PDA

View Full Version : Theory on BA's poor hitting in 2006


Frater Perdurabo
11-25-2006, 11:14 AM
First let me state that Anderson certainly disappointed me at the plate in 2006. He has no one to blame but himself for his performance in April, May, early June and September.

With that out of the way, I believe that sometimes it is wise to bat a guy ninth just to keep his glove on the field, especially when the 1-8 hitters produce well. In my mind, BA plays that kind of defense.

Here's my theory, and again this is not an EXCUSE for Anderson, but rather a plausible explanation for PART of his struggles:

There is no doubt that Uribe's OBP was terrible in 2006. Consequently, Anderson had very few opportunities to bat with a guy on base. Therefore, he didn't have many opportunities to practice situational hitting in game situations. As a result, he was a poor situational hitter when he was faced with those kinds of situations.

More often than any other hitter on the Sox, Anderson batted with the bases empty and at least one out. So what does a hitter do to try to get something going in those types of situations? Try to take pitches and generate a walk? (Brian did that a lot in the middle of his slump, and pitchers just threw strikes that he watched.) Swing for an extra-base hit/homer? (Brian did that a lot too, and struck out a lot.)

Again, Brian alone was/is responsbile for his poor hitting and even for his frequently poor approach each time he was at the plate. But he's not at fault for the countless craptacular situations in which he found himself hitting.

While I hope Anderson takes responsibility to improve his hitting significantly, I also think that a better #8 hitter would help him, too (whether that comes from a trade or Uribe's improvement, I don't care, as long as it happens).

Keeping Anderson's glove in CF will help the Sox in 2007.

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-25-2006, 11:22 AM
First let me state that Anderson certainly disappointed me at the plate in 2006. He has no one to blame but himself for his performance in April, May, early June and September.

With that out of the way, I believe that sometimes it is wise to bat a guy ninth just to keep his glove on the field, especially when the 1-8 hitters produce well. In my mind, BA plays that kind of defense.

Here's my theory, and again this is not an EXCUSE for Anderson, but rather a plausible explanation for PART of his struggles:

There is no doubt that Uribe's OBP was terrible in 2006. Consequently, Anderson had very few opportunities to bat with a guy on base. Therefore, he didn't have many opportunities to practice situational hitting in game situations. As a result, he was a poor situational hitter when he was faced with those kinds of situations.

More often than any other hitter on the Sox, Anderson batted with the bases empty and at least one out. So what does a hitter do to try to get something going in those types of situations? Try to take pitches and generate a walk? (Brian did that a lot in the middle of his slump, and pitchers just threw strikes that he watched.) Swing for an extra-base hit/homer? (Brian did that a lot too, and struck out a lot.)

Again, Brian alone was/is responsbile for his poor hitting and even for his frequently poor approach each time he was at the plate. But he's not at fault for the countless craptacular situations in which he found himself hitting.

While I hope Anderson takes responsibility to improve his hitting significantly, I also think that a better #8 hitter would help him, too (whether that comes from a trade or Uribe's improvement, I don't care, as long as it happens).

Keeping Anderson's glove in CF will help the Sox in 2007.
I agree that we should keep Anderson. However, their is only one theory explaining his poor batting: he sucks. Maybe he isn't what we all thought he would be.

fquaye149
11-25-2006, 11:25 AM
I agree that we should keep Anderson. However, their is only one theory explaining his poor batting: he sucks. Maybe he isn't what we all thought he would be.

BZZZT---

There are two explanations (maybe more)

1.) he sucks
2.) he is a rookie and rookies aren't always gangbusters out the gate

Corlose 15
11-25-2006, 12:04 PM
BZZZT---

There are two explanations (maybe more)

1.) he sucks
2.) he is a rookie and rookies aren't always gangbusters out the gate

Exactly. I love how all these wise all knowing sages come out of the woodwork and say that he sucks after one bad season.:rolleyes:

Maybe he does suck but to say that you KNOW he does after one bad season annoys the hell out of me.

Furthermore the fact that he plays excellent defense and has had a history of success in the minors tells me that he deserves more than one platooned season to prove himself.

jabrch
11-25-2006, 12:06 PM
I agree that we should keep Anderson. However, their is only one theory explaining his poor batting: he sucks. Maybe he isn't what we all thought he would be.

That's completely ridiculous.

Try this one on for size...

As a rookie, he struggled the first few months of the season because the game is so totally different at this level. In July, he hit .313. In August, he hit .296 with a .367 OBP.

He didn't have a good rookie year - nobody disputes that. But he had 2 damn good months. Saying he sucks, based on the little we saw of him, when he wasn't even getting in the lineup every day, is foolishly shortsighted.

BiggestFan14
11-25-2006, 12:19 PM
You all make it sound like it's a cake walk hitting in proffesional baseball. He'll be fine.

johnr1note
11-25-2006, 12:26 PM
That's completely ridiculous.

Try this one on for size...

As a rookie, he struggled the first few months of the season because the game is so totally different at this level. In July, he hit .313. In August, he hit .296 with a .367 OBP.

He didn't have a good rookie year - nobody disputes that. But he had 2 damn good months. Saying he sucks, based on the little we saw of him, when he wasn't even getting in the lineup every day, is foolishly shortsighted.

Boy, I have to agree here. Many star players started out poorly -- Mike Schmidt hit .196 his rookie year, Sammy Sosa hit .220 over his first two full seasons, and on the current White Sox team, we waited years for Joe Crede and Jon Garland to develop into the players they are today.

Brian Anderson has his rookie year under his belt. If he comes to camp healthy, in shape, and working hard, there is no reason to believe he won't improve as a hitter.

jabrch
11-25-2006, 12:29 PM
Boy, I have to agree here. Many star players started out poorly -- Mike Schmidt hit .196 his rookie year, Sammy Sosa hit .220 over his first two full seasons, and on the current White Sox team, we waited years for Joe Crede and Jon Garland to develop into the players they are today.

Brian Anderson has his rookie year under his belt. If he comes to camp healthy, in shape, and working hard, there is no reason to believe he won't improve as a hitter.


Remember Robin Ventura's rookie year? Even Robin's second year kinda sucked.

If you are writing off BA after what you have seen so far, I'm guessing you don't have much of an understanding of how players develop over the course of time.

Ryan Howard is the exception, not the rule.

Chips
11-25-2006, 12:36 PM
That's completely ridiculous.

Try this one on for size...

As a rookie, he struggled the first few months of the season because the game is so totally different at this level. In July, he hit .313. In August, he hit .296 with a .367 OBP.

He didn't have a good rookie year - nobody disputes that. But he had 2 damn good months. Saying he sucks, based on the little we saw of him, when he wasn't even getting in the lineup every day, is foolishly shortsighted.

And Ditto.

pmck003
11-25-2006, 12:39 PM
maybe he had the pennies in a jar syndrome

Fake Chet Lemon
11-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Remember Robin Ventura's rookie year? Even Robin's second year kinda sucked.

If you are writing off BA after what you have seen so far, I'm guessing you don't have much of an understanding of how players develop over the course of time.

Ryan Howard is the exception, not the rule.

Ventura = Career .267 (big whuuup)

If you are happy with BA topping out at .267 I guess it doesn't take much to impress you.

DumpJerry
11-25-2006, 01:58 PM
BZZZT---

There are two explanations (maybe more)

1.) he sucks
2.) he is a rookie and rookies aren't always gangbusters out the gate

You all make it sound like it's a cake walk hitting in proffesional baseball. He'll be fine.

Remember Robin Ventura's rookie year? Even Robin's second year kinda sucked.

If you are writing off BA after what you have seen so far, I'm guessing you don't have much of an understanding of how players develop over the course of time.

Ryan Howard is the exception, not the rule.
One more time: HE WAS A ROOKIE. When the Sox brought him up north in '06, KW, Ozzie and everyone else said it was for his GLOVE and that he had time to develop his bat.

HE WILL BE FINE. JUST SHOW SOME PATIENCE.

CLR01
11-25-2006, 02:12 PM
Exactly. I love how all these wise all knowing sages come out of the woodwork and say that he sucks after one bad season.:rolleyes:


Hell look at how some have turned on Buehrle after two horrible months and he has given the Sox 5 good years. I wish I could say I am shocked by statements like that but I'm not.

Hitmen77
11-25-2006, 02:19 PM
Ventura = Career .267 (big whuuup)

If you are happy with BA topping out at .267 I guess it doesn't take much to impress you.

A great fielding CF who hits .267? I'll take it. Good CFs aren't exactly a dime-a-dozen.

JB98
11-25-2006, 02:35 PM
You want to know what Brian's problems are? He can't hit a slider, and he doesn't have good knowledge of the strike zone. He swings at pitcher's pitches, and he gets himself in bad counts. Obviously, your batting average is not going to be very good if you're hitting 0-2 and 1-2 all the time.

It could be inexperience. It could mean he sucks. Right now, his offense is a liability. If he's our CF next season, I sure hope he improves.

sox84
11-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Ventura = Career .267 (big whuuup)

If you are happy with BA topping out at .267 I guess it doesn't take much to impress you.

Careful, careful, you're stepping on my toes. If he can contribute as well as an all around player and positive clubhouse guy as Robin, I guess I qualify as easily impressible. Hadn't been a quality Sox 3rd baseman for halfway to forever before he came along. WHUUP WHUUP WHUUP for Robin!:supernana:

Chisox003
11-25-2006, 02:44 PM
Exactly. I love how all these wise all knowing sages come out of the woodwork and say that he sucks after one bad season.
For some reason, I don't exactly think "wise, all knowing sages" when I see a post from Cuck the Fubs. Crazy. :tongue:

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-25-2006, 03:44 PM
For some reason, I don't exactly think "wise, all knowing sages" when I see a post from Cuck the Fubs. Crazy. :tongue:

know what else is crazy? You.:angry:

jabrch
11-25-2006, 03:48 PM
Ventura = Career .267 (big whuuup)

If you are happy with BA topping out at .267 I guess it doesn't take much to impress you.

Are you ****ting me? If BA does what Robin did for the White Sox, I'd be THRILLED. Robin didn't break down until the year after the Sox got rid of him. He was good for about 20 HRs, a .280 average and a .375 obp just about every year he was with us. In addition he won 5 GGs while a Sox.

It doesn't take much to impress me? If Brian Anderson "tops out" at Robin Ventura's level, he'd be one of the all time best White Sox CFs. Your post is completely without sense or merit.

infohawk
11-25-2006, 04:04 PM
Everyone's just going to have to be patient with Brian Anderson. Keep in mind the following first full season performances for players developed in the White Sox system:

Robin Ventura .249 BA/.324 OBP
Aaron Rowand .258 BA/.298 OBP
Joe Crede .261 BA/.308 OBP (2003)
...............239 BA/.299 OBP (2004)
...............252 BA/.303 OBP (2005)

These are just a few examples, but I'm glad we didn't run these three out of town after their first full seasons. Crede and Venura have (in the case of Ventura had) elite-level abilities. Rowand turned out to be a solid centerfielder on a World Series champion and many people here pine for his return.

I would agree that Uribe's offense is a bigger problem than Anderson's only because Uribe's been around the league longer and is unlikely to see continued improvement. Anderson can and likely will. Not to mention, he's inexpensive.

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-25-2006, 04:14 PM
Everyone's just going to have to be patient with Brian Anderson. Keep in mind the following first full season performances for players developed in the White Sox system:

Robin Ventura .249 BA/.324 OBP
Aaron Rowand .258 BA/.298 OBP
Joe Crede .261 BA/.308 OBP (2003)
...............239 BA/.299 OBP (2004)
...............252 BA/.303 OBP (2005)

These are just a few examples, but I'm glad we didn't run these three out of town after their first full seasons. Crede and Venura have (in the case of Ventura had) elite-level abilities. Rowand turned out to be a solid centerfielder on a World Series champion and many people here pine for his return.

I would agree that Uribe's offense is a bigger problem than Anderson's only because Uribe's been around the league longer and is unlikely to see continued improvement. Anderson can and likely will. Not to mention, he's inexpensive.
What gives u that feeling?

Frater Perdurabo
11-25-2006, 04:17 PM
I really didn't want this thread to turn into another re-hashing of the same old arguments. We've all hardened into our numerous camps and nothing will convince any of us to change sides.

I was trying to explore another facet of the issue; something that I do not believe was sufficiently addressed in our debates: the extent to which Uribe and Anderson might have made each other worse.

What I wanted to gauge - and I'm to blame for not making it sufficiently clear in the thread title or in my initial post - was what folks thought about the extent to which the typical rookie hitting struggles through which Brian went (can't hit an MLB slider well, not used to MLB pitchers, accustomed to hitting at the top or middle of the order in college and the minors, yanked in and out of the lineup, obstinacy, whatever else) were made worse and/or magnified by the lack of "good" at bats in which he had an opportunity to try to help manufacture a run.

A baseball team is an organism; it has to work as a whole. Uribe's terrible OBP in front of Anderson, himself a struggling rookie, probably made both of them perform worse.

Also, who was most likely to be on base when Anderson batted? Uribe was rarely ever on base. Therefore, unless he led off and inning, Anderson almost always batted with at least one out!

Furthermore, Crede is slow. AJ is even slower. Should Ozzie order Anderson to try the hit and run with Crede or AJ at first? Could either guy score from second or go from first to third on a single?

Given these realities, were there really that many situations where Brian would be called upon to do anything other than simply swing away?

We all agree that the 2005 Sox as a team were greater than the sum of thier parts? Well, the 8-9 combo of Uribe and Anderson was WORSE than the sum of their individual faults, and it is my contention that Anderson got the worse end of that deal. Think about it. Why would an opposing pitcher groove any pitches to Uribe, knowing that he's such an undisciplined swinger? Rather, as long as he throws crappy, marginal strikes (or close balls) to Uribe, he would make an out. He certainly wouldn't walk. Therefore, with an out recorded, why groove pitches to the rookie? Instead, make him chase close balls, take the risk of throwing him sliders and don't give him anything to hit.

If no starting position players change for 2007, Ozzie ought to flip Anderson and Uribe in the order. At least Anderson has plate discipline and is more likely to get on base than Uribe, who has neither plate discipline nor patience nor strike zone judgement. Moreover, I think Anderson has learned from his experience (he did show improvement during the season) and will come into 2007 a better hitter.

Frater Perdurabo
11-25-2006, 04:20 PM
I would agree that Uribe's offense is a bigger problem than Anderson's only because Uribe's been around the league longer and is unlikely to see continued improvement. Anderson can and likely will. Not to mention, he's inexpensive.

Great post! Your assertion is backed up by the fact that Anderson DID improve beginning in mid-June (although he did have a rough September).

fquaye149
11-25-2006, 04:34 PM
Ventura = Career .267 (big whuuup)

If you are happy with BA topping out at .267 I guess it doesn't take much to impress you.

Oh come on. GMAMFB.

Look at him during years when he was hitting well, not his career Batting Average. We're not looking to get a mean season representing what a player has done over his career---because those generally DON'T EXIST. We're looking for, especially in a player as young as Anderson, the fruition of potential and the maturation and potential before he begins to tail off because he has reached the end of his career due to age and injuries.

In other words, look at Robin from 1991 (his third year in the league, 2nd full season) until 1999, after which he had 4 full years of injury plagued production so far below his career average that it seems to taint your credibility that you would bring them up as representative at all of his ability.

SoxEd
11-25-2006, 04:40 PM
You can count me in with the folk who think he needs time to improve at this level.

I'm also drawn to the idea of batting him at 8 and JU at 9.

[There goes all credibility of both of those ideas.]

That said, if he keeps making the same mistakes all next year, and our Hitting coaches can't turn his performance around, then his best value to the organisation may well be as Trade fodder.

I'm very happy with his glove work, and hope that in his sophomore season he'll show some improvement with the wood.

Lillian
11-25-2006, 04:44 PM
Frater Perdurabo (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=2347), your original post in this thread, as well as the follow up, are some of the best, and most insightful analysis that I've read on this site.
Thanks for your contribution. It was very interesting, and encouraging, at least in respect to Anderson.

Daver
11-25-2006, 04:54 PM
That said, if he keeps making the same mistakes all next year, and our Hitting coaches can't turn his performance around, then his best value to the organisation may well be as Trade fodder.


I am still waiting for Greg Walker to improve anyone on the teams bat, not just Brian Anderson's.

MRM
11-25-2006, 05:13 PM
I am still waiting for Greg Walker to improve anyone on the teams bat, not just Brian Anderson's.

The once coach I would like to see replaced is Walker. That sweet left handed swing of his can't be taught and I just haven't seen where he has helped improve any of the hitters. The vets have been doing it for years and the young guys continue to struggle.

MRM
11-25-2006, 05:16 PM
You can count me in with the folk who think he needs time to improve at this level.

I'm also drawn to the idea of batting him at 8 and JU at 9.

[There goes all credibility of both of those ideas.]

That said, if he keeps making the same mistakes all next year, and our Hitting coaches can't turn his performance around, then his best value to the organisation may well be as Trade fodder.

I'm very happy with his glove work, and hope that in his sophomore season he'll show some improvement with the wood.

I'd just as soon trade him while he still has decent value. He's better defensively than AAron was and look what the Sox got for *him*. Anderson and a starter should bring a HUGE return in a trade with a team like Texas.

Corlose 15
11-25-2006, 05:45 PM
I am still waiting for Greg Walker to improve anyone on the teams bat, not just Brian Anderson's.

Didn't he go over film and mechanics with Crede when he was on the DL late in 2005? I seem to recall hearing that and that has seemed to work out well for both Joe and the Sox.

MRM
11-25-2006, 05:51 PM
Didn't he go over film and mechanics with Crede when he was on the DL late in 2005? I seem to recall hearing that and that has seemed to work out well for both Joe and the Sox.

Not sure you can credit Walker for Credes development. Joe was expected to develop much faster than he did. What he did last year is what was expected out of him 3 years ago. Where is Charlie Lau when you need him?

Daver
11-25-2006, 05:54 PM
I'd just as soon trade him while he still has decent value. He's better defensively than AAron was and look what the Sox got for *him*. Anderson and a starter should bring a HUGE return in a trade with a team like Texas.


That leaves the team without a center fielder.

Corlose 15
11-25-2006, 06:00 PM
Not sure you can credit Walker for Credes development. Joe was expected to develop much faster than he did. What he did last year is what was expected out of him 3 years ago. Where is Charlie Lau when you need him?

How much of that is Walker's fault and how much of that is Crede's fault?

I also remember hearing something about how when Dye got to the Sox they allowed him to do his own approach at the plate unlike the controlled OBP approach in Oakland. Now, I dont know how much of that was Walker but its certainly helped Jermaine.

Beautox
11-26-2006, 01:15 AM
My Theory of why Anderson didn't turn it around till the second half and wasn't very good at the plate past the first game: Rob Mackowiak.

After Brian started the season off on the right foot on opening night (2-3 with a 2B, 2RBI, 1BB 1 SO and 1SB) he sat the next game, and Rob Mackowiak started in CF, why?