PDA

View Full Version : Rob allowing the "Triple".


It's Dankerific
04-24-2007, 03:56 PM
Does anyone on here SERIOUSLY think that BA would have let that ball get by him to give German the "triple" last night. (Or not have been able to call off Uribe in the popup fiasco?)

It seems to me, that for all the lip service given "pitching and defense". The current LF situation seems ALL about offense. We have plenty of people who can hit a homerun. I want to see someone who can cover a gap.

If we want to believe Ozzie about how great Erstad is, how awesome would it be to allow Erstad to shade a little more and put bigger gaps between himself and the LF, knowing that BA could actually get to a ball hit at him?

The more runs we save, the less we need the Mack's Bat!!


GET DANKS A WIN!!

skobabe8
04-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Mr. Danks? :?:

WS in 05
04-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Does anyone on here SERIOUSLY think that BA would have let that ball get by him to give German the "triple" last night. (Or not have been able to call off Uribe in the popup fiasco?)

It seems to me, that for all the lip service given "pitching and defense". The current LF situation seems ALL about offense. We have plenty of people who can hit a homerun. I want to see someone who can cover a gap.

If we want to believe Ozzie about how great Erstad is, how awesome would it be to allow Erstad to shade a little more and put bigger gaps between himself and the LF, knowing that BA could actually get to a ball hit at him?

The more runs we save, the less we need the Mack's Bat!!


GET DANKS A WIN!!


Sun times says that Anderson will start tonight in CF for Erstad, although he will not be helpin Danks(he pitches tommorow)

brewcrew/chisox
04-24-2007, 04:01 PM
Does anyone on here SERIOUSLY think that BA would have let that ball get by him to give German the "triple" last night. (Or not have been able to call off Uribe in the popup fiasco?)

It seems to me, that for all the lip service given "pitching and defense". The current LF situation seems ALL about offense. We have plenty of people who can hit a homerun. I want to see someone who can cover a gap.

If we want to believe Ozzie about how great Erstad is, how awesome would it be to allow Erstad to shade a little more and put bigger gaps between himself and the LF, knowing that BA could actually get to a ball hit at him?

The more runs we save, the less we need the Mack's Bat!!


GET DANKS A WIN!!

Dude, that's sooooo 2006:cool:

It's Dankerific
04-24-2007, 04:10 PM
Sun times says that Anderson will start tonight in CF for Erstad, although he will not be helpin Danks(he pitches tommorow)

Yeah, I know, I'm just hoping we get the game in, that BA has an awesome game, and maybe he'll help a certain rookie lefty get a win the next day.

oeo
04-24-2007, 04:13 PM
Does anyone on here SERIOUSLY think that BA would have let that ball get by him to give German the "triple" last night. (Or not have been able to call off Uribe in the popup fiasco?)

It seems to me, that for all the lip service given "pitching and defense". The current LF situation seems ALL about offense. We have plenty of people who can hit a homerun. I want to see someone who can cover a gap.

If we want to believe Ozzie about how great Erstad is, how awesome would it be to allow Erstad to shade a little more and put bigger gaps between himself and the LF, knowing that BA could actually get to a ball hit at him?

The more runs we save, the less we need the Mack's Bat!!


GET DANKS A WIN!!

I'm all for Anderson getting more playing time, but you must have missed the game on Sunday. Inge got a double (luckily he didn't end up scoring) in the 10th, that should have been a single. Brian was taking his sweet time to get to the ball. So no, I'm not buying this, "Brian would have had it" crap because Brian isn't making a very good case for himself, at all.

If Brian wants more playing time, he should be busting his ass on every play.

ilsox7
04-24-2007, 04:14 PM
I'm all for Anderson getting more playing time, but you must have missed the game on Sunday. Inge got a double (luckily he didn't end up scoring in the 10th), that should have been a single. Brian was taking his sweet time to get to the ball. So no, I'm not buying this, "Brian would have had it" crap because Brian isn't making a very good case for himself, at all.

Yep. That lack of effort only adds to the other evidence that it's his work ethic/attitude that is keeping him out of the line-up.

champagne030
04-24-2007, 04:16 PM
Sun times says that Anderson will start tonight in CF for Erstad, although he will not be helpin Danks(he pitches tommorow)

A start is a start, I guess. GrindErstad gets a day off against a powderpuff righty??? The best matchup for BA is a right handed power pitcher, not that Ozzie notices these things when Anderson is involved.

PicktoCLick72
04-24-2007, 04:20 PM
Agreed

Patrick134
04-24-2007, 04:21 PM
Let's hope the nicer weather now doesn't remind BAAA of winter ball. He may get a tummyache.

TDog
04-24-2007, 04:22 PM
Does anyone on here SERIOUSLY think that BA would have let that ball get by him to give German the "triple" last night. (Or not have been able to call off Uribe in the popup fiasco?)

It seems to me, that for all the lip service given "pitching and defense". The current LF situation seems ALL about offense. We have plenty of people who can hit a homerun. I want to see someone who can cover a gap.

If we want to believe Ozzie about how great Erstad is, how awesome would it be to allow Erstad to shade a little more and put bigger gaps between himself and the LF, knowing that BA could actually get to a ball hit at him?

The more runs we save, the less we need the Mack's Bat!!


GET DANKS A WIN!!

I didn't see that play or the one I saw people complain about, when Anderson allegedly didn't show up on defense Sunday, allowing what should have been a single turn into a leadoff double, on the road with the score tied in a sudden-death situation.

The Sox lost last year when Anderson was in the lineup not hitting and when Mackowiak was in the outfield not getting to everything. (By definition, everything he didn't get to was something Anderson would have caught or cut off.) I used to be part of the "play No-Neck" crowd in the early 1970s. But Walt Williams had hit .304 in more than 130 games in 1969. It wasn't a matter of people imagining that he may hit someday. I think Anderson has to bear some of the responsibility for his lack of playing time.

jenn2080
04-24-2007, 04:28 PM
I love Brian and think he deserves to be playing over Rob.

This conversations exactly like the Rowand would have got that at the beginning of last season.

102605
04-24-2007, 04:30 PM
Could someone enlighten me on why in the heck Anderson *deserves* more playing time? Am I missing a season or something he had or any string of 2 AB's where he didn't look absolutely clueless at the plate?

He doesn't even impress me with his D. He is completely overrated on defense on this site. He doesn't possess alot of extra speed or anything in the OF. Yes, he can catch a baseball.

Every single bit of Anderson I've seen screams of a very below average player. For all of you staking claims of knowing Erstad or Mackowiak being only average at best, I'll take average at best compared to what Anderson brings.

I cringed every pitch Mackowiak played in CF last year but I have to say he looks a ton better in LF than CF.

These threads are wasting space for something that wouldn't leave us all a little dumber from reading them.

Mr.1Dog
04-24-2007, 04:30 PM
Yeah, I know, I'm just hoping we get the game in, that BA has an awesome game, and maybe he'll help a certain rookie lefty get a win the next day.

:?: Did I miss something here? How does BA playing tonight help Danks get the win tomorrow?

Patrick134
04-24-2007, 04:33 PM
:?: Did I miss something here? How does BA playing tonight help Danks get the win tomorrow?


Maybe because BAA won't play 2 days in a row, therefore giving an actual major league hitter a chance to help Danks' cause tomorrow ?

WizardsofOzzie
04-24-2007, 04:34 PM
:?: Did I miss something here? How does BA playing tonight help Danks get the win tomorrow?
BA is just that good

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:05 PM
I'm all for Anderson getting more playing time, but you must have missed the game on Sunday. Inge got a double (luckily he didn't end up scoring) in the 10th, that should have been a single. Brian was taking his sweet time to get to the ball. So no, I'm not buying this, "Brian would have had it" crap because Brian isn't making a very good case for himself, at all.

If Brian wants more playing time, he should be busting his ass on every play.

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Left field is an offensive position. Mackowiak and Ozuna should platoon until Pods returns. Anderson can be used as a defensive replacement and start once a week. But if I ever see him pull that **** again like he did Sunday in Detroit, I will advocate his outright release.

Jurr
04-24-2007, 05:12 PM
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Left field is an offensive position. Mackowiak and Ozuna should platoon until Pods returns. Anderson can be used as a defensive replacement and start once a week. But if I ever see him pull that **** again like he did Sunday in Detroit, I will advocate his outright release.
Yup. You want to play? You better perform when asked. I know that it's tough trying to get into an offensive rhythm when you're spot starting. You know what? Tough. Watch film on the starter you're going against. If you don't get a hit, at least have a good at bat. Stay late and work on your hitting in the cages to the point that Walker and Ozzie foam at the mouth at the chance to get you in there.

There is a reason the kid doesn't start. He's better defensively than Mackowiak. If his offense was good or his mechanics were improving drastically, it would be seen by the coaches and he'd be in there.

If Ozzie is putting a defensive liability in left night after night, there has to be a reason. Obviously, Ozzie doesn't think that BA gives him the best opportunity to win.

It's Dankerific
04-24-2007, 05:13 PM
Can someone post a link to a quoted Ozzie saying that BA's problems have to do with a lack of work ethic or hustle? The guy is more than willing to throw someone under a bus... you'd think there would be a ton to choose from...

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:15 PM
Yup. You want to play? You better perform when asked. I know that it's tough trying to get into an offensive rhythm when you're spot starting. You know what? Tough. Watch film on the starter you're going against. If you don't get a hit, at least have a good at bat. Stay late and work on your hitting in the cages to the point that Walker and Ozzie foam at the mouth at the chance to get you in there.

There is a reason the kid doesn't start. He's better defensively than Mackowiak. If his offense was good or his mechanics were improving drastically, it would be seen by the coaches and he'd be in there.

If Ozzie is putting a defensive liability in left night after night, there has to be a reason. Obviously, Ozzie doesn't think that BA gives him the best opportunity to win.

At least Mack plays hard every single time he gets an opportunity. Mack has made defensive mistakes in the outfield, but I've yet to see him slack off one time.

Jurr
04-24-2007, 05:22 PM
Can someone post a link to a quoted Ozzie saying that BA's problems have to do with a lack of work ethic or hustle? The guy is more than willing to throw someone under a bus... you'd think there would be a ton to choose from...
Ozzie wants to win. He and his staff have logged many years as players or coaches at the MLB level. They obviously have some reason not to have the kid out there. What that is, we don't know. However, it is totally moronic to think that Anderson is not starting "just because".

thedudeabides
04-24-2007, 05:22 PM
Could someone enlighten me on why in the heck Anderson *deserves* more playing time? Am I missing a season or something he had or any string of 2 AB's where he didn't look absolutely clueless at the plate?

He doesn't even impress me with his D. He is completely overrated on defense on this site. He doesn't possess alot of extra speed or anything in the OF. Yes, he can catch a baseball.

Every single bit of Anderson I've seen screams of a very below average player. For all of you staking claims of knowing Erstad or Mackowiak being only average at best, I'll take average at best compared to what Anderson brings.

I cringed every pitch Mackowiak played in CF last year but I have to say he looks a ton better in LF than CF.

These threads are wasting space for something that wouldn't leave us all a little dumber from reading them.

I couldn't agree more. Anderson is a good outfielder. Some here act as if he is the best of in the game. He is not. Mack is very serviceable in lf and has a better bat, and from all accounts i've read, a better attitude. We can't assume every time Mack or Erstad don't make a play, that Anderson would have made the play. Erstad is a good cf and until Anderson steps up and does something to help this team win a game, I don't see where he deserves to be playing more.

It seems every time one of our of's doesn't make a play, there's a thread started about how Anderson would have made the play and Ozzie is stupid for not having him in the game.

Tragg
04-24-2007, 05:27 PM
I couldn't agree more. Anderson is a good outfielder. Some here act as if he is the best of in the game. He is not. Mack is very serviceable in lf and has a better bat, and from all accounts i've read, a better attitude. We can't assume every time Mack or Erstad don't make a play, that Anderson would have made the play. Erstad is a good cf and until Anderson steps up and does something to help this team win a game, I don't see where he deserves to be playing more.

My only question is why is the bar higher for Anderson, a second year player, than for Erstad a low-ceiling veteran? Erstad's offense has been miserable this year and that with the benefit of Thome protecting him most of the time (or Iguchi). He has stunk it up himself. Yet he gets the most ABs on the team and his crap hitting is tolerated.

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:31 PM
I couldn't agree more. Anderson is a good outfielder. Some here act as if he is the best of in the game. He is not. Mack is very serviceable in lf and has a better bat, and from all accounts i've read, a better attitude. We can't assume every time Mack or Erstad don't make a play, that Anderson would have made the play. Erstad is a good cf and until Anderson steps up and does something to help this team win a game, I don't see where he deserves to be playing more.

It seems every time one of our of's doesn't make a play, there's a thread started about how Anderson would have made the play and Ozzie is stupid for not having him in the game.

The "Free Brian Anderson" club is basically trying to take over this board. I am obviously not an Anderson advocate, but I think he needs to start once a week. He is getting that chance tonight, so let's hope he does something with it. Of course, if BA gets even one hit, his faithful will be out in force with their "I told ya so's" and "Take that Ozzie" crap.

It's frustrating for me because I want BA to do well when he is in the game. After all, he plays for my favorite team. But I know that if BA has even moderate success, I'll have to listen to a bunch of crap from all these know-it-alls who can't seem to understand that there are legitimate reasons why BA is a backup outfielder on this team.

If BA goes 2-for-4 with a HR tonight, my opinion of him will not change.

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:32 PM
My only question is why is the bar higher for Anderson, a second year player, than for Erstad a low-ceiling veteran? Erstad's offense has been miserable this year and that with the benefit of Thome protecting him most of the time (or Iguchi). He has stunk it up himself. Yet he gets the most ABs on the team and his crap hitting is tolerated.

The bar isn't higher for Anderson than it is for Erstad. If Erstad is still hitting around .200 in late May, then we'll talk.

thedudeabides
04-24-2007, 05:39 PM
The "Free Brian Anderson" club is basically trying to take over this board. I am obviously not an Anderson advocate, but I think he needs to start once a week. He is getting that chance tonight, so let's hope he does something with it. Of course, if BA gets even one hit, his faithful will be out in force with their "I told ya so's" and "Take that Ozzie" crap.

It's frustrating for me because I want BA to do well when he is in the game. After all, he plays for my favorite team. But I know that if BA has even moderate success, I'll have to listen to a bunch of crap from all these know-it-alls who can't seem to understand that there are legitimate reasons why BA is a backup outfielder on this team.

If BA goes 2-for-4 with a HR tonight, my opinion of him will not change.

Well put. :smile:

It's Dankerific
04-24-2007, 05:46 PM
. R Mackowiak (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=cws&playerID=406670)CWSOF1227450112102510.241.370.185

AWESOME stats for a BIG BAT with defensive liabilities.

The people who say the BA supporters are over exaggerating BA's Defense should look in the mirror about their own beliefs over Mack's Offense.

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:50 PM
. R Mackowiak (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=cws&playerID=406670)CWSOF1227450112102510.241.370.185

AWESOME stats for a BIG BAT with defensive liabilities.

The people who say the BA supporters are over exaggerating BA's Defense should look in the mirror about their own beliefs over Mack's Offense.

I just looked in the mirror and saw Rob's .261 career batting average and lifetime .744 OPS. Very solid for a part-time player. Give me a call when BA hits .261. Thanks for playing.

RowanDye
04-24-2007, 05:53 PM
If BA goes 2-for-4 with a HR tonight, my opinion of him will not change.

Then why does your opinion change of BA just because he slightly misplays a ball out of his natural position (LF instead of CF) and a guy took an extra base?

I really didn't see the lack of effort on that play that everyone seems to be yelling about. It just seemed more that he misjudged the ball a bit, was slightly out of position to field and throw, and Inge pressed the issue.

I don't want to be a BA apologist, but when a player has absolutely no room for error he might as well not even step on the field.

BA may not be the best defender in the league, but he is certainly the best defensive CF on our team. There were at least 4-5 plays BA made last year that no one on our roster would have even come close to making. There were several more plays BA made last year that anyone else on our roster would be hard pressed to make. I only recall BA making 2 bad plays (1 error) and a few questionable throws all year last year.

The reason this debate is raging on is exactly because of your "lets wait until June on Erstad" attitude. Why shouldn't a guy with some potential be given the chance over a declining roleplayer? We could have waited until June on BA and had better defense along the way!

JB98
04-24-2007, 05:57 PM
Then why does your opinion change of BA just because he slightly misplays a ball out of his natural position (LF instead of CF) and a guy took an extra base?

I really didn't see the lack of effort on that play that everyone seems to be yelling about. It just seemed more that he misjudged the ball a bit, was slightly out of position to field and throw, and Inge pressed the issue.

I don't want to be a BA apologist, but when a player has absolutely no room for error he might as well not even step on the field.

BA may not be the best defender in the league, but he is certainly the best defensive CF on our team. There were at least 4-5 plays BA made last year that no one on our roster would have even come close to making. There were several more plays BA made last year that anyone else on our roster would be hard pressed to make. I only recall BA making 2 bad plays (1 error) and a few questionable throws all year last year.

The reason this debate is raging on is exactly because of your "lets wait until June on Erstad" attitude. Why shouldn't a guy with some potential be given the chance over a declining roleplayer? We could have waited until June on BA and had better defense along the way!

My opinion didn't change after BA misplayed the ball Sunday. I don't think BA takes his career seriously enough. I don't think he plays with enough hustle. That was my opinion Saturday night, and it is still my opinion today.

You might be interested to know that I don't see the same potential in BA that others do, so your last paragraph doesn't hold water for me.

spiffie
04-24-2007, 06:01 PM
A start is a start, I guess. GrindErstad gets a day off against a powderpuff righty??? The best matchup for BA is a right handed power pitcher, not that Ozzie notices these things when Anderson is involved.
The case for Anderson would be stronger if his supporters didn't feel compelled to bitch that Brian's not being given a good enough matchup when he does get to start. If you want your boy to be an every day player, he better be able to play against everyone, not just carefully selected days where he matches up best against the opposing pitcher.

JB98
04-24-2007, 06:02 PM
The case for Anderson would be stronger if his supporters didn't feel compelled to bitch that Brian's not being given a good enough matchup when he does get to start. If you want your boy to be an every day player, he better be able to play against everyone, not just carefully selected days where he matches up best against the opposing pitcher.

I was sort of relieved when Erstad started against Santana on the first homestand. If BA had been in there, I could just hear the "Ozzie set BA up to fail" rants coming. :rolleyes:

It's Dankerific
04-24-2007, 06:03 PM
I just looked in the mirror and saw Rob's .261 career batting average and lifetime .744 OPS. Very solid for a part-time player. Give me a call when BA hits .261. Thanks for playing.

Sure, right after BA gets to start 10 games, say 4 in a row during that stretch. That seems fair enough. Unfortunately, Its probably going to have to happen in a parallel universe. more like Thanks for NOT playing.

RowanDye
04-24-2007, 06:14 PM
My opinion didn't change after BA misplayed the ball Sunday. I don't think BA takes his career seriously enough. I don't think he plays with enough hustle. That was my opinion Saturday night, and it is still my opinion today.

You might be interested to know that I don't see the same potential in BA that others do, so your last paragraph doesn't hold water for me.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that opinion.

On the plus side he went to winterball as asked, took offseason training seriously, runs plays out, and always seems to have people around him pulling for him (other than Ozzie this year). Those things seem to indicate a pretty good work ethic.

The only negatives I know of: He was seen in some bars late at night with McCarthy and he started running off the field on that one play last year.

Your opinion sounds like the one people had against Garland's care-free attitude before he started winning 18 games a year.

RowanDye
04-24-2007, 06:19 PM
Give me a call when BA hits .261. Thanks for playing.

Sure, right after BA gets to start 10 games, say 4 in a row during that stretch. That seems fair enough. Unfortunately, Its probably going to have to happen in a parallel universe. more like Thanks for NOT playing.

That's pretty funny.

JB98
04-24-2007, 06:29 PM
Sure, right after BA gets to start 10 games, say 4 in a row during that stretch. That seems fair enough. Unfortunately, Its probably going to have to happen in a parallel universe. more like Thanks for NOT playing.

I can't imagine starting BA in four straight games unless Erstad gets injured or slumps horribly into May.

Patrick134
04-24-2007, 06:31 PM
I can't imagine starting BA in four straight games unless Erstad gets injured or slumps horribly into May.


I think BAAA should start everyday...someone care to drive him to Charlotte ?

RowanDye
04-24-2007, 06:37 PM
I can't imagine starting BA in four straight games unless Erstad gets injured or slumps horribly into May.


Let's pray that doesn't happen. Erstad hitting well is our best option right now, because as Ozzie showed last year he will stubbornly keep playing his "grinders" until they work themselves out of a slump or not.

oeo
04-24-2007, 06:41 PM
Let's pray that doesn't happen. Erstad hitting well is our best option right now, because as Ozzie showed last year he will stubbornly keep playing his "grinders" until they work themselves out of a slump or not.

Erstad has looked pretty good lately. He's been taking some nice swings and hitting the ball hard...so hopefully he is breaking out of his slump.

JorgeFabregas
04-24-2007, 06:42 PM
A start is a start, I guess. GrindErstad gets a day off against a powderpuff righty???
Not to be. He's leading off and DHing. Thome has an owie or something. Yikes!

Jurr
04-24-2007, 06:50 PM
Erstad has looked pretty good lately. He's been taking some nice swings and hitting the ball hard...so hopefully he is breaking out of his slump.
Yeah, and he's had a couple of clutch at bats lately to score either game tying or leading runs late.

What a liability!!!!

Vernam
04-24-2007, 06:56 PM
Erstad has looked pretty good lately. He's been taking some nice swings and hitting the ball hard...so hopefully he is breaking out of his slump.Yeah, and he's proven he can bunt or move the runner over, two essential skills that Anderson hasn't bothered to master. I'll be really surprised if Erstad's average isn't in the mid- to high-.200's by this time next month. He's showing no sign of the heel problem and is running better than just about anyone on the club besides Ozuna and Pods (when healthy).

Anderson's stock with me took a nose dive when he loafed after Inge's single on Sunday. That came right after his comments in the paper that, if he doesn't get the chance to play here, he knows some other team will give him a shot. Nice attitude. I wonder how that sits with some of our veterans who are being pressured to a certain extent to give a "hometown discount" for the privilege of playing year in and year out for a proven contender. Mac-o-Wack will have to blow a whole lot of plays in LF before I'm ready to call for BA to replace him. This is a championship-calibre team here, not the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Vernam

JB98
04-24-2007, 07:09 PM
Yeah, and he's proven he can bunt or move the runner over, two essential skills that Anderson hasn't bothered to master. I'll be really surprised if Erstad's average isn't in the mid- to high-.200's by this time next month. He's showing no sign of the heel problem and is running better than just about anyone on the club besides Ozuna and Pods (when healthy).

Anderson's stock with me took a nose dive when he loafed after Inge's single on Sunday. That came right after his comments in the paper that, if he doesn't get the chance to play here, he knows some other team will give him a shot. Nice attitude. I wonder how that sits with some of our veterans who are being pressured to a certain extent to give a "hometown discount" for the privilege of playing year in and year out for a proven contender. Mac-o-Wack will have to blow a whole lot of plays in LF before I'm ready to call for BA to replace him. This is a championship-calibre team here, not the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Vernam

I luv this post. :supernana: :supernana: :supernana:

maurice
04-24-2007, 07:18 PM
I can't imagine starting BA in four straight games unless Erstad gets injured or slumps horribly into May.

Erstad getting injured or slumping into May would not be remotely surpising.

Unfortunately, Ozzie running a slumping Erstad out there all May while Anderson gets 3 ABs / week also would not be surprising.

JB98
04-24-2007, 07:26 PM
Erstad getting injured or slumping into May would not be remotely surpising.

Unfortunately, Ozzie running a slumping Erstad out there all May while Anderson gets 3 ABs / week also would not be surprising.

I won't be surprised if Erstad gets injured, but if healthy, I expect him to start hitting. He's been showing signs in recent games. He's had two big hits on this road trip.

wassagstdu
04-24-2007, 07:27 PM
A "declining role player?" A "low ceiling veteran?" Erstad is a career .285 hitter coming off a surgery year. I look for the Sox to win the AL Central due in large part to Erstad's comeback mvp year. Without that, and without Pods, it's still 2006.

CLR01
04-24-2007, 07:29 PM
A "declining role player?" A "low ceiling veteran?" Erstad is a career .285 hitter coming off a surgery year. I look for the Sox to win the AL Central due in large part to Erstad's comeback mvp year. Without that, and without Pods, it's still 2006.


I see you and the bong are getting along well tonight.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Jurr
04-24-2007, 07:31 PM
A "declining role player?" A "low ceiling veteran?" Erstad is a career .285 hitter coming off a surgery year. I look for the Sox to win the AL Central due in large part to Erstad's comeback mvp year. Without that, and without Pods, it's still 2006.
Easy, greasy. You're putting the aircraft carrier in front of the horse. :o:

Tragg
04-24-2007, 10:19 PM
A "declining role player?" A "low ceiling veteran?" Erstad is a career .285 hitter coming off a surgery year. I look for the Sox to win the AL Central due in large part to Erstad's comeback mvp year. Without that, and without Pods, it's still 2006.

Ozzie obviously agrees with you. He not only insists on leading off with Erstad, but he plays the .200 hitter at DH.

He's the closest thing Ozzie sees to himself - hacks away at everything, with stark little power (1 extra base hit all year).

Vernam
04-24-2007, 10:57 PM
Ozzie obviously agrees with you. He not only insists on leading off with Erstad, but he plays the .200 hitter at DH.

He's the closest thing Ozzie sees to himself - hacks away at everything, with stark little power (1 extra base hit all year).Make that three extra base hits (and counting) as of the 6th inning Tuesday in KC. Just drove in the lead runs with his second straight double. :cool:

Erstad's swing does remind me of Ozzie's, I must admit. But in 12 seasons, he has about twice as many walks as OG accrued in 16 years. And his OBP is more than 50 points higher, etc.

Vernam

Thome25
04-24-2007, 11:29 PM
Maybe I'm just tired because its 12:24AM on the east coast but, While Podsednik is out with his injury Erstad should be in CF and Anderson in LF or vice versa UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

I've been one of the biggest BA bashers around, but I can't take it anymore. PLEASE OZZIE NO MORE MACK AND OZUNA IN LF ANYMORE.......I can't take it.

I just watched Ozuna misplay a ball that allowed the Royals to tie the game. As far as I'm concerned, the only place Ozuna should be is at DH because his defense is brutal!!

With Ozuna and Mack in LF it's ALWAYS an adventure out there.

What do you think??

JB98
04-24-2007, 11:47 PM
Maybe I'm just tired because its 12:24AM on the east coast but, While Podsednik is out with his injury Erstad should be in CF and Anderson in LF or vice versa UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

I've been one of the biggest BA bashers around, but I can't take it anymore. PLEASE OZZIE NO MORE MACK AND OZUNA IN LF ANYMORE.......I can't take it.

I just watched Ozuna misplay a ball that allowed the Royals to tie the game. As far as I'm concerned, the only place Ozuna should be is at DH because his defense is brutal!!

With Ozuna and Mack in LF it's ALWAYS an adventure out there.

What do you think??

I think LF is an offensive position, and neither Mack nor Ozuna have cost us a game yet.

chisoxfanatic
04-24-2007, 11:50 PM
With Ozuna and Mack in LF it's ALWAYS an adventure out there.

What do you think??

I think both have been doing fair jobs in the OF when given the playing time. And, trust me, their defense cost us less games than BA's offense last year. I'd rather go with Ozuna or Macko.

HotelWhiteSox
04-25-2007, 12:12 AM
I made a joke when Pods went on the DL about how BA still couldn't get into the game. I never imagined it'd take over a week for BA to start. How does Anderson not even get CF when he gets put in for a defensive sub? Can't move precious Erstad over right

The offense is good enough, for the bottom of the lineup, I will take the important outfield D. Plus, you are baseball retarded if you judge a player's offense on his stats when he's lucky to get one every three games. Ozzie overmanages the matchups anyways. He goes crazy with this L/R crap, maybe he forgot how BA got us that big win a couple years ago when he was the only one on the team who could hit righty Felix Hernandez, taking him deep twice. I think it was his third game in after Ozzie didn't want precious Timo to face Randy Johnson or Santana

Mackowiak is a career backup. He's shown he can hit it out pinch hitting late. If you need a run then then fine, to start him in the outfield regularly though, didn't you watch last year?

HotelWhiteSox
04-25-2007, 12:13 AM
I think both have been doing fair jobs in the OF when given the playing time. And, trust me, their defense cost us less games than BA's offense last year. I'd rather go with Ozuna or Macko.

The offense cost us nothing last year

jabrch
04-25-2007, 07:07 AM
The case for Anderson would be stronger if his supporters didn't feel compelled to bitch

Good luck...

Look at the list of BA supporters - most of them bitch for sport.

Williams and Guillen know exactly what they are doing. I trust their judgement. If BA isn't in the OF, it means they dont think he gives us the best chance to win. I'll still assume that KW/OG know a lot more about these players than any of us do.

And lo and behold - we are sitting tied for first place right now - not too shabby given that we've had a fairly tough schedule early.

champagne030
04-25-2007, 10:44 AM
I think both have been doing fair jobs in the OF when given the playing time. And, trust me, their defense cost us less games than BA's offense last year. I'd rather go with Ozuna or Macko.

WRONG. Mack cost us several more games with his defense in CF than BA did with his offense. Offense wasn't a problem last season.

Good luck...

Williams and Guillen know exactly what they are doing. I trust their judgement. If BA isn't in the OF, it means they dont think he gives us the best chance to win. I'll still assume that KW/OG know a lot more about these players than any of us do.


Williams is the only reason BA is on the Sox. You sound like Ozzie when he spouts crap like last season that "Mack in CF gives us the best chance to win". We all know it's bull**** and it's Ozzie just being stubborn and trying to prove others wrong.

Vernam
04-25-2007, 11:10 AM
WRONG. Mack cost us several more games with his defense in CF than BA did with his offense. Offense wasn't a problem last season.Mack isn't playing CF this year, so that point is moot. He looks like a serviceable LF. If we play Anderson in LF for his glove, he'll be the first everyday LF in history to get the job as a defensive specialist. Name one other.

If Anderson's bat didn't cost any games in '06, why not have a lineup full of guys who bat .218? The answer is obvious: Because we'd never smell a .500 winning percentage. So his bat cost us some games, it's just a matter of how many and whether anyone thinks it was an acceptable amount. I think the Sox decided that the games they lost in '06 due to Anderson's pathetic bat and Mack-o-Wak's glove were equally unacceptable.

Arguing whether BA should've started in CF ahead of Mack for defensive purposes was a reasonable debate. I was one of the people last year who said BA was good enough defensively in CF to play every day ahead of Mack. It doesn't wash in LF. Completely different situation.

Vernam

spiffie
04-25-2007, 11:14 AM
WRONG. Mack cost us several more games with his defense in CF than BA did with his offense. Offense wasn't a problem last season.
It wasn't a problem except in games where we weren't able to score runs in which case it was a problem. But I guess because we scored lots of runs in some games that it wasn't an issue that guys like Kason Gabbard shut us down. Oh, and how many games did Mack's bat help win for us?

Williams is the only reason BA is on the Sox. You sound like Ozzie when he spouts crap like last season that "Mack in CF gives us the best chance to win". We all know it's bull**** and it's Ozzie just being stubborn and trying to prove others wrong.
Do we all know that? Silly me, I forgot we had a psychic on board who knows the hidden motivations that propel the Sox management team. Next time you're inside Ozzie's mind, can you see if he can hook me up with some seats for Elvis Night?

maurice
04-25-2007, 12:40 PM
He not only insists on leading off with Erstad, but he plays the .200 hitter at DH.

He picked a good day to be the DH. With those terrible field conditions, Erstad could have ended up like Gload.

ondafarm
04-25-2007, 01:54 PM
I was actually moderately impressed with Ozzie's lineup last night. With Thome out, keeping Erstad's bat in on effectively a night off was a great idea. Getting BA four ABs was a good start. Mack's defense has improved, but I still don't want to see him in CF. When BA and Erstad are both in I would prefer to see BA in CF, but it is Ozzie's call. I think Ozzie was too casual with the pitching matchups but I'm glad the Sox won both games. Now, take care of business with the Tigers.

The Sox are tied for first!!!

champagne030
04-25-2007, 02:10 PM
Mack isn't playing CF this year, so that point is moot. He looks like a serviceable LF. If we play Anderson in LF for his glove, he'll be the first everyday LF in history to get the job as a defensive specialist. Name one other.


I was responding to another post regarding Mack was better for us in CF last season.

I'm not advocating playing BA in LF. He should be starting in CF everyday, while Pods is on the DL. GrindErstad should be in LF. I'm willing to see what a BA/GrindErstad semi-platoon would do when Pods is healthy. It's just that BA should be the primary guy with GrindErstad getting 2 starts per week in CF.



If Anderson's bat didn't cost any games in '06, why not have a lineup full of guys who bat .218? The answer is obvious: Because we'd never smell a .500 winning percentage. So his bat cost us some games, it's just a matter of how many and whether anyone thinks it was an acceptable amount. I think the Sox decided that the games they lost in '06 due to Anderson's pathetic bat and Mack-o-Wak's glove were equally unacceptable.


The difference is we didn't have a lineup of .218 hitters. We had more than enough offense to cover up BA's offense. His defense was much more valuable than anything Mack brought to the table offensively. I know Ozzie decided that Anderson's was unacceptable, but KW has kept him here anyway.


Arguing whether BA should've started in CF ahead of Mack for defensive purposes was a reasonable debate. I was one of the people last year who said BA was good enough defensively in CF to play every day ahead of Mack. It doesn't wash in LF. Completely different situation.


I agree that BA shouldn't start in LF. He should be starting in CF and GrindErstad should be starting in LF at the moment. As I said earlier, when Pods comes back GrindErstad should be starting twice a week in CF and be a late inning defensive sub in LF or 1B.