PDA

View Full Version : Why Not Owens?


Carolina Kenny
02-12-2009, 04:15 PM
I don't get all the hatred for Jerry Owens. He doesn't seem to be a ass clown or anything. He has leg injury issues a la Scotty Pods, but doesn't he have enough natural talent to field the positon at least as good as Evertt, Griffey, Mackowak and others that have patrolled CF for us in recent years?

Why not give the guy a chance rather than dismiss him so easily?

Is it beyond the realm of possiblity that he could finally be healthy enough after all his injury prone career to put together a good season?

If he fails, so be it, but I don't understand all the outright dismissal of him on these here blogs.

Goose
02-12-2009, 04:17 PM
Maybe because Owens is a sucky baseball player.

I think I can speak for most here.

guillen4life13
02-12-2009, 04:20 PM
All he really has going for him is his speed and possibly his attitude. He doesn't get on base at a high clip and he's not a good fielder. He doesn't hit for power. He's 28 years old so if he has any more developing to do now's the time.

In other words, Owens and Wise are pretty much the same player.

Heffalump
02-12-2009, 04:29 PM
I remember when Owens came out of nowhere and had that huge season in the minors. The usual suspects were wetting their pants about him being some kind of superstar. Then he gets some spot playing time in the Bigs, yields mediocre results, gets hurt, etc. and these same posters now say he is garbage.

I don't think the guy is going to be a starter in the majors for anyone, but why not give him a shot? In my opinion, you have to give a guy at least a few months of everyday starts before the sample is large enough to judge their talents. He will most likely get hurt again anyway. IMO, he seems too fragile to be an everyday guy.

I just hope that if no one earns the starting CF role through their ST performance (I don't think BA, JO, or DW will) that Ozzie has a formal platoon plan for the position. I don't want to see the starting CF pulled out of a hat before every game like it seemed to be in the past.

PLEEEZE start the real games soon !!!!

whitesox901
02-12-2009, 04:40 PM
I have no problem with Owens playing CF and Leading-off, I think he will do fine

rdwj
02-12-2009, 04:46 PM
...but doesn't he have enough natural talent to field the positon at least as good as Evertt, Griffey, Mackowak and others that have patrolled CF for us in recent years?

You seem to be forgetting the best defensive OF we've had on this team in a LONG time - one that is still with the team.

Rocky Soprano
02-12-2009, 04:46 PM
I don't get all the hatred for Jerry Owens. He doesn't seem to be a ass clown or anything. He has leg injury issues a la Scotty Pods, but doesn't he have enough natural talent to field the positon at least as good as Evertt, Griffey, Mackowak and others that have patrolled CF for us in recent years?

Why not give the guy a chance rather than dismiss him so easily?

Is it beyond the realm of possiblity that he could finally be healthy enough after all his injury prone career to put together a good season?

If he fails, so be it, but I don't understand all the outright dismissal of him on these here blogs.

Have you seen him play?

EMachine10
02-12-2009, 04:51 PM
I don't get all the hatred for Jerry Owens. He doesn't seem to be a ass clown or anything. He has leg injury issues a la Scotty Pods, but doesn't he have enough natural talent to field the positon at least as good as Evertt, Griffey, Mackowak and others that have patrolled CF for us in recent years?

Why not give the guy a chance rather than dismiss him so easily?

Is it beyond the realm of possiblity that he could finally be healthy enough after all his injury prone career to put together a good season?

If he fails, so be it, but I don't understand all the outright dismissal of him on these here blogs.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean he should be playing there. Saying that he can field as well as Mack did in center is not saying very much at all.

Sargeant79
02-12-2009, 04:53 PM
I'm fine with an Owens / Anderson platoon in CF at least until the all-star break. After that point, if either one of them winds up with the bulk of the playing time over the other, hopefully it's because one of them earned it and therefore we have a solution to the CF problem. If neither of them grab the position by the horns, that should be enough time to recognize that it is time to go to the trade market if we are in the playoff hunt.

gregory18n
02-12-2009, 04:55 PM
owens didn't pass my eye test, but wise did. he looked great when i saw him the end of last year. i know all the statiticians point out that he had always stunk. i don't buy that his light didn't just come on. he'll be our guy this year.

Domeshot17
02-12-2009, 04:56 PM
Jerry Owens is the guy everyone who thinks they know a lot about baseball but don't love. They see a skinny guy who is very fast and think WOW HE WOULD BE THE PERFECT LEAD OFF MAN. He can hit almost .270 that isn't bad right, .270 hitter with 40-50 stolen bases!!

They don't get he doesn't know how to walk or work counts, his speed doesn't translate to range in defense, he has no bat or bunt control, I mean this isn't double A where you can lay down a bunt anywhere and be fast, you have to know how to place it.

He might hit .270 but hes going to be a Juan Pierre clone at BEST. No OBP, high steals but not much of an offensive player, average D at best with a below average arm.

There has to be a lot more that goes into being a leadoff hitter then speed.

It's Dankerific
02-12-2009, 04:56 PM
Why Not Have an Open tryout at US Cellular Tomorrow afternoon?

kittle42
02-12-2009, 05:03 PM
CF threads suck.

Boondock Saint
02-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Jerry Owens plays baseball like Daver's ass chews gum.

EMachine10
02-12-2009, 05:12 PM
Jerry Owens is the guy everyone who thinks they know a lot about baseball but don't love. They see a skinny guy who is very fast and think WOW HE WOULD BE THE PERFECT LEAD OFF MAN. He can hit almost .270 that isn't bad right, .270 hitter with 40-50 stolen bases!!

They don't get he doesn't know how to walk or work counts, his speed doesn't translate to range in defense, he has no bat or bunt control, I mean this isn't double A where you can lay down a bunt anywhere and be fast, you have to know how to place it.

He might hit .270 but hes going to be a Juan Pierre clone at BEST. No OBP, high steals but not much of an offensive player, average D at best with a below average arm.

There has to be a lot more that goes into being a leadoff hitter then speed.
Bingo

doublem23
02-12-2009, 05:24 PM
CF threads suck.

Likely because or center fielders suck.

russ99
02-12-2009, 05:48 PM
Jerry Owens is the guy everyone who thinks they know a lot about baseball but don't love. They see a skinny guy who is very fast and think WOW HE WOULD BE THE PERFECT LEAD OFF MAN. He can hit almost .270 that isn't bad right, .270 hitter with 40-50 stolen bases!!

They don't get he doesn't know how to walk or work counts, his speed doesn't translate to range in defense, he has no bat or bunt control, I mean this isn't double A where you can lay down a bunt anywhere and be fast, you have to know how to place it.

He might hit .270 but hes going to be a Juan Pierre clone at BEST. No OBP, high steals but not much of an offensive player, average D at best with a below average arm.

There has to be a lot more that goes into being a leadoff hitter then speed.

I'd grudgingly agree with most of that (except for the walk and work counts part, I saw much improvement there the last 2 months of 2007) but he's a better option at leadoff than anyone else we have, and he's cheap unlike Juan Pierre or Willy Tavarez or the rest of the low OBP leadoff guys. Also, defense is relative. If he can produce more overall runs than our other leadoff and CF candidates, the few we lose to his below-average defense will even out.

His career to date (and skill set come to think of it, though Scott has a bit more power) is a lot like Pods, so who's to say he can't break out and have a pre-2007 Pods-like year for us.

Daver
02-12-2009, 05:54 PM
Jerry Owens plays baseball like Daver's ass chews gum.

I agree with this.

goon
02-12-2009, 07:21 PM
I have no problem with him or Anderson playing CF while batting #9 in the order.

Daver
02-12-2009, 08:06 PM
I'd grudgingly agree with most of that (except for the walk and work counts part, I saw much improvement there the last 2 months of 2007) but he's a better option at leadoff than anyone else we have, and he's cheap unlike Juan Pierre or Willy Tavarez or the rest of the low OBP leadoff guys. Also, defense is relative. If he can produce more overall runs than our other leadoff and CF candidates, the few we lose to his below-average defense will even out.

His career to date (and skill set come to think of it, though Scott has a bit more power) is a lot like Pods, so who's to say he can't break out and have a pre-2007 Pods-like year for us.

This post made me actually laugh out loud.

To argue that although the guy has no baseball skills to speak of, he is still a better option than a "non classic" lead off hitter that can actually play baseball.

Pure comedy gold.

goon
02-12-2009, 08:56 PM
His career to date (and skill set come to think of it, though Scott has a bit more power) is a lot like Pods, so who's to say he can't break out and have a pre-2007 Pods-like year for us.


It's difficult to say whether or not Owens could have a breakout season like Podsednik.

Podsednik had a slightly better minor league career and like Owens didn't really start playing fulltime in the Majors until he was older (in 2003 with the Brewers when he was 27). So, obviously it is possible for older players with little experience in the pros to finally "click" and have an impact in the league, Rich Hill is another example of that in 2007 for the Cubs. I hope it happens for Owens or Anderson, I just would like to see them bat 9th rather than leadoff... at least right away.

Carolina Kenny
02-12-2009, 10:07 PM
Have you seen him play?

Yes, and he reminds me very much of a slightly slower Willie Wilson

whitesox901
02-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Jerry Owens is the guy everyone who thinks they know a lot about baseball but don't love. They see a skinny guy who is very fast and think WOW HE WOULD BE THE PERFECT LEAD OFF MAN. He can hit almost .270 that isn't bad right, .270 hitter with 40-50 stolen bases!!

They don't get he doesn't know how to walk or work counts, his speed doesn't translate to range in defense, he has no bat or bunt control, I mean this isn't double A where you can lay down a bunt anywhere and be fast, you have to know how to place it.

He might hit .270 but hes going to be a Juan Pierre clone at BEST. No OBP, high steals but not much of an offensive player, average D at best with a below average arm.

There has to be a lot more that goes into being a leadoff hitter then speed.

I like to just say I'm naive :D:

champagne030
02-12-2009, 10:41 PM
Yes, and he reminds me very much of a slightly slower Willie Wilson

Willie Wilson and Jerry Owens should never be compared, unless you're saying that both are black. :scratch:

Frater Perdurabo
02-12-2009, 11:06 PM
As a baseball player, Owens is a pretty good sprinter.

DSpivack
02-12-2009, 11:10 PM
As a baseball player, Owens is a pretty good sprinter.

Sign Usain Bolt, Kenny!

guillensdisciple
02-12-2009, 11:57 PM
I am usually pretty optimistic about anything White Sox, but I just can't seem to find a legitimate excuse to be excited about the center field position. So um, for once, I am going to agree with the negativity that has followed this off-season.


I STILL think they will surprise this year.

slavko
02-13-2009, 01:34 AM
9 out of 10 White Sox fans say that he looks like a leadoff man but can't play baseball. Hey! We ain't dumb.

Giving him a season to prove what we already know, that's dumb.

Dick Allen
02-13-2009, 01:54 AM
If Owens is the starter in CF, you will see an MLB record for most groundouts to the 2B by one player. That's because even though Owens keeps doing it, Ozzie will still keep playing him.

drewcifer
02-13-2009, 01:55 AM
This post made me actually laugh out loud.

To argue that although the guy has no baseball skills to speak of, he is still a better option than a "non classic" lead off hitter that can actually play baseball.

Pure comedy gold.

What are you talking about? "To argue that although..."... you have me completely lost. I think you're maybe talking about an OBP player hitting the leadoff spot...but... aside from Thome.... WE DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!!

Owens sucks. There are no options. The guy is right.

hawkjt
02-13-2009, 02:54 AM
All we can do it pray he comes thru with a decent year so that the experts heads will explode.
I will join all those ''non-experts who think they know baseball but don't'' and join Ozzie and Kenny in giving Owens a shot.

russ99
02-13-2009, 10:12 AM
This post made me actually laugh out loud.

To argue that although the guy has no baseball skills to speak of, he is still a better option than a "non classic" lead off hitter that can actually play baseball.

Pure comedy gold.

Oh well. I guess hitting major league pitching at a .270 clip (.330 OBP) and stealing 40 bases aren't baseball skills...

The problem with this mentality is that Owens can produce decent (not great, decent) numbers at the top of the order, and that's enough to give him a shot. Stop getting hung up on the tools.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Oh well. I guess hitting major league pitching at a .270 clip (.330 OBP) and stealing 40 bases aren't baseball skills...

The problem with this mentality is that Owens can produce decent (not great, decent) numbers at the top of the order, and that's enough to gibe him a shot. Stop getting hung up on the tools.
I'd be shocked if he put that up. .240/.290/.290 is far more likely.

russ99
02-13-2009, 10:16 AM
I'd be shocked if he put that up. .240/.290/.290 is far more likely.

I'm just quoting his career averages. Could be higher, could be lower. And to bring slugging percentage into any argument about Owens is moot.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 10:18 AM
I'm just quoting his career averages. Could be higher, could be lower. And to bring slugging percentage into any argument about Owens is moot.
That's such a bull**** argument. Just because he's fast doesn't mean the occasional double shouldn't be quantified.

russ99
02-13-2009, 10:21 AM
That's such a bull**** argument. Just because he's fast doesn't mean the occasional double shouldn't be quantified.

Ok, very true. I'll give you that.

But it's a gateway to yet another Power vs. Speed, Owens vs. Anderson garbagefest, that I hope we're done with (for now).

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 10:26 AM
Ok, very true. I'll give you that.

But it's a gateway to yet another Power vs. Speed, Owens vs. Anderson garbagefest, that I hope we're done with (for now).
Of course, but if you don't want to go down that road, don't rip people for not wanting to give the most ABs to an abysmal Jerry Owens. If we're looking for a left-hander to fill that spot, why not look at the guy who will probably (and rightfully) play second base?

I don't know how quickly he runs a 40 meter dash, but he can handle the bat a lot better.

asindc
02-13-2009, 10:28 AM
Ok, very true. I'll give you that.

But it's a gateway to yet another Power vs. Speed, Owens vs. Anderson garbagefest, that I hope we're done with (for now).

And how long have you been on WSI? :smile:

russ99
02-13-2009, 10:51 AM
And how long have you been on WSI? :smile:

Well, I've learned my lesson and am done with fighting that fight.

As for the other comment by Craig, yes, I'd rather give a guy who could be a passable leadoff guy and solid base stealer a chance for now than push a rookie with 7 MLB at-bats into the job. Look how hard it was for Swisher and Cabrera to get used to the role. Owens has batted leadoff his whole career.

If Owens can't cut it after a month, then let's try Getz or Lillibridge or even Alexei.

voodoochile
02-13-2009, 10:59 AM
Ozzie has already stated that they won't throw Getz into the leadoff slot to start the season.

ode to veeck
02-13-2009, 11:16 AM
As a baseball player, Owens is a pretty good sprinter.

I spilled my coffee on that one, but the best darn description I've seen yet

ode to veeck
02-13-2009, 11:17 AM
Ok, very true. I'll give you that.

But it's a gateway to yet another Power vs. Speed, Owens vs. Anderson garbagefest, that I hope we're done with (for now).

at least it is in the right forum now

ode to veeck
02-13-2009, 11:18 AM
That's such a bull**** argument. Just because he's fast doesn't mean the occasional double shouldn't be quantified.

I'll quantify it as epsilon

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Ozzie has already stated that they won't throw Getz into the leadoff slot to start the season.

How do we know when what Ozzie says is the truth and what Ozzie says is just supporting his players/building trade value/etc.?

voodoochile
02-13-2009, 11:35 AM
How do we know when what Ozzie says is the truth and what Ozzie says is just supporting his players/building trade value/etc.?

You really seem to be spoiling for a fight with me. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm not going to reply to you because it will simply turn nasty and I have no desire for that.

jabrch
02-13-2009, 12:09 PM
Ok, very true. I'll give you that.

But it's a gateway to yet another Power vs. Speed, Owens vs. Anderson garbagefest, that I hope we're done with (for now).



It's unfortunate that neither Anderson nor Owens provides sufficient power or speed to make up for their other flaws and we are left seeking out the least bad option.

That said, it is what it is. I'm rooting for both of them!

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 12:15 PM
You really seem to be spoiling for a fight with me. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm not going to reply to you because it will simply turn nasty and I have no desire for that.

I don't get how asking a question about what Ozzie says is picking a fight with you but I will try to refrain from specifically responding to your comments if thats what you want. In all honesty, I don't care enough to specifically look who made the posting. *shrug*

EMachine10
02-13-2009, 01:01 PM
It's unfortunate that neither Anderson nor Owens provides sufficient power or speed to make up for their other flaws and we are left seeking out the least bad option.

That said, it is what it is. I'm rooting for both of them!
Anderson has some decent power. He's not Ryan Howard, but I do remember him being pegged as a potential middle of the lineup hitter when he was still a prospect. Obviously he does not profile to that anymore, but he has retained some of that power.

NLaloosh
02-13-2009, 01:14 PM
At this point, assuming no more moves by KW, I think the Sox should go with a platoon at 2B and CF with the second baseman leading off and the center fielders batting ninth.

In other words, Getz and Lillibridge are both "baseball players" that possess many skills of typical leadoff hitters beside some speed.

I'd be ok with Owens getting some decent playing time as the 4th OFer batting ninth. Anderson should bat ninth as well.

oeo
02-13-2009, 01:20 PM
Anderson has some decent power. He's not Ryan Howard, but I do remember him being pegged as a potential middle of the lineup hitter when he was still a prospect. Obviously he does not profile to that anymore, but he has retained some of that power.

Power isn't Anderson's problem, as he could probably hit 20 or so over the course of a season. His problem is getting hits in general.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Power isn't Anderson's problem, as he could probably hit 20 or so over the course of a season. His problem is getting hits in general.

Its hard to get hits and homeruns when his real problem is getting consistent at bats, preferably against a RH pitcher.

jabrch
02-13-2009, 01:43 PM
Power isn't Anderson's problem, as he could probably hit 20 or so over the course of a season. His problem is getting hits in general.


In general I agree. I'd say 15...but that's just a wild ass guess and shaving of hairs anyhow. Who knows....

But you are right.. .221/.277/.379 in his 652 ABs is the problem. Same as Owens .268/.321/.312 in his 381 ABs. Neither has proven they can hit at the major league level. I can't possibly say if BAs D is worth more than the differences in their offense - that's just guesswork. But either way, someone has to play CF. I have no idea who'd be better in that role. Maybe they split the ABs and Wise gets some...and someone steps up?

PalehosePlanet
02-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Maybe because Owens is a sucky baseball player.

I think I can speak for most here.

You certainly speak for me.

The sad thing is he seems like a nice guy and all and I hate to root against him. But knowing Ozzie it'll take a .150 type spring to keep him off the team. I don't think I've ever rooted against a Sox player prior to Owens (I did so last spring as well) but unfortunately I have no choice.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 01:56 PM
You know what's worse than using September statistics (solely) to evaluate a ballplayer? Spring training statistics.

Kenny and Ozzie have made quite the habit of that in this organization.

russ99
02-13-2009, 01:57 PM
Its hard to get hits and homeruns when his real problem is getting consistent at bats, preferably against a RH pitcher.

I'm so sick of that argument...

He had a good long chance and missed out on it for whatever reason, so now he has to earn his playing time.

There's 7-10 guys each on all 30 MLB rosters who would like more consistent at-bats, take a number.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 02:02 PM
I'm so sick of that argument...

He had a good long chance and missed out on it for whatever reason, so now he has to earn his playing time.

There's 7-10 guys each on all 30 MLB rosters who would like more consistent at-bats, take a number.

In 2006.. as a rookie...

It wouldnt be so problematic if Ozzie favorites didn't get chance after chance after chance. If you can't see that, then you're not being objective.

Also, Offense is not the only thing that makes a ballplayer. Just because Owens might get some steals for your fantasy team doesn't make him a better choice for winning ballgames.

Daver
02-13-2009, 02:13 PM
Oh well. I guess hitting major league pitching at a .270 clip (.330 OBP) and stealing 40 bases aren't baseball skills...

The problem with this mentality is that Owens can produce decent (not great, decent) numbers at the top of the order, and that's enough to give him a shot. Stop getting hung up on the tools.

Baseball is not an offensive sport, to judge a player simply on that basis is ludicrous. It works fine for fantasy baseball, for the real thing, not so much.

kittle42
02-13-2009, 02:23 PM
I call on Brian Anderson to retire.

tm1119
02-13-2009, 02:44 PM
In 2006.. as a rookie...

It wouldnt be so problematic if Ozzie favorites didn't get chance after chance after chance. If you can't see that, then you're not being objective.

Also, Offense is not the only thing that makes a ballplayer. Just because Owens might get some steals for your fantasy team doesn't make him a better choice for winning ballgames.

Like who has Ozzie given chance after chance? We've had pretty much the same group of vets on this team for a while now. BA, Fields, and Owens are pretty much the only home grown talent that we have given a shot to in the past few years and BA has the most AB's of any of them.
And if your logic is that 600 Ab's isnt enough of a chance then lets just bring back Joe Borchard to play CF since we only gave him 300 AB's in majors.

Goodman6
02-13-2009, 02:45 PM
If Owens is the starter in CF, you will see an MLB record for most groundouts to the 2B by one player. That's because even though Owens keeps doing it, Ozzie will still keep playing him.


Dick, Great post. You stole my thunder. I watched Owens play 3 minor league games last year and he rolled out weakly to 2B ten times in 14 times AB. Also, base runners were consistently advancing an extra base on his weak arm. I think my 12-yr old niece has a stronger arm. Now we can only hope that he finds a way to get on base and doesn't kill us defensively this year, because, like it or not, I think we are stuck with him. I think he is out of minor league options and KW seems to be pretty high on him.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Like who has Ozzie given chance after chance? We've had pretty much the same group of vets on this team for a while now. BA, Fields, and Owens are pretty much the only home grown talent that we have given a shot to in the past few years and BA has the most AB's of any of them.
And if your logic is that 600 Ab's isnt enough of a chance then lets just bring back Joe Borchard to play CF since we only gave him 300 AB's in majors.

Erstad rings a bell, as does Wise.

Also Owens for consecutively being the PRESUMPTIVE starter even after doing jack **** for multiple SEASONS.

BA only got 2006, at best.

Tragg
02-13-2009, 04:14 PM
Oh well. I guess hitting major league pitching at a .270 clip (.330 OBP) and stealing 40 bases aren't baseball skills...


Not very impressive ones, no.

russ99
02-13-2009, 04:57 PM
Erstad rings a bell, as does Wise.

Also Owens for consecutively being the PRESUMPTIVE starter even after doing jack **** for multiple SEASONS.

BA only got 2006, at best.

Sorry to poke massive holes in this fallacy but:

Anderson
05 - 34 (ABs)
06 - 365
07 - 17
08 - 181

Erstad
06 - 310

Wise
08 - 129

Owens
06 - 9
07 - 356
08 - 16

The only one who's had more AB's in any one season than BA is Owens in '07, and even then that's less than Anderson got in 2006.

Anderson's gotten more of a chance than any of them, now the question remains what has he done with that to garner a much bigger chance than the others...

EndemicSox
02-13-2009, 05:22 PM
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/O/jerry-owens.shtml

I guess his 2005 numbers in Birmingham were excellent, and he was OK in AAA last season. Might as well give him 200 AB's to see if he has a future in this league or not.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 05:38 PM
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/O/jerry-owens.shtml

I guess his 2005 numbers in Birmingham were excellent, and he was OK in AAA last season. Might as well give him 200 AB's to see if he has a future in this league or not.
Why not? It's not like CF is an important position. Who needs wins?

tm1119
02-13-2009, 06:00 PM
Why not? It's not like CF is an important position. Who needs wins?

And which CF on our team leads to wins?

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 06:01 PM
And which CF on our team leads to wins?
If we're comparing two offensive black holes, I'll take the one that doesn't wear his glove on his left foot.

tm1119
02-13-2009, 06:10 PM
If we're comparing two offensive black holes, I'll take the one that doesn't wear his glove on his left foot.

If Owens repeats his 06 #'s then he is not a black hole. BA has yet to show that he can be anything but a black hole.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 06:10 PM
If Owens repeats his 06 #'s then he is not a black hole. BA has yet to show that he can be anything but a black hole.
Well I'm not going to argue about what a black hole was.

doublem23
02-13-2009, 06:13 PM
Sorry to poke massive holes in this fallacy but:

Anderson
05 - 34 (ABs)
06 - 365
07 - 17
08 - 181

Erstad
06 - 310

Wise
08 - 129

Owens
06 - 9
07 - 356
08 - 16

The only one who's had more AB's in any one season than BA is Owens in '07, and even then that's less than Anderson got in 2006.

Anderson's gotten more of a chance than any of them, now the question remains what has he done with that to garner a much bigger chance than the others...

I like were you're going with this, but Erstad was with the Sox in '07, not '06. They had to bring his broken down ass because they had no plans at CF any more since Anderson **** the bed in '06.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 06:13 PM
Well, Erstad played in 2007. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. The back to back playing of erstad and owens in 2007 really led to a lot of great things, didn't it?

but let me get something straight.

so in 2007, owens hit an OPS of .636 in 9 less at bats than BA hit an OPS of .649 in 2006, his "absymal, black hole in the lineup" season. Somehow, the 32 SB by Owens makes up for his huge deficit on Defense??? Which is especially interesting because in 2007 Owens scored 44 runs while BA scored 46. (And Owens was usually at the top of the lineup.)

When you look at 2008, again in spotty time, BA has his OPS up to .709

Somehow you're poking holes in a fallacy?

You've just help show that in more consistent at bats (but 9 less total), Owens managed to produce less, score less runs, have some really ****ty defense and steal 28 more bases.

Good job =)


Sorry to poke massive holes in this fallacy but:

Anderson
05 - 34 (ABs)
06 - 365
07 - 17
08 - 181

Erstad
06 - 310

Wise
08 - 129

Owens
06 - 9
07 - 356
08 - 16

The only one who's had more AB's in any one season than BA is Owens in '07, and even then that's less than Anderson got in 2006.

Anderson's gotten more of a chance than any of them, now the question remains what has he done with that to garner a much bigger chance than the others...

tm1119
02-13-2009, 06:21 PM
Well, Erstad played in 2007. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. The back to back playing of erstad and owens in 2007 really led to a lot of great things, didn't it?

but let me get something straight.

so in 2007, owens hit an OPS of .636 in 9 less at bats than BA hit an OPS of .649 in 2006, his "absymal, black hole in the lineup" season. Somehow, the 32 SB by Owens makes up for his huge deficit on Defense??? Which is especially interesting because in 2007 Owens scored 44 runs while BA scored 46. (And Owens was usually at the top of the lineup.)

When you look at 2008, again in spotty time, BA has his OPS up to .709

Somehow you're poking holes in a fallacy?

You've just help show that in more consistent at bats (but 9 less total), Owens managed to produce less, score less runs, have some really ****ty defense and steal 28 more bases.

Good job =)

You're comparing OPS of 2 completely different players. And the only reason you are doing this is because SLG% and OPS(which also takes SLG into consideration) are the only stats that BA managed to be better than Owens in. Your argument is pointless, its like me saying Owens is better because he gets more steals.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 07:03 PM
You're comparing OPS of 2 completely different players. And the only reason you are doing this is because SLG% and OPS(which also takes SLG into consideration) are the only stats that BA managed to be better than Owens in. Your argument is pointless, its like me saying Owens is better because he gets more steals.

So you're saying OPS is meaningless? Okay.

How about runs? Are those meaningless too?

I guess I was assuming that Homeruns and Doubles > Singles.

tm1119
02-13-2009, 07:18 PM
So you're saying OPS is meaningless? Okay.

How about runs? Are those meaningless too?

I guess I was assuming that Homeruns and Doubles > Singles.

No obviously OPS is not meaningless. But it is not the type of stat to compare BA and Owens. If you do it your way, out of 26 players in the MLB that got at least 500 PA's in CF Ichiro was only the 17th best with guys like Cody Ross, Mike Cameron, and Skip Shumaker ahead of him. Oh, and Swisher's OPS was only .04 points lower than Ichiro's. You can still be an effective offensive player without having a high OPS.

EndemicSox
02-13-2009, 07:20 PM
Why not? It's not like CF is an important position. Who needs wins?

I wish the Sox CF options were better at the moment, but as it stands Owens is one of the few. He passes the eye test(I know, it's meaningless) and, well, his AA numbers three years ago were great...and that is pretty much all I got in support of him. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of starting Anderson or Owens, and I'll be pretty shocked if either one of them is manning CF come July 1st, but the situation is what it is. I have more faith in Owens contributing to a winnng team than Anderson. Time will tell...:gulp:

Daver
02-13-2009, 07:28 PM
I have more faith in Owens contributing to a winnng team than Anderson.

How?

Will it be wearing his glove on his head in center field?

Will it be his ability to get caught stealing 1/3 of the time?

Will it be his inability to lay down a bunt or work a count?

Enquiring minds want to know.

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 07:31 PM
No obviously OPS is not meaningless. But it is not the type of stat to compare BA and Owens. If you do it your way, out of 26 players in the MLB that got at least 500 PA's in CF Ichiro was only the 17th best with guys like Cody Ross, Mike Cameron, and Skip Shumaker ahead of him. Oh, and Swisher's OPS was only .04 points lower than Ichiro's. You can still be an effective offensive player without having a high OPS.

How does Ichiro rank in runs?

Konerko05
02-13-2009, 07:40 PM
No obviously OPS is not meaningless. But it is not the type of stat to compare BA and Owens. If you do it your way, out of 26 players in the MLB that got at least 500 PA's in CF Ichiro was only the 17th best with guys like Cody Ross, Mike Cameron, and Skip Shumaker ahead of him. Oh, and Swisher's OPS was only .04 points lower than Ichiro's. You can still be an effective offensive player without having a high OPS.

Really?

Ichiro has a career average of .331. He has had 200 hits for the last eight seasons. He barely strikes out. He is one of the best base runners in baseball. His defense is also top notch.

Are you really going to use Ichiro as an example to prove a point about Owens?

In 2007, Owens hit .267 with only 12 extra base hits. His walk rate was low and his defense was below average. What exactly do people like about Owens?

If the leadoff role is so important why force such a horrible player into that role?

Anderson has proven he can help the team defensively. He might even surprise some people at the plate. He at least has some offensive ability.

tm1119
02-13-2009, 08:06 PM
Really?

Ichiro has a career average of .331. He has had 200 hits for the last eight seasons. He barely strikes out. He is one of the best base runners in baseball. His defense is also top notch.

Are you really going to use Ichiro as an example to prove a point about Owens?

In 2007, Owens hit .267 with only 12 extra base hits. His walk rate was low and his defense was below average. What exactly do people like about Owens?

If the leadoff role is so important why force such a horrible player into that role?

Anderson has proven he can help the team defensively. He might even surprise some people at the plate. He at least has some offensive ability.

Im not comparing Owens and Ichiro, just pointing out that using OPS to compare 2 players is pointless. And what offensive ability does Anderson bring exactly? A .230 average and .290 OBP %?

Konerko05
02-13-2009, 08:16 PM
Im not comparing Owens and Ichiro, just pointing out that using OPS to compare 2 players is pointless. And what offensive ability does Anderson bring exactly? A .230 average and .290 OBP %?

You used a player who does everything outside of SLG% extremely well. When Owens does anything remotely close to Ichiro then it would be acceptable to use him as an example.

Owens runs fast. That is all.

Offensive ability and offensive results are two totally different things. Yes Anderson didn't very well his rookie season. He at least has the potential to be a decent major league hitter.

Owens doesn't bring anything to the table besides speed. His speed doesn't make up for everything other facet of baseball he is not good at.

FedEx227
02-13-2009, 08:24 PM
As a baseball player, Owens is a pretty good sprinter.

If all five-tools were speed, he'd have them all.

tm1119
02-13-2009, 08:39 PM
You used a player who does everything outside of SLG% extremely well. When Owens does anything remotely close to Ichiro then it would be acceptable to use him as an example.

Owens runs fast. That is all.

Offensive ability and offensive results are two totally different things. Yes Anderson didn't very well his rookie season. He at least has the potential to be a decent major league hitter.

Owens doesn't bring anything to the table besides speed. His speed doesn't make up for everything other facet of baseball he is not good at.

Pleas explain to me how player A who has 600 AB's in the majors and has managed a .232 AVG, .277 OBP ,.380 SLG%, and a .655 OPS deserves to play over player B who has only had 400 AB's and managed a .268 AVG, .321 OBP, .312 SLG%, and .634 OPS. Really it makes no sense. Anderson has been terrible. Theres absolutely no debating that. Trust me, I really dont like Owens and would really rather have someone else playing CF but Owens has been much better than Anderson to this point. Hopefully 1 player does much better in spring training though so this debate can finally stop.

Daver
02-13-2009, 08:43 PM
Pleas explain to me how player A who has 600 AB's in the majors and has managed a .232 AVG, .277 OBP ,.380 SLG%, and a .655 OPS deserves to play over player B who has only had 400 AB's and managed a .268 AVG, .321 OBP, .312 SLG%, and .634 OPS. Really it makes no sense. Anderson has been terrible. Theres absolutely no debating that. Trust me, I really dont like Owens and would really rather have someone else playing CF but Owens has been much better than Anderson to this point. Hopefully 1 player does much better in spring training though so this debate can finally stop.

That comparison works well for fantasy baseball.

FedEx227
02-13-2009, 09:59 PM
Pleas explain to me how player A who has 600 AB's in the majors and has managed a .232 AVG, .277 OBP ,.380 SLG%, and a .655 OPS deserves to play over player B who has only had 400 AB's and managed a .268 AVG, .321 OBP, .312 SLG%, and .634 OPS. Really it makes no sense. Anderson has been terrible. Theres absolutely no debating that. Trust me, I really dont like Owens and would really rather have someone else playing CF but Owens has been much better than Anderson to this point. Hopefully 1 player does much better in spring training though so this debate can finally stop.

Like the 2007 and 2008 Spring Training seasons?

Tragg
02-14-2009, 12:15 AM
If Owens repeats his 06 #'s then he is not a black hole. BA has yet to show that he can be anything but a black hole.
Oh please, slapping your way to a .324 obp with zero power is a black hole. Putting that at leadoff is inane.

Owens was allowed to leadoff unfettered for nearly 2 months; Guillen won't let Anderson play 2 straight days out of the 9 hole. And STILL their offensive numbers are about the same.

Frater Perdurabo
02-14-2009, 07:31 AM
Like the 2007 and 2008 Spring Training seasons?

Precisely.

russ99
02-14-2009, 01:30 PM
Oh please, slapping your way to a .324 obp with zero power is a black hole. Putting that at leadoff is inane.

Owens was allowed to leadoff unfettered for nearly 2 months; Guillen won't let Anderson play 2 straight days out of the 9 hole. And STILL their offensive numbers are about the same.

Oh, please. The only reason Anderson's OPS is higher is that he can hit an occasional homer against a lefty. Whoop-de-doo...

I'd say hitting .220 with zero plate presence is a lot more of a black hole that hitting .270, but I'm certainly not saying that's anything special.

I really wish we had a solid kid like Dickerson in Cincy we can hand the job, but Owens is the best we have right now, and at least should get the first shot to see if he can get on base at a better clip and stabilize the top of the order this year. If not, Anderson and Wise are up next.

Maybe as soon as next year we can start talking about Jordan Danks.

And Kenny was the one who put us in this hole. He acquired fairly talented young players at every other contested position this spring but CF.

Who knows, maybe Alexei might end up there if none of the candidates work out, since Lillibridge plays a decent SS.

tm1119
02-14-2009, 01:54 PM
Oh please, slapping your way to a .324 obp with zero power is a black hole. Putting that at leadoff is inane.

Owens was allowed to leadoff unfettered for nearly 2 months; Guillen won't let Anderson play 2 straight days out of the 9 hole. And STILL their offensive numbers are about the same.

So if a .324 OBP is a black hole then how exactly do you describe a .290 OBP? Supernova maybe? And no they're numbers arent even close to the same.

jabrch
02-14-2009, 02:10 PM
If either of these guys gets 600 PA and plays to their career averages, offensively and defensively, it will be bad for the Sox. I hope whomever gets the job does better than they have in the past.

I'm ok with either BA or JO - as long as it is neither the BA or the JO we have already seen.

Madscout
02-14-2009, 02:28 PM
So if a .324 OBP is a black hole then how exactly do you describe a .290 OBP? Supernova maybe? And no they're numbers arent even close to the same.
And it would be better to have an unqualified defender in CF how? How would that help our young pitching staff's confidence?
If either of these guys gets 600 PA and plays to their career averages, offensively and defensively, it will be bad for the Sox. I hope whomever gets the job does better than they have in the past.

I'm ok with either BA or JO - as long as it is neither the BA or the JO we have already seen.
Agreed, but I think we already know what JO is going to do. He has a ton more problems than BA.

EndemicSox
02-14-2009, 08:09 PM
How?

Will it be wearing his glove on his head in center field?

Will it be his ability to get caught stealing 1/3 of the time?

Will it be his inability to lay down a bunt or work a count?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Hey now, we are picking between two runts of the litter! I like the fact that Owens gets on base at a better clip than Anderson, and that is pretty much the only reason. Anderson's lack of skills with the bat means he really isn't an option as a starter, imo, and if he is, Kenny Williams should have his head examined. There are terrible MLB hitters, and one notch below that we find Anderson. I love BA's glove skills as much as his biggest fans, but I don't think that alone makes him a better option than Owens. Owens has the wheels to at least field his position decently, and well, he got on base 40% of the time in AA three years ago! I think we all know the Sox will be in pretty bad shape if either man is starting in CF come April, but I feel slightly better about Owens. Like I said earlier, time will tell, and when it does, I think we will find both guys pumping gas in 2010.

It's Dankerific
02-14-2009, 08:48 PM
Hey now, we are picking between two runts of the litter! I like the fact that Owens gets on base at a better clip than Anderson, and that is pretty much the only reason. Anderson's lack of skills with the bat means he really isn't an option as a starter, imo, and if he is, Kenny Williams should have his head examined. There are terrible MLB hitters, and one notch below that we find Anderson. I love BA's glove skills as much as his biggest fans, but I don't think that alone makes him a better option than Owens. Owens has the wheels to at least field his position decently, and well, he got on base 40% of the time in AA three years ago! I think we all know the Sox will be in pretty bad shape if either man is starting in CF come April, but I feel slightly better about Owens. Like I said earlier, time will tell, and when it does, I think we will find both guys pumping gas in 2010.

Yes, in 2005, Owens had an OBP of .393 in AA. In 2005, BA had an OBP of .360 in AAA. The real difference? Besides BA being a whole level higher? BA had a slugging % of .469 and Owens only had a .406.

You're not going to win a contest of minor league stats with BA. Its ****ing ridiculous to be claiminig that Owens should be given a shot because of crap he did in AA three years ago. By that logic, BA shouldn't even be competing with him.

Tragg
02-14-2009, 10:31 PM
Pleas explain to me how player A who has 600 AB's in the majors and has managed a .232 AVG, .277 OBP ,.380 SLG%, and a .655 OPS deserves to play over player B who has only had 400 AB's and managed a .268 AVG, .321 OBP, .312 SLG%, and .634 OPS. Really it makes no sense. Anderson has been terrible. Theres absolutely no debating that..
Three reasons.
a)Even the numbers you provide show that A is the better offensive player. (sidenote - B's statistics earned unfettered out of the 1 hole; As earned with a lot of platooning against the type of pitcher he hits worst against)
b)A plays plus defense; B plays minus defense
c)A has superior skills and talent over B.

EndemicSox
02-15-2009, 01:18 AM
Yes, in 2005, Owens had an OBP of .393 in AA. In 2005, BA had an OBP of .360 in AAA. The real difference? Besides BA being a whole level higher? BA had a slugging % of .469 and Owens only had a .406.

You're not going to win a contest of minor league stats with BA. Its ****ing ridiculous to be claiminig that Owens should be given a shot because of crap he did in AA three years ago. By that logic, BA shouldn't even be competing with him.

I'm not really arguing for one over the other, as it neither player is worthy of a starting MLB position. But if I had to guess which player hurts the WhiteSox the least in 2009, I'd go with Owens. I've seen enough out of Anderson to know that he doesn't have what it takes to stick in MLB, and, I think I'm pretty much at that point with Owens. This pointless argument is not going to matter much come April, as I'll eat my hat if Kenny hasn't signed/traded for a veteran to fill the CF position by then. If he hasn't, well, I hope I'm wrong about whichever CF wins the tallest midget competition.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 11:44 AM
I'm not really arguing for one over the other, as it neither player is worthy of a starting MLB position. But if I had to guess which player hurts the WhiteSox the least in 2009, I'd go with Owens. I've seen enough out of Anderson to know that he doesn't have what it takes to stick in MLB, and, I think I'm pretty much at that point with Owens. This pointless argument is not going to matter much come April, as I'll eat my hat if Kenny hasn't signed/traded for a veteran to fill the CF position by then. If he hasn't, well, I hope I'm wrong about whichever CF wins the tallest midget competition.
I agree with you that it is indeed a tallest midget contest. But in what way has BA not shown he has what it takes to stick in the MLB? Maybe not in a starting position, but the guy has a manager who doesn't like him, yet he took him out of spring training because he knew that he would be valuable off the bench. His manager points to the problems in social life, as well as the piss poor numbers that he put up. Yet, the same manager who says he is going to give him playing time, doesn't his first year starting, favoring attrocious play in CF over him.
On the other hand, Owens has been nothing but praised by Ozzie. He has been given all the starting time he can handle, in garbage time vs. the contending team that was the 2006 White Sox. He puts up those numbers out of the 1 hole vs. BA's 9 hole, and plays piss poor defense doing it, which his pitching staff must love. Oh, and he goes through the same injury problems as a past lead off man that was great for half a season, but we then came to the conclusion that he wasn't worth waiting for.
I know BA is a midget, but he is the only CF we have. Time to play him.

FedEx227
02-15-2009, 12:07 PM
Especially when we have a pitching staff that will be quite dependent on great OF defense, more so than any previous year. With the loss of Vazquez and his 200 Ks and the infusion of Marquez and potentially Colon, as well as Floyd's history, we're going to see the amount of flyballs and defensive opportunities rise. It's real hard to debate that.

That being said, I'll sacrifice some offense out of the 9-hole to save some runs in the OF. Great pitching is the key to winning baseball games. Anybody can say whatever the hell they want about 2005, but if you think we won for any reason LARGER than lights-out starting pitching and a lock-down bullpen you're out of your mind.

cards press box
02-15-2009, 01:13 PM
Especially when we have a pitching staff that will be quite dependent on great OF defense, more so than any previous year. With the loss of Vazquez and his 200 Ks and the infusion of Marquez and potentially Colon, as well as Floyd's history, we're going to see the amount of flyballs and defensive opportunities rise. It's real hard to debate that.

That being said, I'll sacrifice some offense out of the 9-hole to save some runs in the OF. Great pitching is the key to winning baseball games. Anybody can say whatever the hell they want about 2005, but if you think we won for any reason LARGER than lights-out starting pitching and a lock-down bullpen you're out of your mind.

O.K. assuming that no further free agent moves or trades occur before the season opener, I suspect that the following will happen.

Given the need for good defense in CF, I suspect that Anderson will win the CF job, particularly if Lillibridge has a good spring and wins the 2B job and bats leadoff. Wise and Owens are both out of options but make good 4th and 5th outfielders and bring strength to the bench (Wise as a pinch hitter and pinch runner and Owens as a pinch runner)

The lineup?

Lillibridge 2B
A.J. C
Quentin LF
Thome DH
Dye RF
Konerko 1B
Ramirez SS
Fields 3B
Anderson CF

Bench -- Owens, Wise, Getz, Betimet and back up catcher

Although Getz does not play SS, Lillibridge does and occasionally spells Ramirez at SS with Getz playing 2B. Betimet backs up the corner positions. As for the back up catcher, I could see the Sox still making a free agent signing, particularly if the market for Ivan Rodriguez falls to the Sox' range.

Just a guess on the day that pitchers and catchers report.

FedEx227
02-15-2009, 01:21 PM
I can live with that lineup...

Can Ozzie though?

sox1970
02-15-2009, 01:42 PM
O.K. assuming that no further free agent moves or trades occur before the season opener, I suspect that the following will happen.

Given the need for good defense in CF, I suspect that Anderson will win the CF job, particularly if Lillibridge has a good spring and wins the 2B job and bats leadoff. Wise and Owens are both out of options but make good 4th and 5th outfielders and bring strength to the bench (Wise as a pinch hitter and pinch runner and Owens as a pinch runner)

The lineup?

Lillibridge 2B
A.J. C
Quentin LF
Thome DH
Dye RF
Konerko 1B
Ramirez SS
Fields 3B
Anderson CF

Bench -- Owens, Wise, Getz, Betemit and back up catcher

Although Getz does not play SS, Lillibridge does and occasionally spells Ramirez at SS with Getz playing 2B. Betimet backs up the corner positions. As for the back up catcher, I could see the Sox still making a free agent signing, particularly if the market for Ivan Rodriguez falls to the Sox' range.

Just a guess on the day that pitchers and catchers report.

They won't have 5 on the bench. Wise or Owens won't make the team.

In the end, I think Owens makes the team at CF, and the bench will be Anderson, Lillibridge, Betemit, and the backup catcher. I think Anderson and Lillibridge will get plenty of playing time against lefties.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 01:47 PM
O.K. assuming that no further free agent moves or trades occur before the season opener, I suspect that the following will happen.

Given the need for good defense in CF, I suspect that Anderson will win the CF job, particularly if Lillibridge has a good spring and wins the 2B job and bats leadoff. Wise and Owens are both out of options but make good 4th and 5th outfielders and bring strength to the bench (Wise as a pinch hitter and pinch runner and Owens as a pinch runner)

The lineup?

Lillibridge 2B
A.J. C
Quentin LF
Thome DH
Dye RF
Konerko 1B
Ramirez SS
Fields 3B
Anderson CF

Bench -- Owens, Wise, Getz, Betimet and back up catcher

Although Getz does not play SS, Lillibridge does and occasionally spells Ramirez at SS with Getz playing 2B. Betimet backs up the corner positions. As for the back up catcher, I could see the Sox still making a free agent signing, particularly if the market for Ivan Rodriguez falls to the Sox' range.

Just a guess on the day that pitchers and catchers report.
This is what I really hope happens, given that no better players are added between now and opening day. Ideally, I wouldn't want both Wise and Owens on the bench, as they both bring one skill only, and it's probably the least important. However, since there aren't any better outfield options, it looks like they'll be the fourth and fifth outfielders.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 02:13 PM
O.K. assuming that no further free agent moves or trades occur before the season opener, I suspect that the following will happen.

Given the need for good defense in CF, I suspect that Anderson will win the CF job, particularly if Lillibridge has a good spring and wins the 2B job and bats leadoff. Wise and Owens are both out of options but make good 4th and 5th outfielders and bring strength to the bench (Wise as a pinch hitter and pinch runner and Owens as a pinch runner)

The lineup?

Lillibridge 2B
A.J. C
Quentin LF
Thome DH
Dye RF
Konerko 1B
Ramirez SS
Fields 3B
Anderson CF

Bench -- Owens, Wise, Getz, Betimet and back up catcher

Although Getz does not play SS, Lillibridge does and occasionally spells Ramirez at SS with Getz playing 2B. Betimet backs up the corner positions. As for the back up catcher, I could see the Sox still making a free agent signing, particularly if the market for Ivan Rodriguez falls to the Sox' range.

Just a guess on the day that pitchers and catchers report.
I can live with this as well. I might substitute Getz for Lillibridge, but I don't know enough about either of them to say.

I don't, however, think that this will be the lineup, because I think Ozzie wants what he wants and will not compromise what he wants, even if it is to the detriment of the team. I think he wants to win how he wants to win, and that is it.

cards press box
02-15-2009, 02:15 PM
They won't have 5 on the bench. Wise or Owens won't make the team.

I know that carrying 12 pitchers is the trend but the Sox hate cutting players out of options and getting nothing for them. In any event, even if one subscribed to the 12 pitcher concept, the team doesn't really need 12 pitchers in April. I think that the Sox would try to work a trade or keep Owens and Wise before cutting one of them.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 02:25 PM
I know that carrying 12 pitchers is the trend but the Sox hate cutting players out of options and getting nothing for them. In any event, even if one subscribed to the 12 pitcher concept, the team doesn't really need 12 pitchers in April. I think that the Sox would try to work a trade or keep Owens and Wise before cutting one of them.
Perhaps he could be pointing to the inevitable JO injury.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 02:37 PM
I can live with this as well. I might substitute Getz for Lillibridge, but I don't know enough about either of them to say.

I don't, however, think that this will be the lineup, because I think Ozzie wants what he wants and will not compromise what he wants, even if it is to the detriment of the team. I think he wants to win how he wants to win, and that is it.
This is one of the saddest things I've ever read, and unfortunately, I think it's true. I'd also say that Mike Scoscia is the same way.

It seems that the best coaches adapt their styles to fit their players. Look at the NFL. Bill Belichick's Patriot teams have been very fluid. At times, they used no-name receivers and had success. Lately, they've used big-name receivers and had success. Mike Tomlin advance through the coaching ranks using a Tampa-2 defense. When he got to Pittsburgh, rather than switch up the defense they used, he stuck with the zone blitzing 3-4 scheme. He was a good enough coach to realize his way wouldn't work with the players they had. A counterexample is Eric Mangini, who ran very successful 3-4 defenses in New England. When he went to the Jets, he forced them into a 3-4 scheme, even though the players he had fit a 4-3 better. It's no surprise that the Jets had disappointing defenses during his tenure there.

Back to the Sox: yes, Ozzie would love to have a spark plug at the top of the order. Unfortunately, his faster player, Owens, is a poor hitter. Forcing him into the leadoff spot is bad news, yet Ozzie must have his basestealing threat leading off. It's baffling.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 02:49 PM
This is one of the saddest things I've ever read, and unfortunately, I think it's true. I'd also say that Mike Scoscia is the same way.

It seems that the best coaches adapt their styles to fit their players. Look at the NFL. Bill Belichick's Patriot teams have been very fluid. At times, they used no-name receivers and had success. Lately, they've used big-name receivers and had success. Mike Tomlin advance through the coaching ranks using a Tampa-2 defense. When he got to Pittsburgh, rather than switch up the defense they used, he stuck with the zone blitzing 3-4 scheme. He was a good enough coach to realize his way wouldn't work with the players they had. A counterexample is Eric Mangini, who ran very successful 3-4 defenses in New England. When he went to the Jets, he forced them into a 3-4 scheme, even though the players he had fit a 4-3 better. It's no surprise that the Jets had disappointing defenses during his tenure there.

Back to the Sox: yes, Ozzie would love to have a spark plug at the top of the order. Unfortunately, his faster player, Owens, is a poor hitter. Forcing him into the leadoff spot is bad news, yet Ozzie must have his basestealing threat leading off. It's baffling.I don't think it is as simple as that. I don't think that it is bad that Ozzie has a team in his mind, because in the past, when he has that team, we are extremely sucessful. I don't think you can blame one person in this.
Ozzie wants his team and refuses to play players that may help us win, but has proven that he can win with a certain team and does when he gets it.

KW understands that, but has to satisfy and owner who is unwilling to spend on a certain type of player, is scared by somethings that happened in the past and won't take risks because of it, and doesn't like a team with a clear cut star with supporting casts. KW also suceeds when he goes and gets the player that has a rough couple years, dusts them off, gives them a shot.

I have resolved to give this year a shot, but not get my hopes up too high. I also have resolved to trust them for a few years, because they are trying to set us up long term.

jabrch
02-15-2009, 03:01 PM
I'm not surprised folks think Owens sucks.

I'm not surprised folks think BA sucks.

I am surprised that some people are so convinced, one way or the other, that either of these guys are the answer.

I sure hope whomever wins the job improves significantly over what they have shown so far.

FedEx227
02-15-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm not surprised folks think Owens sucks.

I'm not surprised folks think BA sucks.

I am surprised that some people are so convinced, one way or the other, that either of these guys are the answer.

I sure hope whomever wins the job improves significantly over what they have shown so far.

Most of us "FOBA"s have said multiple times that it's a tallest midget contest. If we had an actual decent all-around CFer on this team there would be no debate.

sox1970
02-15-2009, 03:08 PM
I know that carrying 12 pitchers is the trend but the Sox hate cutting players out of options and getting nothing for them. In any event, even if one subscribed to the 12 pitcher concept, the team doesn't really need 12 pitchers in April. I think that the Sox would try to work a trade or keep Owens and Wise before cutting one of them.

How do you figure they don't need seven in the pen in April? They really don't have a ton of off days at the beginning of the season.

They'll have four on the bench and seven in the pen from the start.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 03:31 PM
I don't think it is as simple as that. I don't think that it is bad that Ozzie has a team in his mind, because in the past, when he has that team, we are extremely sucessful. I don't think you can blame one person in this.
Ozzie wants his team and refuses to play players that may help us win, but has proven that he can win with a certain team and does when he gets it.
The problem is that Ozzie won't adapt when he doesn't get that team. I completely believe that the most important job of a manager is to know his players' strengths and weakness and put them in a position to succeed. Ozzie has repeatedly shown that he will (a) ask players to bunt when they're not good bunters (Anderson), (b) use relievers who excel against all hitters in platoon situations (Cotts in 2005), (c) play guys at positions they are clearly uncomfortable at (Mackowiak, Swisher, Griffey), and (d) forces fast guys to lead off even if they're not very good hitters (Owens, Cabrera). He has this idea of what it takes to win, and for some reason forces that upon players who don't fix his ideals.

KW understands that, but has to satisfy and owner who is unwilling to spend on a certain type of player, is scared by somethings that happened in the past and won't take risks because of it, and doesn't like a team with a clear cut star with supporting casts. KW also suceeds when he goes and gets the player that has a rough couple years, dusts them off, gives them a shot.

I have resolved to give this year a shot, but not get my hopes up too high. I also have resolved to trust them for a few years, because they are trying to set us up long term.
I think Kenny does a very admirable job. Is he the *best* GM in the league? Probably not. But he's a very good one, especially when he has to satisfy both an owner who doesn't like to spend money and a manager who is rather stubborn and a bit of a pill.

Tragg
02-15-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't think it is as simple as that. I don't think that it is bad that Ozzie has a team in his mind, because in the past, when he has that team, we are extremely sucessful. I don't think you can blame one person in this.
We were successful with a team with a ton of power, a leadoff hitter who can get on base at a 35% clip, and lock down defense and pitching. Guillen wanted speed at the top after 2004, which Williams acquired for him. But what we really got was a .350 obp at top. I think Guillen has been trying to grow the speed element, ignoring the obp element (and defense). Thus in 07, we doubled the slappers, with both Pods and Erstad in the lineup. And when neither could deliver a decent obp, the offense became impotent, the worst in baseball. (injuries contributed to that but a horrendous top of the lineup was key too).

Guillen had Owens pencilled in for 08 and we were mercifully
saved by injury. I am sure that it will be Wise or Owens for 2009.

Since we don't have a leadoff hitter, the Sox should put a good hitter at the top of the lineup. My vote still goes to Missle.

Craig Grebeck
02-15-2009, 03:54 PM
I will never, ever understand why people are convinced that Lillibridge can leadoff but Getz can't.

jabrch
02-15-2009, 03:55 PM
an owner who doesn't like to spend money


I'm shocked this myth still gets support at WSI.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm shocked this myth still gets support at WSI.
I think he was parphrasing my argument in which I said that Jerry doesn't like to spend money on certain players and he doesn't like to go out and get that big star, akin to putting all his eggs in one basket.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:10 PM
I'm not surprised folks think Owens sucks.

I'm not surprised folks think BA sucks.

I am surprised that some people are so convinced, one way or the other, that either of these guys are the answer.

I sure hope whomever wins the job improves significantly over what they have shown so far.
I'm surprised that you jumped into this assuming it was like every other JO vs. BA thread without actually reading the past couple of posts.

jabrch
02-15-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm surprised that you jumped into this assuming it was like every other JO vs. BA thread without actually reading the past couple of posts.


I read every post on this thread that wasn't on my ignore list. Smells like the same discussion to me.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:12 PM
We were successful with a team with a ton of power, a leadoff hitter who can get on base at a 35% clip, and lock down defense and pitching. Guillen wanted speed at the top after 2004, which Williams acquired for him. But what we really got was a .350 obp at top. I think Guillen has been trying to grow the speed element, ignoring the obp element (and defense). Thus in 07, we doubled the slappers, with both Pods and Erstad in the lineup. And when neither could deliver a decent obp, the offense became impotent, the worst in baseball. (injuries contributed to that but a horrendous top of the lineup was key too).

Guillen had Owens pencilled in for 08 and we were mercifully
saved by injury. I am sure that it will be Wise or Owens for 2009.

Since we don't have a leadoff hitter, the Sox should put a good hitter at the top of the lineup. My vote still goes to Missle.
Good point. But it wasn't all the 35% clip. He scared a lot of pitchers over there, especially in the playoffs.
I think you raise a good point about Alexi and it would be a good thing to have a guy who has had a sucessful season hitting in the leadoff position instead of guys (Owens, Getz, etc.) who have not.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:14 PM
I read every post on this thread that wasn't on my ignore list. Smells like the same discussion to me.
Perhaps the answer is take a few people off your ignore list?

jabrch
02-15-2009, 04:19 PM
Perhaps the answer is take a few people off your ignore list?

Pass

champagne030
02-15-2009, 04:27 PM
i read every post on this thread that wasn't on my ignore list. Smells like the same discussion to me.

:i only read posts that are pro-white sox and **** everything else:

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:31 PM
The problem is that Ozzie won't adapt when he doesn't get that team. I completely believe that the most important job of a manager is to know his players' strengths and weakness and put them in a position to succeed. Ozzie has repeatedly shown that he will (a) ask players to bunt when they're not good bunters (Anderson), (b) use relievers who excel against all hitters in platoon situations (Cotts in 2005), (c) play guys at positions they are clearly uncomfortable at (Mackowiak, Swisher, Griffey), and (d) forces fast guys to lead off even if they're not very good hitters (Owens, Cabrera). He has this idea of what it takes to win, and for some reason forces that upon players who don't fix his ideals.

Do you have a problem with him saying that expects everyone on this team to be able to bunt? If I'm Anderson, I learn how to do that really really well.

Cotts did very well for himself in 2005, and relievers are fragile. Just look at the pen last year without Linebrink. Ozzie may have seen something in him that made him only want to go to Cotts in certain situations.

I agree with (c). I don't have a problem with Ozzie playing Owens in 07, I just have a problem with him pointing to 07 to say that Owens is his CF.

Cabrera is a good hitter, and I don't know why you don't think so. He was the only hitter who was hitting his weight at the end of last year, except maybe Thome. He was our leadoff hitter for a good reason.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 04:40 PM
I think he was parphrasing my argument in which I said that Jerry doesn't like to spend money on certain players and he doesn't like to go out and get that big star, akin to putting all his eggs in one basket.
That is correct. Reinsdorf doesn't mind spending a lot of money in aggregate, but he prefers to not blow it all on one or two big contracts. Kenny understands that and does a good job of finding under-the-radar productive players rather than superstars.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 04:46 PM
Do you have a problem with him saying that expects everyone on this team to be able to bunt? If I'm Anderson, I learn how to do that really really well.
I agree, Anderson should be a better bunter. But, reality shows that he isn't. Ozzie should know that better than anyone, because he's the team's manager. He knows enough not to ask Konerko or Thome to steal, he should know enough not to ask Anderson to bunt.

Cotts did very well for himself in 2005, and relievers are fragile. Just look at the pen last year without Linebrink. Ozzie may have seen something in him that made him only want to go to Cotts in certain situations.
My point was that even in Cotts's lights-out year in 2005, during which righties hit just as poorly as lefties off him, Ozzie still liked to bring him in to face a lefty and then replace him. I assume Ozzie gets this habit from Tony LaRussa, who's extremely overrated because he makes so many moves.

I agree with (c). I don't have a problem with Ozzie playing Owens in 07, I just have a problem with him pointing to 07 to say that Owens is his CF.
Word. Once 2007 was obviously a failure of a season, I have no problem seeing what Owens could do.

Cabrera is a good hitter, and I don't know why you don't think so. He was the only hitter who was hitting his weight at the end of last year, except maybe Thome. He was our leadoff hitter for a good reason.
Yeah, Cabrera was hitting about as well as he could, which was still slightly below average (his OBP was only .334, not what you'd like out of your leadoff hitter). It wasn't terrible that he led off, definitely not as bad as this year, but still not ideal.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 04:58 PM
I agree, Anderson should be a better bunter. But, reality shows that he isn't. Ozzie should know that better than anyone, because he's the team's manager. He knows enough not to ask Konerko or Thome to steal, he should know enough not to ask Anderson to bunt.There is a difference between asking Konderko and Thome to steal and asking Anderson to bunt. Konerko and Thome can work on running all they want, but they aren't gonna get much better. I would have a problem if Anderson was brought in specifically to bunt. But if the guy is in the lineup (which rarely happens) sometimes you gotta have him do it.


My point was that even in Cotts's lights-out year in 2005, during which righties hit just as poorly as lefties off him, Ozzie still liked to bring him in to face a lefty and then replace him. I assume Ozzie gets this habit from Tony LaRussa, who's extremely overrated because he makes so many moves.I often wonder about his bullpen treatment. I think it is possible that Ozzie has a set formula that he likes here as well, a closer, 2 set-up guys, a 2 specialists and a long releiver + possible other guy. I don't know enough about this to comment.


Word. Once 2007 was obviously a failure of a season, I have no problem seeing what Owens could do.
Oh, well. Water under the bridge. I hate to say it, I hope Owens goes down in spring training. I know the poor guy wants to play, and I like that, but he just isn't what we need.

Yeah, Cabrera was hitting about as well as he could, which was still slightly below average (his OBP was only .334, not what you'd like out of your leadoff hitter). It wasn't terrible that he led off, definitely not as bad as this year, but still not ideal.
There wasn't a better option. It would have been useless to put Cabrera no.2 with no viable no.1.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 05:24 PM
There is a difference between asking Konderko and Thome to steal and asking Anderson to bunt. Konerko and Thome can work on running all they want, but they aren't gonna get much better. I would have a problem if Anderson was brought in specifically to bunt. But if the guy is in the lineup (which rarely happens) sometimes you gotta have him do it.
I still disagree. Yes, Anderson should know how. Work with him in practice, in spring training, and in the minors. But don't ask him to do it with an actual game that counts on the line. Just like pitchers work on pitches with Coop before using them in a game.

I often wonder about his bullpen treatment. I think it is possible that Ozzie has a set formula that he likes here as well, a closer, 2 set-up guys, a 2 specialists and a long releiver + possible other guy. I don't know enough about this to comment.
I'm actually regretting the Cotts example, as I think Ozzie has gotten a lot better in this regard. I think at first, he wanted to emulate LaRussa, but has since realized that he should just use his best pitchers in the most important situation, even if that means lefties facing righties, bringing in Bobby in the eighth, or whatever.

Madscout
02-15-2009, 06:30 PM
I still disagree. Yes, Anderson should know how. Work with him in practice, in spring training, and in the minors. But don't ask him to do it with an actual game that counts on the line. Just like pitchers work on pitches with Coop before using them in a game.
I know what you're trying to say, and I half agree and half disagree. I agree with that Ozzie asks BA to bunt in ridiculous situations. But Ozzie has asked others to bunt in ridiculous situations.

jabrch
02-15-2009, 11:43 PM
I hope Owens goes down in spring training.

Really?

:scratch:

oeo
02-16-2009, 12:43 AM
I know what you're trying to say, and I half agree and half disagree. I agree with that Ozzie asks BA to bunt in ridiculous situations. But Ozzie has asked others to bunt in ridiculous situations.

When? That one time that he whiffed on the squeeze? Guy can't even make contact on a bunt...

Eddo144
02-16-2009, 12:57 AM
I know what you're trying to say, and I half agree and half disagree. I agree with that Ozzie asks BA to bunt in ridiculous situations. But Ozzie has asked others to bunt in ridiculous situations.
Yes, he has. But that's just a part of the same problem. No manager should be asking players to bunt in ridiculous situations.

Eddo144
02-16-2009, 12:57 AM
When? That one time that he whiffed on the squeeze? Guy can't even make contact on a bunt...
Who's most at fault for botching that squeeze? Anderson, of course. However, Ozzie should not be asking a poor bunter to bunt in that situation. Would you want him to bring in Boone Logan with two on in the ninth inning of a one-run game, when he has better options?

gregory18n
02-16-2009, 01:04 AM
anderson has proven to have serious flaws in his offensive game, so he should be working his butt off trying to remedy the situation. all u hear about his work ethic is that he can party with the best of them, along with his constant complaints and whining when sent south for winter work last year. i went to university of arizona so i'de love to have him be a contributor; but by screwing around he's hurting himself and more importantly, his team. ozzies right to have no confidence in him.
owens hasn't shown me much, but wise has.

cards press box
02-16-2009, 02:25 AM
I will never, ever understand why people are convinced that Lillibridge can leadoff but Getz can't.

I think either could leadoff or bat second. Their minor league stats might shed some light on the possible preference for Lillibridge as a leadoff man. Both are 25 (born about three weeks apart) and have played four years in the minors.

Lillibridge in those four years:

399 games, 1524 at bats, 249 runs, 34 HR, 186 RBI, .270/.352/.421 with 128 stolen bases.

Getz in those four years:

374 games, 1428 at bats, 208 runs, 17 HR, 149 RBI, .286/.361/.381 with 56 stolen bases.

It is important to note that Getz had his best minor league season in 2008, hitting 11 HR, 52 RBI, .302/.366/.448 with 11 stolen bases. Lillibridge had a poor season in 2008 shuttling between Atlanta and Richmond which might explain why the Braves were willing to move him now when he was a top Braves prospect as recently as 2007. The Sox, though, seem to believe that his batting problems were mechanical and fixable.

In any event, Lillibridge apparently has a lot more speed than Getz and historically has had more pop, although that was not the case in 2008. The Sox brass and a lot of fans like the speed and want a catalyst at the top of the order. That, I believe, is why people want Lillibridge to succeed as a leadoff man.

Lillibridge bats righty and Getz bats lefty. If both make the club, then both should get a lot of at bats this season.

tm1119
02-16-2009, 12:34 PM
Three reasons.
a)Even the numbers you provide show that A is the better offensive player. (sidenote - B's statistics earned unfettered out of the 1 hole; As earned with a lot of platooning against the type of pitcher he hits worst against)
b)A plays plus defense; B plays minus defense
c)A has superior skills and talent over B.

A) Im really glad youre not our coach if you would rather have player A's stats
B) Owens isnt a minus on D. He may not be as good as BA but he's capable of playing adequate D.
C) At some point you're going to have to accept that BA is nothing more than a failed prospect. He can have all the talent in the world but it simply does not show on the field in the MLB.

Boondock Saint
02-16-2009, 01:16 PM
A) Im really glad youre not our coach if you would rather have player A's stats
B) Owens isnt a minus on D. He may not be as good as BA but he's capable of playing adequate D.
C) At some point you're going to have to accept that BA is nothing more than a failed prospect. He can have all the talent in the world but it simply does not show on the field in the MLB.

Nobody's saying that BA is still a top prospect (at least I don't think so). But saying that Owens plays adequate CF defense is just incorrect. And if I'm running the team, I want Anderson out there every day to put SOME kind of outfield defense out there.

Madscout
02-16-2009, 07:38 PM
Nobody's saying that BA is still a top prospect (at least I don't think so). But saying that Owens plays adequate CF defense is just incorrect. And if I'm running the team, I want Anderson out there every day to put SOME kind of outfield defense out there.
Exactly. With Dye in RF, we need a CF that actually takes good routes to the ball and one that cover some ground. JO doesn't do the former. BA does.

Tragg
02-16-2009, 10:01 PM
C) At some point you're going to have to accept that BA is nothing more than a failed prospect. He can have all the talent in the world but it simply does not show on the field in the MLB.
C)Owens has little talent and shows it on the field.

There's little evidence he can get a .350 obp, and a slapper like him who can't drive the ball is a negative below .350 obp.
His D isn't close to adquate - it's bad.

voodoochile
02-16-2009, 11:36 PM
C)Owens has little talent and shows it on the field.

There's little evidence he can get a .350 obp, and a slapper like him who can't drive the ball is a negative below .350 obp.
His D isn't close to adquate - it's bad.

Well, from the sounds of things. Ozzie is planning a platoon. Against RHP, JO puts up a much better slg% and had an 80% steal rate. Not saying it's great, his OPS was still mid .600, but at least he gets a few doubles and his speed will matter more. Hopefully he can improve on his first 300 AB and stay healthy.

Neither of these guys is the solution unless one of them makes a dramatic jump in terms of production, so hopefully they both live up to the best they can be given the time they will get against the pitchers they will face and we can actually have some solid production from CF. Time will tell, but I don't think this is going to be the make or break slot on the team this year anyway.

Tragg
02-16-2009, 11:59 PM
Time will tell, but I don't think this is going to be the make or break slot on the team this year anyway.
If he puts owens at leadoff, it may be.
Please put him in the 9 hole where he belongs.
And the D, with Dye and Quentin on the corners, could be dangerous adding Owens (or Wise) to the mix.
Anderson has always hit better against righties.

voodoochile
02-17-2009, 12:37 AM
If he puts owens at leadoff, it may be.
Please put him in the 9 hole where he belongs.
And the D, with Dye and Quentin on the corners, could be dangerous adding Owens (or Wise) to the mix.
Anderson has always hit better against righties.

And that depends on how well the guys pegged to leadoff do. No guarantees Lillebridge or Getz can hack it. TCM doesn't walk much so his high average is off set by an OBP that is no better than Owens.

I prefer BA bat 9th regardless, he just doesn't have the OBP to be a high order bat, but if it's Getz at .335 or Owens at .325 I take Owens when he starts because he can steal some bags.

Daver
02-17-2009, 12:42 AM
And that depends on how well the guys pegged to leadoff do. No guarantees Lillebridge or Getz can hack it. TCM doesn't walk much so his high average is off set by an OBP that is no better than Owens.

I prefer BA bat 9th regardless, he just doesn't have the OBP to be a high order bat, but if it's Getz at .335 or Owens at .325 I take Owens when he starts because he can steal some bags.

His ability to steal bases at 66% is not a good indication of his ability to run the bases, especially on a team that boasts their best baserunner as their catcher.

voodoochile
02-17-2009, 01:09 AM
His ability to steal bases at 66% is not a good indication of his ability to run the bases, especially on a team that boasts their best baserunner as their catcher.

If that's all he can steal at, I agree, but he's done better than that before.

CWSpalehoseCWS
02-17-2009, 02:01 AM
I've never hated Owens. He isn't very good, but he's the best option IMO right now with what we got. Even if he hits around .260 for us it's way better than Swisher ever did last year. Yeah his D is pretty below average, but that hasn't stopped the Sox in the past: Mackowiak, Swisher, Wise, Griffey. He'll do fine, especially if Anderson sticks around to help with deffense in the 9th. It's still fairly early. Maybe Getz or Lillibridge will shock the hell out of us, lol.

It's Wise that scares me.

Frater Perdurabo
02-17-2009, 07:21 AM
I really don't care if the leadoff hitter has a high SLG. The leadoff hitter's job is to take a lot of pitches, get on base, and then steal bases with enough success that the opposing pitcher starts making mistakes and grooving fastballs just to try to stop the runner from stealing.

Given Owens' deficiencies with the glove, and the fact that LF isn't available to "hide" him, if he's in the lineup he needs to be taking a lot of pitches, getting on base at a .360+ clip, stealing with an 80+% success rate, and regularly going first to third or second to home on singles and always scoring on doubles.

If he's not doing that, then he's a #9 hitter. And if he's a #9 hitter, we might as well have BA in there, because BA has more power, fields CF so much better, and runs the bases better.

Tragg
02-17-2009, 10:00 AM
I really don't care if the leadoff hitter has a high SLG. The leadoff hitter's job is to take a lot of pitches, get on base, and then steal bases with enough success that the opposing pitcher starts making mistakes and grooving fastballs just to try to stop the runner from stealing. SLG for its own sake is not particularly important at leadoff. But the problem is that if you have a low SLG, you won't get any pitches to take (from any decent pitcher), so you won't walk much.
Thus your obp is dependent on a few bloops dropping in, but mostly on the grounders squeezing through.

We don't need a bunch of steals out of the leadoff hitter anyway. Good baserunning, yes; steals, no.

Eddo144
02-17-2009, 10:03 AM
I really don't care if the leadoff hitter has a high SLG. The leadoff hitter's job is to take a lot of pitches, get on base, and then steal bases with enough success that the opposing pitcher starts making mistakes and grooving fastballs just to try to stop the runner from stealing.

Given Owens' deficiencies with the glove, and the fact that LF isn't available to "hide" him, if he's in the lineup he needs to be taking a lot of pitches, getting on base at a .360+ clip, stealing with an 80+% success rate, and regularly going first to third or second to home on singles and always scoring on doubles.

If he's not doing that, then he's a #9 hitter. And if he's a #9 hitter, we might as well have BA in there, because BA has more power, fields CF so much better, and runs the bases better.
Actually, a base stealer who can't hit well is better off as the #9 hitter.

Note: this logic assumes Owens and Getz/Lillibridge have similar OBPs.

When a basestealing threat gets on base, it's better to have him hitting in front of slap hitters, where his speed is better utilized. Owens will score from first on a double just about every time. You want to steal bases in front of a singles hitter, like Getz or Lillibridge, so that he'll be on second base and can score on a single, or move to third on a groundout.

If I have two roughly equal hitters with little power, I'll hit the faster one in front of the slower one so that his speed matters more.

EDIT: Tragg said this much more elegantly and briefly than I did.