PDA

View Full Version : Who the hell is Gary Gillette?


maurice
02-10-2006, 01:29 PM
And why do the folks at ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2324872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2) think that he's a baseball "insider"? His "evaluation" of Brian Anderson indicates that he's never even seen him play:
The positive spin on Anderson is that he is a multi-threat player who can hit for average, has power, range and a strong arm. The opposite spin on the right-handed hitter is that he doesn't excel in any area except possibly his arm, with subpar speed, medium power and merely adequate range. Plus, he struck out 115 times in 118 games in Triple-A last year. That's a formula for disappointment if Anderson's power is stymied by big-league pitching.

Lets break these tools down:
- Arm: It's not "possibly" strong; it's just plain strong. Definitely an area of strength.
- Speed: The "subpar" claim is typical of a person who only reads stat sheets. Anderson has well above average speed. He just hasn't developed into a base-stealing threat . . . yet.
- Power: I haven't heard anybody claim that Anderson is incapable of a string of 20+ HR seasons. In the Cell, he may even develop into a 30+ HR player. Let's roughly split the difference and say he has 25 HR power. To put this into perspective, a batter with 25 HR finished 20th in the AL in 2005 (out of 126 total starting spots). In other words, Anderson's power is above-average (in a power-heavy league). For a CF, it's way above average. (The only AL CF with more than 22 HR was the excellent Vernon Wells).
- Fielding: This is the biggest crock of ****. "Adequate" my ass. Anderson has excellent range. Combined with his arm strength, this makes him an elite defensive player from year one and for years to come.
"Opposite spin" indeed.

Iwritecode
02-10-2006, 01:33 PM
And why do the folks at ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2324872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2) think that he's a baseball "insider"? His "evaluation" of Brian Anderson indicates that he's never even seen him play:

I sometimes wonder if anyone at ESPN has ever seen any of the teams not in eastern time zone play...

KRS1
02-10-2006, 01:39 PM
That below average speed is pretty funny, as all three of my prospect handbook I have list as above average. One gives him 4 out of 5 stars in that dept., one has him 80 on a scale of 100, and one says he has better speed/range than Reed which made it easier to trade him. I woulnd't doubt it if this guy is a Felix Pie loving scrubs fan.

mantis1212
02-10-2006, 01:48 PM
I'm really surprised his analysis of top rookies includes two White Sox, and even more surprised neither of them was Brandon McCarthy.

Realist
02-10-2006, 01:55 PM
I'm really surprised his analysis of top rookies includes two White Sox, and even more surprised neither of them was Brandon McCarthy.

I don't think McCarthy qualifies as a rookie any longer.

eriqjaffe
02-10-2006, 02:17 PM
I don't think McCarthy qualifies as a rookie any longer.You are correct. McCarthy pitched 67 innings, and the rookie cutoff is 50.

maurice
02-10-2006, 02:19 PM
I don't think McCarthy qualifies as a rookie any longer.

IIRC, neither does Jenks, because of his # of days on the 25-man roster. That didn't stop him from taking a shot at him:
Jenks' performance as a surprise closer in late 2005, as crucial as it was to the White Sox on their way to winning the World Series, was only a brief moment in the sun. Plenty of other hard-throwing young relievers with off-field issues have been able to dominate hitters for two months or so....

spiffie
02-10-2006, 02:47 PM
The funny part of course is that this complaining is being done about an article which names 2 White Sox players among the top 8 rookie prospects this year in the AL. Imagine if we hadn't been deemed as having 25% of the top AL rookie prospects this year!

soxinem1
02-11-2006, 10:11 PM
I wouldn't waste my time even getting worked up over the ESPN morons. I remember on Mike and Mike last year, before the playoffs started, they said the White Sox would be beat by Boston, Jenks was the worst of the postseason closers, and that our rotation ranked near the bottom for big game pitchers.

So since they keep forcasting and coming up lame, let them keep up the good work.

I'm sure they will enjoy getting those WSI emails telling them what geniuses they are!

GoSox2K3
02-11-2006, 11:03 PM
Who the hell is Gary Gillette?

Penn's brother? :dunno:

SweetnesSox
02-11-2006, 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maurice
Who the hell is Gary Gillette?


Penn's brother? :dunno:


Do they own the shaving company? I love their GILLETTE MACH THREE TURBOS. Whenever their commercials come on I think it's for a sports car...

SOXSINCE'70
02-11-2006, 11:36 PM
So since they keep forcasting and coming up lame, let them keep up the good work.

Exactly.Let these blowhards pick the Yankmees,Blow Sawx or Blow Jays.
When the White Sox defeat any of these teams in a playoff series,
we'll see who gets the last laugh.:angry: :angry:

RadioheadRocks
02-11-2006, 11:38 PM
And why do the folks at ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2324872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2) think that he's a baseball "insider"? His "evaluation" of Brian Anderson indicates that he's never even seen him play:


Lets break these tools down:
- Arm: It's not "possibly" strong; it's just plain strong. Definitely an area of strength.
- Speed: The "subpar" claim is typical of a person who only reads stat sheets. Anderson has well above average speed. He just hasn't developed into a base-stealing threat . . . yet.
- Power: I haven't heard anybody claim that Anderson is incapable of a string of 20+ HR seasons. In the Cell, he may even develop into a 30+ HR player. Let's roughly split the difference and say he has 25 HR power. To put this into perspective, a batter with 25 HR finished 20th in the AL in 2005 (out of 126 total starting spots). In other words, Anderson's power is above-average (in a power-heavy league). For a CF, it's way above average. (The only AL CF with more than 22 HR was the excellent Vernon Wells).
- Fielding: This is the biggest crock of ****. "Adequate" my ass. Anderson has excellent range. Combined with his arm strength, this makes him an elite defensive player from year one and for years to come.
"Opposite spin" indeed.
:cleo

HEY don't be hatin' on my brother, mon!

Dolanski
02-12-2006, 12:54 PM
I love how people get so upset about articles that don't make the White Sox sound like the greatest team to ever walk the planet. You know, sometimes it actually makes sense to read things from people who aren't drinking the White Sox Koolaid. Besides that, if you actually read the article, it was presenting rookies to watch next season and presenting their PROS and CONS. In other words, its a good thing they were mentioned.

ChiSoxPatF
02-12-2006, 02:48 PM
Its all a crapshoot in these predictions anyway. Take Andy Marte, the 3B prospect now with the Indians. One ESPN analyst predicted him to be starting by the All-Star break and to be a serious contender for rookie of the year. Another one says he has major holes in his swing that, IF he can fix them, he still may not be ready for another 2 or 3 years (hell, two teams thought it was a good idea to trade him in ONE offseason). Its all sportsblab that should be taken with a grain of salt. Its impossible to predict who is going to be a breakout talent without having a crystal ball.

Fake Chet Lemon
02-12-2006, 04:08 PM
I wouldn't waste my time even getting worked up over the ESPN morons. I remember on Mike and Mike last year, before the playoffs started, they said the White Sox would be beat by Boston, Jenks was the worst of the postseason closers, and that our rotation ranked near the bottom for big game pitchers.


Mostly true. However Greenberg picked the White Sox to defeat Boston if memory serves (it does pain me to defend him). Dumb-ass Goleck picked The Red Sox and Yankees to take out the White Sox and Angels. That moron needs to stick to football and being fat and shutting up during baseball discussions.

jamokes
02-12-2006, 04:15 PM
Let all the "experts" pick anyone and everyone but the White Sox. It's their own opinion, Sox fans KNOW we have a good team. In order to win you need a break here or there.

Milw
02-12-2006, 04:29 PM
Mostly true. However Greenberg picked the White Sox to defeat Boston if memory serves (it does pain me to defend him). Dumb-ass Goleck picked The Red Sox and Yankees to take out the White Sox and Angels. That moron needs to stick to football and being fat and shutting up during baseball discussions.
You're correct, and in fact, the Sox were Greenberg's pick to win the World Series from the very start of the playoffs. He was one of the first national guys to climb all the way on board the bandwagon.

soxinem1
02-12-2006, 06:24 PM
Mostly true. However Greenberg picked the White Sox to defeat Boston if memory serves (it does pain me to defend him). Dumb-ass Goleck picked The Red Sox and Yankees to take out the White Sox and Angels. That moron needs to stick to football and being fat and shutting up during baseball discussions.

You are right, he did, but the show picked them not to. He was chastised by the others. Greenberg also stated that Jenks was the worst closer of the post season teams and had the least amount of 'big game' starters. He picked them on pure karma. But I'll give credit where credit is due.

Flight #24
02-12-2006, 09:06 PM
I love how people get so upset about articles that don't make the White Sox sound like the greatest team to ever walk the planet. You know, sometimes it actually makes sense to read things from people who aren't drinking the White Sox Koolaid. Besides that, if you actually read the article, it was presenting rookies to watch next season and presenting their PROS and CONS. In other words, its a good thing they were mentioned.

Actually, Anderson's pretty much the only guy he has actual "cons" with. The rest are all "he's only got 15 IP", other similarly minor issues. Anderson's the only one on the list with poor skills/tools.

thomas35forever
02-12-2006, 09:28 PM
If ESPN ever relocates to Chicago, they'll only be able to hear about Midwestern teams and hear very little about eastern coast teams. They'd probably just shut down before moving out of Bristol.

Corlose 15
02-13-2006, 12:17 AM
You are right, he did, but the show picked them not to. He was chastised by the others. Greenberg also stated that Jenks was the worst closer of the post season teams and had the least amount of 'big game' starters. He picked them on pure karma. But I'll give credit where credit is due.

Well he was definintely right about Jenks being bad in the ALDS, I mean Foulke was lights out....wait.:rolleyes:

White Sox Randy
02-13-2006, 09:12 AM
I think Gilletette should ask Felix Hernandez about Anderson's "medium" power.

MySoxAreClean
02-13-2006, 09:45 AM
And why do the folks at ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2324872&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2) think that he's a baseball "insider"? His "evaluation" of Brian Anderson indicates that he's never even seen him play:


Lets break these tools down:
- Arm: It's not "possibly" strong; it's just plain strong. Definitely an area of strength.
- Speed: The "subpar" claim is typical of a person who only reads stat sheets. Anderson has well above average speed. He just hasn't developed into a base-stealing threat . . . yet.
- Power: I haven't heard anybody claim that Anderson is incapable of a string of 20+ HR seasons. In the Cell, he may even develop into a 30+ HR player. Let's roughly split the difference and say he has 25 HR power. To put this into perspective, a batter with 25 HR finished 20th in the AL in 2005 (out of 126 total starting spots). In other words, Anderson's power is above-average (in a power-heavy league). For a CF, it's way above average. (The only AL CF with more than 22 HR was the excellent Vernon Wells).
- Fielding: This is the biggest crock of ****. "Adequate" my ass. Anderson has excellent range. Combined with his arm strength, this makes him an elite defensive player from year one and for years to come.
"Opposite spin" indeed. I don't know but I hate his Razors

California Sox
02-13-2006, 10:10 AM
I don't know but I hate his Razors

Don't be a hater. He's up to five blades now.

maurice
02-14-2006, 05:07 PM
For people who felt the need to defend Gillette, I'll again point out that his criticisms are not a difference of opinion. They're simply ignorant. You'll not find a scout or actual "insider" who questions whether Anderson has plus tools. He was a consensus 1st round draft pick for a reason.

There's nothing wrong with weighing pros and cons, but it's ridiculous to simply make **** up and claim to be an "insider." As pointed out throughout this thread, many of the specific "cons" he identified actually are "pros," especially Anderson's defense.

All opinons are not created equal. Some people actually are experts while others are full of ****. Gillette is in the "full of ****" camp.