PDA

View Full Version : 8 in a row today for BA?


stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 11:09 AM
Anyone notice that Brian Anderson has made 7 consecutive starts in CF? Have our prayers finally been answered and Ozzie has listened to this board? And anyone also notice that with this increased playing time he has a nice little 6 game hitting streak going? Way to go kid!

ShoelessJoeS
08-16-2006, 11:16 AM
Anyone notice that Brian Anderson has made 7 consecutive starts in CF? Have our prayers finally been answered and Ozzie has listened to this board? And anyone also notice that with this increased playing time he has a nice little 6 game hitting streak going? Way to go kid!I've noticed, and I couldn't be happier.

jenn2080
08-16-2006, 11:20 AM
I am as happy as a gitty school girl getting her barbie dream house from Santa.

The Dude
08-16-2006, 11:21 AM
Anyone notice that Brian Anderson has made 7 consecutive starts in CF? Have our prayers finally been answered and Ozzie has listened to this board? And anyone also notice that with this increased playing time he has a nice little 6 game hitting streak going? Way to go kid!

One can only hope! He's been one of our most consistant hitters the last month and a half. Play Mac in LF to replace Pods on his off days.

Justagirl
08-16-2006, 11:25 AM
Anderson....YES!
:anderson:
I always knew he was a soulja. :cool:

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 11:26 AM
It is such a nice feeling lately when he comes to the plate. On the game threads he was considered an automatic out(myself included sometimes). The kid went through a rough stretch but I hope he's picked up some major confidence with the extra playing time. Only time he should sit is when he feels like it. He's young, he's got the stamina.

MeteorsSox4367
08-16-2006, 11:32 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: The starting center fielder for the White Sox for the next 12 years, Brian Anderson.

For that, we are grateful.

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: The starting center fielder for the White Sox for the next 12 years, Brian Anderson.

For that, we are grateful.

Just make sure he never meets Scott Boras.

TheDarkGundam
08-16-2006, 11:35 AM
I am as happy as a gitty school girl getting her barbie dream house from Santa.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BA is a good kid (Kid? He's older than me...), i'm glad he's finally coming around/getting more play time.

Baby Fisk
08-16-2006, 11:36 AM
It certainly helps that Brian's parents are in the booth every night cheering their lungs out for him.

:hawk
"You can do it, Brian! Keep your head still! Keep your hands soft!"

:DJ
"Come on Brian! Don't try to make a hit, just try to help your team!"

:hawk
"Good eye, Brian! You don't have to swing at junk like that!"

:DJ
"Make him pitch to you, Brian! Look for your pitch!"

:anderson:
*CRACK!*

(sharply hit single to left)

:DJ
"YES! YES! THAT'S MY BOY! THAT'S MY SON OUT THERE! YAAY BRIAAAAN!"

:hawk
"GREAT JOB, BRIAN! I TELL YA, I'VE NEVER BEEN PROUDER OF THAT BOY IN MY LIFE!"

Chicken Dinner
08-16-2006, 11:37 AM
One can only hope! He's been one of our most consistant hitters the last month and a half. Play Mac in LF to replace Pods on his off days.

I think Jermaine is the one that needs an off day.

MadetoOrta
08-16-2006, 11:40 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: The starting center fielder for the White Sox for the next 12 years, Brian Anderson.

For that, we are grateful.

And starting in 2008 or 2009, the #3 hitter in the Sox lineup with Sweeney batting 2d and Fields batting 4th. Rock on! Dynasty!

Justagirl
08-16-2006, 11:41 AM
It certainly helps that Brian's parents are in the booth every night cheering their lungs out for him.

"You can do it, Brian! Keep your head still! Keep your hands soft!"


"Come on Brian! Don't try to make a hit, just try to help your team!"


"Good eye, Brian! You don't have to swing at junk like that!"


"Make him pitch to you, Brian! Look for your pitch!"

*CRACK!*

(sharply hit single to left)

"YES! YES! THAT'S MY BOY! THAT'S MY SON OUT THERE! YAAY BRIAAAAN!"

"GREAT JOB, BRIAN! I TELL YA, I'VE NEVER BEEN PROUDER OF THAT BOY IN MY LIFE!"

lol
I dont know what it is about BA that brings out that * yay..good boy!!* mentality in some us.

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 11:42 AM
lol
I dont know what it is about BA that brings out that * yay..good boy!!* mentality in some us.
He's like your younger brother. You can rip on him, but when anyone else does(SportsCenter announcers,etc. do) it's ON!!!!

hawkjt
08-16-2006, 11:54 AM
I agree that BA is close to getting over the rookie hump.

I also was pleased to see his comments today where he indicated he would be ready and willing to go to winter ball to hone his craft.

''Whatever the organization wants, I will do. They're the boss''

I think it would be good for him to go to Venzuala this winter to work on hitting breaking stuff and also just to experience the less glamorous locales in pro ball- help keep him appreciative of the opportunity he has in Chicago.

Keep it going, BA!!

viagracat
08-16-2006, 12:09 PM
It is such a nice feeling lately when he comes to the plate. On the game threads he was considered an automatic out(myself included sometimes). The kid went through a rough stretch but I hope he's picked up some major confidence with the extra playing time. Only time he should sit is when he feels like it. He's young, he's got the stamina.

Glad to see the extraordinary patience is starting to pay off. Count me as one of the doubters there for awhile, especially when he tended to flail away at those outside ones, but I'm glad to admit that maybe I was wrong. Obviously, you prefer your CF to play every day if you can.

spiffie
08-16-2006, 12:53 PM
And starting in 2008 or 2009, the #3 hitter in the Sox lineup with Sweeney batting 2d and Fields batting 4th. Rock on! Dynasty!
You do know we have this guy named Konerko signed through all of those years don't you? Not sure how he's going to feel about being shunted down the order :wink:

tacosalbarojas
08-16-2006, 01:34 PM
I agree that BA is close to getting over the rookie hump.

I also was pleased to see his comments today where he indicated he would be ready and willing to go to winter ball to hone his craft.

''Whatever the organization wants, I will do. They're the boss''

I think it would be good for him to go to Venzuala this winter to work on hitting breaking stuff and also just to experience the less glamorous locales in pro ball- help keep him appreciative of the opportunity he has in Chicago.

Keep it going, BA!!Yep, looks like someone learned from the offseason Jerry Owens had last winter.

Deebs14
08-16-2006, 02:13 PM
It's tough to get into much of a rhythm when you sit every other game, or every two games. The guy just looks a lot more comfortable at the plate now, and is working the count very well...as opposed to earlier in the year when he was always getting down in the count 0-2.

Start him regardless if there's a lefty or a righty pitching.

Mohoney
08-16-2006, 02:20 PM
I think Jermaine is the one that needs an off day.

Crede is running that risk of being overplayed, too.

Give Mack some starts in RF and 3B, Ozzie.

maurice
08-16-2006, 02:39 PM
Hope this means that the bull**** is over. Ozzie's handling of CF has sucked since BA was on fire in Spring Training; then went 2-3, 2B, BB, 2 R, 2 RBI, SB on opening day; and then promptly got benched the 2nd day of the season "to give the bench some playing time." Anderson spent most of the year starting against Santana, Johnson, Sabathia, etc., and being benched against ****ty pitchers, because Ozzie wanted to create favorable matchups. Yeah, favorable for Mackowiak.
:angry:

my5thbench
08-16-2006, 02:47 PM
it's not every year that we get to see a rookie blossom...sure is fun when it happens......nice glove Brian...& it's cool that you brought your bat

lakeviewsoxfan
08-16-2006, 03:02 PM
Hope this means that the bull**** is over. Ozzie's handling of CF has sucked since BA was on fire in Spring Training; then went 2-3, 2B, BB, 2 R, 2 RBI, SB on opening day; and then promptly got benched the 2nd day of the season "to give the bench some playing time." Anderson spent most of the year starting against Santana, Johnson, Sabathia, etc., and being benched against ****ty pitchers, because Ozzie wanted to create favorable matchups. Yeah, favorable for Mackowiak.
:angry:

I believe it is but it is OG and he loves to play the role players so who knows, I for one would not be surprised to see Mack in there in CF with a righty tonight and a Lefty throwing tomorrow during a day game.

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 03:02 PM
Crede is running that risk of being overplayed, too.

Give Mack some starts in RF and 3B, Ozzie.

Hear Hear! Anywhere but CF. Mack is hovering around .300, but it all gets forgotten when he has a bad route or misplays a ball.

IlliniSox4Life
08-16-2006, 03:48 PM
Crede is running that risk of being overplayed, too.

Give Mack some starts in RF and 3B, Ozzie.

I wouldn't mind seeing Fields at 3B to give Crede a rest for a game or two when rosters are expanded.

knocko94
08-16-2006, 04:16 PM
Mack in center, Gload in right tonight.

:o:

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 05:33 PM
Mack in center, Gload in right tonight.

:o:

Well Shoot! Bench the guy swinging a decent bat.
:angry:

lakeviewsoxfan
08-16-2006, 05:52 PM
Mack in center, Gload in right tonight.

:o:

Unreal

RowanDye
08-16-2006, 06:00 PM
Well you know, 265 ABs was getting a little high....we dont wan't to give the impression that we have a regular, starting centerfielder.

CaptainBallz
08-16-2006, 06:06 PM
Mack in center, Gload in right tonight.

:o:

That straight week of playing had to be killing BA...:rolleyes:

miker
08-16-2006, 06:36 PM
I've noticed none of BA's detractors have chimed in yet...and for the record, I ain't one of them!

Chisox003
08-16-2006, 06:39 PM
I've noticed none of BA's detractors have chimed in yet...and for the record, I ain't one of them!
That's because there's not many left.

And the ones that were/still are sure aren't about to step up and admit to it.

Chicken Dinner
08-16-2006, 06:55 PM
You got to luv Ozzie and his righty/lefty matchups. :o:

stl_sox_fan
08-16-2006, 07:16 PM
You got to luv Ozzie and his righty/lefty matchups. :o:

If I never hear the words "righty/left", "lefty/righty" again it will be too soon.

jongarlandlover
08-16-2006, 10:00 PM
He's like your younger brother. You can rip on him, but when anyone else does(SportsCenter announcers,etc. do) it's ON!!!!

haha, exactly. other sox fans can criticize him and complain about him, and so can you yourself, but once someone else does, they're going down! :tongue:

brian's awesome - i wish he had played tonight, though. but then again, maybe those 7 games in a row were really tiring for him.

Justagirl
08-16-2006, 11:47 PM
haha, exactly. other sox fans can criticize him and complain about him, and so can you yourself, but once someone else does, they're going down! :tongue:


:duel: :thud:

CommanderPudge72
08-17-2006, 08:57 AM
It should have been 9 in a row for BA.....


and that is all I have to say about that.

maurice
08-17-2006, 12:32 PM
I for one would not be surprised to see Mack in there in CF with a righty tonight and a Lefty throwing tomorrow during a day game.

Wow, you called it. Mackowiak really helped us out with those 3 Ks and at least one badly misplayed ball (bad route turns an out into a 2B).

He's now 3-for-his-last-15 with 8 Ks. Mackowiak was due for a sharp dropoff, considering he's a .262 hitter and not a .300 hitter.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 12:37 PM
Wow, you called it. Mackowiak really helped us out with those 3 Ks and at least one badly misplayed ball (bad route turns an out into a 2B).

He's now 3-for-his-last-15 with 8 Ks. Mackowiak was due for a sharp dropoff, considering he's a .262 hitter and not a .300 hitter.Let's get realistic. Playing Mackowiak, Gload and Cintron did not lose that game. They could have had Joe DiMaggio in CF last night and it wouldn't have made any difference. It's not as if the regulars exactly distinguished themselves, either. It was a stinkeroo from top to bottom. Best to just flush this one down the crapper and move on.

maurice
08-17-2006, 12:55 PM
Let's get realistic. Playing Mackowiak, Gload and Cintron did not lose that game.

Never said it did. That's still not an excuse for continuing to play Mackowiak at a position that he clearly can't handle. He started off bad and hasn't gotten any better. Looking forward, Ozzie probably will do it again (and again and again). The most reasonable "excuse" for this conduct was Mackowiak's relatively hot bat. That's gone.

If Ozzie were reasonable about this, he would have demanded a backup CF months ago. Since that hasn't happened, Ozzie should just start Anderson literallly every day from here on out, barring injury. That's pretty much the gist of this thread. We have only a month-and-a-half to go with 3 off-days. BA is young and got plenty of rest during the 1st 4 months of the season.

CommanderPudge72
08-17-2006, 01:05 PM
I've noticed none of BA's detractors have chimed in yet...and for the record, I ain't one of them!

dillrod...heehehe...you said dillrod....that is one of those words that always puts a smile on my face.

I can't hold an argument with anyone if they use that word, I just crack up.:D:

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 01:09 PM
Never said it did. That's still not an excuse for continuing to play Mackowiak at a position that he clearly can't handle. He started off bad and hasn't gotten any better. Looking forward, Ozzie probably will do it again (and again and again). The most reasonable "excuse" for this conduct was Mackowiak's relatively hot bat. That's gone.

If Ozzie were reasonable about this, he would have demanded a backup CF months ago. Since that hasn't happened, Ozzie should just start Anderson literallly every day from here on out, barring injury. That's pretty much the gist of this thread. We have only a month-and-a-half to go with 3 off-days. BA is young and got plenty of rest during the 1st 4 months of the season.The point of playing Mackowiak is not to rest Anderson - it's to give the bench players enough playing time to keep sharp. Ozzie did the exact same thing last year and people bitched and moaned all season every time Timo or Willie or Blum got a start. But it paid off in the end.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2006, 01:38 PM
The point of playing Mackowiak is not to rest Anderson - it's to give the bench players enough playing time to keep sharp. Ozzie did the exact same thing last year and people bitched and moaned all season every time Timo or Willie or Blum got a start. But it paid off in the end.

But if the Sox miss the playoffs by a game or two (and for the record I believe they will overtake the Tigers and win the division), we can point to some of the losses (losses to the Cubs and Rangers immediately come to mind, but there are others) in which Mackowiak failed to record an out on fly balls that Anderson would have caught in key, late-inning situations that proved pivotal in each game.

I agree that Mackowiak should get a few starts each week - just not in CF. I'd like to see Mack spell Dye, Pods and Crede once each week.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 01:54 PM
But if the Sox miss the playoffs by a game or two (and for the record I believe they will overtake the Tigers and win the division), we can point to some of the losses (losses to the Cubs and Rangers immediately come to mind, but there are others) in which Mackowiak failed to record an out on fly balls that Anderson would have caught in key, late-inning situations that proved pivotal in each game.

I agree that Mackowiak should get a few starts each week - just not in CF. I'd like to see Mack spell Dye, Pods and Crede once each week.And if they need him to play later in the season in a key game and he goes 0-fer, we can point to his not getting enough playing time to keep sharp. You can go around and around, but if you're going to have bench players, you have to play them. In fact, I'd like to see him spell Dye once in a while, too, but how to you take JD's bat out of the lineup? He's not a good fit for spelling Pods. and I believe he may be worse at 3B than in CF. It's not an ideal situation, but it is what it is.

maurice
08-17-2006, 02:48 PM
The point of playing Mackowiak is not to rest Anderson - it's to give the bench players enough playing time to keep sharp. Ozzie did the exact same thing last year and people bitched and moaned all season every time Timo or Willie or Blum got a start. But it paid off in the end.

That's not the point. Like Frater said, you can get Mackowiak ABs without playing him in CF. You say that he's not a good fit for LF, but he's a horrible fit for CF.

Ozzie didn't play Blum in CF. Heck, Mackowiak plays more CF (52 games in 2006) than Blum, Harris, and Perez combined (a total of 2 games in 2005).

Playing Mackowiak 52 games in CF is completely inexcusable.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 03:13 PM
That's not the point. Like Frater said, you can get Mackowiak ABs without playing him in CF. You say that he's not a good fit for LF, but he's a horrible fit for CF.

Ozzie didn't play Blum in CF. Heck, Mackowiak plays more CF (52 games in 2006) than Blum, Harris, and Perez combined (a total of 2 games in 2005).

Playing Mackowiak 52 games in CF is completely inexcusable.So where are you going to play him? LF? You give up a lot of speed and who leads off? RF? How many games can you take Dye's bat out of the lineup? 3B? He's as bad at 3B as he is in CF. He's going to be a key PH in the post-season, so they need to get him AB. How else are you going to do it? Don't tell me where you can't play him. Tell me where you can.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2006, 03:24 PM
So where are you going to play him? LF? You give up a lot of speed and who leads off? RF? How many games can you take Dye's bat out of the lineup? 3B? He's as bad at 3B as he is in CF. He's going to be a key PH in the post-season, so they need to get him AB. How else are you going to do it? Don't tell me where you can't play him. Tell me where you can.

I'm OK using Mackowiak as a mid/late-inning pinch hit replacement for Pods in situations where Pods is not leading off the inning. I'm OK resting Dye once every 10 games or so and playing Mackowiak in right during those games. I'm OK resting Crede once each week and starting Mackowiak there, and frequently using Crede as the late-inning 3B defensive replacement when Mackowiak starts at third. This, plus regular PH duties in other situations would get Mackowiak enough at-bats to be prepared to pinch-hit in the offseason.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 03:37 PM
I'm OK using Mackowiak as a mid/late-inning pinch hit replacement for Pods in situations where Pods is not leading off the inning. I'm OK resting Dye once every 10 games or so and playing Mackowiak in right during those games. I'm OK resting Crede once each week and starting Mackowiak there, and frequently using Crede as the late-inning 3B defensive replacement when Mackowiak starts at third. This, plus regular PH duties in other situations would get Mackowiak enough at-bats to be prepared to pinch-hit in the offseason.I'm definately NOT OK with taking Dye's bat out of the lineup every 10 games. He's critical to the 3-4-5 middle of the lineup. I think what you give up there is worse for the team than putting him in CF once a week. Plus, you're giving up both offense and defense when you do that. That's worse than just giving up defense in CF. Do it maybe 2-3 times over the rest of the season, just because Dye may need a rest, but no more than that.

And from what I recall seeing him play 3B for Pittsburgh, after a few games there people will be screaming to put him back in CF. It's not as if 3B defense isn't important, too.

For better or worse, once every 6-8 games in CF, plus maybe 2-3 times in RF and an occasional replacement for Pods in LF is the best you're going to do.

maurice
08-17-2006, 03:42 PM
This, plus regular PH duties in other situations would get Mackowiak enough at-bats to be prepared to pinch-hit in the offseason.

No kidding. Besides, why should Ozzie obsess over whether his utility guy gets enough ABs?

First, he's gotten TOO MANY ABs already (200). That's almost as many as Cintron, far more than Ozuna or Gload, and more than ANY bench player on the 2005 Sox had at this point in the season.

Second, he's just one of 3 lefthanded PH options off the bench and probably not even the best (arguably the worst). His value on the bench is his presumed ability to play multiple positions defensively (CF clearly not among them). Otherwise, he's just a poor man's Ross Gload.

Third, there aren't too many PH opportunities in the most productive lineup in baseball anyway.

Fourth, (a bit facetiously) how many ABs was Blum getting before he hit his game-winning PH HR in the WS?

He's now 3-for-his-last-15 with 8 Ks.

Make that 3-16 with Ks in half of the ABs and a handful of popouts.

maurice
08-17-2006, 03:44 PM
Do it maybe 2-3 times over the rest of the season, just because Dye may need a rest, but no more than that.

Fine, but you don't need to make up the ABs by sticking him (or Gload or Ozuna) in CF. Just put him on the bench where he belongs.

- - -

If this is similar to last year at all, it's similar to Ozzie's insistence on playing Perez too much. That didn't help at all.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2006, 05:24 PM
I'm definately NOT OK with taking Dye's bat out of the lineup every 10 games. He's critical to the 3-4-5 middle of the lineup. I think what you give up there is worse for the team than putting him in CF once a week. Plus, you're giving up both offense and defense when you do that. That's worse than just giving up defense in CF. Do it maybe 2-3 times over the rest of the season, just because Dye may need a rest, but no more than that.

And from what I recall seeing him play 3B for Pittsburgh, after a few games there people will be screaming to put him back in CF. It's not as if 3B defense isn't important, too.

For better or worse, once every 6-8 games in CF, plus maybe 2-3 times in RF and an occasional replacement for Pods in LF is the best you're going to do.

You're the one who is so desperate to keep Mackowiak in the lineup so he gets lots of at-bats. I'm just throwing out ideas.

And if maurice is right - that Mackowiak's presumed value is in his ability to play multiple defensive positions - then he doesn't have much value at all, since he's quite poor in center and (according to you) at third. If so, he's just an average to slightly below-average corner outfielder who has an average, but unspectacular LH bat. In short, he legitimately can get 400 ABs on a poor NL team like the Pirates but should not be anything more than a BENCH player on the defending world champions.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 05:32 PM
You're the one who is so desperate to keep Mackowiak in the lineup so he gets lots of at-bats. I'm just throwing out ideas.

And if maurice is right - that Mackowiak's presumed value is in his ability to play multiple defensive positions - then he doesn't have much value at all, since he's quite poor in center and (according to you) at third. If so, he's just an average to slightly below-average corner outfielder who has an average, but unspectacular LH bat. In short, he legitimately can get 400 ABs on a poor NL team like the Pirates but should not be anything more than a BENCH player on the defending world champions.He definately should be no more than a bench player. But if you're not going to get your bench players enough AB to be able to contribute, why have them at all? It's a problem every team faces. Of course they're not as good as your regulars - that's why they're on the bench in the first place. But you still need to get them enough playing time so that when and if you need them, they're going to be ready. Every time you put a bench player in you lose something, but that doesn't mean you never play them.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2006, 05:47 PM
He definately should be no more than a bench player. But if you're not going to get your bench players enough AB to be able to contribute, why have them at all? It's a problem every team faces. Of course they're not as good as your regulars - that's why they're on the bench in the first place. But you still need to get them enough playing time so that when and if you need them, they're going to be ready. Every time you put a bench player in you lose something, but that doesn't mean you never play them.

Then I think we just disagree on how much PT Mackowiak needs. He's already had 200 ABs, more than any bench player got before August 16 for the 2005 World Champs. Now, the Sox are six games back with six weeks to play and need to field their best team as much as possible. The Sox are best offensively and defensively with Mackowiak on the bench and Anderson (.300 and hitting the ball hard for two months now) starting. Mackowiak can get enough ABs pinch hitting and getting occasional spot starts in left and right.

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 06:00 PM
Then I think we just disagree on how much PT Mackowiak needs. He's already had 200 ABs, more than any bench player got before August 16 for the 2005 World Champs. Now, the Sox are six games back with six weeks to play and need to field their best team as much as possible. The Sox are best offensively and defensively with Mackowiak on the bench and Anderson (.300 and hitting the ball hard for two months now) starting. Mackowiak can get enough ABs pinch hitting and getting occasional spot starts in left and right.Except most of those AB were in May and June. They're not going to help now. I'd still say a bench player needs 4-6 AB a week to stay sharp. That works out to one start and a few extra here and there.

But you also need to be selective. I wouldn't start him in Comerica park for obvious reasons, but you might use him as a late-inning replacement in LF. Maybe once each against TB and KC the following week, depending on the pitching matchups. Play him when Garland or Contreras is pitching (more ground balls). That's why it made sense to play him and Gload yesterday against KC instead of this weekend against the Twinks, even though it made for a pretty scary OF. If you pick and choose the right matchups, you can mimimize what you give up and still achieve the objective.

maurice
08-17-2006, 07:10 PM
Except most of those AB were in May and June.

36 AB in July
18 AB so far in August
54 AB in July & August

That's more than enough ABs for your utility guy. Compare:
- Gload 41 AB in July & August
- Ozuna 40 AB in July & August

Ol' No. 2
08-17-2006, 10:45 PM
36 AB in July
18 AB so far in August
54 AB in July & August

That's more than enough ABs for your utility guy. Compare:
- Gload 41 AB in July & August
- Ozuna 40 AB in July & AugustDo you see me arguing he needs MORE?I'd still say a bench player needs 4-6 AB a week to stay sharp.You're the one who thinks he shouldn't have ANY.

Frater Perdurabo
08-18-2006, 10:59 AM
36 AB in July
18 AB so far in August
54 AB in July & August

Ol' No. 2 - Over rougly seven weeks, Mackowiak has averaged almost 8 ABs per week, two more per week than the 4-6 you think he, as a bench player (which you also have admitted he is) should get. Mackowiak's getting more ABs than even you think he - as a bench player - should get!

Of course Ozzie should pick the spots where he uses Mackowiak. With roughly six weeks left in the season, Dye can get one day off per week in the field, with Dye DH-ing half (three) of those off days, giving Thome and Dye each only three off days for the rest of the season. That would give Mackowiak six starts (roughly 4 ABs/week) in right field. In other games where the situation is appropriate, Mackowiak can be a mid/late inning pinch hitter who can stay in the game by playing left field.

Consequently, it is possible to get Mackowiak the 4-6 ABs he needs per week (if not a few more) without taking Anderson's glove out of CF and Anderson's .300 bat out of the lineup AND without exposing Mackowiak's defensive liabilities at third base AND without resting Dye more than he needs (or unduly burdening the heart of the order) AND while allowing the rest of the bench to get some ABs at the other positions.

maurice
08-18-2006, 12:21 PM
Do you see me arguing he needs MORE?You're the one who thinks he shouldn't have ANY.

No, I'm arguing (1) that he shouldn't get any IN CF for the rest of this year, and (2) that the facts show he's still getting about 35% more ABs than Ozuna and Gload. That's not necessary for a utility player.

Ol' No. 2
08-18-2006, 02:32 PM
Ol' No. 2 - Over rougly seven weeks, Mackowiak has averaged almost 8 ABs per week, two more per week than the 4-6 you think he, as a bench player (which you also have admitted he is) should get. Mackowiak's getting more ABs than even you think he - as a bench player - should get!

Of course Ozzie should pick the spots where he uses Mackowiak. With roughly six weeks left in the season, Dye can get one day off per week in the field, with Dye DH-ing half (three) of those off days, giving Thome and Dye each only three off days for the rest of the season. That would give Mackowiak six starts (roughly 4 ABs/week) in right field. In other games where the situation is appropriate, Mackowiak can be a mid/late inning pinch hitter who can stay in the game by playing left field.

Consequently, it is possible to get Mackowiak the 4-6 ABs he needs per week (if not a few more) without taking Anderson's glove out of CF and Anderson's .300 bat out of the lineup AND without exposing Mackowiak's defensive liabilities at third base AND without resting Dye more than he needs (or unduly burdening the heart of the order) AND while allowing the rest of the bench to get some ABs at the other positions.So in effect, you guys are telling me you'd rather take starts away from Jermaine Dye than Brian Anderson????:?::?::?:

The kid's done a great job, but let's not get carried away.

maurice
08-18-2006, 02:44 PM
So in effect, you guys are telling me you'd rather take starts away from Jermaine Dye than Brian Anderson?

No, nobody told you that. We're telling you that we'd rather take starts away from MACKOWIAK.
:rolleyes:

There are plenty of ABs available for the entire bench (and not just the inexplicably favored Mackowiak) without taking extra starts away from Dye. From Frater's last post (which you quoted):
Consequently, it is possible to get Mackowiak the 4-6 ABs he needs per week (if not a few more) without taking Anderson's glove out of CF and Anderson's .300 bat out of the lineup AND without exposing Mackowiak's defensive liabilities at third base AND without resting Dye more than he needs

I await the next strawman with baited breath.

nedlug
08-18-2006, 02:53 PM
I await the next strawman with baited breath.

Isn't it bated breath? I can't be sure, but I think I've seen it spelled that way before.

Ol' No. 2
08-18-2006, 03:09 PM
No, nobody told you that. We're telling you that we'd rather take starts away from MACKOWIAK.
:rolleyes:

There are plenty of ABs available for the entire bench (and not just the inexplicably favored Mackowiak) without taking extra starts away from Dye. From Frater's last post (which you quoted):


I await the next strawman with baited breath.Dye played 145 games last year, and would have played more except for his episode of spider bites. The reason you rest players during the season is so you DON'T have to rest them down the stretch. I'd anticipate Dye needing to be out of the lineup AT MOST once every other week. You guys are suggesting the Sox sit Dye or Thome once a week so that Brian Anderson can stay in the lineup. Here it is. I didn't imagine it.With roughly six weeks left in the season, Dye can get one day off per week in the field, with Dye DH-ing half (three) of those off days, giving Thome and Dye each only three off days for the rest of the season.Any way you look at it you're taking one of the best hitters out of the lineup so you can keep Anderson in. That makes NO SENSE.

maurice
08-18-2006, 05:26 PM
Any way you look at it you're taking one of the best hitters out of the lineup so you can keep Anderson in.

Wrong again. You're still misrepresenting the arguments. There is absolutely no causal connection.

Dye and Thome would get as many days off as they need to rest. No more, no less. (Frater: "The Sox are six games back with six weeks to play and need to field their best team as much as possible.") As I understand his posts, Frater speculated that they would need 3 days each to rest and believed that it was a conservative estimate (Frater: "only three"). Perhaps he's wrong, and they need fewer days off. That doesn't change the argument, just the arithmetic (by reducing the total # of ABs available TO MACKOWIAK--not to Dye, Thome, Anderson, etc.). Feel free to correct me if I'm misreading you, Frater. I know you can ably speak for yourself.

As I have repeatedly said, the number of ABs a utility guy gets in any given month is inconsequential and certainly not worth raping your CF defense on a regular basis. Thus, I have argued that Anderson should get zero days off for the rest of the season (maurice: "Ozzie should just start Anderson literally every day from here on out, barring injury"). Again, there is no causal connection, because I have never argued that Mackowiak should get additional ABs from elsewhere to compensate. On the contrary, I expressly said that "you don't need to make up the ABs....Just put him on the bench where he belongs." Mackowiak should only get the normal number of ABs he would getting filling in for guys on their rest days...just like everybody else on the bench. There is no reason to continue to give him special treatment. (maurice: "Why should Ozzie obsess over whether his utility guy gets enough ABs?" and my numerous posts about the other guys on the bench.)

YOU are the one who wants to bench the starters for the express purpose of giving ABs to MACKOWIAK (and not rest), 'cause Mackowiak has a vital bench role. We rejected that proposition, even though you keep projecting it upon us.

So, that's three strawmen arguments in a row. Will there be a fourth? Is anybody else confused about what Frater and I have said?!?

- - -

Have a nice weekend. I'll holler at y'all again on Monday.

Frater Perdurabo
08-18-2006, 06:18 PM
Wrong again. You're still misrepresenting the arguments. There is absolutely no causal connection.

Dye and Thome would get as many days off as they need to rest. No more, no less. (Frater: "The Sox are six games back with six weeks to play and need to field their best team as much as possible.") As I understand his posts, Frater speculated that they would need 3 days each to rest and believed that it was a conservative estimate (Frater: "only three"). Perhaps he's wrong, and they need fewer days off. That doesn't change the argument, just the arithmetic (by reducing the total # of ABs available TO MACKOWIAK--not to Dye, Thome, Anderson, etc.). Feel free to correct me if I'm misreading you, Frater. I know you can ably speak for yourself.

As I have repeatedly said, the number of ABs a utility guy gets in any given month is inconsequential and certainly not worth raping your CF defense on a regular basis. Thus, I have argued that Anderson should get zero days off for the rest of the season (maurice: "Ozzie should just start Anderson literally every day from here on out, barring injury"). Again, there is no causal connection, because I have never argued that Mackowiak should get additional ABs from elsewhere to compensate. On the contrary, I expressly said that "you don't need to make up the ABs....Just put him on the bench where he belongs." Mackowiak should only get the normal number of ABs he would getting filling in for guys on their rest days...just like everybody else on the bench. There is no reason to continue to give him special treatment. (maurice: "Why should Ozzie obsess over whether his utility guy gets enough ABs?" and my numerous posts about the other guys on the bench.)

YOU are the one who wants to bench the starters for the express purpose of giving ABs to MACKOWIAK (and not rest), 'cause Mackowiak has a vital bench role. We rejected that proposition, even though you keep projecting it upon us.

So, that's three strawmen arguments in a row. Will there be a fourth? Is anybody else confused about what Frater and I have said?!?

- - -

Have a nice weekend. I'll holler at y'all again on Monday.

Maurice, as usual you have capably and masterfully demonstrated the art and science of reading for context. You have captured my argument perfectly. We're both on the same page. We both want to see Mackowiak get fewer ABs and for Ozzie to field the best team possible as often as possible.

In fact, Mackowiak himself agrees with us! At the beginning of the season, Mackowiak himself said that the Sox are best when Anderson is starting and he is coming off the bench! What more, really, needs to be said?