PDA

View Full Version : Why Not Aaron Rowand?


Hosey22
11-20-2003, 03:16 PM
Hey guys, long time die-hard, first post here. One thing that I keep running across and can't figure out is why people aren't higher on Aaron Rowand. I've been waiting for this guys to get a full season for years now, because i think he has the potential to be an outstanding ballplayer for us. Yeah he did start off in a pretty big dry-spell last year, but remember he's comin off of his 'dirtbike disaster.' When we got Everett this year, i was thrilled, but i was also a little disappointed because it looked like Rowand was finally starting to really hit the ball. People keep talking about putting Borchard out there, or finding another center fielder, but i'd be more confident in Rowand than anyone else.

cwsox
11-20-2003, 03:17 PM
welcome to wsi -

I'd like to see Aaron have some solid consistent starting daily playing time.

poorme
11-20-2003, 03:22 PM
There are a large group of irrational Rowand haters around here who will start cursing you as soon as they read your idea.

I see him as more of a 4th outfielder myself.

Dadawg_77
11-20-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by poorme
There are a large group of irrational Rowand haters around here who will start cursing you as soon as they read your idea.

I see him as more of a 4th outfielder myself.


Irrational? nah, just seen enough of Aaron.

Tekijawa
11-20-2003, 03:28 PM
I think he's a Solid Defensive and Fearless CF he's also a good hitter, I believe, but lacks the power us Sox fans have come to love... I like the Fact that he doesn't make enough money to be concidered trade bait, we have very few outfielders on the current roster we can say that about!

Randar68
11-20-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by poorme
There are a large group of irrational Rowand haters around here who will start cursing you as soon as they read your idea.

I see him as more of a 4th outfielder myself.

I won't curse people who like him or want him to play, although irrational and unfounded arguments that have no basis in fact will be satired beyond belief.


Rowand's defense is below average for a MLB CF'er. Combine that with a LF'er and RF'er who also have below average range, and you have the makings of a terrible defensive OF. Rowand's defense is marginally (at best) better that Carl Everett's was by the end of last year (he hadn't played CF for several years).

Rowand does not judge balls very well and has some of the worst footwork in the league when "setting-up" to throw.

He also does not walk at the plate or work the count very well. For a guy who's high end is .275, an OBP of .310 for Rowand would be an incredible reach at this point.

Midget-power is only good for fan popularity, not productivity.

Randar68
11-20-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
I think he's a Solid Defensive and Fearless CF

If solid means "average-at-best" and fearless means "no field awareness", then we're in complete agreement...


Originally posted by Tekijawa
he's also a good hitter

Ok, pass the doochie to the left-hand side. "Good hitter???" That's ludicrous. His history and performance don't support that in the least.

jabrch
11-20-2003, 03:32 PM
My 2 cents - Rowand is a fine 4th OF, but we deserve better for our starting 3.

Dub25
11-20-2003, 03:33 PM
The haters will call me crazy but if Rowand is ever given a full season I think he can hit .275-.285. His new swing that current hitting coach taught him looked pretty solid last year. Now if I could only locate one of those imaginary TV's the Haters use to watch Rowand stumble all over the outfield with then maybe I'll change my mind about him.

Dub25
11-20-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
[



Ok, pass the doochie to the left-hand side. "Good hitter???" That's ludicrous. His history and performance don't support that in the least. [/B]

What history? Because he's been given so much daily playing time.

Randar68
11-20-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
What history? Because he's been given so much daily playing time.

Yeah, his 1000+ AB's in the minors shouldn't be used as any sort of indicator for his future success. I mean, if he can't hit close to .300 in the minors, I'm sure he'll hit .320-30-120 in the majors and he'll learn how to take a walk 10% of the time too! Oh Yeah, and he can walk on water too!!!! How could I forget that part????




BLA!

Randar68
11-20-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
The haters will call me crazy but if Rowand is ever given a full season I think he can hit .275-.285. His new swing that current hitting coach taught him looked pretty solid last year. Now if I could only locate one of those imaginary TV's the Haters use to watch Rowand stumble all over the outfield with then maybe I'll change my mind about him.

His new swing is his old swing from before his days as a bench-jockey. Even if he hits .275, what, will he even walk 10 times on the season????

Randar68
11-20-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
My 2 cents - Rowand is a fine 4th OF, but we deserve better for our starting 3.

I agree 100%. He's serviceable in any of the three OF positions in a pinch and can be a late-inning defensive replacement in RF or LF if needed. He doesn't walk enough or have enough speed/hitting ability to be a very useful PR'er or PH'er, but he has some uses as a role-player. But that is all.

jabrch
11-20-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I agree 100%. He's serviceable in any of the three OF positions in a pinch and can be a late-inning defensive replacement in RF or LF if needed. He doesn't walk enough or have enough speed/hitting ability to be a very useful PR'er or PH'er, but he has some uses as a role-player. But that is all.

Boy Randar - That's the nicest thing I have read you say about Crash. Are you developing a soft spot for him?

:)

Dub25
11-20-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
His new swing is his old swing from before his days as a bench-jockey. Even if he hits .275, what, will he even walk 10 times on the season????

Actually no. If you care to go back to last season he was sent to the minors because he was hitting like crap in the beginning of the season. Greg Walker was still the hitting coach in Charlotte and he reconstructed his swing. Now I'm not saying we have a potential all star I'm just saying we have somebody that is not nearly as bad as we think he is. Here are his numbers since 01.

583AB's(right around there I could be off by a few) .273 Avg 17 HR's 73 RBI 34BB's(definitly agree he could improve here) 5SB's(all 5 came in 01, again should be better). Defense which he supposed to be so bad at he has 5 errors and a .989 fielding%.
583 ab's is a full season for most players and I think if he can get that in 1 season not over the course of 3 then maybe some of those numbers could get better.

Dub25
11-20-2003, 03:57 PM
For the record 582AB's I would hate to have my facts wrong .

Dub25
11-20-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
For the record 582AB's I would hate to have my facts wrong .

I guess when you're trying to be cute it should look like this .

bc2k
11-20-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I ... like ... Rowand's defense ...

Rowand does ... walk at the plate ... work the count very well. Rowand would be ... incredible.

Great points Randar. But the name's AROW.

Randar68
11-20-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Great points Randar. But the name's AROW.

Pass the crack this way when you're done.

jeremyb1
11-20-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
For a guy who's high end is .275, an OBP of .310 for Rowand would be an incredible reach at this point.

That's pretty amazing considering his career .273 batting average and .325 on base percentage. I'd love to hear you explain how a player exceeds his high end in his first 582 career at bats.

I'm all about using minor league stats and past performance to evaluate players but I think you need to use the same standards on all players. Rowand only hit lower than .279 at one stop in the majors and he hit nearly .300 in 329 at bats in AAA the year he was called up. His plate discipline could've been better and will never be outstanding but it wasn't horrific in the minors. He walked 33 and 38 times at his two full stops in the minors. That doesn't indicate to me that his plate discipline is so poor he can never produce in the majors. If you hold someone like Borchard to these standards he's got no shot. Not that many players, even ones that end up being good major league players, hit .330 in the minors.

Dub25
11-20-2003, 04:05 PM
Might as well get used to Rowand. He's cheap just the way uncle Jerry like's it.

SoxxoS
11-20-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
If you hold someone like Borchard to these standards he's got no shot.

That is blasphemy, jeremy!

Randar68
11-20-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
Actually no. If you care to go back to last season he was sent to the minors because he was hitting like crap in the beginning of the season. Greg Walker was still the hitting coach in Charlotte and he reconstructed his swing. Now I'm not saying we have a potential all star I'm just saying we have somebody that is not nearly as bad as we think he is. Here are his numbers since 01.

583AB's(right around there I could be off by a few) .273 Avg 17 HR's 73 RBI 34BB's(definitly agree he could improve here) 5SB's(all 5 came in 01, again should be better). Defense which he supposed to be so bad at he has 5 errors and a .989 fielding%.
583 ab's is a full season for most players and I think if he can get that in 1 season not over the course of 3 then maybe some of those numbers could get better.

Almost half those walks came in his first Plate Appearances at the Major League level. Once pitchers figured him out, it's all down hill. He's only had 19 walks in his last 400+ AB's. Gee that's great.


Here are his Minor League Numbers, for all you "History" Majors out there.

_______________Avg _G _ AB _ R _ H_ 2B_3B_HR_RBI_SB_CS_BB_SO
1998 Hickory - .342 61 222 42 76 13 3 5 32 7 21 36
1999 Win-Sal - .279 133 512 96 143 37 3 24 88 15 33 94
2000 Birmhm - .258 139 532 80 137 26 5 20 98 22 38 117
2001 Charlotte .295 82 329 54 97 28 0 16 48 8 21 47
2003 Charlotte - .242 32 120 15 29 9 0 3 13 0 0 11 12

_______________Avg _G _ AB _ R _ H_ 2B_3B_HR_RBI_SB_CS_BB_SO
Min. Lg Totals: - .281 447 1715 287 482 113 11 68 279 52 0 124 306



Wow, that's the makings of an every-day major leaguer at 27 years old with 1700+ minor league AB's and almost 600 Major League AB's, now isn't it. I guess that doesn't count as "history," though, does it?



BTW, don't bother bringing up Errors for an outfielder. It's the most useless stat in determining the defensive effectiveness of an outfielder.

Randar68
11-20-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
Might as well get used to Rowand. He's cheap just the way uncle Jerry like's it.

Wow, that's an overwhelming argument. I guess he has earned the playing time and a long-term extension.




BLA!

Randar68
11-20-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
That's pretty amazing considering his career .273 batting average and .325 on base percentage. I'd love to hear you explain how a player exceeds his high end in his first 582 career at bats.

I'm all about using minor league stats and past performance to evaluate players but I think you need to use the same standards on all players. Rowand only hit lower than .279 at one stop in the majors and he hit nearly .300 in 329 at bats in AAA the year he was called up. His plate discipline could've been better and will never be outstanding but it wasn't horrific in the minors. He walked 33 and 38 times at his two full stops in the minors. That doesn't indicate to me that his plate discipline is so poor he can never produce in the majors. If you hold someone like Borchard to these standards he's got no shot. Not that many players, even ones that end up being good major league players, hit .330 in the minors.

Please reference the anomoly that was his first 140 Plate Appearances that far surpased any historical production, and prior to pitchers realizing they didn't have to throw him strikes and he'd get himself out.

Please show me these fascinating numbers without those AB's.

Randar68
11-20-2003, 04:18 PM
:threadsucks

FarWestChicago
11-20-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wow, that's the makings of an every-day major leaguer at 27 years old with 1700+ minor league AB's and almost 600 Major League AB's, now isn't it.Where's Kermie when you need him? Crash is past his prime. :smile:

All kidding aside, yet another mind boggling FOC thread. I will never understand the fascination with mediocrity. :?:

jeremyb1
11-20-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Almost half those walks came in his first Plate Appearances at the Major League level. Once pitchers figured him out, it's all down hill. He's only had 19 walks in his last 400+ AB's. Gee that's great.

Wow, that's the makings of an every-day major leaguer at 27 years old with 1700+ minor league AB's and almost 600 Major League AB's, now isn't it. I guess that doesn't count as "history," though, does it?

BTW, don't bother bringing up Errors for an outfielder. It's the most useless stat in determining the defensive effectiveness of an outfielder.

I prefer players that walk more also, but I don't think less than stellar plate discipline is a reason in and of itself to reject a player. I refuse to rehash all the arguments about Rowand's defense because they don't seem to go anywhere. Those not in the Rowand club claims he regularly misplays balls which many of us do not find to be true based on our personal viewing experiences and argue that since he doesn't always look pretty in the field he's not getting the job done which is nonsensical in my opinion. The botton line is that if he can play solid defense in centerfield, his career OPS of .743 is at least average for a position that does not tend to feature outstanding offensive production. That doesn't mean he's going to be a star anytime soon but for a team that has huge budget issues he should probably be given a shot to earn a job unless we find a great alternative once players are non-tendered.

TheRockinMT
11-20-2003, 06:13 PM
I think we could do a lot worse than having Rowand in CF next year. I think we will probably hav Rowand in CF and Borchard the #4 OF'er unless we have a trade for Lee or Ordonez, which I don't want to see happen. Jeremy Reed may surprise, but probably will be in AAA for 2004. I like Crash Rowand a lot.

Gumshoe
11-20-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I won't curse people who like him or want him to play, although irrational and unfounded arguments that have no basis in fact will be satired beyond belief.


Rowand's defense is below average for a MLB CF'er. Combine that with a LF'er and RF'er who also have below average range, and you have the makings of a terrible defensive OF. Rowand's defense is marginally (at best) better that Carl Everett's was by the end of last year (he hadn't played CF for several years).

Rowand does not judge balls very well and has some of the worst footwork in the league when "setting-up" to throw.

He also does not walk at the plate or work the count very well. For a guy who's high end is .275, an OBP of .310 for Rowand would be an incredible reach at this point.

Midget-power is only good for fan popularity, not productivity.

hosey, I like your post, and as others said, you'll find that many people say just crazily absurd stuff about Rowand. Randar is the quintessential Rowand hater. The fact that the above says that "AR was marginally (at best) better defensively than Carl Everett" is teh biggest joke I have seen EVER in judging defensive ability. Carl Everett had no legs and looked absolutely ATROCIOUS in CF. He was a good hitter, but the balance wasn't worth it, and the money isn't worth it to keep him on. If CE was "marginally better" than why did they switch Everett out EVERY SINGLE GAME that was close for Harris or Rowand in CF, Randar? Every ONE.

Aaron hasn't really gotten a true (consistent) shot to play. I've always said, for the money, he's a no brainer, and you CAN DEFINITELY WIN with him in CF.

I'm all for Aaron esp. since playing him I think will be fine, and we need to keep Maggs.

Gumshoe

Daver
11-20-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
hosey, I like your post, and as others said, you'll find that many people say just crazily absurd stuff about Rowand. Randar is the quintessential Rowand hater. The fact that the above says that "AR was marginally (at best) better defensively than Carl Everett" is teh biggest joke I have seen EVER in judging defensive ability. Carl Everett had no legs and looked absolutely ATROCIOUS in CF. He was a good hitter, but the balance wasn't worth it, and the money isn't worth it to keep him on. If CE was "marginally better" than why did they switch Everett out EVERY SINGLE GAME that was close for Harris or Rowand in CF, Randar? Every ONE.

Aaron hasn't really gotten a true (consistent) shot to play. I've always said, for the money, he's a no brainer, and you CAN DEFINITELY WIN with him in CF.

I'm all for Aaron esp. since playing him I think will be fine, and we need to keep Maggs.

Gumshoe


:chunks

maurice
11-20-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Please reference the anomoly that was his first 140 Plate Appearances

I don't see any anomoly there. Over his last 167 plate appearances, he posted .287 AVE / .327 OBP / .452 SLG, all of which are better than his previous numbers and consistent with his minor-league numbers. If anything, the anomolies are early-2002 (when he never got regular ABs) and early-2003 (when he was recovering from his stupid motorcycle accident).

I still agree that players who are not likely to get on base at a high rate, hit for lots of power, steal tons of bases, or win gold gloves at key defensive positions are not very valuable, but Rowand's career numbers accurately reflect his (pretty low) anticipated offensive performance levels.

As for SBs, he told a reporter that JM would not allow him to run, which is difficult to understand given that he was previously 5-for-7 in the majors and 52-for-74 in the minors. Look for him to start running again under Ozzie.

idseer
11-20-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Rowand's defense is below average for a MLB CF'er. Combine that with a LF'er and RF'er who also have below average range, and you have the makings of a terrible defensive OF. Rowand's defense is marginally (at best) better that Carl Everett's was by the end of last year (he hadn't played CF for several years).

Rowand does not judge balls very well and has some of the worst footwork in the league when "setting-up" to throw.



i hear what you're saying, but the stats i look at don't agree with you at ALL!

let me make a small comparison with damon.

johnny damon, in 1265 inn. in the field had 362 p.o.'s, 7 assists, 1 error, and a zone rating of .906.

rowand, in 378 inn. had 101 p.o.'s, 6 assists, no errors, and a zone rating of .960.

they had close to the same percentage of put outs, rowand had a MUCH higher rate of assists, committed no errors and had a much higher zone rating.

the fact is aaron had a higher zone rating than ALL the qualified centerfielders. plus he had a higher assist rating than ALL the qualified centerfielders.
no matter how much you put this guy down for his fielding it would appear you have nothing firm to base it upon other than your opinion.
to suggest he's "below average" is simply not true.

maurice
11-20-2003, 07:05 PM
I agree that Rowand is not terrible defensively, but comparing him to Damon is damning him with faint praise.

idseer
11-20-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I agree that Rowand is not terrible defensively, but comparing him to Damon is damning him with faint praise.

then make the same comparison with any other cf you like, you'll see this still holds true.

MisterB
11-20-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i hear what you're saying, but the stats i look at don't agree with you at ALL!

let me make a small comparison with damon.

johnny damon, in 1265 inn. in the field had 362 p.o.'s, 7 assists, 1 error, and a zone rating of .906.

rowand, in 378 inn. had 101 p.o.'s, 6 assists, no errors, and a zone rating of .960.

they had close to the same percentage of put outs, rowand had a MUCH higher rate of assists, committed no errors and had a much higher zone rating.

the fact is aaron had a higher zone rating than ALL the qualified centerfielders. plus he had a higher assist rating than ALL the qualified centerfielders.
no matter how much you put this guy down for his fielding it would appear you have nothing firm to base it upon other than your opinion.
to suggest he's "below average" is simply not true.

Standard defensive statistics are mostly worthless. According to the stats, Roger Cedeno has an average glove and above average range. According to those that have seen him play (the Mets fans who posted here regarding a Koch trade) he's a complete butcher in the field. The stats can tell you one thing while your eyes see another. Remeber, if a ball is misplayed so badly the fielder never gets a glove on it, it usually gets scored a hit, and a pitching staff that gives up a lot of flyballs makes the outfielders look like they have much better range.

idseer
11-20-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Standard defensive statistics are mostly worthless. According to the stats, Roger Cedeno has an average glove and above average range. According to those that have seen him play (the Mets fans who posted here regarding a Koch trade) he's a complete butcher in the field. The stats can tell you one thing while your eyes see another. Remeber, if a ball is misplayed so badly the fielder never gets a glove on it, it usually gets scored a hit, and a pitching staff that gives up a lot of flyballs makes the outfielders look like they have much better range.

i disagree. over a period of time those stats DO mean something. things average out. a weak fielder proves it over time by not getting to his share of balls, by not getting his share of assists and put outs, and you can throw in errors for good measure. i know errors alone don't tell the story, but the other stats when combined with them do. i don't care what your eyes think they see.

how do you account for rowand having 4 or 5 TIMES the assists of most other cf's? luck?

idseer
11-20-2003, 08:58 PM
ok, just a little more stat play.

player .............. inn. po a e dp % zr
tori hunter 2003 1299 434 5 4 1 .991 .924
rowand career 1217 382 11 4 3 .990 .953


these aren't all the stats but most of the basic ones. i also know that aaron is no hunter, but results is results! i think it highly unfair to suggest aaron is a below average cf'r when clearly he is not!

Randar68
11-20-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Standard defensive statistics are mostly worthless. According to the stats, Roger Cedeno has an average glove and above average range. According to those that have seen him play (the Mets fans who posted here regarding a Koch trade) he's a complete butcher in the field. The stats can tell you one thing while your eyes see another. Remeber, if a ball is misplayed so badly the fielder never gets a glove on it, it usually gets scored a hit, and a pitching staff that gives up a lot of flyballs makes the outfielders look like they have much better range.

That requires analytical skills and the ability to watch the entire play and see the details. That is something the Rowand-lovers are mostly incapable of, which is why they pick out 167 AB's to base statistical measures on or defensive error statistics which mean diddly squat. ANyone who has anylized the physical and technical skills of Aaron Rowand's defense agrees it's completely mediocre.

I am tired of arguing about it. A guy who can't take a walk and is mediocre in the field is not the diety many here would have you believe *COUGH* Gumshoe *COUGH*.

There's a reason Rowand can't crack the lineup on a team that hasn't had a competent defensive CF'er since Singleton.

But, heye, he deserves to start and by goly, he's going to be a .275 10 HR and 10 walk per season stud. *****.




BLA!

:threadsucks

Randar68
11-20-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by idseer
ok, just a little more stat play.

player inn. po a e dp % zr
tori hunter 2003 1299 434 5 4 1 .991 .924
rowand career 1217 382 11 4 3 .990 .953


these aren't all the stats but most of the basic ones. i also know that aaron is no hunter, but results is results! i think it highly unfair to suggest aaron is a below average cf'r when clearly he is not!


This right here should tell you without a doubt that defensive stats are beyond worthless. I don't think Rowand can even touch the top of the wall in most parks without a step-ladder.

Hunter has better range and by FAR better instincts.


Next time you find a clip of Rowand not drifting with the ball let me know, because I haven't seen it once yet.



:sahaf
"Aaron Rowand is as good as Tori Hunter and can hit like Juan Pierre. Believe it! Why would I make this up?"

doublem23
11-20-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago

All kidding aside, yet another mind boggling FOC thread. I will never understand the fascination with mediocrity. :?:

It makes the armchair quarterbacks still think they have a shot at baseball glory.

:rowand
If I can start for an MLB team, anybody can!

idseer
11-20-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This right here should tell you without a doubt that defensive stats are beyond worthless. I don't think Rowand can even touch the top of the wall in most parks without a step-ladder.

Hunter has better range and by FAR better instincts.


Next time you find a clip of Rowand not drifting with the ball let me know, because I haven't seen it once yet.



:sahaf
"Aaron Rowand is as good as Tori Hunter and can hit like Juan Pierre. Believe it! Why would I make this up?"


then why isn't hunter getting more assists? why isn't hunter getting an extrordinary larger amount of putouts?
what you're saying makes no sense! maybe he doesn't look as flashy as a hunter but WHO CARES? unless you're suggesting that aaron just gets more balls hit right to him. i think that's unlikely. please explain how he has more assist per chance!

i think the fact is you don't like him ... for whatever reason. when you don't like someone you put him in the worst light possible. not very objective if you ask me.

personally i can live with rowand ... the fielder. his hitting is something else, but that's not what my discussion is about. i say AS A FIELDER he's as good as most other cf's regardless what you say.

doublem23
11-20-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by idseer
ok, just a little more stat play.

player .............. inn. po a e dp % zr
tori hunter 2003 1299 434 5 4 1 .991 .924
rowand career 1217 382 11 4 3 .990 .953


these aren't all the stats but most of the basic ones. i also know that aaron is no hunter, but results is results! i think it highly unfair to suggest aaron is a below average cf'r when clearly he is not!

Sweet Jesus did you just stick Aaron Rowand and Torii Hunter in the same category defensively?

:o:

idseer
11-20-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Sweet Jesus did you just stick Aaron Rowand and Torii Hunter in the same category defensively?

:o:

sure i did ... if you want to be obtuse about it.

FarWestChicago
11-20-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Sweet Jesus did you just stick Aaron Rowand and Torii Hunter in the same category defensively?

:o: I normally ignore the negative posts as much as possible. In fact, all the people giving up on the 2004 season in November of 2003 (instead of the normal April of the given year) has been amusing. But, when several people think Crash is our saviour, I feel like...well...Lip. :o:

idseer
11-20-2003, 09:21 PM
at the end of the day, i don't care who looks better, is flashier, or anything else.
i care about who gets the job done if 2 guys have the same amount of po's, assists etc. then one is basically as good as the other.

it's beyond reason to suggest that one guy is faster and smarter but only has the same stats because he doesn't get hit as many balls. it's just not true. something is wrong with your calculations.

idseer
11-20-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I normally ignore the negative posts as much as possible. In fact, all the people giving up on the 2004 season in November of 2003 (instead of the normal April of the given year) has been amusing. But, when several people think Crash is our saviour, I feel like...well...Lip. :o:

the obtuseness is catching i see. :smile:

if you've read my posts you'll see i never made any such assertion. only that his fielding is not as bad as some try to make it out.

Chisoxfn
11-20-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by idseer
at the end of the day, i don't care who looks better, is flashier, or anything else.
i care about who gets the job done if 2 guys have the same amount of po's, assists etc. then one is basically as good as the other.

it's beyond reason to suggest that one guy is faster and smarter but only has the same stats because he doesn't get hit as many balls. it's just not true. something is wrong with your calculations.

Well there are some other things you'd have to look at to do it right. You'd have to compare the ground ball - flyout ratio for each persons team and all that type of stuff.

I like Rowand though, but more as a 4th outfielder. I think he's a solid/good defensive outfielder.

FarWestChicago
11-20-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by idseer
the obtuseness is catching i see. :smile:

if you've read my posts you'll see i never made any such assertion. only that his fielding is not as bad as some try to make it out. id, I don't know that you have ever been a real FOC. I wasn't talking about you. :smile:

idseer
11-20-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
id, I don't know that you have ever been a real FOC. I wasn't talking about you. :smile:

i'd like to think i'm not .... what am i saying? i'm NOT!

i guess i was connecting posts and came to the wrong conclusion there. sorry 'bout that. :)

Randar68
11-20-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by idseer
then why isn't hunter getting more assists? why isn't hunter getting an extrordinary larger amount of putouts?
what you're saying makes no sense! maybe he doesn't look as flashy as a hunter but WHO CARES? unless you're suggesting that aaron just gets more balls hit right to him. i think that's unlikely. please explain how he has more assist per chance!

i think the fact is you don't like him ... for whatever reason. when you don't like someone you put him in the worst light possible. not very objective if you ask me.

personally i can live with rowand ... the fielder. his hitting is something else, but that's not what my discussion is about. i say AS A FIELDER he's as good as most other cf's regardless what you say.

I don't hate him. I am tired of people thinking he's going to be some sort of great player with regular playing time and that the Sox shouldn't pursue upgrading the position because Rowand is the answer.

Unfortunately, the ridiculous FOC seems to bring nothing to the argument, so I keep presenting more and more evidence for them to ignore, and i go over the top in my points to try to be more clear and make it OBVIOUS for some people, who, frankly, will just never have a clue. Wow, that was a run-on sentence. I guess I should stop banging my head against this wall.

CubKilla
11-21-2003, 12:43 AM
If Rowand is our starting CF for '04, he better not get to try his hand at batting .100 before the end of April like he was allowed to do for the early part of '03. The Sox need to do something about CF because Rowand is not the answer.

Gumshoe
11-21-2003, 02:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randar68
[B]That requires analytical skills and the ability to watch the entire play and see the details. That is something the Rowand-lovers are mostly incapable of, which is why they pick out 167 AB's to base statistical measures on or defensive error statistics which mean diddly squat. ANyone who has anylized the physical and technical skills of Aaron Rowand's defense agrees it's completely mediocre.

I am tired of arguing about it. A guy who can't take a walk and is mediocre in the field is not the diety many here would have you believe *COUGH* Gumshoe *COUGH*.

There's a reason Rowand can't crack the lineup on a team that hasn't had a competent defensive CF'er since Singleton.

But, heye, he deserves to start and by goly, he's going to be a .275 10 HR and 10 walk per season stud. *****.



"The physical and technical skills"??????????? Randar, you have NO basis for your arguments, just admit it. At least as many people say that he is a fine outfielder, and the stats totally agree. Fine, defensive stats are worthless. Good job, my man. The next thing I can say is that BA is worthless, OBP is the only thing that matters, and SLG is the god of all gods. thanks bill james for simplifying baseball for us.

Don't get me wrong, I love bill james approach, but if you believe that he is the man, and that SLG and OBP are THE tools, then you must also believe that his defensive system is as good as he says it is (he calls it "by far the best defensive statistical rating system ever created"). I hope you get tired of arguing. You are dead WRONG about Rowand. The point is, no matter how much you hate him, he does very well in CF. Do you want Kenny Lofton back? Lofton is a joke! He's so old, he can barely run OR judge balls. Everett wasn't near him, and Lofton was really diminished defensively around 2 years ago.

POINT IS, WE CAN WIN WITH Rowand. We can also save a lot of money by winning with him, too. Play him.

gumshoe

doublem23
11-21-2003, 02:30 AM
If you honestly believe Aaron Rowand is a good defensive outfielder, you need to be paying more attention. I don't know how many times I've seen him miss the cut-off man or take a piss-pour route to a ball... He's got the fundamentals os a T-baller.

jeremyb1
11-21-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
If you honestly believe Aaron Rowand is a good defensive outfielder, you need to be paying more attention. I don't know how many times I've seen him miss the cut-off man or take a piss-pour route to a ball... He's got the fundamentals os a T-baller.

You know who I saw regularly run poor routes? Kenny Lofton. I even remember a similar comment by a scout in spring training the offseason we signed him. The scout commented that he no longer had good range because he'd lost speed and takes poor routes to the ball. I've seen Rowand misplay some balls but not as badly as Lofton, a former gold glove winner.

Posters on this board always claim Rowand regularly misplays balls but its always the same few examples, which I conceed, yet don't add up to him misplaying balls frequently. This debate was rehashed during the season numerous times yet no one in the anti-Rowand camp ever started a thread and said "Hey, how about those two balls Rowand misplayed tonight?" even after other posters disputed the fact that he takes bad routes to balls resulting in hits with any kind of regularity.

jabrch
11-21-2003, 07:12 AM
I think I can sum it up quite simply.

If we had a 100mm payroll, Crash hardly makes the roster.

If we had an 80mm payroll, Crash might be our 4th OF.

If we have a 50-65 mm payroll, Crash will certainly be on the roster and may end up starting/platooning

That's what is sad. Everyone knows Rowand is not an ideal starter in CF. Even the FOC know that he is only a realistic candidate because of our situation. Playing Crash is the same as trading Mags. You only do it because of our salary constraint, not cuz it is the best on-the-field decision. That said, I don't think we would be any worse off with Crash in there than with Reed, Borchard, Cedeno, Everett or any of the other CF options we have talked about. (with Everett being the best of the options)

PaleHoseGeorge
11-21-2003, 07:50 AM
Blah, blah, blah... why do we always have our biggest fights over utility guys that barely make the roster? Rowand, Jimenez, Harris. If any of them suddenly died, the team would hardly skip a beat. Wishing and hoping these guys will someday turn into stars isn't going to make it happen. There are major holes in their game. That's why they are 25th men.

The Friends of Crash can't accept the fact their guy is at best a 4th outfielder on a good team. If he plays more, it is only because our team sucks.

25th men make marginal contributions, and this will never change.

:hitless
"Being 25th man sounds pretty good to me right about now!"

:ohno
"Don't forget to bring your gym shoes."

idseer
11-21-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Blah, blah, blah... why do we always have our biggest fights over utility guys that barely make the roster? Rowand, Jimenez, Harris. If any of them suddenly died, the team would hardly skip a beat.

come on george. our biggest fights are over our biggest player and you know it. :smile:

considering THIS 'fight' is about who should be starting a very big position, this one makes total sense.

anyway .... imo, 'who should be our cf'r should always take all matters into account. that includes ability, of course. but it also includes the constraint of finances. otherwise NO one on our team should be starting for our team! i mean, there ARE better players at every position aren't there?

jabrch put it well, his ending quote being ..."If we have a 50-65 mm payroll, Crash will certainly be on the roster and may end up starting/platooning"

jabrch
11-21-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by idseer
jabrch put it well, his ending quote being ..."If we have a 50-65 mm payroll, Crash will certainly be on the roster and may end up starting/platooning"

Keep in mind idseer, I wasn't happy about that concept. I am just resigned to our fate.

idseer
11-21-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Keep in mind idseer, I wasn't happy about that concept. I am just resigned to our fate.

oh i know ... and i agree.

TaylorStSox
11-21-2003, 10:22 AM
I'm with the Rowand fan club. Since when do you need all stars at every position? Obviously, he's adequate defensively and has potential offensively. He needs more of a chance. The alternatives aren't any better.

Randar68
11-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
You know who I saw regularly run poor routes? Kenny Lofton. I even remember a similar comment by a scout in spring training the offseason we signed him. The scout commented that he no longer had good range because he'd lost speed and takes poor routes to the ball. I've seen Rowand misplay some balls but not as badly as Lofton, a former gold glove winner.


Kenny Lofton at 45 years old will have more speed and acceleration than Aaron Rowand will ever have in his dreams.



Originally posted by jeremyb1
Posters on this board always claim Rowand regularly misplays balls but its always the same few examples, which I conceed, yet don't add up to him misplaying balls frequently. This debate was rehashed during the season numerous times yet no one in the anti-Rowand camp ever started a thread and said "Hey, how about those two balls Rowand misplayed tonight?" even after other posters disputed the fact that he takes bad routes to balls resulting in hits with any kind of regularity.

Rowand has made fewer stellar plays than he has bone-headed ones. He makes routine plays look like phenomenal ones because he is so late on his breaks and reads.

I'll tell you this: In Willie Harris' minimal time in CF, I've seen him make better reads, hit the cut-off man more consistently, and prepare his feet and body for throws home better and more often than I have seen Aaron Rowand in his 2 1/2 season with the White Sox. If a converted 2B with little to no experience in the OF is already a better fundamental and defensive option, that alone should tell you how ludicrous it is for people to think he is a good defensive OF'er. If Harris is able to hit .275, you may never see Rowand in CF again.

Randar68
11-21-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
I'm with the Rowand fan club. Since when do you need all stars at every position? Obviously, he's adequate defensively and has potential offensively. He needs more of a chance. The alternatives aren't any better.

27 year-olds who can't take walks and have never hit .300 at any level of the majors or minors do not have "potential".

TaylorStSox
11-21-2003, 10:34 AM
Guys who play hard and are cheap do.

Randar68
11-21-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
Guys who play hard and are cheap do.

Yeah, he's got the potential to be thoroughly mediocre... YEAH

jabrch
11-21-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
Guys who play hard and are cheap do.

That is BS. If I were signed to a minimum contract to play for the Sox, I would play my heart out. I would play harder than anyone out there. I'd suck - no doubt - but I'd play hard and be cheap - and I'd have absolutely no "potential"

While we are talking about that, here is what I would be able to do...
A) Outrun Konerko to 1B
B) Throw a ball without doing a somersault
C) Look to my cutoff man - I may not get it there, but I'd throw in his general direction
D) Follow my managers instructions
E) Be a good teammate (outside the white lines)
F) try to go the other way, try to sacrifice, try to move runners, try to make contact
G) Suck - and suck badly

After thinking about it, if we have a 55mm payroll, I may not be our worst option as a bench player. I'd be cheap, and play hard. TaylorSt, I'd have potential, right?

Ozzie said it very well when he was hired, "I don't want good guys, I want good players" He has some great ones - Frank and Mags. He has some good ones - Carlos, Crede, Jose. He has some mediocre roster fillers - here's where I put Crash, along with Harris.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-21-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
That is BS. If I were signed to a minimum contract to play for the Sox, I would play my heart out. I would play harder than anyone out there. I'd suck - no doubt - but I'd play hard and be cheap - and I'd have absolutely no "potential"

While we are talking about that, here is what I would be able to do...
A) Outrun Konerko to 1B....

LOL! This would make a great poll question.

"Can you outrun Paul Konerko to first base?"

After everyone takes the poll, the FOC can tell us whether any of us have "potential" to help the Sox.

:)

Gumshoe
11-21-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
I'm with the Rowand fan club. Since when do you need all stars at every position? Obviously, he's adequate defensively and has potential offensively. He needs more of a chance. The alternatives aren't any better.

The main point is that I agree that Rowand isn't an "ideal" CF. But we can't get ARod or Vlad at every position! This is the point. It's SO obvious that AR is far and away better than any other alternative ...that's all. I'll say it again ... look at all the positions of the Marlins this year. THEY WON. There is NO way they had GREATGREAT players at each position

G

jabrch
11-21-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
The main point is that I agree that Rowand isn't an "ideal" CF. But we can't get ARod or Vlad at every position! This is the point. It's SO obvious that AR is far and away better than any other alternative ...that's all. I'll say it again ... look at all the positions of the Marlins this year. THEY WON. There is NO way they had GREATGREAT players at each position

G

I believe they had as good or better players than we did at EVERY POSITION except RF. Also they had as good or better or a rotation than we did. Nobody said you need Vlad and A-Rod to win. NOBODY said that. Count the number of rings that those two have, add it to the number of rings that PK and Koch have, and you have twice as many as Frank and Mags have. STILL 0. But the point is that this Chicago WhiteSox deserve a better CF than Crash - he would be a fine 4th OF, but he should not be the starter at CF. No way - no how.

Randar68
11-21-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
that's all. I'll say it again ... look at all the positions of the Marlins this year. THEY WON. There is NO way they had GREATGREAT players at each position

G

Take another look then, because they had bordeline All-Stars at all the important positions:

SS, CF, 2B, 3B, P, C plus they had a future super star in Cabrera playing all over the field and hitting lights out.

I don't know what Marlins team you watched, but the only Rowand-type players they have are sitting on the bench full-time.

maurice
11-21-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I think I can sum it up quite simply.
If we had a 100mm payroll, Crash hardly makes the roster.
If we had an 80mm payroll, Crash might be our 4th OF.
If we have a 50-65 mm payroll, Crash will certainly be on the roster and may end up starting/platooning
That's what is sad. Everyone knows Rowand is not an ideal starter in CF.

Amen, brother. Rowand's approximate offensive and defensive performance levels have been set by his 282 career major-league games, are consistent with his minor-league performance, and are not undermined by any purported statistical anomoly. Predictions that his performance from here on out will be significantly better or significantly worse are completely unreasonable.

Defensively, he's much worse than Tori Hunter but better than Johnny Damon. Offensively, he's much worse than Vernon Wells but better than Darin Erstad. Woopdeefrincking doo. Given the Sox self-imposed payroll limits and current need for a 2B and at least two quality pitchers, y'all might have no choice but to live with Rowand.

RedPinStripes
11-21-2003, 11:22 PM
Oh ****. Not this again.

CubKilla
11-21-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Oh ****. Not this again.

That's right Maury. Give us your two cents on Rowand :D:

cwsox
11-21-2003, 11:53 PM
Isn't Rowand the fsavorite all time Sox player of RPS? :D:

RedPinStripes
11-22-2003, 08:17 AM
**** HIM!

pappy
11-26-2003, 08:05 PM
the boy good.................he got talent!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RedPinStripes
11-27-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by pappy
the boy good.................he got talent!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, He can flip a dirt bike with the best of them.