ortiz at second, OK? After, runs prevented are just hypothetical, right?
:rolleyes:

See, this is why no one takes you seriously. Nice strawman, care to knock it down yourself or shall we do it for you?

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 07:17 PM
Where did you come up with this number from?

Threw a dart at a dartboard...:tongue:

Even if it's 20 it's not worth as much as 80 points of OPS which is close to 40 bases guaranteed and that's if it's only 80 points...

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 07:29 PM
See, this is why no one takes you seriously. Nice strawman, care to knock it down yourself or shall we do it for you?

Of course no one is advocating that. It's blatant hyperbole on my part. But lots of people wanted Mackowiak instead of BA in CF in 2006 even though it was obvious he was costing the Sox runs and games.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 07:36 PM
Of course no one is advocating that. It's blatant hyperbole on my part. But lots of people wanted Mackowiak instead of BA in CF in 2006 even though it was obvious he was costing the Sox runs and games.

Sure, but no one's advocating that now. Sometimes you learn things the hard way. After the horrible first half Ozzie decided to go with a better bat. It didn't pay off, but Mack can't play CF. At the time Ozzie obviously felt he could.

You see or read anyone advocating putting Mack back in CF on these forums?

chisoxfanatic
07-05-2008, 07:36 PM
If it weren't for BA, the Sox would only be up 1-0 tonight. That's his 2nd HR this week. He IS heating up!

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 07:37 PM
Sure, but no one's advocating that now. Sometimes you learn things the hard way. After the horrible first half Ozzie decided to go with a better bat. It didn't pay off, but Mack can't play CF. At the time Ozzie obviously felt he could.

You see or read anyone advocating putting Mack back in CF on these forums?

And as you post this, BA clobbers a monster 2-run home run! :tongue:

chisoxfanatic
07-05-2008, 07:40 PM
And as you post this, BA clobbers a monster 2-run home run! :tongue:
For every negative post by Voodo is a great BA moment.

Keep it up, V! :wink:

Brian26
07-05-2008, 07:42 PM
For every negative post by Voodo is a great BA moment.

Keep it up, V! :wink:

Who are we going to blame for the obligatory two strikeouts every game on bad breaking pitches in the left-handed batter's box?

It works both ways. I'm a BA fan, but relax.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 07:43 PM
You see or read anyone advocating putting Mack back in CF on these forums?

No, because he's no longer on the roster.


This argument boils down to this:

FOBA: "Patience, please, BA is progressing."

FOBA haters: "Patience is foolish. BA sucks. He can't hit."

White_Sock
07-05-2008, 07:46 PM
B.A. needs steroids...If B.A. had joined the game 10 years ago, he would have averaged 40 HR per, had an avg BA of .305 per, and had an awesome case of gigantism.

Timing is everything to hitters...

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 07:48 PM
No, because he's no longer on the roster.


This argument boils down to this:

FOBA: "Patience, please, BA is progressing."

FOBA haters: "Patience is foolish. BA sucks. He can't hit."

Funny, because I see people advocating using him as a bench player and letting him earn his PT. Haven't seen many people advocating dumping or cutting him, merely making him earn his AB and innings.

On the other side of the coin are the FOBA who seem to feel BA should be starting every game in the middle of a pennant race regardless of his shaky past.

Now which side actually sounds more rational?

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 07:54 PM
Funny, because I see people advocating using him as a bench player and letting him earn his PT. Haven't seen many people advocating dumping or cutting him, merely making him earn his AB and innings.

On the other side of the coin are the FOBA who seem to feel BA should be starting every game in the middle of a pennant race regardless of his shaky past.

Now which side actually sounds more rational?

Voodoo, I've said that I'm OK with how he's been used this year. It would be nice if he got a few more ABs against RHP, whom he hits better than LHP, but otherwise I'm OK.

I challenge you to find one post where a FOBA says that he should start every day.

On the other hand, just look at the title of this thread to find BA hate.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 08:04 PM
OK, Voodoo (and other FOBA haters):

How well would BA have to hit to earn a starting spot on this team?

Give me a specific number.

Daver
07-05-2008, 08:10 PM
Threw a dart at a dartboard...:tongue:

Even if it's 20 it's not worth as much as 80 points of OPS which is close to 40 bases guaranteed and that's if it's only 80 points...

That is where stats based decisions can kill you, because you have no way of knowing if it is ten hits a year or a week, and with very good defensive players ten a week is not unheard of, as all it takes is getting to one or two balls a game that an average defender won't get to. Baseball is not a game based on offense, if it was the top performers would be hitting above .500.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 08:12 PM
That is where stats based decisions can kill you, because you have no way of knowing if it is ten hits a year or a week, and with very good defensive players ten a week is not unheard of, as all it takes is getting to one or two balls a game that an average defender won't get to. Baseball is not a game based on offense, if it was the top performers would be hitting above .500.

Steve Stone just said that if BA is in CF, and a fly ball is hit to CF, and it doesn't fly out the park, that you can pretty much count on BA catching it.

Tragg
07-05-2008, 09:01 PM
Steve Stone just said that if BA is in CF, and a fly ball is hit to CF, and it doesn't fly out the park, that you can pretty much count on BA catching it.
He's the smoothest fielding outfielder we've had in ages.

It's Dankerific
07-05-2008, 09:08 PM
He's the smoothest fielding outfielder we've had in ages.

and a 5 game hit streak.

TornLabrum
07-05-2008, 09:20 PM
Steve Stone just said that if BA is in CF, and a fly ball is hit to CF, and it doesn't fly out the park, that you can pretty much count on BA catching it.

Hmmm...I've seen a couple of doubles go over his head just this past week. I guess Stoney is sometimes subject to hyperbole.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 09:24 PM
That is where stats based decisions can kill you, because you have no way of knowing if it is ten hits a year or a week, and with very good defensive players ten a week is not unheard of, as all it takes is getting to one or two balls a game that an average defender won't get to. Baseball is not a game based on offense, if it was the top performers would be hitting above .500.

You and I have been around this track before. We disagree on this fundamental point. I'd argue that offensive stats are more important than defensive ability because every player is pretty much guaranteed 4 PA/game. There is no guarantee about how many defensive opportunities any player save the pitcher and catcher get.

I'd further argue that if you have need of a player who can make 10 plays a week that an average defender cannot make, you don't need a better defender, you need a better pitching staff. Good defense starts with pitching everything else is random chance as to who gets defensive opportunities. In addition, I personally believe OF defense is less important than IF defense because there are more opportunities on the IF in general.

BA is a great defensive CF. I have no problem with that. It's his hitting that's been suspect to date. The latter he is guaranteed every game to get the chance to make an impact play. The former he is not.

Frater to answer your question, IMO, BA needs to hit comparably to Nick Swisher's career numbers to break the everyday lineup. Call it .775 OPS in deference to his superior defense. Anything lower than that, it isn't worth it, IMO. I say Swisher because he's the lightest bat of the players BA might take time from (Quentin, Dye, PK or Thome - with Swish replacing any of the other 4 positions and BA staying in CF for obvious reasons). That's this season things might change next year, but in general, I always prefer players who can hit above league aveage because you always get chances to hit...

Daver
07-05-2008, 09:59 PM
You and I have been around this track before. We disagree on this fundamental point. I'd argue that offensive stats are more important than defensive ability because every player is pretty much guaranteed 4 PA/game. There is no guarantee about how many defensive opportunities any player save the pitcher and catcher get.


And this is exactly why you prove that stats fail. That is why they actually play the games.

Give me a team built on defense, pitching, and fundamental baseball, and I will beat your team of hitters eight games out of ten.

SoxandtheCityTee
07-05-2008, 10:11 PM
I challenge you to find one post where a FOBA says that he should start every day.



Don't hold your breath.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 10:17 PM
And this is exactly why you prove that stats fail. That is why they actually play the games.

Give me a team built on defense, pitching, and fundamental baseball, and I will beat your team of hitters eight games out of ten.

That will depend on the difference in offensive and defensive ability on the two teams. A team with average defense and exceptional hitting will beat a team with exceptional defense and average hitting provided the pitching is comparable.

Superior defense starts with superior pitching though. So if you are saying give me pitching above all else as a way of saying give me a great defensive team, then we agree. After pitching though, superior offensive ability for the position players is the way to go, IMO. However, I don't want to take it to the extreme that Frater did above where Thome is playing SS. The players must be able to field their position to play said position. I'll take a below average defender with a huge stick over a great defender with a .650 OPS any day of the week.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2008, 10:19 PM
Frater to answer your question, IMO, BA needs to hit comparably to Nick Swisher's career numbers to break the everyday lineup. Call it .775 OPS in deference to his superior defense.

Thank you for answering my question, Voodoo.

FWLIW, here are some career numbers:

Cameron .787 OPS
Moseby .746 OPS
Henderson .756 OPS

BA's minor league career OPS is .835. I think a .775 MLB OPS is within his reach; he had a .735 OPS in June and so far is .833 in July.

Daver
07-05-2008, 10:31 PM
That will depend on the difference in offensive and defensive ability on the two teams. A team with average defense and exceptional hitting will beat a team with exceptional defense and average hitting provided the pitching is comparable.

Superior defense starts with superior pitching though. So if you are saying give me pitching above all else as a way of saying give me a great defensive team, then we agree. After pitching though, superior offensive ability for the position players is the way to go, IMO. However, I don't want to take it to the extreme that Frater did above where Thome is playing SS. The players must be able to field their position to play said position. I'll take a below average defender with a huge stick over a great defender with a .650 OPS any day of the week.

You are building a losing baseball team, the White Sox have proven it for years. Pitching and defense wins trophies, offense wins numbers.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 10:46 PM
You are building a losing baseball team, the White Sox have proven it for years. Pitching and defense wins trophies, offense wins numbers.

I'd be interested to see where WS champions have historically stood in terms of regular season offensive ranking. Not run differential because that includes defensive stats, but simply runs scored. I started to google it, but can't find anything definitive yet. I'll do some research when I get a chance.

Anyone got a link to these stats, it would greatly simplify things. I'm looking for a year to year list of WS champs and how they ranked vs the league in terms of runs scored that year.

SoxandtheCityTee
07-05-2008, 10:52 PM
Give me a team built on defense, pitching, and fundamental baseball, and I will beat your team of hitters eight games out of ten.

You'd think people had never heard about pitching and defense winning championships. Or that old one about even the best hitters failing 70% of the time -- if Anderson goes 1 for 3 you never hear the end of it about the two other at-bats, even if the third was a crucial RBI hit.

And yet, we know that they have in fact heard these things. So what explains it?

Hatred -- implacable and irrational. They'd rather see the Sox fail than Anderson succeed -- not fail in the long run, but long enough to get him off the roster to make room for whoever. They'd give back any and all of his hits this past week to get this done even of it means the Sox losing the game and falling out of first: an acceptable means to an end for them. They sat in front of their TVs and said "God damn it" when Anderson hit a 2-run HR tonight, though of course they don't have the guts to admit it here. They hate it when they watch their 2005 DVDs and see him hanging on the rail with Rowand. They just despise the guy, but it's become unfashionable at the moment just to come out and say it, so we'll all have to live with a lot of nonsense.

voodoochile
07-05-2008, 11:00 PM
You'd think people had never heard about pitching and defense winning championships. Or that old one about even the best hitters failing 70% of the time -- if Anderson goes 1 for 3 you never hear the end of it about the two other at-bats, even if the third was a crucial RBI hit.

And yet, we know that they have in fact heard these things. So what explains it?

Hatred -- implacable and irrational. They'd rather see the Sox fail than Anderson succeed -- not fail in the long run, but long enough to get him off the roster to make room for whoever. They'd give back any and all of his hits this past week to get this done even of it means the Sox losing the game and falling out of first: an acceptable means to an end for them. They sat in front of their TVs and said "God damn it" when Anderson hit a 2-run HR tonight, though of course they don't have the guts to admit it here. They hate it when they watch their 2005 DVDs and see him hanging on the rail with Rowand. They just despise the guy, but it's become unfashionable at the moment just to come out and say it, so we'll all have to live with a lot of nonsense.

:whoflungpoo:

SoxandtheCityTee
07-05-2008, 11:07 PM
Right back at you.