PDA

View Full Version : Anderson vs. Granderson


ondafarm
09-04-2006, 03:01 PM
Right around the All-Star break I got into a 'discussion' about the relative merits of Curtis Granderson, Tigers CF, versus Brian N. Anderson, White Sox CF. At the time their hitting lines looked like:

Granderson: .278 .366 .462 with 57 R 11HR 43 RBI 47 BB 97 K
Anderson: .192 .280 .324 with 26 R 5 HR 20 RBI 21 BB 49 K

I mentioned that I thought Anderson would have a better second half than Granderson.

My opinion was not popularly received.

Well, here's an update.

Post-All-Star numbers:

Granderson: .226 .283 .317 with 16 R 2 HR 12 RBI 12 BB 46 K
Anderson: .289 .341 .438 with 17 R 2 HR 12 RBI 8 BB 24 K

TheOldRoman
09-04-2006, 03:05 PM
Those numbers are pretty impressive. I know he will mature a lot as a hitter, but we need to see those walks way up. At least his strikeouts are down.

rdwj
09-04-2006, 03:11 PM
Makes me wonder why Mac EVER plays?

jabrch
09-04-2006, 03:13 PM
I'm glad Ozzie and Kenny think that the masses know nothing about the game of baseball, and that they invested in developing BA. Sure - it cost us some games. It may have even cost us a post season berth this season. But BA will be a quality CF for a while for us. With the depth we have in our farm in the OF (even after giving up Young, promoting BA, and finally dumpin Borchard) the future is bright for the Sox. It's entirely possible that we could see a very young OF in the next few years, and that we will have money to invest in IFs and SPs where needed.

There were lots of people who wanted to send BA down in May and June. I'm glad he's here.

TheOldRoman
09-04-2006, 03:17 PM
It may have even cost us a post season berth this season. But BA will be a quality CF for a while for us. Brian Anderson struggling in the first half will have no effect on us missing the playoffs. We were still playing good ball even when he was struggling. Our pitching, defense, and our inconsistant hitting will be what doomed us. Really, there is lots of blame to go around. If we miss the playoffs, it will be because pretty much everyone let us down for an extended period of time.

jabrch
09-04-2006, 03:21 PM
Brian Anderson struggling in the first half will have no effect on us missing the playoffs. We were still playing good ball even when he was struggling. Our pitching, defense, and our inconsistant hitting will be what doomed us. Really, there is lots of blame to go around. If we miss the playoffs, it will be because pretty much everyone let us down for an extended period of time.

Sure - there is no one thing. I agree with that. If you wanted, you could argue that BA deserves a share. I, for one, don't. I'm just saying you could make that arguement. Either way - you are right - he was not a single point of failure in this case.

Brian26
09-04-2006, 03:25 PM
Look at those strikeout numbers for Granderson. That is completely awful for a leadoff hitter.

Edit- Am I reading that correctly? He's got 143 strikeouts so far this year?

Brian26
09-04-2006, 03:30 PM
Granderson has 143 strikeouts.

Just as a comparison for discussion:

Podsednik has 88.
Konerko has 93.
Damon has 71.
Pierre has 33.

Frater Perdurabo
09-04-2006, 03:39 PM
I'm not interested in the name calling. But I am pleased to have been vindicated (along with ondafarm and lots of others) for sticking by Anderson even when his average was down at .158.

I believe that Anderson's average would be even higher now if he had not been benched two out of every five games since that time. I'm certain that the Sox would have more wins now, as their record is far better when Anderson plays.

buehrle4cy05
09-04-2006, 03:58 PM
Granderson has 143 strikeouts.

Just as a comparison for discussion:

Podsednik has 88.
Konerko has 93.
Damon has 71.
Pierre has 33.

143 K for a leadoff hitter? That's horrendous. 88 is a little high, but man, 143...

Oh, and congrats on become a WSI Prelate! (whatever that means):cool:

DumpJerry
09-04-2006, 04:04 PM
Oh, and congrats on become a WSI Prelate! (whatever that means):cool:
He hit 12,001 posts. Something that takes a lot of free time to accomplish.

ondafarm
09-04-2006, 04:41 PM
I've noticed in the Tiger broadcasts that the "Who's your Tiger?" commercial with "The Igniter" (Granderson) seem to have been scaled back.

Thank God the Kenny Rogers ones don't seem to be played anymore either. I hate seeing the singer's mug on screen.

caulfield12
09-04-2006, 04:52 PM
I've noticed in the Tiger broadcasts that the "Who's your Tiger?" commercial with "The Igniter" (Granderson) seem to have been scaled back.

Thank God the Kenny Rogers ones don't seem to be played anymore either.
Why? Rogers might have been their best starter the past month.

I'm surprised they just don't run the Monroe season highlights package with the I-Roid walkoff thrown in to relieve the monotony.

kittle42
09-04-2006, 05:28 PM
Granderson wins: 10 letters to 8.

MrX
09-04-2006, 07:02 PM
I'm surprised they just don't run the Monroe season highlights package with the I-Roid walkoff thrown in to relieve the monotony. They probably even thought he looked like a douche running around the bases like he just hit a walkoff to win the WS.

Hitmen77
09-04-2006, 07:32 PM
143 K for a leadoff hitter? That's horrendous. 88 is a little high, but man, 143...

Oh, and congrats on become a WSI Prelate! (whatever that means):cool:

Looks like he's the first person on WSI (non-moderator) to reach "Prelate" status.

soxinem1
09-04-2006, 07:41 PM
Brian Anderson struggling in the first half will have no effect on us missing the playoffs. We were still playing good ball even when he was struggling. Our pitching, defense, and our inconsistant hitting will be what doomed us. Really, there is lots of blame to go around. If we miss the playoffs, it will be because pretty much everyone let us down for an extended period of time.

I agree. Anderson actually started hitting better when the team started struggling. That is just coincidental, but the boo-birds would have been calling for his scalp if he did not improve.

Makes you wonder why he is still being platooned......

Soxfanspcu11
09-04-2006, 08:24 PM
Makes me wonder why Mac EVER plays?

The ONLY time that Mac should EVER play is when he comes in the game as a pinch hitter, as he has proven that he can get the job done in that area.

Otherwise, there is NO REASON for him to be starting, NONE! I can not believe that Ozzie has not figured this out yet. Ozzie has probably cost this team AT LEAST 10 wins this season with incompetent managing. It makes me ill. :whiner:

ondafarm
09-04-2006, 10:39 PM
Anderson, like everyone else needs an occasional day off. Ozzie also seems to be giving him a day off after he makes a mistake and especially when premier righties are pitching.

An occasional day off is good and BA does need occasional instruction.

Next year, I think BA will just be the regular guy, with Ozzie's regular days off, but not platooned.

MisterB
09-04-2006, 11:04 PM
Looks like he's the first person on WSI (non-moderator) to reach "Prelate" status.

<Daver> You are not your post count. </Daver>

:redneck

The odd thing is that despite BA's superior second half average, OBP and slugging, he and Granderson have almost identical Runs/Homers/RBI numbers. The difference between hitting at the top or bottom of the order, I guess.

the gooch
09-05-2006, 11:01 AM
The odd thing is that despite BA's superior second half average, OBP and slugging, he and Granderson have almost identical Runs/Homers/RBI numbers. The difference between hitting at the top or bottom of the order, I guess.

That has a lot to do with Granderson getting 4 at-bats to Anderson's 3 AB.
BA is doing better with the time he is getting.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/trans.gifC Granderson DET OF 47 168 16 38 7 1 2 13 53 12 47 1 1 .283 .315 .226
B Anderson CWS OF 42 124 17 35 10 1 2 12 53 8 26 1 3 .333 .427 .282

soxinem1
09-05-2006, 02:13 PM
Granderson is a good player, but I think the Tigers realize he is not as fast (as in being a SB guy) as they thought, and he tries for the fences way too often.

BA, in my opinion, can put up numbers like Maggs did when he first came up, minus with more K's. I think BA can be a legit 25-30 HR guy and steal 20 bases or so.

Time, and development, will tell.

ma-gaga
09-05-2006, 02:36 PM
I mentioned that I thought Anderson would have a better second half than Granderson.
...
Well, here's an update.

Post-All-Star numbers:

Granderson: .226 .283 .317 with 16 R 2 HR 12 RBI 12 BB 46 K
Anderson: .289 .341 .438 with 17 R 2 HR 12 RBI 8 BB 24 K

Well, there's still 24 games to go! :D:

Again, I'm looking at the gross number of Runs, HR's, RBI's, BB's, and Granderson is still ahead or tied. It's a little easier to put up better avg/obp/slg when you are being platooned.

:cool:

Domeshot17
09-05-2006, 02:48 PM
not to be a downer, because the strides brian have made have been amazing, but here is why I would see Brian improve at the plate.


Granderson: .226 .283 .317 with 16 R 2 HR 12 RBI 12 BB 46 K
Anderson: .289 .341 .438 with 17 R 2 HR 12 RBI 8 BB 24 K

looking at runs they almost equal, home runs the same RBIs the same walks and Ks are different.

As good as Brian has been, it still has translated into a ton of production. He isnt scoring many runs or being knocked in. Im very pleased with him as a rookie, but next year, this will not fly. I know part of that is the guys hitting behind him (pods, iguchi) are struggling mightily. I would honestly like to see Iguchi lead off, and Anderson hit 2 for a few games, see how it works out.

eriqjaffe
09-05-2006, 02:56 PM
Anderson actually started hitting better when the team started struggling.Maybe BA should start struggling again so that the rest of the team will feel obligated to make up for it and start scoring some freaking runs. ;)

maurice
09-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Keep in mind that Anderson gets randomly benched a couple of times per week and bats 8/9 (usually between Uribe and Podsednik), while Granderson plays every day and almost always bats leadoff (in front of the best hitters on his team). As a result, Granderson has 164 ABs since the ASB, while Anderson has only 124 ABs. Having the same "production" totals during this period despite fewer ABs and an inferior lineup spot actually is further proof that Anderson has been much better.

Anderson is not now nor has he ever been "platooned." He has more ABs v. RHP than he does against LHP, while Mackowiak (amazingly) has been allowed 47 ABs v. LHP (.213 AVE, .501 OPS) this year.

caulfield12
09-05-2006, 04:47 PM
not to be a downer, because the strides brian have made have been amazing, but here is why I would see Brian improve at the plate.



looking at runs they almost equal, home runs the same RBIs the same walks and Ks are different.

As good as Brian has been, it still has translated into a ton of production. He isnt scoring many runs or being knocked in. Im very pleased with him as a rookie, but next year, this will not fly. I know part of that is the guys hitting behind him (pods, iguchi) are struggling mightily. I would honestly like to see Iguchi lead off, and Anderson hit 2 for a few games, see how it works out.

I think Sweeney's going to end up as a more natural 2 than Anderson. Makes much better contact than Brian or Iguchi for that matter.

INSox56
09-05-2006, 04:56 PM
Brian Anderson struggling in the first half will have no effect on us missing the playoffs. We were still playing good ball even when he was struggling. Our pitching, defense, and our inconsistant hitting will be what doomed us. Really, there is lots of blame to go around. If we miss the playoffs, it will be because pretty much everyone let us down for an extended period of time.

I love how Ozzie said early early in the year that if we have to rely on Brian Anderson's bat, we're really in trouble.... Makes you wonder why he replaces him with Mack against "tough righties" way more than he ever should replace anyone......... Ozzie sometimes makes me just go:rolleyes:

ondafarm
09-09-2006, 12:24 PM
I think the differential on runs scored between Anderson and Granderson is where they bat. Granderson bats lead-off. When he does get on, and even a .300 OBP guy is on base once or twice a game, he has the three best hitters on the team batting right behind him.

Anderson has batted seventh, eight and ninth, right among the weakest hitters in the lineup. When he gets on base, there are few opportunities for him to score.

The Wall
09-09-2006, 04:07 PM
At the beginning of the season or just before it, I asked what our scouts thought of Granderson since I've seen him play college ball at UIC...Our scouts didnt think much of him which was natural considering they didnt pick him. But seeing how much he has contributed to the Tigers success, I think with some mentoring he will be a solid leadoff hitter. As for Anderson, his 2nd half says it all...Ozzie needs to give him all the playing time in CF.

ondafarm
10-01-2006, 11:11 PM
Even though Granderson is going to the post-season, to my mind the final results are in. Post All-Star game results:


AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB K SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Granderson:
265 33 63 11 5 8 25 108 19 77 1 1 .293 .408 .238

Anderson:
183 20 47 14 1 3 13 72 9 41 1 5 .301 .393 .257


In my opinion, this one is awfully close, although I think that Anderson has an edge.

Anderson took an awful slide at the end, although Granderson didn't do much either. I blame Guillen for Anderson's slide, not playing him regularly.

Soxfanspcu11
10-02-2006, 08:06 PM
Even though Granderson is going to the post-season, to my mind the final results are in. Post All-Star game results:


AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB K SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Granderson:
265 33 63 11 5 8 25 108 19 77 1 1 .293 .408 .238

Anderson:
183 20 47 14 1 3 13 72 9 41 1 5 .301 .393 .257


In my opinion, this one is awfully close, although I think that Anderson has an edge.

Anderson took an awful slide at the end, although Granderson didn't do much either. I blame Guillen for Anderson's slide, not playing him regularly.


EXACTLY!

They were talking about this yesterday on that crappy sports show that they have every Sunday night on CLTV.

One of the losers was going on and on about how it is time for the "Brian Anderson Experiment" to end. I started SCREAMING at my TV! I could not believe what this idiot was saying!!!

He said something to the effect of, "Brian was absolutely terrible at the plate and just above average in center-field". :?: ***?!?!?! Well, the guy was a self-admitted cub fan, so I don't expect him to know what the **** he is talking about, but damn, how do these people have jobs???

First of all, Brian is FAR above aveage defensively in centerfield, let's get that straight moron. Up until about 2-3 weeks ago, he was the ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY centerfielder in baseball who had not committed an error. Of course he would never be considered, but he is a viable Gold-glove candidate.

Secondly, he is not "terrible" at the plate. Yes, he did start off slow, but his second half numbers are VERY good for someone in his position. Let's keep in mind that 2006 was his FIRST FULL YEAR IN THE MAJORS!!! Let's cut the guy some ****ing slack!!! Once he settled down and got into his role, he perfomed beyond expectations. If he is back in center next year, which I really hope he is, I FULLY expect him to him above .250. Plus, you will ALWAYS get his great defense.

The 4 "sportswriters" on that show, (and I use the word "sportswriters" loosely because they have no ****ing clue what they are talking about), are complete morons! Brian is horrible at the plate? He is slightly above average in center?? :?: Who are these people????:rolleyes:

Gregory Pratt
10-02-2006, 08:41 PM
EXACTLY!

They were talking about this yesterday on that crappy sports show that they have every Sunday night on CLTV.

One of the losers was going on and on about how it is time for the "Brian Anderson Experiment" to end. I started SCREAMING at my TV! I could not believe what this idiot was saying!!!

He said something to the effect of, "Brian was absolutely terrible at the plate and just above average in center-field". :?: ***?!?!?! Well, the guy was a self-admitted cub fan, so I don't expect him to know what the **** he is talking about, but damn, how do these people have jobs???

First of all, Brian is FAR above aveage defensively in centerfield, let's get that straight moron. Up until about 2-3 weeks ago, he was the ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY centerfielder in baseball who had not committed an error. Of course he would never be considered, but he is a viable Gold-glove candidate.

Secondly, he is not "terrible" at the plate. Yes, he did start off slow, but his second half numbers are VERY good for someone in his position. Let's keep in mind that 2006 was his FIRST FULL YEAR IN THE MAJORS!!! Let's cut the guy some ****ing slack!!! Once he settled down and got into his role, he perfomed beyond expectations. If he is back in center next year, which I really hope he is, I FULLY expect him to him above .250. Plus, you will ALWAYS get his great defense.

The 4 "sportswriters" on that show, (and I use the word "sportswriters" loosely because they have no ****ing clue what they are talking about), are complete morons! Brian is horrible at the plate? He is slightly above average in center?? :?: Who are these people????:rolleyes:

Brian is not good at the plate. He might get singles to keep his average up, post ASB, but he doesn't hit for power, he doesn't hit for extra bases, he doesn't run the bases particularly well. My dog can catch a breaking pitch better than he can hit one.

Not good at the plate, sorry.

Soxfanspcu11
10-02-2006, 09:00 PM
Brian is not good at the plate. He might get singles to keep his average up, post ASB, but he doesn't hit for power, he doesn't hit for extra bases, he doesn't run the bases particularly well. My dog can catch a breaking pitch better than he can hit one.

Not good at the plate, sorry.


Umm.....first of all, I was talking post ASB, that was the whole point.

Secondly, who said he had to hit for power? Most of our lineup hits for power. I would be happy if Brian could bunt and go to the opposite field to move runners over.

Thirdly, his contributions to this team were never intended to revolve around offense, that is the reason we got Thome. Brian is our replacement for Aaron correct? Well, as far as defense goes, he is a GREAT replacement.

Fourthly, 2006 was his rookie year, he has A LOT to learn. I agree that he sucks at hitting the breaking ball, that is why he will be playing winter ball in Venezuela, where they throw nothing but breaking balls.

5-ly(lol), we will all see in Spring Training how far he has come or not. By prediction is that you will see an entirely different player at the plate in 2007.

Hitmen77
10-02-2006, 09:00 PM
Brian is not good at the plate. He might get singles to keep his average up, post ASB, but he doesn't hit for power, he doesn't hit for extra bases, he doesn't run the bases particularly well. My dog can catch a breaking pitch better than he can hit one.

Not good at the plate, sorry.

I thought he hit alot of doubles this year. I'm not saying that he doesn't need to improve, but I don't think you can say "he doesn't hit for extra bases".

I didn't see the CLTV show, but I can't believe people are ready to pull the plug on the BA experiment after only one season. I'm glad those guys weren't calling the shots when Crede, Konerko, Garland, and so forth were struggling. I'm not saying that BA is guaranteed to reach their level of success, but good organizations can't just give up on everyone who struggles in their rookie year.

ondafarm
10-02-2006, 10:06 PM
Brian Anderson has the third highest range factor in the league among outfielders trailing only Gathright and Patterson, both of whom played for fairly weak teams meaning competent fielders had a lot of extra opportunities to record put outs. Anderson is a vastly superior defender to Tori Hunter. Hunter plays deep and makes spectacular looking catches at the wall. Anderson covers much more ground but doesn't make web-gems which idiot sportswriters seem to love.

I've spoken to several American sportswriters and very few of them watch more than one baseball game a day or write mostly about games they attended. Instead, most of them catch highlights on ESPN. In my opinion, that makes them bums.

I doubt sportswriters will give the CF GG to anybody but Hunter.

southside rocks
10-02-2006, 10:40 PM
Even though Granderson is going to the post-season, to my mind the final results are in. Post All-Star game results:


AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB K SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Granderson:
265 33 63 11 5 8 25 108 19 77 1 1 .293 .408 .238

Anderson:
183 20 47 14 1 3 13 72 9 41 1 5 .301 .393 .257


In my opinion, this one is awfully close, although I think that Anderson has an edge.

Anderson took an awful slide at the end, although Granderson didn't do much either. I blame Guillen for Anderson's slide, not playing him regularly.

And yet Ross Gload, who played anything but regularly, batted .327. Pablo Ozuna batted .328. Alex Cintron batted .285. None of them are rookies, but Anderson played in far more games than any of them -- about twice as many.

If Anderson had hit better in the first half of the season, he would have played more. As it was, he had the same number of AB's before the ASB (182) and after the ASB (183), so I don't see that his playing time changed dramatically ... After a terrible first half (.192), he was able to hit well in July (.313) and August (.296) but not in September (.200). I can't see how that is Ozzie's fault.

IMO it's because Anderson hasn't yet been able to consistently hit a major-league curveball.

southside rocks
10-02-2006, 10:43 PM
I thought he hit alot of doubles this year. I'm not saying that he doesn't need to improve, but I don't think you can say "he doesn't hit for extra bases".

I didn't see the CLTV show, but I can't believe people are ready to pull the plug on the BA experiment after only one season. I'm glad those guys weren't calling the shots when Crede, Konerko, Garland, and so forth were struggling. I'm not saying that BA is guaranteed to reach their level of success, but good organizations can't just give up on everyone who struggles in their rookie year.

23 of his 82 hits this year were doubles. He's got very good speed and I can recall offhand several "hustle doubles" that he got.

Who's pulling the plug on BA? I thought that was the point of him playing winter ball -- so he would be in a more solid position next spring. :?:

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 10:52 PM
Anderson took an awful slide at the end, although Granderson didn't do much either. I blame Guillen for Anderson's slide, not playing him regularly.People have repeated this nonsense so much it's become accepted wisdom. If Anderson was playing once or twice a week you might have a case, but he got about 2/3 of the playing time. How is that not playing regularly? And he had MORE at-bats during his "awful slide" in September (hitting an even .200) than in his best month (July).

MisterB
10-03-2006, 12:03 AM
And yet Ross Gload, who played anything but regularly, batted .327. Pablo Ozuna batted .328. Alex Cintron batted .285. None of them are rookies, but Anderson played in far more games than any of them -- about twice as many.

Gload, Ozuna and Cintron each have had 5+ years as borderline major leaguers (AAA or MLB). Anderson had one season at AAA and this was hit first true crack at ML pitching. It's all about experience.

Gregory Pratt
10-03-2006, 01:03 AM
And yet Ross Gload, who played anything but regularly, batted .327. Pablo Ozuna batted .328. Alex Cintron batted .285. None of them are rookies, but Anderson played in far more games than any of them -- about twice as many.

If Anderson had hit better in the first half of the season, he would have played more. As it was, he had the same number of AB's before the ASB (182) and after the ASB (183), so I don't see that his playing time changed dramatically ... After a terrible first half (.192), he was able to hit well in July (.313) and August (.296) but not in September (.200). I can't see how that is Ozzie's fault.

IMO it's because Anderson hasn't yet been able to consistently hit a major-league curveball.

He looks REAL bad with curveballs.

Anderson's hitting was weak, and his "good" second half-stats anything but impressive, especially considering that he's a center fielder. Either he hit for good power or steal bases. Become a glorified singles hitter with minimal clutch/RBI is not my idea of an adequate CF.

Give me Sweeney. Hell, I'd take Pierre.

MisterB
10-03-2006, 01:40 AM
He looks REAL bad with curveballs.

Anderson's hitting was weak, and his "good" second half-stats anything but impressive, especially considering that he's a center fielder. Either he hit for good power or steal bases. Become a glorified singles hitter with minimal clutch/RBI is not my idea of an adequate CF.

Give me Sweeney. Hell, I'd take Pierre.

Sweeney is even more of a singles hitter than Anderson, and isn't any faster. And Anderson's still a better defensive CF.

Hitmen77
10-03-2006, 09:42 AM
Who's pulling the plug on BA? I thought that was the point of him playing winter ball -- so he would be in a more solid position next spring. :?:

I was referring to some in the media and some fans. The Sox are not pulling the plug on him.

southside rocks
10-03-2006, 10:10 AM
Gload, Ozuna and Cintron each have had 5+ years as borderline major leaguers (AAA or MLB). Anderson had one season at AAA and this was hit first true crack at ML pitching. It's all about experience.

I take your point, but I don't buy that one either. At the risk of being tedious and repeating my posts, I looked up some stats and wrote this in another thread:

Consider this: Ian Kinsler (Texas Rangers) this year in 423 AB hit .286. Chris Duncan (Cardinals) this year in 280 AB hit .293.

For all three of those guys, it was their first year in the bigs. All three of them played on the same high-school team in Arizona and are the same age. Kinsler and Duncan had respectable rookie years. Anderson did not. That this is somehow, in the minds of some fans, Ozzie Guillen's fault is more than a little strange to me. :?:

Anderson really needs to show in winter ball that he can play at the major-league level, and that starts with hitting major-league pitching.

Again, Anderson's freely acknowledging that he had a crap year, that he didn't pull his weight, and that he "owes" the club, which is why he's going to winter ball and working through the winter to correct his deficiencies. He's handling it very well in saying all that, IMO.

Which makes is even more confusing to me why some posters and fans keep insisting that his poor showing this year is somehow not his fault. According to BA, it is his fault.

He's capable of much better, and he knows it and the organization knows it. And whether he plays 50 or 150 games next year, he has to hit better than he did this year. No way around that fact.

Gregory Pratt
10-03-2006, 10:39 AM
Sweeney is even more of a singles hitter than Anderson, and isn't any faster. And Anderson's still a better defensive CF.

Sweeney can hit breaking pitches and doesn't look a little lost at the plate.

Besides, Sweeney's going to hit for damn good power. His wrist, this year, was healing, but he's coming along nicely.

Much better than "Bend over backwards whenever a curveball comes my way."

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 11:11 AM
Sweeney can hit breaking pitches and doesn't look a little lost at the plate.

Besides, Sweeney's going to hit for damn good power. His wrist, this year, was healing, but he's coming along nicely.

Much better than "Bend over backwards whenever a curveball comes my way."Sweeney is also only 21, and is three years younger than Anderson. He'll develop more power as his body matures.

Lots of rookies struggle in their first year. If it was easy, everyone would do it. In hindsight, Anderson was clearly not as ready as he seemed to be at the end of spring training. I wouldn't count him out yet, but he's got a lot of work to do.

On balance, Sweeney probably has more offensive potential while Anderson will probably be the better defender. I think I'd like to see them platooning for the first couple of months in 2007 and let one of them win the job.

34 Inch Stick
10-03-2006, 05:38 PM
I had the Padre-Cardinal game on cbssportsline and happened to be looking at Mike Cameron's numbers. In his second year with the Sox he hit .210 with a .285 OBP while striking out 101 times.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 05:44 PM
I had the Padre-Cardinal game on cbssportsline and happened to be looking at Mike Cameron's numbers. In his second year with the Sox he hit .210 with a .285 OBP while striking out 101 times.He would have struck out more but he had only 396 AB.

ondafarm
10-03-2006, 10:27 PM
Consider this: Ian Kinsler (Texas Rangers) this year in 423 AB hit .286. Chris Duncan (Cardinals) this year in 280 AB hit .293.

For all three of those guys, it was their first year in the bigs. All three of them played on the same high-school team in Arizona and are the same age. Kinsler and Duncan had respectable rookie years. Anderson did not. That this is somehow, in the minds of some fans, Ozzie Guillen's fault is more than a little strange to me. :?:

Anderson really needs to show in winter ball that he can play at the major-league level, and that starts with hitting major-league pitching.

Those are both quite specious comparions. Both Kinsler and Duncan splits clearly show two things: they were protected from the more potent lefties in the American League (i.e. Santana, Sabathia, Rogers.) They were spotted a great deal more and not counted on for serious playing time at the beginning of the season. Both had at least month long periods when their averages definately tailed off as well.

And I thought you were one of the pioneers of pointing out how miserable NL pitching is in comparison to AL pitching, especially AL central pitching.

Frater Perdurabo
10-03-2006, 11:21 PM
It is a steaming pile of dog feces to claim that Anderson didn't hit for extra bases.

In another thread, I demonstrated that in 2006, despite his admitted problems at the plate, Anderson hit extra-base hits in 9% of his ABs. Rob Mackowiak hit for extra bases in 6% of his ABs. Projected out over truly full-time ABs (~500 ABs), Anderson would have been among the team leaders in doubles.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Anderson haters. :rolleyes:

southside rocks
10-04-2006, 10:09 AM
Those are both quite specious comparions. Both Kinsler and Duncan splits clearly show two things: they were protected from the more potent lefties in the American League (i.e. Santana, Sabathia, Rogers.) They were spotted a great deal more and not counted on for serious playing time at the beginning of the season. Both had at least month long periods when their averages definately tailed off as well.

And I thought you were one of the pioneers of pointing out how miserable NL pitching is in comparison to AL pitching, especially AL central pitching.

Actually I think you are probably confusing me with another poster on that one. I've never posted about NL/AL pitching. I don't even know if I have an opinion about it, beyond wishing that the Sox could get Chris Carpenter from the Cardinals. (Dare to dream... :rolleyes: )

No, I'm someone who is very impressed by Anderson's potential, but also disappointed that he didn't live up to it more in his rookie year. I have high hopes for him next year, but I also think that higher expectations are realistic for him in 2007. I don't blame BA's year on Ozzie.

ondafarm
10-04-2006, 09:43 PM
No, I'm someone who is very impressed by Anderson's potential, but also disappointed that he didn't live up to it more in his rookie year. I have high hopes for him next year, but I also think that higher expectations are realistic for him in 2007. I don't blame BA's year on Ozzie.

After re-reading perhaps my post was a bit strong. BA got off to a bad start. The cure for that is a little time off, perhaps some platooning and more protection in your matchups. When BA started to turn it around, Ozzie should have returned him to the lineup regularly but instead Ozzie seemed to sit BA even more. I think Ozzie knew by early August that the Sox were pooped and didn't have a strong stretch run in them this year so instead of just putting BA out there regularly, he started then getting him in the mode for next year. Unfortunately, that meant sitting him a lot and featuring him against breaking ball stuff guys et al.

Blame Ozzie? Well, no. But I don't like when a mananger sits one guy just to teach him a lesson, even if that will help him ultimately.

southside rocks
10-05-2006, 08:21 AM
After re-reading perhaps my post was a bit strong. BA got off to a bad start. The cure for that is a little time off, perhaps some platooning and more protection in your matchups. When BA started to turn it around, Ozzie should have returned him to the lineup regularly but instead Ozzie seemed to sit BA even more. I think Ozzie knew by early August that the Sox were pooped and didn't have a strong stretch run in them this year so instead of just putting BA out there regularly, he started then getting him in the mode for next year. Unfortunately, that meant sitting him a lot and featuring him against breaking ball stuff guys et al.

Blame Ozzie? Well, no. But I don't like when a mananger sits one guy just to teach him a lesson, even if that will help him ultimately.

That's an interesting observation. I think you're right, but I also think that Ozzie, while he knew that, wasn't prepared to admit it to himself at that point. As you know better than I do, I'm sure, baseball is so much about mental perspective and attitude. I'd bet that Ozzie couldn't act on that knowledge/feeling because it would seem to him like tipping over into a 'losing' mentality. Who knows how different the season might have been ...

The team seemed so TIGHT to me, the last two months. Those guys looked like their faces would crack if they smiled. Playing tight doesn't help you win, but when you're not winning, there's nothing that's humorous. Catch-22. If they could have lightened up, they might have played better and won a few more games. Dunno.

I don't share your view of Ozzie's culpability or even his role in BA's year. I know you know the game from having played it -- and I like reading your posts for that reason, you have a perspective that's uncommon here sometimes -- but I don't think that Ozzie could have made Anderson's season very much other than what it was. Reading books, from Jim Bouton to Jim Brosnan to David Wells to Mike Marshall, and watching baseball for 30+ years, I just don't think that a manager has an indefinable effect on one player. Players tend to play up, or down, to their abilities most years, barring of course injuries and other physical problems.

Which is not to say that a manager makes no difference. Of course he does. But short of swinging the bat for Brian, I don't know what Ozzie should have done differently here.

I do think that the White Sox centerfield situation in 2006 was a haphazard arrangement to say the least. Whether that was because BA got off to such a poor start at the plate in the first months, or whether his problems were made worse by that, I don't know. In hindsight, it seems clear to me that Anderson would have done well to spend 2006, or most of it, in Charlotte. The Sox didn't have a Plan B for when Anderson struggled so much. That's their bad. On that I will argue with no one. :tongue: