PDA

View Full Version : Anderson On Way Out??? II


getonbckthr
06-11-2006, 02:43 AM
9 more responses to break into the top replied threads of all time. GIT-R-DONE

cheeses_h_rice
06-11-2006, 10:38 AM
This was probably brought up in the first thread, but I found very interesting that Ozzie put Mackowiak in to pinch hit for Brian late in the game, defense be damned. And lo and behold, he came up big. That probably didn't help Brian's cause.

samram
06-11-2006, 10:49 AM
This was probably brought up in the first thread, but I found very interesting that Ozzie put Mackowiak in to pinch hit for Brian late in the game, defense be damned. And lo and behold, he came up big. That probably didn't help Brian's cause.

Well, if the team is behind, you have to give the team the best chance to tie it- that means Mack at the plate instead of BA. However, if Mack starts, Ozzie can't pick and choose where to use him.

Ol' No. 2
06-11-2006, 10:56 AM
Well, if the team is behind, you have to give the team the best chance to tie it- that means Mack at the plate instead of BA. However, if Mack starts, Ozzie can't pick and choose where to use him.You've never heard of a late-inning defensive replacement? Which would you rather do, get a lead and try to protect it in the later innings, or try to come from behind?

Vernam
06-11-2006, 10:59 AM
9 more responses to break into the top replied threads of all time. I had high hopes that the all-inclusive Brian Anderson poll by Baby Fisk would be a nail in the main thread's coffin. :cool:

Ozzie went on record this week as saying Mack-o-Wack is not an everyday CF. Wish I could've listened in on the Friday meeting between him and Kenny, after which Ozzie changed his tune about Anderson. I was encouraged to hear him say the team has to stand behind the kid because defense is our top priority, but the vote of confidence will only delay the inevitable demotion to AAA if Brian can't raise his average in the next few weeks.

Vernam

samram
06-11-2006, 11:04 AM
You've never heard of a late-inning defensive replacement? Which would you rather do, get a lead and try to protect it in the later innings, or try to come from behind?

Nope, never heard of it. You're saying a guy can come in late in the game after not playing at all? I'll have to check the rule book on that.

Rob adds one hit more than BA every ten times at bat. One. However, he is a teriffic hitter in the clutch. Therefore, if the Sox are behind, I would like if Mack was available to hit for BA. You seem to be convinced that having that one extra hit in ten AB guarantees the Sox the lead in every game.

ChiSoxFan7
06-11-2006, 11:05 AM
i think that catch a few games ago (was rowand nostalgia all over again) bought him atleast another week or 2.

Ol' No. 2
06-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Nope, never heard of it. You're saying a guy can come in late in the game after not playing at all? I'll have to check the rule book on that.

Rob adds one hit more than BA every ten times at bat. One. However, he is a teriffic hitter in the clutch. Therefore, if the Sox are behind, I would like if Mack was available to hit for BA. You seem to be convinced that having that one extra hit in ten AB guarantees the Sox the lead in every game.As much as you are convinced that one extra catch every 4-5 games guarantees a lead in all the others.

samram
06-11-2006, 11:31 AM
As much as you are convinced that one extra catch every 4-5 games guarantees a lead in all the others.

Ozzie also seems to be convinced.

fquaye149
06-11-2006, 11:32 AM
As much as you are convinced that one extra catch every 4-5 games guarantees a lead in all the others.

The difference is, any given defensive error tends to create more runs for the opponent than any given hit creates for you.

This is highly theoretical and I certainly can't prove it with anything but anecdotal evidence, but it certainly seems reasonable, at least to me.

Ol' No. 2
06-11-2006, 11:46 AM
The difference is, any given defensive error tends to create more runs for the opponent than any given hit creates for you.

This is highly theoretical and I certainly can't prove it with anything but anecdotal evidence, but it certainly seems reasonable, at least to me.It doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Why is an error more likely to come at a critical time than a hit? They're random events.

SBSoxFan
06-11-2006, 11:50 AM
It doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Why is an error more likely to come at a critical time than a hit? They're random events.

:fobbgod:

"Random events?!" :thud:

Jjav829
06-11-2006, 12:02 PM
I had high hopes that the all-inclusive Brian Anderson poll by Baby Fisk would be a nail in the main thread's coffin. :cool:

That poll was about what people thought Kenny would do, not what he should do.

Vernam
06-11-2006, 12:07 PM
That poll was about what people thought Kenny would do, not what he should do.Are you daring me to start another poll?! :D:

Vernam

Brian26
06-11-2006, 12:12 PM
You've never heard of a late-inning defensive replacement? Which would you rather do, get a lead and try to protect it in the later innings, or try to come from behind?

A game can be lost by bad defense in centerfield just as easily in the 3rd inning as the 9th.

Ol' No. 2
06-11-2006, 12:25 PM
A game can be lost by bad defense in centerfield just as easily in the 3rd inning as the 9th.Or by killing a rally in the 3rd inning.

Brian26
06-11-2006, 12:37 PM
Or by killing a rally in the 3rd inning.

I'm surprised you don't come from the school of thought that strength-up-the-middle wins championships.

The Wimperoo
06-11-2006, 01:07 PM
Yesterday was perfect use of the two.

thomas35forever
06-11-2006, 06:15 PM
We've kept our faith in Ozzie most of the time. Hopefully, he knows what he's doing in keeping Anderson around. In fact, I wouldn't mind keeping him around.

Frater Perdurabo
06-11-2006, 07:23 PM
Or by killing a rally in the 3rd inning.

Round and round and round we go.....

There are many times during a game when hitters "fail" to execute. Heck, Thome "fails" every time he strikes out, whether it's in the first inning or the ninth. Shall we blame Thome when he fails, even with RISP? Of course not, because there are so many other opportunities that other hitters miss!

On defense, it is expected that a player never makes an error. On offense, it is expected that a player fail 7 out of 10 times.

Making a tremendous catch to rob someone of an RBI extra base hit prevents runs (something Rob Mackowiak will never do). It's as good as scoring or knocking in runs (something Anderson has not done well since the beginning of the year, but probably will do in time).

If you want to replace Anderson because he's not hitting, fine. Just not with Mackowiak, who is no better than Carlos Lee in center. In fact, on defensive considerations ALONE, I'd prefer Carlos Lee, since he's played more of his career solely as an outfielder!

batmanZoSo
06-11-2006, 07:43 PM
Round and round and round we go.....

There are many times during a game when hitters "fail" to execute. Heck, Thome "fails" every time he strikes out, whether it's in the first inning or the ninth. Shall we blame Thome when he fails, even with RISP? Of course not, because there are so many other opportunities that other hitters miss!

On defense, it is expected that a player never makes an error. On offense, it is expected that a player fail 7 out of 10 times.

Making a tremendous catch to rob someone of an RBI extra base hit prevents runs (something Rob Mackowiak will never do). It's as good as scoring or knocking in runs (something Anderson has not done well since the beginning of the year, but probably will do in time).

If you want to replace Anderson because he's not hitting, fine. Just not with Mackowiak, who is no better than Carlos Lee in center. In fact, on defensive considerations ALONE, I'd prefer Carlos Lee, since he's played more of his career solely as an outfielder!

We can argue like this here forever. The bottom line is neither one is an every day player, so we need a healthy balance of the two. Ozzie knows this and he's trying to get the most out of what he has in the two of them.

And yes, on one hand, Anderson needs to take his lumps in order to succeed down the line, but on the other hand we're trying to win the World Series again.

Frater Perdurabo
06-11-2006, 08:20 PM
And yes, on one hand, Anderson needs to take his lumps in order to succeed down the line, but on the other hand we're trying to win the World Series again.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Sox chances of repeating as WS champs - or even AL Central champs - are severly diminished if they have poor defense in center field.

As has been posted before, AJ's .300+ average and the upgrade from Everett to Thome at DH more than offsets the decline in offensive production from the #9 spot and/or the CF position.

On the other hand, there's no way to offset or to "cover" for poor CF defense!

Sox-o-matic
06-11-2006, 10:20 PM
I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Sox chances of repeating as WS champs - or even AL Central champs - are severly diminished if they have poor defense in center field.

As has been posted before, AJ's .300+ average and the upgrade from Everett to Thome at DH more than offsets the decline in offensive production from the #9 spot and/or the CF position.

On the other hand, there's no way to offset or to "cover" for poor CF defense!

Good point.

Why can't people understand this?

GoSox2K3
06-11-2006, 10:50 PM
Or by killing a rally in the 3rd inning.

Yes, I blame Anderson for killing what would have been our 8 run rally tonight.

GoSox2K3
06-11-2006, 11:41 PM
Yes, I blame Anderson for killing what would have been our 8 run rally tonight.

Wow, this comment looks pretty stupid now in hindsight!:redface:

But, BA did hit a homer in the 9th, so I'm still not going to blame this loss on his "rally kill" in the 3rd.

jabrch
06-12-2006, 12:10 AM
Anderson should get better. He has hit well at every level he has played at. He's got tools at the dish that should translate well. He's going to be OK. (at least I hope so) As long as we can keep winning games (2/3 at home and play .500 ball on the road is a good recipie to 100 win seasons) with him playing part time, I'm cool with that.

If we can acquire a top tier CF, great - bench BA. Until then, he can contribute in the field for sure, and I'd imagine also at the dish to helping this team win.

Hitmen77
06-12-2006, 10:11 AM
Interestingly, Anderson is now on pace to hit 15 HRs this year. Amazing that a guy in total offensive freefall is getting that many dingers. Was he a power hitter in the minors?

kwolf68
06-12-2006, 10:34 AM
Brian Anderson IS on his way out....















He is on his way out to take his starting position in Center field.

SBSoxFan
06-12-2006, 10:47 AM
Wow, this comment looks pretty stupid now in hindsight!:redface:

But, BA did hit a homer in the 9th, so I'm still not going to blame this loss on his "rally kill" in the 3rd.

Crede kinda killed that rally though by hitting into the double play.

jenn2080
06-12-2006, 10:57 AM
Wow, this comment looks pretty stupid now in hindsight!:redface:

But, BA did hit a homer in the 9th, so I'm still not going to blame this loss on his "rally kill" in the 3rd.

He also had a single. We had a good come back but not enough.. Fact is Freddy sucked last night

Vernam
06-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Crede kinda killed that rally though by hitting into the double play.At the start of that at-bat, the guy in front of me shot me a look when I mused about when the last time was that Ozzie asked Crede to bunt -- might not be since he broke his finger last August. The guy said, "It'd be dumb to bunt because Jermaine and AJ are so slow." Setting aside the stupidity of that remark (Jermaine is plenty fast enough) and the fact that I wasn't advocating a bunt, I couldn't help being pretty smug when Joe hit a tailor-made DP ball on the next pitch. That's why it's good to be able to bunt, because it could've been a big inning.

Sorry for the hijack . . . Obligatory Brian Anderson content: How 'bout that 3-run dinger?!

Vernam

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 01:18 PM
I'm surprised you don't come from the school of thought that strength-up-the-middle wins championships.Defense does not win championships. Pitching does not win championships. Hitting does not win championships. A proper balance of all three wins championships. Thus far, having BA in the lineup is worse than having a pitcher bat. It's as if you had an interleague game where one team was allowed to use a DH and the other wasn't.

BA had a good game last night. Let's hope he can repeat it.

Frater Perdurabo
06-12-2006, 01:37 PM
Defense does not win championships. Pitching does not win championships. Hitting does not win championships. A proper balance of all three wins championships. Thus far, having BA in the lineup is worse than having a pitcher bat. It's as if you had an interleague game where one team was allowed to use a DH and the other wasn't.

BA had a good game last night. Let's hope he can repeat it.

Do you really think Mackowiak brings enough to the table offensively - in the interest of preserving some kind of balance - to overcome his inability to play center field very well?

The Sox lineup can overcome a lack of production in the #9 hole. But there is no way to overcome or cover for a lack of good defense in center field.

Should the pitchers go against Don Cooper's advice and pitch away from contact (thereby increasing their walk totals and then giving up more homers after having to groove a 3-1 pitch down the middle of the plate)?

Should the corner outfielders play closer to the gaps (thereby surrendering the lines and giving up more doubles)?

Again, the Sox already have shown they can make up for lack of offense from the #9 hole. But no team can cover for poor CF defense, unless they have two CF-caliber fielders playing the corners.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 01:41 PM
Do you really think Mackowiak brings enough to the table offensively - in the interest of preserving some kind of balance - to overcome his inability to play center field very well?Compared to BA, yes. I think I've explained my rationale on this enough times. 100 pts in batting average > one extra catch every 4-5 games.

jenn2080
06-12-2006, 01:42 PM
Uribe is doing crappy too!

Randar68
06-12-2006, 02:45 PM
Compared to BA, yes. I think I've explained my rationale on this enough times. 100 pts in batting average > one extra catch every 4-5 games.

Yet in a similar # of AB's, Mack has fewer RBI and HR's...

WOW, looks like GREAT improvement in "production" to me...

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 02:51 PM
Yet in a similar # of AB's, Mack has fewer RBI and HR's...

WOW, looks like GREAT improvement in "production" to me...I didn't realize that RBI and HR were the sole measure of production. Mackowiak has more total bases and half the number of strikeouts.

Randar68
06-12-2006, 02:54 PM
I didn't realize that RBI and HR were the sole measure of production. Mackowiak has more total bases and half the number of strikeouts.

*** does a strike-out mean? It doesn't do anything a grounder to the SS doesn't do... You just tell me HR's and RBI aren't the sole measure of production and then state strike-outs, probably the least-linked to offensive production of any stat, as something I left out? BTW, they have the same # of walks, which are ACTUALLY linked to "production."

WOW... just WOW...

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 03:05 PM
*** does a strike-out mean? It doesn't do anything a grounder to the SS doesn't do... You just tell me HR's and RBI aren't the sole measure of production and then state strike-outs, probably the least-linked to offensive production of any stat, as something I left out?When you have twice as many strikeouts as hits, that tells me you're not even coming close to being effective at the plate. If you can't even put the ball in play, nothing good can come of it. What's more, when he does put the ball in play, it's almost invariably a weak grounder or a popup.
BTW, they have the same # of walks, which are ACTUALLY linked to "production."Gee, I always thought hits were actually linked to "production", but you don't seem to put too much stock in that. I wonder why?

Randar68
06-12-2006, 03:17 PM
When you have twice as many strikeouts as hits, that tells me you're not even coming close to being effective at the plate. If you can't even put the ball in play, nothing good can come of it. What's more, when he does put the ball in play, it's almost invariably a weak grounder or a popup.

Really? Because Anderson has 5 HR's and 16 walks in 126 AB's... That comes out to about 20-25 HR's and 70-80 walks playing everyday... Coming out of your defensive CF'er hitting in the #9 hole.

Yet, you'd rather replace him with a guy who makes Pods look like a Gold Glover in CF and hits less than 100 points higher, is slower, doesn't walk any more often, and maxes out somewhere around 10 HR's a season???

:rolleyes:


Gee, I always thought hits were actually linked to "production", but you don't seem to put too much stock in that. I wonder why?

Mackowiak being in CF instead of Anderson has DEFENSIVELY cost the Sox several games already. Is his bat making up for it?

Anderson has scored 17 runs, Mackowiak 11. Anderson is superior in basically every production-related category!

Mackowiak puts the ball in play more, yet he doesn't score more runs or drive in more runs, the 2 fundamental stats of "production" (I'm assuming you'll at least consider "runs created" to be of production-related relevance, but then again, who knows the way you're sliding down your slippery-slope)

bludupree
06-12-2006, 03:35 PM
When you have twice as many strikeouts as hits, that tells me you're not even coming close to being effective at the plate. If you can't even put the ball in play, nothing good can come of it. What's more, when he does put the ball in play, it's almost invariably a weak grounder or a popup.
Gee, I always thought hits were actually linked to "production", but you don't seem to put too much stock in that. I wonder why?

Thome doesn't have twice as many strikouts as hits, but he has more strikeouts than hits. He doesn't ever seem to hit weak groundouts or popups. Not saying Anderson doesn't, just that it might not be a valid argument. Also, I believe Anderson saves us much more than 1 run every 4-5 games over Mackowiak. The only reason we should send Anderson down at this point is if we think it is necessary for him to get AAA at bats in order to get confidence back.

FoxsMightyMite
06-12-2006, 03:42 PM
Compared to BA, yes. I think I've explained my rationale on this enough times. 100 pts in batting average > one extra catch every 4-5 games.
I'd agree if that was what the situation was.

Anderson has played 357 innings and made 129 outs in the field (126 PO and 3 assists.)

Mack has played 292 innings in the outfield and recorded 72 outs in the field (71 PO and 1 A.)

Anderson records 12.0% of the teams put outs when he plays. Mack 8.2%.

That's one extra catch per game.

A pitcher's batting average is worth that. Take one hit away from the opposition per game and you choke off a lot more rallies. Fly balls to the outfield do not randomly distribute with ground outs. Batters intentionally swing for more power (fly balls) with men on and better contact (more ground balls) with nobody on. Thus Anderson is much more likely to be taking doubles and triples away with men on and that really adds up.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 03:55 PM
Really? Because Anderson has 5 HR's and 16 walks in 126 AB's... That comes out to about 20-25 HR's and 70-80 walks playing everyday... Coming out of your defensive CF'er hitting in the #9 hole.

Yet, you'd rather replace him with a guy who makes Pods look like a Gold Glover in CF and hits less than 100 points higher, is slower, doesn't walk as often, and maxes out somewhere around 10 HR's a season???

:rolleyes:




Mackowiak being in CF instead of Anderson has DEFENSIVELY cost the Sox several games already. Is his bat making up for it?

Anderson has scored 17 runs, Mackowiak 11. Anderson is superior in basically every production-related category!

Mackowiak puts the ball in play more, yet he doesn't score more runs or drive in more runs, the 2 fundamental stats of "production" (I'm assuming you'll at least consider "runs created" to be of production-related relevance, but then again, who knows the way you're sliding down your slippery-slope)Scoring a run is not something you do on your own, unless you think he has a sixth sense and skill to get on base only when he knows someone after him is going to get a big hit. It's pure luck on his part whether or not the following hitters drive him in. Anderson's higher runs scored has nothing to do with him and everything to do with the fact that most of his playing time was when the top of the order was red hot. He's scored exactly THREE runs in the last month.

And yes, Mackowiak has gotten several game-winning hits that Anderson would not have gotten. But it's about more than just the big hits that you remember. It's also about the 1-2-3 innings that didn't have to be. It's about the runners stranded and the rallies that died premature deaths. It's like an interleague game where one team gets to use a DH and the other has to have the pitcher bat. That's a big disadvantage that is hard to overcome over a long haul.

Frater Perdurabo
06-12-2006, 04:02 PM
I'd agree if that was what the situation was.

Anderson has played 357 innings and made 129 outs in the field (126 PO and 3 assists.)

Mack has played 292 innings in the outfield and recorded 72 outs in the field (71 PO and 1 A.)

Anderson records 12.0% of the teams put outs when he plays. Mack 8.2%.

That's one extra catch per game.

A pitcher's batting average is worth that. Take one hit away from the opposition per game and you choke off a lot more rallies. Fly balls to the outfield do not randomly distribute with ground outs. Batters intentionally swing for more power (fly balls) with men on and better contact (more ground balls) with nobody on. Thus Anderson is much more likely to be taking doubles and triples away with men on and that really adds up.

Thanks, FoxsMightyMite, for quantifying my heretofore qualitative observations on the importance of Anderson's defense!

Oh, and welcome aboard!

Ol' No. 2, does an average of one extra catch per game mean something to you?

Game. Set. Match.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 04:16 PM
Thanks, FoxsMightyMite, for quantifying my heretofore qualitative observations on the importance of Anderson's defense!

Oh, and welcome aboard!

Ol' No. 2, does an average of one extra catch per game mean something to you?

Game. Set. Match.Are you blind? Do you see one catch every game that Anderson makes that Mackowiak couldn't? Good grief. Now you're quoting crap statistics.

Randar68
06-12-2006, 04:26 PM
Scoring a run is not something you do on your own, unless you think he has a sixth sense and skill to get on base only when he knows someone after him is going to get a big hit. It's pure luck on his part whether or not the following hitters drive him in. Anderson's higher runs scored has nothing to do with him and everything to do with the fact that most of his playing time was when the top of the order was red hot. He's scored exactly THREE runs in the last month.

And yes, Mackowiak has gotten several game-winning hits that Anderson would not have gotten. But it's about more than just the big hits that you remember. It's also about the 1-2-3 innings that didn't have to be. It's about the runners stranded and the rallies that died premature deaths. It's like an interleague game where one team gets to use a DH and the other has to have the pitcher bat. That's a big disadvantage that is hard to overcome over a long haul.

You're spinning your wheels. The only category of "production" that Mack has outperformed Anderson is average, and that has resulted in FEWER runs being produced than Anderson has produced.

Randar68
06-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Do you see one catch every game that Anderson makes that Mackowiak couldn't?

On average? Hell yes I do.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 04:40 PM
On average? Hell yes I do.There was one on Friday night. That's the only one I've seen in a week.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 04:46 PM
You're spinning your wheels. The only category of "production" that Mack has outperformed Anderson is average, and that has resulted in FEWER runs being produced than Anderson has produced.Let's see...

Anderson: 21 H + 16 BB = 37 times reaching base. 17 R / 37 H+BB = 46%

Mackowiak: 29 H + 16 BB = 45 times reaching base. 11 R / 45 H+BB = 24%

So tell me, what skill is it that allows a player to score more often for each time he gets on base? Unless it's the "skill" of just happening to be playing when the guys behind you in the batting order are red hot, I can't imagine what skill that might be. But I'm all ears.

Edit: Let's try to correct for this by looking over the last month, when they had roughly the same amount of playing time:

Anderson: 3 R / 12 H+BB = 25%
Mackowiak: 7 R / 28 H+BB = 25%

My, what do you know?

One more thing: When Mackowiak starts, he generally hits 8th with Uribe behind him. When Anderson starts, he hits 9th with the top of the order behind him.

batmanZoSo
06-12-2006, 04:58 PM
Here's hoping last night's HR is the magic stroke that suddenly turns Anderson into a productive hitter.

itsnotrequired
06-12-2006, 05:01 PM
Here's hoping last night's HR is the magic stroke that suddenly turns Anderson into a productive hitter.

No kidding. I start drooling at the thought of Anderson going something like .400/3/10 on this road trip.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 05:22 PM
No kidding. I start drooling at the thought of Anderson going something like .400/3/10 on this road trip.He looked a hell of a lot better to me yesterday than he has in weeks. In the last few weeks it's been nothing but strikeouts, popups and weak groundouts. Even the hit he had a week ago was a grounder that just found a hole. He didn't even have a hard-hit foul ball. Yesterday he was hitting the ball with authority. The 3rd inning hit was hit square and the HR was obviously hit well. I hope to hell it's a sign of things to come before we get to Anderson On Way Out??? III.

oeo
06-12-2006, 05:28 PM
I'm stunned that you really want Mackowiak out there, who cannot play centerfield...actually, he looks like he has trouble in the outfield in general. Instead of Anderson, who plays a great centerfield, and with all the at-bats, will turn his season around. Why do you think it's impossible that Anderson will turn around his season in the majors? Mackowiak is not the answer in centerfield, and Kenny/Ozzie obviously realize that as well.

itsnotrequired
06-12-2006, 05:33 PM
Edit: Let's try to correct for this by looking over the last month, when they had roughly the same amount of playing time:

Anderson: 3 R / 12 H+BB = 25%
Mackowiak: 7 R / 28 H+BB = 25%

My, what do you know?

One more thing: When Mackowiak starts, he generally hits 8th with Uribe behind him. When Anderson starts, he hits 9th with the top of the order behind him.

RBIs tells a similar story over the last month. Mackowiak had 7 RBIs in 57 ABs while Anderson had 5 RBIs in 44 ABs. Anderson had 71% fewer RBIs in 77% fewer at bats. What a disparity!

To be fair though, if you take away last night's game, Anderson was looking pretty shoddy over the last month. However, he did have Uribe batting in front of him so the RBI chances were not as great.:redneck

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 05:37 PM
I'm stunned that you really want Mackowiak out there, who cannot play centerfield...actually, he looks like he has trouble in the outfield in general. Instead of Anderson, who plays a great centerfield, and with all the at-bats, will turn his season around. Why do you think it's impossible that Anderson will turn around his season in the majors? Mackowiak is not the answer in centerfield, and Kenny/Ozzie obviously realize that as well.Not hitting for 2 or 3 weeks is a slump. When it's the entire first two months of the season, it's no longer a slump. It's extraordinarily difficult for a veteran to pull out of something like that (remember Konerko in 2003?). But for a young player, the pressure at the major league level is enormous. I don't think he can turn it around this season without going down to AAA. I'd really like to be wrong.

jongarlandlover
06-12-2006, 05:43 PM
I'm stunned that you really want Mackowiak out there, who cannot play centerfield...actually, he looks like he has trouble in the outfield in general. Instead of Anderson, who plays a great centerfield, and with all the at-bats, will turn his season around. Why do you think it's impossible that Anderson will turn around his season in the majors? Mackowiak is not the answer in centerfield, and Kenny/Ozzie obviously realize that as well.

I agree. I'm amazed that anyone would want Macko out there everyday, when his defense is nowhere as good as Anderson's. And if we were to send Brian down, then Macko would be the starting CF and Pablo would be the backup. Now do we want that? I don't think so.

And about last night, I was sooo happy for Brian. He hit the ball pretty well...he had a single and home run. I was screaming and jumping up and down when he hit that home run. I'm hoping that this will really motivate him and he'll turn his season around right now.

Randar68
06-12-2006, 05:59 PM
There was one on Friday night. That's the only one I've seen in a week.

There were 3 the last game I went to that Mack started in CF...

Sargeant79
06-12-2006, 06:18 PM
There was one on Friday night. That's the only one I've seen in a week.

I beg to differ.

Anderson gets a good read on the ball very quickly. As a result, he gets to many balls sooner than Mackowiak, which makes the catch look easier. Some catches that Mackowiak barely makes or or even misses, Anderson makes them smoothly without anyone thinking twice.

oeo
06-12-2006, 06:19 PM
Not hitting for 2 or 3 weeks is a slump. When it's the entire first two months of the season, it's no longer a slump. It's extraordinarily difficult for a veteran to pull out of something like that (remember Konerko in 2003?). But for a young player, the pressure at the major league level is enormous. I don't think he can turn it around this season without going down to AAA. I'd really like to be wrong.
You have nothing to prove that a slump is only 2 or 3 weeks. It varies player-to-player. That's your prediction that he will not be able to turn his season around, but the organization thinks otherwise, or they would be going the same route you think they should. If Ozzie and Kenny are behind him 100%, who have been around the game for their whole lives, I think I will trust that they're doing the right thing. If they thought there was no way he could turn it around, I don't think he would still be around.

Mackowiak does not look natural out there at all. Even when he makes a catch, it still looks like he's having trouble. And he's much more valuable to this team off the bench, than starting in centerfield. We either have one of the best bench guys in the game, or a mediocre centerfielder.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 06:27 PM
I beg to differ.

Anderson gets a good read on the ball very quickly. As a result, he gets to many balls sooner than Mackowiak, which makes the catch look easier. Some catches that Mackowiak barely makes or or even misses, Anderson makes them smoothly without anyone thinking twice.I don't give style points. Either he catches it or he doesn't. As important as CF defense is, there aren't that many that are all that difficult. I'd be surprised if it was even 10%. Probably half that. One every game?? Please.

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 06:34 PM
You have nothing to prove that a slump is only 2 or 3 weeks. It varies player-to-player. That's your prediction that he will not be able to turn his season around, but the organization thinks otherwise, or they would be going the same route you think they should. If Ozzie and Kenny are behind him 100%, who have been around the game for their whole lives, I think I will trust that they're doing the right thing. If they thought there was no way he could turn it around, I don't think he would still be around.

Mackowiak does not look natural out there at all. Even when he makes a catch, it still looks like he's having trouble. And he's much more valuable to this team off the bench, than starting in centerfield. We either have one of the best bench guys in the game, or a mediocre centerfielder.How many players can you think of that had as poor a first two months as Anderson has had and come back to have a decent season (unless there was an injury involved)? It's pretty unusual. And for a rookie it's even more rare. You asked why I thought he couldn't do it and I told you. Only time will tell who's right. The organization seemed to have been very close to sending him down last week, and if he continues to struggle, it may still happen.

soxinem1
06-12-2006, 08:20 PM
How many players can you think of that had as poor a first two months as Anderson has had and come back to have a decent season (unless there was an injury involved)? It's pretty unusual. And for a rookie it's even more rare. You asked why I thought he couldn't do it and I told you. Only time will tell who's right. The organization seemed to have been very close to sending him down last week, and if he continues to struggle, it may still happen.

Not only that, but with his hit tonight, he's 3 for his last 4!!

B.A, B.A, B.A!!!

jongarlandlover
06-12-2006, 08:21 PM
Not only that, but with his hit tonight, he's 3 for his last 4!!

B.A, B.A, B.A!!!

whoot! GO BRIAN!

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 11:00 PM
Not only that, but with his hit tonight, he's 3 for his last 4!!

B.A, B.A, B.A!!!Not just hits, but solid contact. No cheapies. Here's hoping he keeps it up.:gulp:

oeo
06-12-2006, 11:04 PM
Not just hits, but solid contact. No cheapies. Here's hoping he keeps it up.:gulp:
How about the walk he drew tonight? Worked it from 1-2, fouled a couple pitches off and earned a walk. He's looked pretty good the last two games, hopefully he can keep it up...and prove you wrong. :tongue:

BadgerChisox
06-12-2006, 11:11 PM
Nice couple of games. Lets keep it goin

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 11:22 PM
How about the walk he drew tonight? Worked it from 1-2, fouled a couple pitches off and earned a walk. He's looked pretty good the last two games, hopefully he can keep it up...and prove you wrong. :tongue:I'll be only too happy to see it happen.

Sox-o-matic
06-12-2006, 11:27 PM
I'll be only too happy to see it happen.

Why are you the only one here that wants to see Mackowiak in CF? Anderson plays D and will hit... sometime in the near future. His last two games have been good ones so how about we postpone this Ol' No. 2 vs. the World thread for about another week or so until Anderson has a chance to come out of his slump?

Ol' No. 2
06-12-2006, 11:38 PM
Why are you the only one here that wants to see Mackowiak in CF? Anderson plays D and will hit... sometime in the near future. His last two games have been good ones so how about we postpone this Ol' No. 2 vs. the World thread for about another week or so until Anderson has a chance to come out of his slump?It's not a question of wanting to see Mackowiak in CF, but not having a pitcher batting at the bottom of the order.

He'll hit....sometime. When? The real question is, how long does he get to come out of it? I don't think an objective observer would disagree that with each passing week of poor hitting it gets less and less likely he'll just "snap out of it". So how long before you decide the odds have gotten too low and send him down to AAA? Until yesterday he's been getting worse instead of better.

The last couple of days are the first sign of life I've seen from him since opening day. Might as well see how long it lasts. But if he goes back in the crapper, I don't think you're doing him any favors keeping him on the major league roster instead of sending him down where he can take the pressure off.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-12-2006, 11:49 PM
There was one on Friday night. That's the only one I've seen in a week.

Well you must have missed Thursday's game because Mackowiak messed up twice in an inning.

The reason Ozzie decided to keep Anderson and play him regularly is the fact that Mackowiak has no redeeming qualities as an everyday player and at centerfield he would be the worst of the 30 teams when you consider hitting and fielding. He is a career .258 hitter with little power and no speed. He is OK as a fill in once or twice a week. He can manage a corner OF or Infield spot.

Anderson is a top 5 CF in the field and his minor league resume indicates he should be able to hit at the MLB level. Ozzie gave an ultimatum and then failed to play Anderson for nearly a month (23 ABs in 21 games is not much of an opportunity to turn things around).

I expect Anderson to close the season as an everyday starter, hit .240 with 15 - 20 HRs and contribute his stellar defense. I expect his average to settle in the .270 range starting next season. I expect Mackowiak to stay on the club as a bench player and KW to find someone who can play CF if he feels neither prospect is ready to play in the majors in 2007.

Sox-o-matic
06-13-2006, 12:17 AM
It's not a question of wanting to see Mackowiak in CF, but not having a pitcher batting at the bottom of the order.

He'll hit....sometime. When? The real question is, how long does he get to come out of it? I don't think an objective observer would disagree that with each passing week of poor hitting it gets less and less likely he'll just "snap out of it". So how long before you decide the odds have gotten too low and send him down to AAA? Until yesterday he's been getting worse instead of better.

The last couple of days are the first sign of life I've seen from him since opening day. Might as well see how long it lasts. But if he goes back in the crapper, I don't think you're doing him any favors keeping him on the major league roster instead of sending him down where he can take the pressure off.

Chill, man. Take a deep breath. Here....

In.........

Think about flowers and gardens and Buddah and stuff....

and out....

There you go!

It is June 11th. Our first round draft pick gold glove calibre centerfielder has just had two fine offensive games in a row. Sometimes it takes a while for a rookie to get in a groove. Just relax, let Brian find his way, because Brian Anderson has a much better chance of becoming an allstar starting centerfielder than anyone else in our organization does.

Rob was a tremendous addition to this club. We should keep him on the bench in a role that makes our team better as opposed to making our team and our entire defense worse.

Seriously Ol' No. 2, I would like to make a deal:

If Brian Anderson starts to hit and finishes out this campaign with a decent rookie year at the plate (in addition to his huge contributions in the field) and proves himself worthy of a starting job in the Major Leagues, you have to eat crow. Not just figuratively, but literally. You would have to eat a real live crow that you caught with your bare hands.

In turn, if Brian sucks as a hitter and finishes the 2006 season with a batting average less than .240 I will capture a crow with my bare hands and consume it raw.

Do we have a deal?

thomas35forever
06-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Sweet! Brian's starting to heat up. If he keeps hitting like this, maybe we won't need a centerfielder.

ondafarm
06-13-2006, 11:41 AM
I don't give style points. Either he catches it or he doesn't. As important as CF defense is, there aren't that many that are all that difficult. I'd be surprised if it was even 10%. Probably half that. One every game?? Please.

I disagree here. Centerfield is the position that has the hardest reads off the ball. Second base would be second. Brian is an intuitive centerfielder he gets much better jumps than Rowand did and being as fast as he is he just plain old outruns a lot of balls and snags them.

The numbers don't lie, he is making far more putouts than Mack.

You seem to accept how difficult it is to hit at the major level but not believe that playing defense can be as pressure packed and difficult. These are two distinct skill sets and both typically require years to learn. Some guys are just better at one of them than the other. BA is a vastly superior CF than Mack.

As to his hitting, I think Ozzie and Walker have both seen the signs that Anderson was coming around and being much more selective. He is starting to pay dividends offensively, let's hope he keeps that up.

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 12:14 PM
Chill, man. Take a deep breath. Here....

In.........

Think about flowers and gardens and Buddah and stuff....

and out....

There you go!

It is June 11th. Our first round draft pick gold glove calibre centerfielder has just had two fine offensive games in a row. Sometimes it takes a while for a rookie to get in a groove. Just relax, let Brian find his way, because Brian Anderson has a much better chance of becoming an allstar starting centerfielder than anyone else in our organization does.

Rob was a tremendous addition to this club. We should keep him on the bench in a role that makes our team better as opposed to making our team and our entire defense worse.

Seriously Ol' No. 2, I would like to make a deal:

If Brian Anderson starts to hit and finishes out this campaign with a decent rookie year at the plate (in addition to his huge contributions in the field) and proves himself worthy of a starting job in the Major Leagues, you have to eat crow. Not just figuratively, but literally. You would have to eat a real live crow that you caught with your bare hands.

In turn, if Brian sucks as a hitter and finishes the 2006 season with a batting average less than .240 I will capture a crow with my bare hands and consume it raw.

Do we have a deal?I don't make bets where I hope I'm going to lose. I don't think I ever said it was impossible that he'll break out. Only that with each passing week of poor hitting (and getting worse instead of better), the odds get slimmer. It's just a matter of deciding where the tipping point is. It's possible he'll break out today and hit .300 the rest of the season. If that happens, I'll be as happy as anyone, but it will be because he beat the odds, not because the odds were wrong.

Randar68
06-13-2006, 12:45 PM
I don't think I ever said it was impossible that he'll break out. Only that with each passing week of poor hitting (and getting worse instead of better), the odds get slimmer.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-060612soxside,1,6886175.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Have a read.

ondafarm
06-13-2006, 12:56 PM
Just for comparison, other CFs in the league.

Hunter makes 9.96% of the Twins outs
Granderson makes 10.19% of the Tigers
Sizemore makes 11.06% of the Indians

Patterson 11.42%
Kotsay 8.93%
Damon 9.63%

Mack is below the lowest of these guys. Anderson is above the highest.

I don't know who the Sox outfield coach is, but I'll bet that Ozzie has asked Raines and Baines, two pretty fair fielders in their day, about how good Anderson is. I'd be surprised if both Dye and Pods haven't been asked once or twice. The extra catches add up and keep runs off the board. Anderson will be the starting CF.

Frater Perdurabo
06-13-2006, 01:05 PM
Just for comparison, other CFs in the league.

Hunter makes 9.96% of the Twins outs
Granderson makes 10.19% of the Tigers
Sizemore makes 11.06% of the Indians

Patterson 11.42%
Kotsay 8.93%
Damon 9.63%

Mack is below the lowest of these guys. Anderson is above the highest.

I don't know who the Sox outfield coach is, but I'll bet that Ozzie has asked Raines and Baines, two pretty fair fielders in their day, about how good Anderson is. I'd be surprised if both Dye and Pods haven't been asked once or twice. The extra catches add up and keep runs off the board. Anderson will be the starting CF.

Onda, where are you finding these percentages (which are fantastic and support what I've been preaching for a while)?

If this is the case, it would seem to me that if he plays for the entire year, on the basis of his fielding alone Anderson should deserve the Gold Glove (even though we all know they usually are awarded to the above-average fielders at each position who gain attention for their hitting).

Someone might argue that it's possible that Sox pitchers give up more fly balls to the outfield, or even fly balls to center field, than other teams (I'm not sure what the stats are on this right now), thus skewing Anderson's numbers. But if that's the case, good CF defense is even MORE important.

Moreover, a big part of Cooper's pitching strategy - we all have heard him speak it from his own mouth - is to have the pitchers pitch to contact and let the fielders make the outs. Since that is the case, good CF defense is even more important to this team than to the "average" team.

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 01:11 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-060612soxside,1,6886175.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Have a read.I read it. Landis hit .212 his rookie year. If Anderson were doing likewise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Hitmen77
06-13-2006, 01:15 PM
I read it. Landis hit .212 his rookie year. If Anderson were doing likewise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's only part of the story. Here's what the article said.

After a .212 rookie season, he was hitting just .184 the following June 1 with meager totals of three home runs and six RBIs. His terrific defense was keeping him in Al Lopez's lineup, just as Anderson's is keeping him in Ozzie Guillen's.

But then everything clicked. Landis went on a tear and was up to .290 by July 1.

oeo
06-13-2006, 01:15 PM
I read it. Landis hit .212 his rookie year. If Anderson were doing likewise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Anderson's rookie year isn't over.

And...Landis was only batting .184 (with only 3HR, and 6RBI), the following year (in June), and brought that up to an amazing .290, in one month. Will Anderson do the same? No, raising your average 100 points in a month is not very realistic, now-a-days. But, I can see him with a better average than the .212 mark you seem to be happy with, by the All-Star break.

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 01:25 PM
Anderson's rookie year isn't over.

And...Landis was only batting .184 (with only 3HR, and 6RBI), the following year (in June), and brought that up to an amazing .290, in one month. Will Anderson do the same? No, raising your average 100 points in a month is not very realistic, now-a-days. But, I can see him with a better average than the .212 mark you seem to be happy with, by the All-Star break.But .184 is still 30 pts higher than what Anderson was hitting at his low point last week. And that was after already having one successful year. Big difference.

Randar68
06-13-2006, 01:34 PM
But .184 is still 30 pts higher than what Anderson was hitting at his low point last week. And that was after already having one successful year. Big difference.

*** are you talking about?

Landis hit .212 in his entire rookie season.

His sophomore season started with him hitting .184 on June 1st (no mention of that actually being his low-point, mind you).

This is Anderson's Rookie year and he's hitting .167 with more than 3 1/2 months left to play and playing great CF defense on a team built on pitching and defense...

However, all these things considered, you'd rather be playing a player who only MARGINALLY improves the offensive production of the team but GREATLY detriments the team's defense up the middle...

:whoflungpoo

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 01:37 PM
*** are you talking about?

Landis hit .212 in his entire rookie season.

His sophomore season started with him hitting .184 on June 1st (no mention of that actually being his low-point, mind you).

This is Anderson's Rookie year and he's hitting .167 with more than 3 1/2 months left to play and playing great CF defense on a team built on pitching and defense...

However, all these things considered, you'd rather be playing a player who only MARGINALLY improves the offensive production of the team but GREATLY detriments the team's defense up the middle...

No, I'd rather take the CF I really want and send him down to AAA for a month or so to get himself straightened out so I have him back for the last half of the season instead of having him struggling to reach Joe Borchard levels all year.

Randar68
06-13-2006, 01:37 PM
But .184 is still 30 pts higher than what Anderson was hitting at his low point last week. And that was after already having one successful year. Big difference.

Oh, and while you're at it, weakening our defense for hitting at some of the most crucial defensive positions, let's start Pablo Ozuna at SS and sit Uribe and his veteran average of .202!

Randar68
06-13-2006, 01:38 PM
No, I'd rather take the CF I really want and send him down to AAA for a month or so to get himself straightened out so I have him back for the last half of the season instead of having him struggling to reach Joe Borchard levels all year.

What does he have to prove in AAA?

Brian Anderson is not Judy Garland. Confidence, work ethic, ect is not a question with this kid, and he doesn't take his struggles to the field with him like Crede did for the first 2-3 years of his MLB career...

You have to take each individual on a case-by-case basis, you can't treat everyone or every situation the same way.

Frater Perdurabo
06-13-2006, 01:39 PM
No, I'd rather take the CF I really want and send him down to AAA for a month or so to get himself straightened out so I have him back for the last half of the season instead of having him struggling to reach Joe Borchard levels all year.

Meanwhile the Sox would "muddle through" Mackowiak (or Ozuna or Pods) in CF, giving up more extra base hits, giving up more runs, and losing more games, and losing more ground to the Tigers.
:(:

ondafarm
06-13-2006, 01:39 PM
Onda, where are you finding these percentages (which are fantastic and support what I've been preaching for a while)?

Someone might argue that it's possible that Sox pitchers give up more fly balls to the outfield, or even fly balls to center field, than other teams (I'm not sure what the stats are on this right now), thus skewing Anderson's numbers. But if that's the case, good CF defense is even MORE important.

. . .

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?statType=3&teamPosCode=O&timeFrame=1&c_id=cws&sitSplit=&venueID=&Submit=Submit&subScope=pos&baseballScope=AL&timeSubFrame=2006&&sortByStat=PO


This page is all AL outfielders ranked by PO.

For the stat, I add put outs and assists and divide that by 3 times the number of innings played.

Rationale: 3 times the innings played is total number of outs a player was on the field for. Put outs plus assists is number you participated in.

Although team against team comparisons might be slightly out of whack because of different pitching staffs, BA vs Mack is pretty solid, both have the same staff, ours.

Frater Perdurabo
06-13-2006, 01:42 PM
You have to take each individual on a case-by-case basis, you can't treat everyone or every situation the same way.

Agreed completely. Plus, the Sox can't make decisions in a vacuum, not considering the ramifications of their decisions. Without another true outfielder on the roster, and without any realistic trade options at this time, demoting Anderson would force Ozzie to play an infielder - Mackowiak or Ozuna - in center field for a team whose pitching staff is directed to pitch to contact!
:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 01:49 PM
What does he have to prove in AAA?

Brian Anderson is not Judy Garland. Confidence, work ethic, ect is not a question with this kid, and he doesn't take his struggles to the field with him like Crede did for the first 2-3 years of his MLB career...

You have to take each individual on a case-by-case basis, you can't treat everyone or every situation the same way.It's not a question of "proving" anything. It's a matter of allowing him to work out the problem in a lower pressure environment. While you may be sacrificing a bit short term in having to start Mackowiak every day (and I still don't accept that the loss in defense isn't offset by the gain in offense), you gain long-term if you can have Anderson back to where he belongs for the last half of the year.

bigredrudy
06-13-2006, 02:35 PM
What does he have to prove in AAA?

Brian Anderson is not Judy Garland. Confidence, work ethic, ect is not a question with this kid, and he doesn't take his struggles to the field with him like Crede did for the first 2-3 years of his MLB career...

You have to take each individual on a case-by-case basis, you can't treat everyone or every situation the same way.

Anderson seems to play very shallow. Can you compare him to other centerfielders as far as playing shallow? By the way I have a couple of other questions? Can Josh Fields play third base? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that he can't. I thought he had improved to the point that he coudl play third. I assume he is faster than Crede as he steals bases. Is this true? What happened to Valido?

hawkjt
06-13-2006, 02:41 PM
If BA has a lousy six more hits he would be at the .220 mark.

he could do that in two games if he found some holes. he should have one more with that ball he hit up the middle that he would have beat out but they gave the SS a error instead. Like landis said- it can turn quickly- like with one good week he could be above .225.

If he does heat up right now would be a perfect time with the NL games upon us. Ease the pain of the loss of the DH with a productive bat at the bottom of the order, please get hot BA.

Ol' No. 2
06-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Anderson seems to play very shallow. Can you compare him to other centerfielders as far as playing shallow? By the way I have a couple of other questions? Can Josh Fields play third base? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that he can't. I thought he had improved to the point that he coudl play third. I assume he is faster than Crede as he steals bases. Is this true? What happened to Valido?A critical skill for outfielders is the ability to go back to make catches. Those that can are able to play shallower. Those that can't play deeper because it's better to have a ball bounce in front of you than go over your head.

I haven't seen Fields play myself, but from what I've heard he's gotten a lot better this year. Still not as good as Crede, but better.

Randar68
06-13-2006, 02:50 PM
Anderson seems to play very shallow. Can you compare him to other centerfielders as far as playing shallow? By the way I have a couple of other questions? Can Josh Fields play third base? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that he can't. I thought he had improved to the point that he coudl play third. I assume he is faster than Crede as he steals bases. Is this true? What happened to Valido?

1) Anderson plays shallow because his instincts and reads/speed allow him to do so. The best defensive CF'ers have always played shallow. The guys who don't get confident reads on the balls hit right at them or don't have the speed to go back and get the ball to dead CF are the guys who play deep. Rowand is a great case in point here. How many liners to medium CF dropped in front of him? Hell, in the playoffs alone it seemed to happen 2-3 times a game! Anderson catches those balls because he plays probably 10-12 paces more shallow than Rowand did. What also makes Anderson so effective is his footwork/explosion when going after a ball. He doesn't take false steps. His first step in any direction is a full-stride and he is at top-speed within a couple of strides. The chop-steps, drop-steps, cross-overs... those cost you measurable ground when going after balls, even though the layman will often not ever recognize this as being a problem or costing the CF'er ground.

2) Fields can play 3B. He has improved a great deal over the last couple of years. When I first saw him in Winston-Salem, he would make a great diving play and follow it up by throwing a ball away on a play he should have stuck in his pocket... He's a much better infielder now, and he could be a 15-20 error/year guy at 3B in the very near future with the possibility of besting that down the road. That's about middle-of-the-road defense at 3B, although it's a big downgrade from Crede, but we're spoiled.

3) Valido was placed on the DL on June 8th.

fquaye149
06-13-2006, 05:36 PM
It doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Why is an error more likely to come at a critical time than a hit? They're random events.

Ask Mark Prior. As much as stat heads downplay it, pitching, more than anything else is very mentally demanding. An error is going to do a lot more damage to our staff, especially since part of our staff's success is the ability to pitch over the plate because of their confidence in our defense.

You can call me "joe morgan" for talking so theoretically, but it seems to be true, at least to me...sorry it took me so long to reply

GoSox2K3
06-13-2006, 07:20 PM
Here's what SI's Tom Verducci (aka Ol' No. 2:tongue: ) thinks about Anderson:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/06/13/problem.positions/index.html