PDA

View Full Version : BP Talks Defense - Specifically Brian Anderson Defense


SouthSide_HitMen
06-16-2006, 03:29 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200

BP's metrics for measuring defense state Anderson has a higher rate in Centerfield than any player in the past century. They also love Ozzie's call to keep Anderson up, think his bat will come around and think with Anderson on the club the Rowand trade looks even better.

I agree on all accounts.

TornLabrum
06-16-2006, 07:43 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200

BP's metrics for measuring defense state Anderson has a higher rate in Centerfield than any player in the past century. They also love Ozzie's call to keep Anderson up, think his bat will come around and think with Anderson on the club the Rowand trade looks even better.

I agree on all accounts.

Damn! If BP says it...I'm really scared!

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 09:50 AM
Damn! If BP says it...I'm really scared!I feel vindicated.:redneck

veeter
06-16-2006, 10:10 AM
The funny thing is everything has played out just the way Kenny and Ozzie thought. The Sox shouldn't need BA's bat because of the offensive upgrades. Then when he hasn't hit, it's like, send him down! Hell no, keeping him up is a no brainer, IMO.

voodoochile
06-16-2006, 10:15 AM
Not saying that defensive stats are worth much, but for what they are worth, Anderson having one of the great defensive seasons of the last 100 years is not a shock to those who have watched him play out there. He's a total stud defensively. The jumps he gets are as good as I can recall and he just doesn't ever seem to misread the ball.

Iwritecode
06-16-2006, 10:35 AM
Not saying that defensive stats are worth much, but for what they are worth, Anderson having one of the great defensive seasons of the last 100 years is not a shock to those who have watched him play out there. He's a total stud defensively. The jumps he gets are as good as I can recall and he just doesn't ever seem to misread the ball.

Yet he'll probably never win a gold glove in his career because he doesn't make the plays look "flashy".

itsnotrequired
06-16-2006, 10:38 AM
Yet he'll probably never win a gold glove in his career because he doesn't make the plays look "flashy".

Like this guy...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4468/carr62zc.jpg

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 11:09 AM
The funny thing is everything has played out just the way Kenny and Ozzie thought. The Sox shouldn't need BA's bat because of the offensive upgrades. Then when he hasn't hit, it's like, send him down! Hell no, keeping him up is a no brainer, IMO.So I guess defense is so important you wouldn't swap Juan Uribe for Miguel Tejada?

Frater Perdurabo
06-16-2006, 11:25 AM
So I guess defense is so important you wouldn't swap Juan Uribe for Miguel Tejada?

I could be wrong, but Tejada is very, very good with the glove himself. Since there would be little or no defensive decline from Uribe to Tejada, and Tejada brings so much more with the bat, this would be a no-brainer.

Back to center field. Anderson is so much better with the glove then Mackowiak. According to this BP article, Anderson is the very best defensive CF in the game today and right now is playing CF defense at one of the highest levels in MLB history. To give that up, just to get marginally improved hitting out of Mackowiak, makes no sense to me.

Would you play Paul Konerko in center field? He's a far superior hitter to Mackowiak, and even further ahead of where Anderson has been for most of this season. Sure, he'd be a butcher and give up loads of extra base hits (probably including inside the park homers), but his offense would more than make up for it, right? How about David Ortiz? Or a healthy Frank Thomas? Would you play either of them in center field?
:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 11:42 AM
I could be wrong, but Tejada is very, very good with the glove himself. Since there would be little or no defensive decline from Uribe to Tejada, and Tejada brings so much more with the bat, this would be a no-brainer.

Back to center field. Anderson is so much better with the glove then Mackowiak. According to this BP article, Anderson is the very best defensive CF in the game today and right now is playing CF defense at one of the highest levels in MLB history. To give that up, just to get marginally improved hitting out of Mackowiak, makes no sense to me.

Would you play Paul Konerko in center field? He's a far superior hitter to Mackowiak, and even further ahead of where Anderson has been for most of this season. Sure, he'd be a butcher and give up loads of extra base hits (probably including inside the park homers), but his offense would more than make up for it, right? How about David Ortiz? Or a healthy Frank Thomas? Would you play either of them in center field?
:rolleyes:From what I've seen, Tejada would be a significant defensive downgrade from Uribe, hence the question. I wonder what BP has to say?

Edit: If you believe in defensive statistics, both RF and FPCT strongly favor Uribe. And SS is a much more critical defensive position. A SS will get twice the number of chances that a CF will get, and a larger percentage of difficult ones.

sullythered
06-16-2006, 12:15 PM
From what I've seen, Tejada would be a significant defensive downgrade from Uribe, hence the question. I wonder what BP has to say?

Edit: If you believe in defensive statistics, both RF and FPCT strongly favor Uribe. And SS is a much more critical defensive position. A SS will get twice the number of chances that a CF will get, and a larger percentage of difficult ones.

The Tejada/Uribe comparison would only be valid if we had the opportunity to swap Anderson for a top one or two offensive center fielder. I don't see that happening, so what does it matter. The arguments here have overwhelmingly been to replace BA in center with a middle of the road type guy (see Steve Finley). Hardly Miguel Tejada. And no, I wouldn't trade Brian's defense for a just a pretty good offensive center fielder.

I see your point that offensive statistics are more clearly definable than defensive ones, but unless we're talking about an absolute stud on the offensive side, I go with Anderson and his ambiguous defensive stats.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 12:21 PM
The Tejada/Uribe comparison would only be valid if we had the opportunity to swap Anderson for a top one or two offensive center fielder. I don't see that happening, so what does it matter. The arguments here have overwhelmingly been to replace BA in center with a middle of the road type guy (see Steve Finley). Hardly Miguel Tejada. And no, I wouldn't trade Brian's defense for a just a pretty good offensive center fielder.

I see your point that offensive statistics are more clearly definable than defensive ones, but unless we're talking about an absolute stud on the offensive side, I go with Anderson and his ambiguous defensive stats.No, you seem to have missed the point. The point was, I'd bet nearly all of those bleating about how important Anderson's CF defense is would gladly trade Uribe for Tejada. Yet the offensive differential between Mackowiak and Anderson is similar to that between Uribe and Tejada, and SS is, if anything, a MORE critical defensive position.

sullythered
06-16-2006, 12:32 PM
No, you seem to have missed the point. The point was, I'd bet nearly all of those bleating about how important Anderson's CF defense is would gladly trade Uribe for Tejada. Yet the offensive differential between Mackowiak and Anderson is similar to that between Uribe and Tejada, and SS is, if anything, a MORE critical defensive position.
Understood. And, again, I agree with the general idea. But on this particular team, though the Anderson/Mackowiak, Uribe/Tejada comparison may be apt, I think Anderson's superior defense takes on more value than it might elsewhere.

Also, though I would make the Uribe for Tejada move, it would not be without some reservations. We all watched a whole lot of offensive juggernauts at the beginning of this decade, teams with scarier offensive players than Tejada, fail miserably. The solid defensive team was the one that finally won something.

Edit: Is Tejada really as bad at SS as Mack is at CF? Yikes. Maybe he should move to 1B.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 12:34 PM
Understood. And, again, I agree with the general idea. But on this particular team, though the Anderson/Mackowiak, Uribe/Tejada comparison may be apt, I think Anderson's superior defense takes on more value than it might elsewhere.

Also, though I would make the Uribe for Tejada move, it would not be without some reservations. We all watched a whole lot of offensive juggernauts at the beginning of this decade, teams with scarier offensive players than Tejada, fail miserably. The solid defensive team was the one that finally won something.I would argue that with a lot of pitchers who rely on groundball outs, SS defense is of relatively more value than CF defense.

sullythered
06-16-2006, 12:38 PM
I would argue that with a lot of pitchers who rely on groundball outs, SS defense is of relatively more value than CF defense.
You've convinced me. I wouldn't move Juan or Brian.:D:

SouthSide_HitMen
06-16-2006, 12:50 PM
No, you seem to have missed the point. The point was, I'd bet nearly all of those bleating about how important Anderson's CF defense is would gladly trade Uribe for Tejada. Yet the offensive differential between Mackowiak and Anderson is similar to that between Uribe and Tejada, and SS is, if anything, a MORE critical defensive position.

Anderson's offense / offensive stats are NOT set in stone. He will not finish .100 BA behind career hitting .258 no power, no speed, no glove Mackowiak. Your argument is based on the theory Anderson will remain 100 points behind Mackowiak.

Also, a shortstop missing a ball costs you a single. A centerfielder missing a ball is a double or triple which is far more costly. Even if the SS gets twice the chances it is negated by the extra base hits allowed by a weak CF.

I do agree you may feel some vindication given it is BP's analysis but I thought it was an interesting take on the situation thus I put it here in WTS (couldn't possibly put it in the clubhouse considering the source). I do think any defensive evaluation would come to the same conclusion - Anderson saves many runs in CF and is one of the best in the game. You asked people to quantify the runs Anderson saves and this is the first attempt I have seen to do so.

Iwritecode
06-16-2006, 01:17 PM
No, you seem to have missed the point. The point was, I'd bet nearly all of those bleating about how important Anderson's CF defense is would gladly trade Uribe for Tejada. Yet the offensive differential between Mackowiak and Anderson is similar to that between Uribe and Tejada, and SS is, if anything, a MORE critical defensive position.

I'd take Uribe over Tejada. There's no way Tejada makes those last two outs in the 2005 World Series.

You worry about getting offense from the rest of the lineup. Shortstop is not typically known as a position where power-hitters play.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 01:24 PM
Anderson's offense / offensive stats are NOT set in stone. He will not finish .100 BA behind career hitting .258 no power, no speed, no glove Mackowiak. Your argument is based on the theory Anderson will remain 100 points behind Mackowiak.

Also, a shortstop missing a ball costs you a single. A centerfielder missing a ball is a double or triple which is far more costly. Even if the SS gets twice the chances it is negated by the extra base hits allowed by a weak CF.

I do agree you may feel some vindication given it is BP's analysis but I thought it was an interesting take on the situation thus I put it here in WTS (couldn't possibly put it in the clubhouse considering the source). I do think any defensive evaluation would come to the same conclusion - Anderson saves many runs in CF and is one of the best in the game. You asked people to quantify the runs Anderson saves and this is the first attempt I have seen to do so.Now you're changing the terms of the discussion. Countless people (you included) have insisted that Anderson needs to be in CF in preference to Mackowiak because the defensive difference outweighs the offensive difference right now.

I'm as big a fan of defense as anyone, but we have to be rational about it. I've seen people here insist you NEVER trade defense for offense.:rolleyes: The point of bringing up the Uribe-Tejada comparison is to show that NO ONE here actually believes that, and that people are more than willing to make the tradeoff when it doesn't involve players they like. My contention has always been that most people are grossly overestimating the value of the added CF defense. I've never bought into BP's ability to value things before, so I don't know why I'd start now. But if a hit saved is as good as a hit made, it then also follows that a hit made is as good as a hit saved. On that simple basis, I can't see how a CF can possibly make enough extra catches to make up for 100 pts difference in batting average. It would have to amount to 10% of his total putouts. So far, no one has produced anything more than bluster in rebuttal.

sullythered
06-16-2006, 01:33 PM
Now you're changing the terms of the discussion. Countless people (you included) have insisted that Anderson needs to be in CF in preference to Mackowiak because the defensive difference outweighs the offensive difference right now.

I'm as big a fan of defense as anyone, but we have to be rational about it. I've seen people here insist you NEVER trade defense for offense.:rolleyes: The point of bringing up the Uribe-Tejada comparison is to show that NO ONE here actually believes that, and that people are more than willing to make the tradeoff when it doesn't involve players they like. My contention has always been that most people are grossly overestimating the value of the added CF defense. I've never bought into BP's ability to value things before, so I don't know why I'd start now. But if a hit saved is as good as a hit made, it then also follows that a hit made is as good as a hit saved. On that simple basis, I can't see how a CF can possibly make enough extra catches to make up for 100 pts difference in batting average. It would have to amount to 10% of his total putouts. So far, no one has produced anything more than bluster in rebuttal.
I know it was probably silly for me to get into a discussion about a BP issue, as I put little to no stock into what they say. I'm young, but I'm deffinetely more old-school when it comes to judging baseball ability. I understand your statistical analysis as far as hits saved/hits made. But the hits Brian saves (or doesn't save, but plays correctly) are usually BIG hits. Hits to center that are played wrong often lead to doubles and triples. In other words, momentum building hits. Yes, I firmly believe in momentum. I also believe that when a center fielder makes, say, a great catch for the third out with men in scoring position, it greatly swings the momentum in his team's direction. No, I don't have any fancy BP stats to back up these claims, only my own two eyes. I was at the game last Friday against the indians, and though JD got the big hit, it was Brian who won that game.

voodoochile
06-16-2006, 01:55 PM
Now you're changing the terms of the discussion. Countless people (you included) have insisted that Anderson needs to be in CF in preference to Mackowiak because the defensive difference outweighs the offensive difference right now.

Okay, but how can BA improve unless he plays?

If it's all about right now then Mack probably gets the nod strictly based on stats (though not by a dramatic margin).

If however you believe the team will be better off long term with BA in CF then the obvious choice is to continue to play BA until he proves he is a .200 or less hitter in the bigs. He hasn't done that yet and right now the Sox aren't hurting for offense. Heck, in the upcoming games in NL parks they could probably get away with Mack - especially at Wrigley.

Still, if the answer is "I want the best defensive player in CF during the playoffs - unless the guy can't hit at all". then the obvious choice is to continue playing BA.

caulfield12
06-16-2006, 02:40 PM
I can't remember such a hotly debated topic in Sox fandom since the Wells-Ritchie trade.

There have probably been more webpage inches and columns dedicated to Brian Anderson than to 80% of Sox players for their entire careers.

Right now, we have no choice...there's no equivalent of David Riske for CF that would make sense to acquire, as the difference made will not be worth the cost, largely based on the belief BA will become at least a marginal threat offensively.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 02:40 PM
Okay, but how can BA improve unless he plays?

If it's all about right now then Mack probably gets the nod strictly based on stats (though not by a dramatic margin).

If however you believe the team will be better off long term with BA in CF then the obvious choice is to continue to play BA until he proves he is a .200 or less hitter in the bigs. He hasn't done that yet and right now the Sox aren't hurting for offense. Heck, in the upcoming games in NL parks they could probably get away with Mack - especially at Wrigley.

Still, if the answer is "I want the best defensive player in CF during the playoffs - unless the guy can't hit at all". then the obvious choice is to continue playing BA.What I've been arguing for several weeks is that Anderson would be better served going down to AAA where there's less pressure. IMO, he would be more likely to improve faster than flailing away night after night. And the cost to the team while he plays is not insignificant.

He had a few good games and he's looking a little better to me. I'm OK with letting him go for a while longer to see what happens.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-16-2006, 03:00 PM
Now you're changing the terms of the discussion. Countless people (you included) have insisted that Anderson needs to be in CF in preference to Mackowiak because the defensive difference outweighs the offensive difference right now.

I'm as big a fan of defense as anyone, but we have to be rational about it. I've seen people here insist you NEVER trade defense for offense.:rolleyes: The point of bringing up the Uribe-Tejada comparison is to show that NO ONE here actually believes that, and that people are more than willing to make the tradeoff when it doesn't involve players they like. My contention has always been that most people are grossly overestimating the value of the added CF defense. I've never bought into BP's ability to value things before, so I don't know why I'd start now. But if a hit saved is as good as a hit made, it then also follows that a hit made is as good as a hit saved. On that simple basis, I can't see how a CF can possibly make enough extra catches to make up for 100 pts difference in batting average. It would have to amount to 10% of his total putouts. So far, no one has produced anything more than bluster in rebuttal.

I agree with some of your points but other things come into play in a Uribe for Tejada trade as well (mainly salary - the White Sox cannot field a team of 25 $10 mil / year players). We already have long term commitments to Thome & Konerko and are starting staff is one of the highest paid in the majors (all signed through 2007).

My main point through this whole saga was Brian was not given enough at bats (120 ABs before being benched in mid May - two dozen more over the next 21 games until Ozzie reinstated him) to make up for a bad start. Of course if Brian will end up a career .160 hitter the White Sox need to replace him. My point is Mackowiak is not a suitable replacement - nothing in his career indicates he offers the team anything (power, average, speed, fielding) as an every day centerfielder and if given the option I'd still play a .160 hitting Anderson until the club is able to sign / trade for a legitimate centerfielder.

It makes sense for the White Sox to play Anderson through the All Star Break to let him break out of the early season issues at the plate. If Kenny decides to get a centerfielder and put off Anderson's ML development until next year (after continued failure at the plate) fine but I think Ozzie pulled the plug too early (after 5 or 6 weeks) and the kid needs more than a few at bats a week to break out of his slump.

If he didn't have the hitting talent he showed in the minors the club would not have penciled him in March to be the one (and only) CFer on the team. Ozzie shows patience with his starters and other players to get out of jams or play out of slumps.

If the White Sox had an average CF to take over you wouldn't be getting an argument. Sadly, the White Sox have only one player capable of handling CF on a regular basis and he started the year hitting .160. Just as the Sox cannot magically place Tejada on the team, they cannot get a Grady Sizemore either. Hopefully he will break out of it but if not Kenny needs to get another player as Mackowiak is not a centerfielder period. Anderson has potential to be a good all around CF - Mackowiak has no potential and the team cannot put him out in CF on a regular basis if they expect to contend for another title.

pearso66
06-16-2006, 04:12 PM
Not saying that defensive stats are worth much, but for what they are worth, Anderson having one of the great defensive seasons of the last 100 years is not a shock to those who have watched him play out there. He's a total stud defensively. The jumps he gets are as good as I can recall and he just doesn't ever seem to misread the ball.

Don't let Rowand fans see you say that. I have said the same thing numerous times, not all on here, and have been ripped because "In no way does Anderson compare to the defense of Rowand".

In my oppinion, Anderson is one of the BEST defensive CFers that I have ever seen play. I am only 24, so I didn't get to see any of the older guys, but there isn't much out there that Anderson misses. And if he misses them, almost everyone else does too.

ma-gaga
06-16-2006, 04:33 PM
I can't remember such a hotly debated topic in Sox fandom since the Wells-Ritchie trade.

:thechoice
"daddy, I want some ice cream"

No. I'm sure there's never been a "hotter" subject ever.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 04:50 PM
I agree with some of your points but other things come into play in a Uribe for Tejada trade as well (mainly salary - the White Sox cannot field a team of 25 $10 mil / year players). We already have long term commitments to Thome & Konerko and are starting staff is one of the highest paid in the majors (all signed through 2007).

My main point through this whole saga was Brian was not given enough at bats (120 ABs before being benched in mid May - two dozen more over the next 21 games until Ozzie reinstated him) to make up for a bad start. Of course if Brian will end up a career .160 hitter the White Sox need to replace him. My point is Mackowiak is not a suitable replacement - nothing in his career indicates he offers the team anything (power, average, speed, fielding) as an every day centerfielder and if given the option I'd still play a .160 hitting Anderson until the club is able to sign / trade for a legitimate centerfielder.

It makes sense for the White Sox to play Anderson through the All Star Break to let him break out of the early season issues at the plate. If Kenny decides to get a centerfielder and put off Anderson's ML development until next year (after continued failure at the plate) fine but I think Ozzie pulled the plug too early (after 5 or 6 weeks) and the kid needs more than a few at bats a week to break out of his slump.

If he didn't have the hitting talent he showed in the minors the club would not have penciled him in March to be the one (and only) CFer on the team. Ozzie shows patience with his starters and other players to get out of jams or play out of slumps.

If the White Sox had an average CF to take over you wouldn't be getting an argument. Sadly, the White Sox have only one player capable of handling CF on a regular basis and he started the year hitting .160. Just as the Sox cannot magically place Tejada on the team, they cannot get a Grady Sizemore either. Hopefully he will break out of it but if not Kenny needs to get another player as Mackowiak is not a centerfielder period. Anderson has potential to be a good all around CF - Mackowiak has no potential and the team cannot put him out in CF on a regular basis if they expect to contend for another title.They're not actually going to get Tejada anyway, so the money's beside the point. The question is, how much defense are you willing to trade for how much offense? The corollary question is, Is Anderson helping or hurting the team? I don't think anyone would argue that Mackowiak is a suitable long-term replacement, either, but that's also beside the point.

IMO, the question comes down to choosing between two options:

1. Send Anderson down to AAA to try to get his stroke back, and muddle through for the time being with Mackowiak. IMO, the extra offense RM brings offsets the defensive deficiency. If BA gets it together in AAA, then you'll have him back for the latter half of the season. If not, make a trade.

2. Keep playing him and hope for the best and maybe wind up sending him down and making a trade anyway.

If you were sure he'd snap out of it soon, #2 would be the obvious choice, but you can't know that. With each passing week of poor hitting, the odds that he's going to just start hitting get longer and longer. How long do you wait?

He had a couple of good games. It's going to take more than a couple of good games to be able to say he's turned it around. If it were my decision, I'd give him a little longer to see if it's a spark that gets him started. A LITTLE longer. If you're going to have to send him down, the sooner you do the sooner you get him back.

If you wait and he doesn't snap out of it, you're pretty much locked into making a trade near the deadline when the other teams all know you're desperate. It just seems to me that sending him down now preserves more options later on.

fquaye149
06-16-2006, 05:37 PM
I would argue that with a lot of pitchers who rely on groundball outs, SS defense is of relatively more value than CF defense.

Except the chances you see at ss are generally routine. As long as you don't have a butcher out there...etc.

You can't have the equivalent of how Anderson plays shallow and takes away line drive base hits that Mackowiack couldn't even have a play on because his instincts force him to play deep. It's a difference.

That said, SS and CF are both important positions. Almost as important as catcher. Obviously, you couldn't have a team of Uribe and Anderson's, you're right. Someone has to produce the offense. But when your #8 and #9 hitters are making up for their lack of production with stellar fielding you can stomach it since your 3/4/5 hitters are mashing, as well as your 6 and 7.

Would we be better off with Tejada, despite the dropoff in defense? Probably. Would we be better off with Damon in CF despite the dropoff in defense? Or Rowand? Probably. But we're talking about Mackowiack over Anderson. The difference between .160 and .260 is not as pronounced as the difference between .200 and .300, especially when Mackowiack won't give us much power, etc. etc.

It's not a great situation, but it's still nice to have one of the best defensive CF in baseball and one of the best defensive SS's in baseball. I think our largely pitch-to-contact staff appreciates it.

Ol' No. 2
06-16-2006, 05:41 PM
Except the chances you see at ss are generally routine.:?:The difference between .160 and .260 is not as pronounced as the difference between .200 and .300...:?::?:

SouthSide_HitMen
06-16-2006, 08:09 PM
IMO, the question comes down to choosing between two options:

1. Send Anderson down to AAA to try to get his stroke back, and muddle through for the time being with Mackowiak. IMO, the extra offense RM brings offsets the defensive deficiency. If BA gets it together in AAA, then you'll have him back for the latter half of the season. If not, make a trade.

2. Keep playing him and hope for the best and maybe wind up sending him down and making a trade anyway.

If you were sure he'd snap out of it soon, #2 would be the obvious choice, but you can't know that. With each passing week of poor hitting, the odds that he's going to just start hitting get longer and longer. How long do you wait?
I guess here is where we disagree. He had 5 weeks, Ozzie benched him for 3 weeks, and now he is back to playing regularly. I think regular at bats are the only way he will be able to work out of it. You think it best to have him do it in AAA and play Mackowiak in the interim whereas I think giving him the chance to turn it around here (while saving the team runs on defense) is the way to go. Ozzie leaned toward your way but Mackowiak proved to Ozzie he couldn't handle the everyday assignment which led him to decide keeping McCarthy here was the best way to go.

We also disagree on the impact of Anderson's defense vs. offense. Anderson's early .150 vs. Mackowiak's .250s mean an extra few hits per week (say 5 hits every 2 weeks with rounding) and since this is Mackowiak we are talking mostly singles with a few doubles. I would say Anderson definitely gets to at least 2-3 balls a week which Mackowiak can't; one or two of which would be in the gap for extra bases.

You also save your staff when they do not have to record four or five outs in an inning so I think you need to take that into account when comparing what option is better for your team.

I respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. If this was a no-brainer we would have no debate and Ozzie / KW wouldn't have tortured themselves for weeks agonizing over this decision.

caulfield12
06-16-2006, 08:33 PM
I also think there is no way to value the confidence having Anderson, Uribe and Iguchi up the middle gives to the pitchers.

You could see it in Garland last year, as he became more fearless and all the pitchers stopped nibbling and the idea was if you let them put the ball into play, usually the defense would have your back.

Having a Mackowiak or Gload out there simply creates the mentality of having to make the perfect pitch or get a strikeout instead of worrying about the defense behind you. You saw this with White Sox pitching a lot in 2000-2004 with the likes of Carlos Lee out there in the OF and Valentin on the IF (although, overall, Jose was much better than the numbers would indicate).

Paulwny
06-16-2006, 08:43 PM
:thechoice
"daddy, I want some ice cream"

No. I'm sure there's never been a "hotter" subject ever.


OH MAN, every other day a thread about Valentin and " The Choice" for an entire season.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya got the only daddy that'll walk the line
------------------------------------------------------------------

caulfield12
06-16-2006, 08:48 PM
Moving Valentin to CF-3B was one of the most worst moves that KW ever made, along with bringing in Clayton simultaneously.

Ol' No. 2
06-17-2006, 02:05 AM
I guess here is where we disagree. He had 5 weeks, Ozzie benched him for 3 weeks, and now he is back to playing regularly. I think regular at bats are the only way he will be able to work out of it. You think it best to have him do it in AAA and play Mackowiak in the interim whereas I think giving him the chance to turn it around here (while saving the team runs on defense) is the way to go. Ozzie leaned toward your way but Mackowiak proved to Ozzie he couldn't handle the everyday assignment which led him to decide keeping McCarthy here was the best way to go.

We also disagree on the impact of Anderson's defense vs. offense. Anderson's early .150 vs. Mackowiak's .250s mean an extra few hits per week (say 5 hits every 2 weeks with rounding) and since this is Mackowiak we are talking mostly singles with a few doubles. I would say Anderson definitely gets to at least 2-3 balls a week which Mackowiak can't; one or two of which would be in the gap for extra bases.

You also save your staff when they do not have to record four or five outs in an inning so I think you need to take that into account when comparing what option is better for your team.

I respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. If this was a no-brainer we would have no debate and Ozzie / KW wouldn't have tortured themselves for weeks agonizing over this decision.He didn't exactly bench him. He basically split time with Mackowiak. I don't really think playing half time is that big a deal. It's not as if he played one game a week. And by my count he's getting to AT MOST two extra balls per week. He had one tonight that Mackowiak probably wouldn't have gotten, but the last one before that was a week ago.

At this point, they've waited for him for a long time and he's finally showing some signs of maybe snapping out of it. A few good AB tonight early, but the last two were weak - first-pitch swinging both times with not very good contact. Hopefully he'll have more good ones and fewer bad ones as the weeks go by. It's already mid-June so the window for sending him down and possibly getting him back before the break is gone.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-17-2006, 03:09 AM
He didn't exactly bench him. He basically split time with Mackowiak. I don't really think playing half time is that big a deal. It's not as if he played one game a week. And by my count he's getting to AT MOST two extra balls per week. He had one tonight that Mackowiak probably wouldn't have gotten, but the last one before that was a week ago.

The facts do not match up with this assessment.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7489/gamelog;_ylt=AhNk4yoi6Z.O_4NM_pyuAMmFCLcF

Between May 17 when Ozzie said Brian was no longer the starting everyday CF through games of Thursday June 8th (on Friday June 9th Ozzie stated he would keep Brian Anderson on the squad and he would play regularly):

In the 21 games the White Sox played during this period Brian Anderson recorded 23 at bats. Under that pace he would have around 170 at bats for the season which is not playing 1/2 the time (he would be between Willie Harris and Timo Perez as far as at bats recorded in 2005).

Since Ozzie's announcement Brian has played 7 of 8 games and has 24 at bats (more than during his 3 + week benching) and has collected 6 hits (.250 for the period with two doubles). I hope he continues to play regularly and his batting average and confidence continue to rise.

pearso66
06-17-2006, 11:28 AM
The facts do not match up with this assessment.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7489/gamelog;_ylt=AhNk4yoi6Z.O_4NM_pyuAMmFCLcF

Between May 17 when Ozzie said Brian was no longer the starting everyday CF through games of Thursday June 8th (on Friday June 9th Ozzie stated he would keep Brian Anderson on the squad and he would play regularly):

In the 21 games the White Sox played during this period Brian Anderson recorded 23 at bats. Under that pace he would have around 170 at bats for the season which is not playing 1/2 the time (he would be between Willie Harris and Timo Perez as far as at bats recorded in 2005).

Since Ozzie's announcement Brian has played 7 of 8 games and has 24 at bats (more than during his 3 + week benching) and has collected 6 hits (.250 for the period with two doubles). I hope he continues to play regularly and his batting average and confidence continue to rise.

Thanks for making the point so I don't have to. You can't expect a player to get better if he isn't playing. I would argue that even playing 1/2 the time it's hard to improve, because you know that if you find yourself in a groove one game, you still might sit the next day, and your momentum is gone. I think Anderson needs to play just as he is now, to improve. Sit 1 time every week and a half. Since he was given the full time job back, he's been getting better at bats, and is starting to get some hits, while playing awesome D.

Vince
06-17-2006, 12:32 PM
For anyone who's so inclined, according to BP's defensive stats Uribe is better than Tejada defensively but Tejada is still rated above-average with the glove.

I don't think the BP stats are the end-all be-all (particularly the defensive ones), but that doesn't mean I completely disregard them. I look at the stats and watch the games, and use both to figure out what I think.

I think the Sox are a better team with BA in center field. I can think of a handful of games where what looked like a catchable ball in CF was not handled by Mackowiak, and it seemed to completely demoralize the Sox and knock them off their game. The numbers just reinforce what I see.

fquaye149
06-17-2006, 12:54 PM
:?::?::?:


rolling your eyes does not negate the points.

TaylorStSox
06-17-2006, 01:17 PM
Okay, let's be frank. Mac sucks. He doesn't do anything very well. Sure, he's a valuable bench player. But, give me the kid that does one thing extremely well over the guy that isn't particularly good at anything. Mack doesn't have the tools to make high impact plays. Anderson does have those tools. It's that simple.

ondafarm
06-17-2006, 01:41 PM
From what I've seen, Tejada would be a significant defensive downgrade from Uribe, hence the question. I wonder what BP has to say?

Edit: If you believe in defensive statistics, both RF and FPCT strongly favor Uribe. And SS is a much more critical defensive position. A SS will get twice the number of chances that a CF will get, and a larger percentage of difficult ones.


Not really. Uribe's RF is less than Tejada and higher is better. Uribe's FPCT is better than Tejada's but not that much. Uribe makes a few more put-outs, Tejada a few more assists.

On pure defense, I would give Uribe a slight edge, but Tejada's offense more than makes up for that difference.

A shortstop will typically get up to 750 chances per season. A CF will get 450-500 over a season. That's not really two to one. The other factor is that an infield error will typically result in an extra single. A missed catch in the outfield will frequently result in a double or triple. An extra batter at first scores roughly 40% of the time, an extra runner at third scores better than 85% of the time.

I would trade Tejada for Uribe straight up, I would not let Mack take over from Anderson. Anderson's extra catch per game is more than worth it.

Ol' No. 2
06-17-2006, 04:19 PM
Not really. Uribe's RF is less than Tejada and higher is better. Uribe's FPCT is better than Tejada's but not that much. Uribe makes a few more put-outs, Tejada a few more assists.

On pure defense, I would give Uribe a slight edge, but Tejada's offense more than makes up for that difference.

A shortstop will typically get up to 750 chances per season. A CF will get 450-500 over a season. That's not really two to one. The other factor is that an infield error will typically result in an extra single. A missed catch in the outfield will frequently result in a double or triple. An extra batter at first scores roughly 40% of the time, an extra runner at third scores better than 85% of the time.

I would trade Tejada for Uribe straight up, I would not let Mack take over from Anderson. Anderson's extra catch per game is more than worth it.Don't know what number you're looking at:

Uribe: RF 4.94, FPCT .988
Tejada: RF 4.82, FPCT .974

Link (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=cws&baseballScope=AL&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=6&statType=3&timeSubFrame=2006&sitSplit=&venueID=&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1)

Ol' No. 2
06-17-2006, 04:36 PM
rolling your eyes does not negate the points.I don't feel the need to negate points that don't make any sense.

ondafarm
06-19-2006, 01:27 PM
Don't know what number you're looking at:

Uribe: RF 4.94, FPCT .988
Tejada: RF 4.82, FPCT .974

Link (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=cws&baseballScope=AL&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=6&statType=3&timeSubFrame=2006&sitSplit=&venueID=&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1)

Did a fair comparison by looking at the last full year available.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=AL&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=6&statType=3&sitSplit=&venueID=&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2005&Submit=Submit

Uribe: RF 4.67, FPCT .977
Tejada: RF 4.72, FPCT .971