PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie had darrin in CF


Rowandws33
03-28-2007, 11:13 AM
to me it feels like from day one ozzie knew darrin was the starter in CF. they both have about the say numbers in spring. Anderson got fewer at bats but had more homers. Anderson has the better glove in the outfield as well. In my eyes i dont see why Darrin is the hands down starter. Darrin is not the same player he used to be. ok iam off the soap box...

BainesHOF
03-28-2007, 11:25 AM
Darrin is the hands down starter because he's played like a major leaguer throughout his proven career while Anderson batted below .200 in four of six months and had mental lapses in the outfield last season.

sox1970
03-28-2007, 11:33 AM
I'm ok with the whole scenario right now--Darin (one N) brings some good intangibles. If he gets hurt, he gets hurt. Ozzie likes him in the two hole, and I'm willing to see how this turns out with Iguchi batting 7th.

Anderson may have had a decent batting average this spring, but when does the guy ever get a big RBI? I mean, great, he bounced back late last year and had some knocks, but without looking it up, I can tell you his RISP average still sucked.

maurice
03-28-2007, 01:39 PM
All we've leared from this is that you can't believe anything Ozzie says when the topic is Brian Anderson.

IndianWhiteSox
03-28-2007, 01:40 PM
All we've leared from this is that you can't believe anything Ozzie says when the topic is Brian Anderson.

Sad but true.

:(:

Jjav829
03-28-2007, 01:43 PM
Sad but true.

:(:

How is that sad? How do you know Ozzie's goal all along wasn't to motivate Anderson by making him fight hard for his spot, rather than handing him playing time like he basically did last year?

CLR01
03-28-2007, 01:49 PM
How is that sad? How do you know Ozzie's goal all along wasn't to motivate Anderson by making him fight hard for his spot, rather than handing him playing time like he basically did last year?

Well if that's the goal wouldn't you need to actually give him the spot after he did that fighting instead of patting him on the head and telling him to enjoy fighting for at-bats on the bench? :?:

INSox56
03-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Well if that's the goal wouldn't you need to actually give him the spot after he did that fighting instead of patting him on the head and telling him to enjoy fighting for at-bats on the bench? :?:

Those are my thoughts. I am actually pretty pissed about all this BA bull****. If you compare the numbers (ESPECIALLY OBP AND STRIKEOUTS), not to even mention defense, BA should be standing in CF as our starter. If you ask me, the only thing this situation should hinge upon is the iguchi thing. If Iguchi struggles lower in the order, move his ass back up to #2 and put BA back in. I think it's getting safe to say that barring injury, BA won't be even up to a platooning situation. Your rationale is so awesome sometimes Ozzie...

Jjav829
03-28-2007, 01:53 PM
Well if that's the goal wouldn't you need to actually give him the spot after he did that fighting instead of patting him on the head and telling him to enjoy fighting for at-bats on the bench? :?:

Maybe. While everyone here loves to think they know everything they need to know about Brian Anderson, the truth is no one here knows Brian Anderson as well as the White Sox. Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.

jabrch
03-28-2007, 01:56 PM
All we've leared from this is that you can't believe anything Ozzie says when the topic is Brian Anderson.

You shouldn't take any of what Guillen says to the media for face value - PERIOD. Guillen works people. He works the media. He works young players. He works veterans. He works fans. Follow Guillen's actions, not his words, and you will see what really is going on.

Anderson had a bad year last year and was rewarded by being forced to compete for a job this spring. He didn't lose it - but he didn't win it. He will be splitting CF and LF with Erstad and Pods. There's nothing wrong with that. Now if Erstad stunk all spring and BA tore it up, then there'd be a different story here. But both had decent springs, and both earned playing time. Either way - let's see once the season is underway how Ozzie splits the ABs between the three of them. Pods and Erstad are both injury risks - so I'd be surprised if we didn't see BA get plenty of ABs, certainly early, as Ozzie rests the other two.

IndianWhiteSox
03-28-2007, 01:58 PM
Maybe. While everyone here loves to think they know everything they need to know about Brian Anderson, the truth is no one here knows Brian Anderson as well as the White Sox. Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.

How is that sad? How do you know Ozzie's goal all along wasn't to motivate Anderson by making him fight hard for his spot, rather than handing him playing time like he basically did last year?

Listen, I'm not saying I know everything that goes on between BA and Ozzie or anyone else. But, all I was saying is that you can't trust Ozzie when it comes to his opinion of BA and right now that's the case. The same way I feel about when anyone else in baseball who happens to be of a higher position like Manager or GM, due to the fact that you really can't tell the public everything that goes on around the organization.

jabrch
03-28-2007, 01:58 PM
Maybe. While everyone here loves to think they know everything they need to know about Brian Anderson, the truth is no one here knows Brian Anderson as well as the White Sox. Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.

Good point JJav. Not that they are always right, or can't be questioned, but I do truly believe that Guillen and Williams know a lot more about how to manage the personell they have than do any of us, and they know a lot more about what is really going on than we do.

BA will get lots of ABs against some very tough pitchers. (LHP in the ALC is tough) He will have plenty of chances to prove himself all year, earn even more playing time, and position himself for next year.

russ99
03-28-2007, 01:58 PM
The Brian Anderson fans should chill out. He made the club. :D:

Pods & Erstad are coming off injuries and he'll get lots of playing time. If one of those guys gets hurt again, Anderson's the starter in CF, but this time he's earned it, and is not just handed the job. He's a lot more prepared to take it and run with it this time.

UserNameBlank
03-28-2007, 02:03 PM
Maybe. While everyone here loves to think they know everything they need to know about Brian Anderson, the truth is no one here knows Brian Anderson as well as the White Sox. Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.
I agree and I'm glad they challenged Brian, but I don't think he did anything to show he shouldn't be starting in CF.

Granted, I've only seen a few ST games on TV, but Erstad's home run the other day was the only ball I've seen him hit hard all spring. I've seen a few bloopers, but nothing to show that he is any better than Brian with the bat. And surely he's not better than Brian in the field.

If Ozzie's opening day lineup goes Pods-Erstad-Thome, which I think it will, I forsee an early disaster at the top of the lineup.

UserNameBlank
03-28-2007, 02:05 PM
The Brian Anderson fans should chill out. He made the club. :D:

Pods & Erstad are coming off injuries and he'll get lots of playing time. If one of those guys gets hurt again, Anderson's the starter in CF, but this time he's earned it, and is not just handed the job. He's a lot more prepared to take it and run with it this time.
That makes no sense. You could say he earned the backup job, but if he starts only because someone else gets hurt that is not what you call "earning it."

Jjav829
03-28-2007, 02:11 PM
Good point JJav. Not that they are always right, or can't be questioned, but I do truly believe that Guillen and Williams know a lot more about how to manage the personell they have than do any of us, and they know a lot more about what is really going on than we do.

BA will get lots of ABs against some very tough pitchers. (LHP in the ALC is tough) He will have plenty of chances to prove himself all year, earn even more playing time, and position himself for next year.

Key word there. Ozzie Guillen is the White Sox "manager." There is a reason he holds that title, rather than the title White Sox "lineup filler-outer guy who also replaces pitchers." He is a manager, and his responsibilities include more than just deciding who starts Opening Day, who the 5th starter is and who makes the team as the backup catcher. There are plenty of people who could do that. Fans can make those kind of decisions and be right most of the time. Ozzie also has to manage those players though. He has to figure out what kind of situations best fit a certain player.

Like I said, some players respond best when coddled, others respond best when given a kick in the ass. This goes for all people. BA is thought of as a guy who has a lot of self-confidence. It certainly stands to reason that he's the type who needs the kick in the ass so that he remains grounded and doesn't get too sure of himself. Just the same, someone who is lacking in confidence might need a pat on the back. You give that person a kick in the ass, you might only make things worse.

What it comes down to is that Ozzie isn't just a lineup manager, but also a people manager. Seeing as how I haven't spent 7+ months around Brian Anderson (or even a day for that matter), I'd tend to trust the opinions of Ozzie, Kenny and everyone else who can judge these types of things.

The Dude
03-28-2007, 02:21 PM
to me it feels like from day one ozzie knew darrin was the starter in CF. they both have about the say numbers in spring. Anderson got fewer at bats but had more homers. Anderson has the better glove in the outfield as well. In my eyes i dont see why Darrin is the hands down starter. Darrin is not the same player he used to be. ok iam off the soap box...

Wow, this post is tough to read!:o:

Erstad will do fine and I don't think he was automatically penciled in as the starter. BA did not impress so he is the backup, plain and simple. Hopefully he gets his fair share of ABs.

INSox56
03-28-2007, 02:27 PM
BA did not impress so he is the backup, plain and simple. Hopefully he gets his fair share of ABs.
Numbers-wise, there is nothing to backup that BA didn't impress.

jabrch
03-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Numbers-wise, there is nothing to backup that BA didn't impress.

And there is also nothing he did that was any more impressive than what Erstad did. Hitting .300 in ST isn't particularly impressive. Of the Sox with 20+ ABs in ST, 13 of them hit over .300. BA was not one of them. That's unimpressive. Mackowiak was impressive. Ozuna was impressive. Hall, Konerko, Rogo, Fields, Thome - they were impressive.

BA really didn't impress me - neither did Erstad for that matter. Both had ok springs showing that they have both got discrete limitations. I'm glad we have both - I'm hoping that they will be effective as a combination. If either had to get 600+ PAs, I'm thinking they'd struggle.

TDog
03-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Numbers-wise, there is nothing to backup that BA didn't impress.


Spring numbers don't mean much. Johnny Matias recorded a lifetime batting average under .200 after winning the starting rightfielder job by hitting nearly .500 in Grapefruit League play for the 1970 White Sox. An evaluation of Anderson's hitting more likely concerns his approach to reaching the numbers than what those numbers are. Conditions will be different next week. So will scouting reports and major league pitchers' approach to getting specific hitters out.

I haven't seen either Anderson or Erstad play this spring, but Erstad came to the Sox clearly the more polished hitter of the two. If he has been doing what Guillen is looking for from his No. 2 hitter, Anderson would have to show vast improvement to relegate Erstad to pinch hitting and replacing Podsednik on defense.

If Anderson would develop as a strong leadoff hitter, he wouldn't have to worry about battling with Erstad for a starting job.

twsoxfan5
03-28-2007, 03:47 PM
I personally dont care if BA gets another at bat and it is not b/c I hate him or think he is horrible. I am all for whatever is better for the team . Erstad is a proven major leaguer who had a bad year b/c of injuries. BA is not a proven major leaguer as in his only major league year he was below average at the plate. I think the job is now Erstad's to lose and if he plays bad or gets injured then let Brian play.

ondafarm
03-28-2007, 04:06 PM
I'm ok with the whole scenario right now--Darin (one N) brings some good intangibles. If he gets hurt, he gets hurt. Ozzie likes him in the two hole, and I'm willing to see how this turns out with Iguchi batting 7th.

Anderson may have had a decent batting average this spring, but when does the guy ever get a big RBI? I mean, great, he bounced back late last year and had some knocks, but without looking it up, I can tell you his RISP average still sucked.

BA's 2006 RISP was .195

Pretty much a solid sign that the kid is too tense and needs to relax more at the plate. Your RISP should be 20-30 points better than your standard BA, if just for pitchers needing to go from the stretch and at least one extra hole created by holding a guy on.

CLR01
03-28-2007, 04:17 PM
I personally dont care if BA gets another at bat and it is not b/c I hate him or think he is horrible. I am all for whatever is better for the team . Erstad is a proven major leaguer who had a bad year b/c of injuries. BA is not a proven major leaguer as in his only major league year he was below average at the plate. I think the job is now Erstad's to lose and if he plays bad or gets injured then let Brian play.

If it was truly about dong what's best for the team Uribe and Pods would be looking for new jobs but it certainly sounds nice.

jabrch
03-28-2007, 04:39 PM
If it was truly about dong what's best for the team Uribe and Pods would be looking for new jobs but it certainly sounds nice.

What would we have gotten for less than what we are paying those two who is any better at doing what they do?

If you don't think it is about doing what's best for the team, then what do you think KW/OG make decisions based on? You think they know these aren't the best moves they could make but they are standing by them to prove themselves right? You think they really had better options that they passed up? Where are these players who you speak of who were FA, who now make under 2mm and are proven to be better players than Pods and Uribe?

CLR01
03-28-2007, 04:53 PM
What would we have gotten for less than what we are paying those two who is any better at doing what they do?

If you don't think it is about doing what's best for the team, then what do you think KW/OG make decisions based on? You think they know these aren't the best moves they could make but they are standing by them to prove themselves right? You think they really had better options that they passed up? Where are these players who you speak of who were FA, who now make under 2mm and are proven to be better players than Pods and Uribe?


And why would the replacements need to make under 2M? Neither of them do.
But you're right, there's no replacing the great Podsednik and Uribe. They're as good as it gets.

soxinem1
03-28-2007, 04:55 PM
When Erstad is on the DL in June, BA should be determined enough to take the job for good this time.

Jerome
03-28-2007, 04:57 PM
**** this

erstad is a bench player, we're going to be tired of seeing him in there every day after about 2 months i predict

I'm all for giving Erstad the job if Anderson sucks like he did last year, but after a few months, not at the beginning of the season. He's never going to do anything playing as a platoon player. I thought he was a highly touted prospect. I thought he was the reason it was so easy to let Aaron Rowand go (I am no huge Rowand fan or anything.) So now we're going to start Darin Erstad ahead of him in his second year in the big leagues???:angry: :?: :(: :whiner: :rolleyes:

Jerome
03-28-2007, 05:01 PM
It makes more sense to me to play Brian Griese at QB than it does to play Darin Erstad over BA. :cool:

JB98
03-28-2007, 05:17 PM
Maybe. While everyone here loves to think they know everything they need to know about Brian Anderson, the truth is no one here knows Brian Anderson as well as the White Sox. Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.

I totally agree with this. I'm sick and tired of the "Oh, poor BA" mentality that exists on WSI. Everyone thinks mean old Ozzie is just picking on poor innocent BA. Maybe BA NEEDS a kick in the ass in order to reach his potential. Contrary to popular belief, what BA did last year, even in the second half, was not good enough.

Up until last year, BA has had everything come a little too easily for him. He was essentially handed the job when A-Row was traded. No more handouts. I was glad to read in the paper that BA is unhappy with his situation. Good. In fact, I hope he hates Ozzie's guts. Maybe that will motivate him to stop cool-breezing everything and start playing up to his potential.

peelwonder
03-28-2007, 05:20 PM
I totally agree with this. I'm sick and tired of the "Oh, poor BA" mentality that exists on WSI. Everyone thinks mean old Ozzie is just picking on poor innocent BA. Maybe BA NEEDS a kick in the ass in order to reach his potential. Contrary to popular belief, what BA did last year, even in the second half, was not good enough.

Up until last year, BA has had everything come a little too easily for him. He was essentially handed the job when A-Row was traded. No more handouts. I was glad to read in the paper that BA is unhappy with his situation. Good. In fact, I hope he hates Ozzie's guts. Maybe that will motivate him to stop cool-breezing everything and start playing up to his potential.


Amen....

Not to sound like a broken record but what the hell has BA ever done in his career...and I'm tired of the Joe Crede comparisons...

jabrch
03-28-2007, 05:20 PM
And why would the replacements need to make under 2M? Neither of them do.
But you're right, there's no replacing the great Podsednik and Uribe. They're as good as it gets.

Sorry - 3mm and 4mm respectively. In any case, who were the available FA OFs that you'd have signed over Pods? and who would you have played at SS after somehow trading Uribe?


If you really don't think OG/KW did what they think is in the best interest of the team, then what do you think motivates their decision making?

I don't think anyone is saying Pods/Uribe are "as good as it gets". But what options are you proposing?

twsoxfan5
03-28-2007, 05:34 PM
Brian Anderson is not starting b/c when he was given the chance he did not play well plain and simple.

soxrme
03-28-2007, 06:52 PM
The Brian Anderson fans should chill out. He made the club. :D:

Pods & Erstad are coming off injuries and he'll get lots of playing time. If one of those guys gets hurt again, Anderson's the starter in CF, but this time he's earned it, and is not just handed the job. He's a lot more prepared to take it and run with it this time.

There is plenty of playing time for 4 outfielders. BA will get his bats because Erstad will also be used at first base.Hopefully he won't bat .190 again at the beginning of the year.

Tragg
03-28-2007, 07:18 PM
Darrin is the hands down starter because he's played like a major leaguer throughout his proven career .

A proven career of mediocrity.

The choice is guaranteed mediocre in all phases
OR

Guaranteed great fielder plus big-time offensive risk

Walkman
03-28-2007, 07:21 PM
Erstad has proven over the last few years that he is well below average. Why this team is stuck with a below average CF again is beyond me.

JB98
03-28-2007, 07:24 PM
A proven career of mediocrity.

The choice is guaranteed mediocre in all phases
OR

Guaranteed great fielder plus big-time offensive risk

I don't think Erstad is a mediocre defensive player, nor would I categorize Anderson as "great." Erstad can handle CF quite well. Does he have as much range as Anderson at this stage of his career? Perhaps not, but I don't think he'll make the mental mistakes that Anderson makes.

I'm confident, though, that we'll hear cries of "BA would have had that" every time an opposing hitter rakes a lineshot double into one of the gaps.

BA is a freaking superhero around here.

TheVulture
03-28-2007, 07:34 PM
How is that sad? How do you know Ozzie's goal all along wasn't to motivate Anderson by making him fight hard for his spot, rather than handing him playing time like he basically did last year?What I don't get is why everyone assumes Erstad starting means Anderson won't play. And how is it that Podsednik is never mentioned in this discussion? Ideally, Anderson hits and Podsednik sits, IMO. I'm sure that's what KW and Ozzie have to be thinking. Erstad slides over to left and all of sudden we have a good defensive outfield to go along with the infield, without losing any offense. Pods isn't long for the south side, anyway. Might as well relegate to the bench the only defensive liability we have.

Tragg
03-28-2007, 07:36 PM
I don't think Erstad is a mediocre defensive player, nor would I categorize Anderson as "great." Erstad can handle CF quite well. Does he have as much range as Anderson at this stage of his career? Perhaps not, but I don't think he'll make the mental mistakes that Anderson makes.

I'm confident, though, that we'll hear cries of "BA would have had that" every time an opposing hitter rakes a lineshot double into one of the gaps.

BA is a freaking superhero around here.

Fair enough, but offensively, which is why Erstadt is in there, Erstadt is mediocre (and that's being generous) - except that Guillen seems to like swing-at-everything slap hitters like Erstadt, Ozuna, Sandy Alomar and, yes, Ozzie Guillen.

And if I read correctly, Erstadt is going to bat 2nd and one of our best on-base guys has been demoted by Guillen to 7th? What's the basis in moving one of the better hitters down, and putting one of the worst hitters 2nd?

102605
03-28-2007, 07:38 PM
Fair enough, but offensively, which is why Erstadt is in there, Erstadt is mediocre (and that's being generous).

And if I read correctly, Erstadt is going to bat 2nd and one of our best on-base guys has been demoted by Guillen to 7th? What's the basis in moving one of the better hitters down, and putting one of the worst hitters 2nd?

Who is Erstadt?

TheVulture
03-28-2007, 07:39 PM
In any case, who were the available FA OFs that you'd have signed over Pods?

Easy - Erstad and about 20 other guys.

santo=dorf
03-28-2007, 07:45 PM
And there is also nothing he did that was any more impressive than what Erstad did. Hitting .300 in ST isn't particularly impressive. Of the Sox with 20+ ABs in ST, 13 of them hit over .300. BA was not one of them. That's unimpressive. Mackowiak was impressive. Ozuna was impressive. Hall, Konerko, Rogo, Fields, Thome - they were impressive.

BA really didn't impress me - neither did Erstad for that matter. Both had ok springs showing that they have both got discrete limitations. I'm glad we have both - I'm hoping that they will be effective as a combination. If either had to get 600+ PAs, I'm thinking they'd struggle.
What a crock of ****. Are you really this dense? Why do you keep defending grinderstad?
Anderson struck out less, walked more, hit for more power, and had a pretty close average. With the exception of that home run, grinderstad has had nothing but bloop singles.

How did they compared defensively? It is my understand grinderstad had a gaffe in CF that opened the gates for a huge inning by the Giants.

In case anyone else missed the stats
grinderstad: .303/.333/.395/.728
Anderson: .292/.386/.458/.844
That's a .124 difference in OPS. That's huge.

JB98
03-28-2007, 08:01 PM
Fair enough, but offensively, which is why Erstadt is in there, Erstadt is mediocre (and that's being generous) - except that Guillen seems to like swing-at-everything slap hitters like Erstadt, Ozuna, Sandy Alomar and, yes, Ozzie Guillen.

And if I read correctly, Erstadt is going to bat 2nd and one of our best on-base guys has been demoted by Guillen to 7th? What's the basis in moving one of the better hitters down, and putting one of the worst hitters 2nd?

Damn if I know. I'm on the record as saying Iguchi should stay in the two-hole and Erstad should bat eighth.

Erstad might be mediocre offensively, but I'll take his .275 or .280 over BA's .225. I think we'll get more contact from Erstad as well.

soxfanatlanta
03-28-2007, 08:37 PM
I totally agree with this. I'm sick and tired of the "Oh, poor BA" mentality that exists on WSI. Everyone thinks mean old Ozzie is just picking on poor innocent BA. Maybe BA NEEDS a kick in the ass in order to reach his potential.

How the hell is benching him a kick in the ass? If you are going to challenge him, send him to Charlotte and leave it up to BA to get back. Benching him is setting him up to fail. How is he going to prove himself by sitting his ass down most of the game? Hitting off the bench/not getting consistent at bats is no way to throw down the gauntlet, IMO.

No, I do not know what is going on in the clubhouse with Anderson and Guillen, but we are talking about baseball players folks, not Machiavelli. OG's actions are of a man who does not have faith in Brian Anderson.

dlee120
03-28-2007, 09:17 PM
Okay, so BA was terrible last year offensively. I think we are all in agreement on this. How does a young, highly touted prospect become a better major league hitter then?? I think getting him regular at-bats is typically the way to go (See: Crede, Joe; also Ventura, Robin). Instead, the OG/KW are giving his ab's to a mediocre outfielder who's career is on the decline, simply because he has had previous success in the big leagues and that he has played the grinder style type baseball that the White Sox want to display.

It is important to realize that this is a new year. Many of you are using the reasoning that Erstad should be starting because BA was terrible last year and Erstad has performed well at the ML level. If OG is using last year as a determining factor, I can't see how he can when he doesn't take into consideration the performance of other players last year that are/were trying to make the squad (EX: Logan, Haegar, Russell in AA).

Give BA his ab's and let him continue to develop. Giving them to Erstad because OG wants to use Iguchi in the 2 hole in his ideal lineup, or Erstad was once a proven ML everyday player, or because BA was terrible offensively last year are all less than quality reason to relocate one of the best CFers in MLB to the bench. Young players need reps to develop! Give them an opportunity to do so!

churlish
03-28-2007, 09:24 PM
How the hell is benching him a kick in the ass? If you are going to challenge him, send him to Charlotte and leave it up to BA to get back. Benching him is setting him up to fail. How is he going to prove himself by sitting his ass down most of the game? Hitting off the bench/not getting consistent at bats is no way to throw down the gauntlet, IMO.


But Anderson will likely get fairly consistent at-bats.

Who honestly believes that both Podsednik and Erstad will be healthy the entire season? Plus, who believes both Podsednik and Erstad will be effective this season?

The point is, it seems like this is one of those problems that will eventually take care of itself. Probably by May is my guess, and then Anderson will have his chance.

JB98
03-28-2007, 09:50 PM
How the hell is benching him a kick in the ass? If you are going to challenge him, send him to Charlotte and leave it up to BA to get back. Benching him is setting him up to fail. How is he going to prove himself by sitting his ass down most of the game? Hitting off the bench/not getting consistent at bats is no way to throw down the gauntlet, IMO.

No, I do not know what is going on in the clubhouse with Anderson and Guillen, but we are talking about baseball players folks, not Machiavelli. OG's actions are of a man who does not have faith in Brian Anderson.




I don't have faith in Brian Anderson either.

BA was a starter on this team last year. He is no longer a starter. Does that not qualify as a kick in the ass? Judging by BA's comments in the paper this morning he is taking it as a kick in the ass.

Jjav829
03-28-2007, 10:16 PM
How the hell is benching him a kick in the ass? If you are going to challenge him, send him to Charlotte and leave it up to BA to get back. Benching him is setting him up to fail. How is he going to prove himself by sitting his ass down most of the game? Hitting off the bench/not getting consistent at bats is no way to throw down the gauntlet, IMO.

No, I do not know what is going on in the clubhouse with Anderson and Guillen, but we are talking about baseball players folks, not Machiavelli. OG's actions are of a man who does not have faith in Brian Anderson.



So are baseball players not still people? Do baseball players not possess the same emotions the rest of us living beings possess? This is the same type of attitude that leads people to act all surprised when it comes out that a player suffers from the same type of things everyone else on the Earth does. You know the reaction (I've heard it plenty of times), perhaps you've even had it yourself... "*Gasp*, a baseball player suffers from depression? No way, what does he have to be depressed about? He's making millions of dollars while I'm stuck in this deadend job living paycheck to paycheck."

They are human beings, not robots. They eat and breath the same way you and I do. The only difference is they are being paid to play a game. That doesn't make them exempt from natural human emotions and instincts. You're being extremely naive if you believe it does in any way. He's not being "benched," so stop using the term. He's being given a chance to earn playing time. What's so wrong with that? Do you people walk into a job interview and ask to become the CEO? If BA wants to get an everyday job, let him earn it. Go out there and actually hit. He had that opportunity last year, and for the first 3 months he didn't hit over .200. No one's saying he needed to be a .300 hitter right away, or anything close to that. But a sub-.600 OPS wasn't going to cut it.

BA will have that opportunity again this year. He's going to get at-bats early on and have an opportunity to show he deserves to play more. If he produces in those at-bats, and continues to play very good defense, he will get even more playing time. This is how it works. Very few rookies are just given an everyday job. Those who are given an everyday job are usually on bad teams where the team can afford to sacrifice production in the short-term for potential long-term success. Look around the league. See what's happening with Lastings Milledge? The Mets gave Milledge an opportunity last year to earn an everyday job and prove that he was worthy of such high praise. He hit .241 with a .690 OPS last year. Guess where he's at this year? Battling for playing time with Shawn Green. This is practically the same situation, and Milledge was thought of in much higher regard as a prospect than Anderson.

I know it's a lot easier to just blame Ozzie and fall into this line of thinking that Ozzie has some big grudge against Anderson, but this isn't an uncommon situation. It happens with young players a lot. Look all over the big leagues and you'll find young players like Matt Garza and Chad Billingsley losing jobs. Do they seem more talented than the mediocre veterans that are replacing them? Sure. But those organizations know a lot more about their players than anyone on the outside does.

getonbckthr
03-28-2007, 10:21 PM
Darrin is the hands down starter because he's played like a major leaguer throughout his proven career while Anderson batted below .200 in four of six months and had mental lapses in the outfield last season.
Ya last season Brian played like he was a rookie............oh wait

Frontman
03-28-2007, 11:14 PM
Some players need to be patted on the head and told "Good job." Others need a kick in the ass and a challenge. Maybe the Sox feel that Anderson responds best when he is challenged, rather than coddled.

No teal required.

The coddling and the "good job" approach did wonders with Brandon McCarthy. I thought the idea was a lower ERA, not one approaching 12.....but I digress.

Why is it that many fans feel that just because someone is likeable that they deserve a position over a player who is proven and produces more?

Last season, quite a few were clamouring for BA to be sent packing and for "33" to be back in center. Now that Erstad is the starting CF, and BA is on the bench, it seems quite a few folks are upset with that?

I'm sorry, I want the Sox to win. Period. We have more than enough likeable players; I want players who can produce. I don't care if its Pods, BA, Erstad, Dye; our outfield needs to:

A: Play good defense

and

B: Produce at the plate.

If it came down to just defense, I'd have BA out there every day I could. However, batting under .200 for two months last year doesn't fit into point "B."

Its a tradeoff. Personally, I'd prefer BA to be the first choice to come in off the bench for Erstad, versus it being BA the starter and Mack being the CF backup.

Front

esbrechtel
03-28-2007, 11:25 PM
Its a tradeoff. Personally, I'd prefer BA to be the first choice to come in off the bench for Erstad, versus it being BA the starter and Mack being the CF backup.

Front
AMEN!

UserNameBlank
03-28-2007, 11:49 PM
Amen....

Not to sound like a broken record but what the hell has BA ever done in his career...and I'm tired of the Joe Crede comparisons...

It's not about what he has done because he isn't being given the chance to continue developing.

Brian was brought in to be the everyday CF by the Sox even though some thought the Sox were rushing him to begin with. It was made clear that he was there for his defense and any offense he could provide would be looked at as a bonus.

In ST last year the Sox didn't like his approach at the plate. Greg Walker was even quoted on it, saying something along the lines of he didn't expect much out of Brian because of his flaws. Still, they started him in CF because they had faith in his defense.

Well, a year later his defense is still there AND he has made improvements at the plate. KW and Greg Walker have both admitted he looks much better and continue to publicly express faith in Brian. So what do they do? Start Erstad in CF.

IMO, you don't throw a young player into the fire when you know they aren't ready unless you are prepared to let them grow. They aren't letting Brian grow, even though he has made the adjustments and looks a lot better.

The thing that bothers me is that no one was talking about Erstad before Pods had his surgery. The talk was that Brian would be the everyday CF if he could beat out Sweeney and Owens for the job, and that was it. Then Pods goes down and the Sox snap up Erstad. There is no way Darin was in their plans because for the little amount of money Darin signed for, there is no way they would have waited so long to get him if they thought they needed him initially. He was just brought in to start in LF while Pods was recovering and pick up ABs here and there. Now all of the sudden he's the starter yet he hasn't done anything better than Brian this Spring. It's almost like the Sox care more about honoring some sort of commitment to Erstad than developing their first round pick who they kept over Reed, Rowand, and Young.

Hagan
03-29-2007, 12:40 AM
Darrin is the hands down starter because he's played like a major leaguer throughout his proven career while Anderson batted below .200 in four of six months and had mental lapses in the outfield last season.

This is the most ignorant thing ever. Erstad hasnt had a good year since 2000. I do not see how he really has tricked people into thinking that is a good player for all these years. Here are his ops number in the past 6 years: .691, .702, .642, .746, .696, .605. Last year andersons ops, in his first year of play, was .649. Putting erstad in center would block anderson from growing as much as he could. There is no way that anyone right now should be even thinking that erstad is the future white sox center fielder because it is either anderson or sweeney. If we put anderson in center field this year and he puts up numbers like last year, then we still wouldnt be losing much compaired to erstads stats the past 6 years. Its not a big gamble putting anderson in center because the alternates right now dont have the ceiling this year that anderson could possible have.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 02:21 AM
Easy - Erstad and about 20 other guys.

Name em.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 02:23 AM
This is the most ignorant thing ever. Erstad hasnt had a good year since 2000. I do not see how he really has tricked people into thinking that is a good player for all these years. Here are his ops number in the past 6 years: .691, .702, .642, .746, .696, .605. Last year andersons ops, in his first year of play, was .649.

2004 was a good year for Erstad.

There are lots of ways to evaluate a hitter outside of OPS. In fact, there are many better ways to evaluate a guy who you are asking to hit in the #2 spot.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 03:02 AM
How the hell is benching him a kick in the ass? If you are going to challenge him, send him to Charlotte and leave it up to BA to get back. Benching him is setting him up to fail. How is he going to prove himself by sitting his ass down most of the game? Hitting off the bench/not getting consistent at bats is no way to throw down the gauntlet, IMO.

No, I do not know what is going on in the clubhouse with Anderson and Guillen, but we are talking about baseball players folks, not Machiavelli. OG's actions are of a man who does not have faith in Brian Anderson.



I still would suggest you wait and see what OG's actual actions are.

How many ABs per week is BA going to get - that's the question. I imagine if he hits better than last year, he will have no problem getting 400 ABs in a rotation.

INSox56
03-29-2007, 11:59 AM
I totally agree with this. I'm sick and tired of the "Oh, poor BA" mentality that exists on WSI. Everyone thinks mean old Ozzie is just picking on poor innocent BA. Maybe BA NEEDS a kick in the ass in order to reach his potential. Contrary to popular belief, what BA did last year, even in the second half, was not good enough.

Up until last year, BA has had everything come a little too easily for him. He was essentially handed the job when A-Row was traded. No more handouts. I was glad to read in the paper that BA is unhappy with his situation. Good. In fact, I hope he hates Ozzie's guts. Maybe that will motivate him to stop cool-breezing everything and start playing up to his potential.

He really did get a lot of help from the coaching staff too....It's a good thing that Walker knew of his swinging flaw and helped him out with it. :rolleyes:

Hagan
03-29-2007, 12:12 PM
2004 was a good year for Erstad.

There are lots of ways to evaluate a hitter outside of OPS. In fact, there are many better ways to evaluate a guy who you are asking to hit in the #2 spot.

yes and a big way is by looking at plate patience, something that erstad does not excell in. A .330 OBP is not that good for a number two hitter(his OBP over the past three year which is being nice since the the 3 years before those would have made this lower). It is kind of coll though that every year his OBP is around .050 points higher than his batting average. I dont see that changing much and i dont expect him to hit over 300.

Here are the OBP for the number two hitter on every playoff team last year
Paul lo Duca: .355
Nick Punto .352
Derek Jeter .417
Nick Swisher .372
Chris Duncan .363
Mike Cameron .355
Placido Polanco .329

Polanco is the only person to have an obp under 350 last year, and the reason that he was there was because they really didnt have any other options. Tadihito has been pretty solid in the number two spot since he has been there. Putting Erstad at the number two spot and starting him over anderson makes no sense to me. If anderson wasnt hitting in spring training and erstad was then I would be a little more in favor of this happening, but andersons numbers so far are far supperior to erstads this spring.

Tragg
03-29-2007, 12:49 PM
In fact, there are many better ways to evaluate a guy who you are asking to hit in the #2 spot.
Like how?
and how is Erstad a better hitter than Iguchi?

jabrch
03-29-2007, 01:00 PM
yes and a big way is by looking at plate patience, something that erstad does not excell in. A .330 OBP

Well - OBP does not actally measure plate patience - it measaures walks + hits. For plate patience, why not look at P/PA. Now Erstad is by no means Abreu, but his P/PA average over three years has him somewhere around 3.9, somewhere in the top 50-60. (someone correct me if I am wrong on that)

Instead of OBP, which measures outcomes that a hitter has does not have complete control of (is the pitcher actually throwing him balls so he can walk or not) why not look at what that hitter does do? On strikes, what is his BA? Or how about looking at how he performs as a #2 hitter. When called upon to hit behind runners, how does he do? When called upon to move a guy over, how does he do?

OPS doesn't measure anything you ask Erstad to do. OBP tells part of the story, but it is misleading if used as a single measure.

Nobody is saying Erstad is a top tier player. But given our options, and his cost, there's no reason why people should be crapping all over him before he even sees a pitch in the regular season. If Erstad performs anywhere close to his 2004 numbers or his career average numbers, he will be a tremendous value for what we are paying him regardless of his OBP, OPS or whatever other metric you pick.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 01:00 PM
Like how?
and how is Erstad a better hitter than Iguchi?

Did I say Erstad is a better hitter than Iguchi? I don't recall that.

maurice
03-29-2007, 03:22 PM
I'm not persuaded that Erstad is a lock to bat .280+ over 500 ABs. There is an excellent chance that Erstad will get injured and/or suck.

I'm not persuaded that Anderson is certain to revert to the numbers he posted during his 1st 200 MLB ABs. It is probable that Anderson will bat significantly better than .200, unless Ozzie decides to start him only once / week against "favorable matchups" like Johan Santana. Contrary to the belief of some, a talented player who has only about 400 MLB ABs probably will improve in his second full season if his manager gives him a legit chance.

I imagine if [Anderson] hits better than last year, he will have no problem getting 400 ABs in a rotation.

IMHO, that would require an injury. Ozzie didn't give Anderson 400 ABs last year, when he allegedly handed him the starting job.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 03:28 PM
I'm not persuaded that Erstad is a lock to bat .280+ over 500 ABs. There is an excellent chance that Erstad will get injured and/or suck.

I'm not persuaded that Anderson is certain to revert to the numbers he posted during his 1st 200 MLB ABs. It is probable that Anderson will bat significantly better than .200, unless Ozzie decides to start him only once / week against "favorable matchups" like Johan Santana. Contrary to the belief of some, a talented player who has only about 400 MLB ABs probably will improve in his second full season if his manager gives him a legit chance.



IMHO, that would require an injury. Ozzie didn't give Anderson 400 ABs last year, when he allegedly handed him the starting job.

I'm not sure either way about any of these guys - but in absence of anything that is provable by anything other than blindass speculation, I'm going to trust the guys that put this World Series statue on my desk.

maurice
03-29-2007, 03:36 PM
I trust KW also.

Walkman
03-29-2007, 03:45 PM
2004 was a good year for Erstad.

There are lots of ways to evaluate a hitter outside of OPS. In fact, there are many better ways to evaluate a guy who you are asking to hit in the #2 spot.

My beef is that I can't find any way to evaluate him that makes him any good. And I don't think he'll improve any --those days are long gone.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 04:49 PM
My beef is that I can't find any way to evaluate him that makes him any good. And I don't think he'll improve any --those days are long gone.

You can't look at his 2004 season and find good in that? You don't find good in a guy who handles the bat well, sacrifices well, hits behind runners well, could hit in the .280-.290s with an OBP in the .340s, steals bases ok, runs the bases well, etc.?

If you really can't find any good in those things, then I don't really know what to say.

He's not a power hitter. He's not going to SLG/OPS high. But there are lots of effective hitters in the #2, #1, #7, #8 and #9 spots who dont' - certainly when they are as inexpensive as Erstad is. But look at 2004 - that's not so long ago. .295/.346/.400 16SBs and the bonus of being a very solid bat handler in the #2 spot. Tell me there's not a spot for those numbers from a guy making about 1mm? Now take away the job of hitting against tough LHP. In 2004, his numbers against RHP were .316/.370/.426.

Really - you can't find ANY way to make him look good? I don't think you are trying hard enough.

Tragg
03-29-2007, 05:18 PM
Did I say Erstad is a better hitter than Iguchi? I don't recall that.

Well, he's batting 2nd and Iguchi is demoted to 7th.

For slap hitters with little power, walks are pretty equal to hits....even moreso if your job is to GET ON BASE for Thome and Konerko and Dye to drive you in.

Britt Burns
03-29-2007, 05:18 PM
I think an Anderson/Erstad/Pods 3 way platoon for center and left is perfect at this time in all of their careers. I would think the reduced playing time for BA would be at least partially offset by the confidence he (hopefully) gets by only facing lefties and the occasional righty, and does anyone truly believe Pods and Erstad will make it through the entire season without some injury issues? At the very least they will need to be rested more than they have been previously.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 05:20 PM
Well, he's batting 2nd and Iguchi is demoted to 7th.

For slap hitters with little power, walks are pretty equal to hits....even moreso if your job is to GET ON BASE for Thome and Konerko and Dye to drive you in.

I don't think that you can look at #2 vs #7 that way. Iguchi is being put in a spot where his ability to slg the ball will be worth more to the team.

And I still disagree with the premise that it is all about getting on base. That's a piece of the puzzle - no doubt. But the team may be better off with Erstad at #2 and Iguchi at #7 if their skills are better leveraged in those roles.

JB98
03-29-2007, 06:49 PM
I'm not persuaded that Erstad is a lock to bat .280+ over 500 ABs. There is an excellent chance that Erstad will get injured and/or suck.

I'm not persuaded that Anderson is certain to revert to the numbers he posted during his 1st 200 MLB ABs. It is probable that Anderson will bat significantly better than .200, unless Ozzie decides to start him only once / week against "favorable matchups" like Johan Santana. Contrary to the belief of some, a talented player who has only about 400 MLB ABs probably will improve in his second full season if his manager gives him a legit chance.



IMHO, that would require an injury. Ozzie didn't give Anderson 400 ABs last year, when he allegedly handed him the starting job.

Anderson did get handed the starting job last year. And he stunk so bad that Ozzie played an infielder in CF for most of the second half. The entire situation in CF was just brutal by any standard last season.

ondafarm
03-29-2007, 06:58 PM
I think an Anderson/Erstad/Pods 3 way platoon for center and left is perfect at this time in all of their careers. I would think the reduced playing time for BA would be at least partially offset by the confidence he (hopefully) gets by only facing lefties and the occasional righty, and does anyone truly believe Pods and Erstad will make it through the entire season without some injury issues? At the very least they will need to be rested more than they have been previously.

Finally.

One caveat. Batting only/ primarily against lefties is not a particularly fair platoon for a guy recently up from the minors. In the minor leagues you see a lot more righties and most lefties who are there really stink. Most Major league teams are decent for any lefty and if a lefty can get anybody out, they will typically get yanked up to the majors much quicker than a righty would. If Logan was righty, he'd never have made it up last year.

maurice
03-29-2007, 07:26 PM
Anderson did get handed the starting job last year. And he stunk so bad that Ozzie played an infielder in CF for most of the second half.

Nice attempt at revisionist history. Ozzie actually "played an infielder in CF" starting with the second game of the season, not the second half. Mackowiak subsequently made regular appearances in CF throughout the year. His biggest month for P.T. (by far) was May. OTOH, Anderson got 182 ABs before the All Star Game and 183 ABs after the All Star Game.

Since you really want to talk about "the second half," here are their post-All Star Game stats . . .
Anderson: .257 AVE, .301 OBP, .393 SLG
Mackowiak: .258 AVE, .307 OBP, .398 SLG
:rolleyes:

maurice
03-29-2007, 07:29 PM
Batting only/ primarily against lefties is not a particularly fair platoon for a guy recently up from the minors.

Especially in the AL Central, when the Sox face Santana, Sabbathia, Rogers, etc. 4 or 5 times / year.

JB98
03-29-2007, 07:49 PM
Nice attempt at revisionist history. Ozzie actually "played an infielder in CF" starting with the second game of the season, not the second half. Mackowiak subsequently made regular appearances in CF throughout the year. His biggest month for P.T. (by far) was May. OTOH, Anderson got 182 ABs before the All Star Game and 183 ABs after the All Star Game.

Since you really want to talk about "the second half," here are their post-All Star Game stats . . .
Anderson: .257 AVE, .301 OBP, .393 SLG
Mackowiak: .258 AVE, .307 OBP, .398 SLG
:rolleyes:

And Anderson had 62 ABs in April and struck out 22 times. By May 1st, we were already looking for Plan B. They wanted BA to be the CF. KW felt comfortable trading Rowand because of BA. BA got the first opportunity and crapped himself, plain and simple.

And just because I don't like Anderson doesn't mean I thought Mackowiak was an acceptable solution. That's one of the great myths of the BA lovefest: That those who aren't sold on BA think Mackowiak was an appropriate alternative.

As I've already indicated, CF was a train wreck last year. An absolute train wreck.

UserNameBlank
03-29-2007, 07:58 PM
You can't look at his 2004 season and find good in that? You don't find good in a guy who handles the bat well, sacrifices well, hits behind runners well, could hit in the .280-.290s with an OBP in the .340s, steals bases ok, runs the bases well, etc.?

If you really can't find any good in those things, then I don't really know what to say.

He's not a power hitter. He's not going to SLG/OPS high. But there are lots of effective hitters in the #2, #1, #7, #8 and #9 spots who dont' - certainly when they are as inexpensive as Erstad is. But look at 2004 - that's not so long ago. .295/.346/.400 16SBs and the bonus of being a very solid bat handler in the #2 spot. Tell me there's not a spot for those numbers from a guy making about 1mm? Now take away the job of hitting against tough LHP. In 2004, his numbers against RHP were .316/.370/.426.

Really - you can't find ANY way to make him look good? I don't think you are trying hard enough.
Look at his career.

2000: .355/.409/.541
2001: .258/.331/.360
2002: .283/.313/.389
2003: .252/.309/.333
2004: .295/.346/.400
2005: .273/.325/.371
2006: .221/.279/.326

The numbers in bold are the type of numbers that get people sent to Triple A. Throughout his career he has been just about as inconsistent as anyone could possibly be, and that is typical of that "grinder" style of play, which relies on weak infield hits/bloopers/luck/magic/wizardry/etc.

Sure, Erstad can move a runner over, but the only time he is ever going to have to move a runner over is when someone is on base with no one out. Every time that doesn't happen, which has to be like 85% of the time or more, he is going to have to get on base on his own OR drive in a run. The numbers say Darin Erstad is not a logical choice to bat second, and the organizational direction right now - movement towards youth over old injury prone veterans - says he is not a logical starter for CF.

Sorry, I love Ozzie as much as the next guy, but these decisions are obviously made by his "gut instinct" as Hawk likes to say, are poor baseball decisions. Unless Erstad has another freak good year, the top of the lineup is going to be largely ineffective.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-29-2007, 08:03 PM
I think it's great that the 2007 White Sox have some real alternatives in the outfield with PROVEN everyday major league talent. That's something they didn't have in 2006.

Here's my prediction for who gets the most starts and the most at-bats: whoever plays best.

Not very complicated at all...

Your move, Mssrs. Anderson, Podsednik and Erstad.

:cool:

FarWestChicago
03-29-2007, 08:08 PM
I think it's great that the 2007 White Sox have some real alternatives in the outfield with PROVEN everyday major league talent. That's something they didn't have in 2006.

Here's my prediction for who gets the most starts and the most at-bats: whoever plays best.

Not very complicated at all...

Your move, Mssrs. Anderson, Podsednik and Erstad.

:cool:But where the hell is the spreadsheet in this, George? :redneck

UserNameBlank
03-29-2007, 08:18 PM
I don't think that you can look at #2 vs #7 that way. Iguchi is being put in a spot where his ability to slg the ball will be worth more to the team.

And I still disagree with the premise that it is all about getting on base. That's a piece of the puzzle - no doubt. But the team may be better off with Erstad at #2 and Iguchi at #7 if their skills are better leveraged in those roles.
Iguchi, the far better hitter, will get less AB's per game. How will that help the team?

Look, and I don't think this is even debatable, if Erstad puts up Iguchi-like numbers in the 2-hole it will be a miracle that will make him worthy of serious Comeback Player of the Year contention. Most people around baseball do not see him as more than a backup at this point. Now, if Iguchi puts Iguchi-like numbers up it will be typical and expected by everyone around baseball.

See the difference?

If Tadahito hits about 2 or 3 more home runs and steals 6-8 more bases over the course of the season because he is hitting 7th, that will certainly not make up for the offense lost in front of our 3-6 hitters. Seriously, it's not like moving Tadahito down to 7 is going to bring about some sort of offensive explosion for him. He isn't going to put up the numbers he put up in Japan all of the sudden, and he probably never will.

Ozzie is taking a huge gamble here and the potential payoff is very small.

soxinem1
03-29-2007, 08:47 PM
Iguchi, the far better hitter, will get less AB's per game. How will that help the team?

Look, and I don't think this is even debatable, if Erstad puts up Iguchi-like numbers in the 2-hole it will be a miracle that will make him worthy of serious Comeback Player of the Year contention. Most people around baseball do not see him as more than a backup at this point. Now, if Iguchi puts Iguchi-like numbers up it will be typical and expected by everyone around baseball.

See the difference?

If Tadahito hits about 2 or 3 more home runs and steals 6-8 more bases over the course of the season because he is hitting 7th, that will certainly not make up for the offense lost in front of our 3-6 hitters. Seriously, it's not like moving Tadahito down to 7 is going to bring about some sort of offensive explosion for him. He isn't going to put up the numbers he put up in Japan all of the sudden, and he probably never will.

Ozzie is taking a huge gamble here and the potential payoff is very small.

I agree with everything you said except for the SB's. Now too many guys in the #7 slot run, and definitely not more than they would in the #2 slot.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 08:55 PM
Look at his career.

2000: .355/.409/.541
2001: .258/.331/.360
2002: .283/.313/.389
2003: .252/.309/.333
2004: .295/.346/.400
2005: .273/.325/.371
2006: .221/.279/.326

The numbers in bold are the type of numbers that get people sent to Triple A. Throughout his career he has been just about as inconsistent as anyone could possibly be

You are cherry picking. I can do the same thing to make him look like an all-star. The truth is somewhere in the middle.


and that is typical of that "grinder" style of play, which relies on weak infield hits/bloopers/luck/magic/wizardry/etc.

That's assinine.

Sure, Erstad can move a runner over, but the only time he is ever going to have to move a runner over is when someone is on base with no one out. Every time that doesn't happen, which has to be like 85% of the time or more, he is going to have to get on base on his own OR drive in a run.

That's untrue.

The numbers say Darin Erstad is not a logical choice to bat second, and the organizational direction right now - movement towards youth over old injury prone veterans - says he is not a logical starter for CF.

Your logic is not the same as mine, or many people who run major league baseball teams. I think your "logic" is wrong.

Sorry, I love Ozzie as much as the next guy, but these decisions are obviously made by his "gut instinct" as Hawk likes to say, are poor baseball decisions. Unless Erstad has another freak good year, the top of the lineup is going to be largely ineffective.

That's all opinion and in my opinion, totally untrue.

Ziggy S
03-29-2007, 09:08 PM
But where the hell is the spreadsheet in this, George? :redneck
I don't know, maybe Homefish could design one. :D:

CLR01
03-29-2007, 09:11 PM
Your logic is not the same as mine, or many people who run major league baseball teams. I think your "logic" is wrong.

Most people who run major league baseball teams passed on a cheap Darrin Erstad.

$1 million for a proven grinder who can perform at the top of the order, play solid "D", and play the game the right way.....they took pass.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 09:27 PM
Iguchi, the far better hitter, will get less AB's per game. How will that help the team?

So your best hitter should be hitting first? Well - then we need to totally revisit the lineup. PK Leads off. JD hits 2nd. Thome hits 3rd... That's just not how the game works. The team is helped if they play better fundamental baseball because of the skillset of the people hitting being congruent with what is being asked of them.

Look, and I don't think this is even debatable, if Erstad puts up Iguchi-like numbers in the 2-hole it will be a miracle

He was a very effective hitter as recently as 2 years ago. I'm not sure why this is a miracle.

Now, if Iguchi puts Iguchi-like numbers up it will be typical and expected by everyone around baseball.

And if Iguchi puts up Iguchi type numbers hitting in the #7 hole, with more power, and more RBIs due to not being asked to give himself up so much, he will be worth more than Iguchi putting up #2 hole Iguchi numbers.

What's the difference between the number of times that Iguchi will get on base over the season and Erstad? Iguchi's OBP of .350 vs Erstad @ .330? .020 * 600 = 12? 12 times on base? About 6 runs over a season? That's it - 6 runs.

jabrch
03-29-2007, 09:30 PM
Most people who run major league baseball teams passed on a cheap Darrin Erstad.

$1 million for a proven grinder who can perform at the top of the order, play solid "D", and play the game the right way.....they took pass.


I'm still waiting for a response from you from two other threads. Outside of a smarmy answer makig fun of "grinders", what ideas are you putting out there? What options do you propose?

CLR01
03-29-2007, 09:46 PM
I'm still waiting for a response from you from two other threads. Outside of a smarmy answer makig fun of "grinders", what ideas are you putting out there? What options do you propose?

I've already agreed that Pods and Uribe are irreplaceable. What more do you want?


When did I make fun of grinders and what two threads are you talking about?

jabrch
03-29-2007, 10:01 PM
I've already agreed that Pods and Uribe are irreplaceable. What more do you want?


When did I make fun of grinders and what two threads are you talking about?


Whatever...

maurice
03-29-2007, 10:05 PM
And Anderson had 62 ABs in April and struck out 22 times. By May 1st, we were already looking for Plan B.

Now you're changing your story. The fact is that Anderson absolutely was not handed the job in the 1st half and then replaced by Mackowiak "for most of the 2nd half." If he were handed the job, he would have had more than 182 ABs before the All Star Game. That's only slightly more ABs than Cintron and Mackowiak got. All the actual starters had 80-100 more ABs in that time-frame.

Anderson was splitting time with Mackowiak from Day 2. Their playing time in any given month had very little to do with their production. Anderson hit around .290 for two-and-a-half months from mid-June to the end of August. After the ASG, they were essentially the same hitter, though Anderson was about 467 times better defensively. Yet Ozzie kept running Mack out there on a regular basis. It got so ridiculous that even KW publically questioned their P.T.

BTW, since you mentioned Anderson's total suckatude as a very green rookie in April, I guess I should mention that Mackowiak had 35 ABs in April, struck out 9 times, and batted .143 with a .450 OPS.

maurice
03-29-2007, 10:14 PM
Iguchi, the far better hitter, will get less AB's per game. How will that help the team?

This part really bothers me. Ozzie seems to be building his lineup backwards, but there is a very good reason that everybody else puts their crappier hitters at the end of the lineup. If you switch your #2 with your #8, you're essentially handing extra ABs to the crappier hitter, since the #2 usually (?) gets an extra AB per game.
:(:

MISoxfan
03-29-2007, 11:15 PM
Lots of comparing of Brian Anderson to Joe Crede and Ventura's rookie seasons.

Robin Ventura had a horrible opening stretch, but his rookie season was better than Brians.

Joe Crede's first full season as a starter smoked Brian Andersons, his second season when he hit .239 was still considerably better.


I think Anderson's got a future in this club, and maybe its this season. I'm just tired how Crede hitting .261 with 19* HR's with 75 RBI's is comparable to Brian.

* really 20

Craig Grebeck
03-29-2007, 11:21 PM
For the last time, this is not about calling someone a FOBB or making fun of spreadsheets or anything else the infallible baseball elitists around here want to make it, this is about Brian Anderson outperforming Darin Erstad in spring training and not getting a fair shake.

How can anyone possibly say that Erstad is a good two hitter? Did I read correctly that Erstad was an effective two hitter in 2005? In what world is a .325 OBP with 109 K against 44 BB effective for a two hitter? Did he make up for that in power? No, 7 HR and a .371 SLG. Well surely he sacrificed himself a ton of times...? Oh, only four sacrifice hits and two sacrifice flies.

What's really sad about all of this is that is Erstad's upside.

A two hitter needs to get on base. We have one of the best 3-4-5 in baseball. ALL we need are people on base, that's it.

Tragg
03-30-2007, 12:07 AM
We have one of the best 3-4-5 in baseball. ALL we need are people on base, that's it.
Right on.

UserNameBlank
03-30-2007, 02:04 AM
You are cherry picking. I can do the same thing to make him look like an all-star. The truth is somewhere in the middle.




That's assinine.



That's untrue.



Your logic is not the same as mine, or many people who run major league baseball teams. I think your "logic" is wrong.



That's all opinion and in my opinion, totally untrue.

How was I cherry picking? I listed his full season stats from 2000 and on. That is not cherry picking at all.

If you think it is assinine that a large percentage of Erstad's hits are bloopers and infield hits and stuff, you haven't been watching him play. There is a legitimate reason for Erstad's huge fluctuations in batting average from year to year. You just don't see good hitters go from a .355 batting average down to a .258 batting average the next year. Hitters that post solid batting averages with consistency usually are line drive type hitters who hit the ball hard with regularity. Erstad is not one of them.

Enjoy your Erstad love.

jabrch
03-30-2007, 09:14 AM
How was I cherry picking? I listed his full season stats from 2000 and on. That is not cherry picking at all.

If you think it is assinine that a large percentage of Erstad's hits are bloopers and infield hits and stuff, you haven't been watching him play. There is a legitimate reason for Erstad's huge fluctuations in batting average from year to year. You just don't see good hitters go from a .355 batting average down to a .258 batting average the next year. Hitters that post solid batting averages with consistency usually are line drive type hitters who hit the ball hard with regularity. Erstad is not one of them.

Enjoy your Erstad love.

It is cherry picking because you only chose to highlight about half the numbers - which were not good, and ignore the ones that were good.

As far as Erstad love - it's not that. I'm not saying he's great. All I am saying is that in a platoon where he faces mostly RHP, and hardly ever faces tough LHP, he's got a good chance of hitting somewhere around .285/.340 and being an effective #2 hitter. That's all. I don't think he's that great - I just don't get why people are bashing him without taking it in the context of what a #2 hitter is asked to do in this offense. Bash Ozzie all you want for his strategic approach to the game - but if you look at what we know he will be doing, then KW got him a piece that makes perfect sense and allowed him to move Iguchi to a spot where he will also be more effective (a run producer instead of the guy giving himself up so much)

INSox56
03-30-2007, 09:21 AM
And Anderson had 62 ABs in April and struck out 22 times. By May 1st, we were already looking for Plan B. They wanted BA to be the CF. KW felt comfortable trading Rowand because of BA. BA got the first opportunity and crapped himself, plain and simple.

And just because I don't like Anderson doesn't mean I thought Mackowiak was an acceptable solution. That's one of the great myths of the BA lovefest: That those who aren't sold on BA think Mackowiak was an appropriate alternative.

As I've already indicated, CF was a train wreck last year. An absolute train wreck.
Don't really see how you can say that. As Ozzie said himself...if we're depending on BA's bat, we're really in trouble. BA did a great job defensively and not great offensively (where they weren't looking for production out of him ANYWAY).

And people also have to remember that he didn't perform despite the fact that he was not playing every day, at a disadvantage because WALKER HIMSELF said he knew of his swing flaws but didn't help him on it, and hitting against some of the toughest pitchers in the majors. To be able to hit as well as he did for those two and a half months is a real testament to his athletic ability (as walker puts it)

Lillian
03-30-2007, 10:00 AM
This complete dismissal of Erstad's capabilities is puzzling. I understand that he has had some injuries that have led to some poor performance in a few seasons. However any guy who could have hit .355 in 676 at bats, with a .409 OBP and a .541 Slugging percentage, should be considered to have pr oven his ability. He was 26 when he did that, and it wasn't his first successful season. He had already hit very close to .300 in his first two full seasons.

I like Brian Anderson's potential, but at 25, he hasn't done anything even remotely approaching Erstad's production at the same stage of his career.
They were both college standouts, but Erstad made the transition much quicker. Does anyone really think that BA will ever have a year like Erstad had in 2000?

Erstad is not old enough to be considered "over the hill". He looks like he's in good shape, and with the kind of conditioning that today's athletes undergo, there is no reason to assume that he is too old to perform. To the contrary, experience can often outweigh the loss of a step, due to age.
If one doubts that he is really healthy, and can stay that way, that is a reasonable position. However, I just came from a month of Spring Training games, and he appears to confirm the reports that he is now healthy. To say that he is just not any good, seems a little irrational.

Having a capable offensive player in CF will make our lineup even better than it was last year. We will no longer have a black hole at the bottum of the order. I really like Iguchi, Pierzynski, and Uribe as the bottum third of the order, don't you?

Defensively, he isn't as good as he was when he won Gold Gloves in Center, but he's certainly capable. I feel much better about our current depth in the outfield, and at least Rob should not have to be called upon to play CF again.

If Brian can get enough at bats in spelling Pods and Erstad, he should have an opportunity to prove his worth, while helping the team defensively. Given his alleged high opinion of himself, this could be the best thing for his development. I'd rather see him have to earn his place on this team.

In any case, this just doesn't seem to be worth worrying about. Now our SP
is another story!

INSox56
03-30-2007, 10:44 AM
Defensively, he isn't as good as he was when he won Gold Gloves in Center, but he's certainly capable. I feel much better about our current depth in the outfield, and at least Rob should not have to be called upon to play CF again.

Capable enough to commit two errors in last night's game? :wink:

Lillian
03-30-2007, 10:49 AM
Capable enough to commit two errors in last night's game? :wink:

I didn't see that game. What kind of errors were they?

DrGozzie
03-30-2007, 10:58 AM
I'm very upset that Brian didn't get the starting CF position. He was a rookie last year, and he has such great potential, given the opportunity to grow and develop.

What the heck does this teal stuff mean anyway? Sorry, I'm pretty new here. I should also say this is Mrs. Dr.Gozzie. My husband signed up here, but I'm the one usually posting.

maurice
03-30-2007, 12:20 PM
In retrospect, Erstad's 2000 season was a Brady Anderson year--a total freak occurrence. He's never going to do that again, so it's not a persuasive data point when trying to predict his 2007 performance.

OTOH, references to Erstad's numbers in 2004, v. RHP, etc. are well taken. He can help if Ozzie uses him correctly and in a limited fashion.

Lillian
03-30-2007, 01:17 PM
In retrospect, Erstad's 2000 season was a Brady Anderson year--a total freak occurrence. He's never going to do that again, so it's not a persuasive data point when trying to predict his 2007 performance.

OTOH, references to Erstad's numbers in 2004, v. RHP, etc. are well taken. He can help if Ozzie uses him correctly and in a limited fashion.

Of course you're right when you suggest that 2000 was a career year. I'm not expecting him to hit .355 again. My point is simply that he has proven that he has exceptional ability. I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that he was on steroids when he accomplished that extraordinary performance. That was the explanation for Brady Anderson's year.
Brady's big power year was not a "freak occurrence". It was more the result of the "juice".
Erstad has had other very productive years, as evidenced by his .286 lifetime average, over a 10 year career. Again, most of his struggles have been attributed to injuries. If he is healthy, he should be able to contribute.

Moreover, there are a lot of intangibles with Erstad. I'm not just referring to his being a "grinder". He knows how to bunt, hit behind the runner on a hit and run, and just play good fundamental baseball.

Lillian
03-30-2007, 01:59 PM
This article expresses my sentiments pretty well:
http://mvn.com/mlb-whitesox/2007/01/24/seriously-i-like-this-move/

UserNameBlank
03-30-2007, 02:04 PM
It is cherry picking because you only chose to highlight about half the numbers - which were not good, and ignore the ones that were good.

The numbers I highlighted are numbers that get people sent to the minor leagues. I don't know how in the hell that is cherry picking. Cherry picking is selecting some bad stat, exploiting it, and refusing to give the whole story. His career full season numbers are right in front of you to see. Nothing is being hidden. I was simply using a bold color to show that for every freak year or decent year he has a terrible year where his offense is of no value whatsoever to his ballclub.

As far as Erstad love - it's not that. I'm not saying he's great. All I am saying is that in a platoon where he faces mostly RHP, and hardly ever faces tough LHP, he's got a good chance of hitting somewhere around .285/.340 and being an effective #2 hitter. That's all. I don't think he's that great - I just don't get why people are bashing him without taking it in the context of what a #2 hitter is asked to do in this offense. Bash Ozzie all you want for his strategic approach to the game - but if you look at what we know he will be doing, then KW got him a piece that makes perfect sense and allowed him to move Iguchi to a spot where he will also be more effective (a run producer instead of the guy giving himself up so much)

As someone else said before, engineering your lineup backwards is one odd strategy. Also, if KWs move made perfect sense, why did the Sox totally pass on him until they heard Pods had surgery? The Sox could have picked up Erstad earlier but they didn't, probably because they didn't need him or want him. When Pods went down Erstad was brought in to play LF, and as soon as Pods got healthy, Ozzie gave Brian the shaft.

BTW, aside from listening to everything Ozzie says and taking it as baseball genius, how is Iguchi going to fare better in the lineup hitting lower? While he will not have to sacrifice quite as often, he isn't going to get all those fastballs that he could get with Pods on base. He will get fewer at bats as well.

Look, Erstad's job in the 2 hole isn't that much different from any other spot in the lineup. He will have to sacrifice in sacrifice situations, get on base, and drive in runs. Why a better hitter is not hitting at the top of the lineup is a mystery.

maurice
03-30-2007, 02:05 PM
Of course you're right when you suggest that 2000 was a career year.

I'm actually arguing that it was much more than a career year. It was a freak occurrence that does not reflect his actual talent level. IMO, he doesn't really have "exceptional ability."

I referenced Brady Anderson because he's the poster boy for this sort of thing. Brady Anderson was a 185 lb., medium-build, 18 HR / year guy. Yet, in 1996, he suddenly became possessed by aliens or something and hit 50 dingers . . . then he promptly went back to being a 18 HR / year guy. He didn't pull a Sosa and add 40 lb. of muscle in one offseason, and he didn't pull a Giambi and show up 40 lbs. lighter the next year. Simply, 1996 was not an accurate reflection of his talent and did not help predict his future performance. It was just one of those wierd things that makes baseball interesting.

All I'm saying is that I feel the same way about Erstad's 2000 (.355 AVE / .950 OPS). That's so out of line with his normal performance that you simply have to throw it out and look at his other years to determine what he's capable of in 2007. You mentioned steroids, but the evidence against Anderson is identical to the evidence against Erstad, IIRC. Besides, why would Anderson suddenly stop in 1997, when there was no testing?

Can Erstad hit .285 if his unfavorable matchups are limited? Absolutely . . . but I'm predicting that Brian Anderson can do it also. (Heck, he did it for 2.5 months straight during his terrible rookie season.) The true wildcards, IMO, are Podsednik and Guillen. I have absolutely no idea what either of them will do in 2007.

Erstad has had other very productive years, as evidenced by his .286 lifetime average, over a 10 year career. Again, most of his struggles have been attributed to injuries. If he is healthy, he should be able to contribute.

Absolutely.

INSox56
03-30-2007, 02:36 PM
I didn't see that game. What kind of errors were they?
Just reported by the trib about the game, I have no clue what they were like. Says one wasn't fair :dunno:

Walkman
03-30-2007, 02:45 PM
It is cherry picking because you only chose to highlight about half the numbers - which were not good, and ignore the ones that were good.

As far as Erstad love - it's not that. I'm not saying he's great. All I am saying is that in a platoon where he faces mostly RHP, and hardly ever faces tough LHP, he's got a good chance of hitting somewhere around .285/.340 and being an effective #2 hitter. That's all. I don't think he's that great - I just don't get why people are bashing him without taking it in the context of what a #2 hitter is asked to do in this offense. Bash Ozzie all you want for his strategic approach to the game - but if you look at what we know he will be doing, then KW got him a piece that makes perfect sense and allowed him to move Iguchi to a spot where he will also be more effective (a run producer instead of the guy giving himself up so much)

1. I wouldn't bank on .285/.340. He did that once since 2000.

2. He shouldn't get a break on his numbers just because he's a #2 platoon hitter.

UserNameBlank
03-30-2007, 02:50 PM
I'm very upset that Brian didn't get the starting CF position. He was a rookie last year, and he has such great potential, given the opportunity to grow and develop.

What the heck does this teal stuff mean anyway? Sorry, I'm pretty new here. I should also say this is Mrs. Dr.Gozzie. My husband signed up here, but I'm the one usually posting.
Welcome!

Teal means sarcasm by the way, and deep pink usually refers to a pipe dream of some kind.

Example.

The Cubs really made some awesome moves this past offseason. Marquis will win the Cy Young.

KW should have traded Sean Tracey to the Twins for Johan Santana instead of releasing him.

Frontman
03-30-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm very upset that Brian didn't get the starting CF position. He was a rookie last year, and he has such great potential, given the opportunity to grow and develop.

What the heck does this teal stuff mean anyway? Sorry, I'm pretty new here. I should also say this is Mrs. Dr.Gozzie. My husband signed up here, but I'm the one usually posting.

Welcome to the site. I just learned the deep pink rule today. Just now in fact. :D:

Hagan
03-30-2007, 05:16 PM
I can do the same thing to make him look like an all-star.

Please do so. I cannot figure out a way to make erstad look like an all star in his 6 past years of playing. Please make him look like an allstar with the stats he put up.

Mohoney
03-31-2007, 10:19 PM
A proven career of mediocrity.

The choice is guaranteed mediocre in all phases
OR

Guaranteed great fielder plus big-time offensive risk

When I factor in the other guys on this team, I can definitely see how a valid argument can be made for taking guaranteed mediocrity in all phases. If there is no phase where a guy is a liability, he's lightening the load on the other guys.

If management thinks that Erstad can catch hot streaks at the plate way more often than Anderson, or that Erstad's hot streaks will last way longer than Anderson's, then I don't have much of a problem with the decision to go with this 3 man rotation in CF and LF.

Really, Podsednik is the key to all this. If he hits .290+ this season, it can win Anderson even more at-bats because the Sox can hide his bat easier, allowing them to go with the plus glove at a demanding position.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-01-2007, 12:05 PM
Please do so. I cannot figure out a way to make erstad look like an all star in his 6 past years of playing. Please make him look like an allstar with the stats he put up.

Well, there is always this...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/erstada01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/images/allstar.gif

Twice over.

He also got 14 votes for League MVP in 1998, 8 others in 2000, and 6 ROTY votes in 1996. By comparison, Brian Anderson got 0 votes for ROTY and he has never gotten even 1 vote for MVP. Perhaps if he is good enough to keep a major league job as long as Erstad already has, maybe someday Brian Anderson might catch up, but I wouldn't bet on it.

:cool:

Look, if you have some irrational love for Brian Anderson that makes you feel he is entitled to the everyday CF position, at least have enough common sense not to overstate your case in a futile attempt to run down Darin Erstad. It makes you look foolish.

santo=dorf
04-01-2007, 12:19 PM
Well, there is always this...
He also got 14 votes for League MVP in 1998, 8 others in 2000, and 6 ROTY votes in 1996. By comparison, Brian Anderson got 0 votes for ROTY and he has never gotten even 1 vote for MVP. Perhaps if he is good enough to keep a major league job as long as Erstad already has, maybe someday Brian Anderson might catch up, but I wouldn't bet on it.

:cool:

Look, if you have some irrational love for Brian Anderson that makes you feel he is entitled to the everyday CF position, at least have enough common sense not to overstate your case in a futile attempt to run down Darin Erstad. It makes you look foolish.
....and all of that happened before the 6 year window Hagan was asking about.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-01-2007, 12:51 PM
....and all of that happened before the 6 year window Hagan was asking about.

I could select some arbitrary beginning and end date to "prove" my point just a surely as Phil Rogers routinely does in the Tribune. It proves nothing -- except to the weak-minded, of course.

Erstad has ALREADY PROVEN what he can do. And nobody on the Sox is offering him anything more than an opportunity to outplay his closest competitor for an everyday job.

So what's your beef, already?
:?:

santo=dorf
04-01-2007, 01:01 PM
Most people use a 3 year window to form an expectation of a player's performance. I think 6 years is more than fair.

Why did Hagan go with 6 opposed to 5 or 7 or 3? Because he's looking at Erstad's performance since his peak/fluke year.

Lillian is calling Erstad a "proven" .355 hitter. I guess Esteban Loaiza is a "proven" Cy Young caliber pitcher capable of winning 20+ games.

Erstad cannot repeat what he once did. He has "proven" that for the past 6 years.

Craig Grebeck
04-01-2007, 05:12 PM
At this point in time Erstad is clearly over the hill and you'd be hard pressed to find me one piece of evidence that says otherwise.