PDA

View Full Version : Corey Patterson in CF for the '08 Sox?


Ron Mexico
07-14-2007, 10:20 AM
Hi all, long-time pursuer and in a previous life posted under another moniker, thus understand trade proposals and free agent signings get mixed reception.

My buddy and I were playing virtual GM at work and threw out the name Corey Patterson as an economical option for Center Field next year. A large number of players will hit the market this winter, including Andru Jones, Mike Cameron, Crash, and Torii "Two I's Wow" Hunter.


Im not advocating Patterson should top the list, but knowing the other needs our line-up and bullpen require, I truly believe Patterson has the defensive aptitude to manage a good centerfield and is blessed with incredible speed; something the other options lack in comparison.

I don't watch enough Cub/Oriole baseball to know if Im missing something. It seemed Patterson was thrown under the bus by Cubdom after a miserable 05 campaign, but his numbers in 02,03,04 were solid on paper and rebounded nicely in 06. His recent stolen base trend is positive, even in a sub-par partial 07 and has collected 18 SB to-date. In addition, his strike out number have lowered and is on pace to keep the figure below 100 for a second consecutive season.

What are the legitimate concerns one would have with a signing of Patterson?

nodiggity59
07-14-2007, 10:24 AM
I'd take Patterson over Pods any day. At least he's healthy. I'd love to ear mark Pods' money for like a 2 year dal for Patterson. He can actually run too. Obviously, he would bat 9th.

Palehose Pete
07-14-2007, 10:30 AM
Not sure how Corey would take coming back to Chicago. He was head case during his last season on the North Side.

More importantly, I'd like to see some of our younger guys who hit just as well as Corey hits get chance to play.

soxinem1
07-14-2007, 10:41 AM
I thought they should have got him last year. Just from a SB standpoint, and what we saw from the CF's both this year and last year, he would be a major step up.

Not bad to have a #9 hitter with more than 30SB's.

RowanDye
07-14-2007, 11:43 AM
Hi all, long-time pursuer and in a previous life posted under another moniker, thus understand trade proposals and free agent signings get mixed reception.

My buddy and I were playing virtual GM at work and threw out the name Corey Patterson as an economical option for Center Field next year. A large number of players will hit the market this winter, including Andru Jones, Mike Cameron, Crash, and Torii "Two I's Wow" Hunter.


Im not advocating Patterson should top the list, but knowing the other needs our line-up and bullpen require, I truly believe Patterson has the defensive aptitude to manage a good centerfield and is blessed with incredible speed; something the other options lack in comparison.

I don't watch enough Cub/Oriole baseball to know if Im missing something. It seemed Patterson was thrown under the bus by Cubdom after a miserable 05 campaign, but his numbers in 02,03,04 were solid on paper and rebounded nicely in 06. His recent stolen base trend is positive, even in a sub-par partial 07 and has collected 18 SB to-date. In addition, his strike out number have lowered and is on pace to keep the figure below 100 for a second consecutive season.

What are the legitimate concerns one would have with a signing of Patterson?

The concerns are that his batting average and OBP numbers this year aren't sub-par, but in fact par for the course.

He's been very inconsitent. He had a good half in '03, pretty good year in '04 but with a lot of strkeouts, bad '05, good '06, bad '07 so far. As far as his up and down seasons go, he's like a less injury-prone Podesdenik that can't get on base and strikes out a lot.

Having said all that, I'd take him as a cheap #9 hitter. I'd rather pay like $5 M for Patterson than $7-8 M for Rowand. As much as I like Rowand, money is going to be tight next year and it's pretty unlikely that Rowand will repeat this years numbers (especially switching back to the AL).

If we go that route though, we have to get a RF or LF with some pop. I like the idea someone mentioned of trying to re-sign Dye and possibly switching him to LF. A healthy Dye should be good for ~30 HRs and Patterson could probably hit ~20 HRs playing at Cellular Field. Then we hope that Sweeney can play RF, and try to replace Uribe or Gooch with someone who can leadoff.

That should leave enough money to add a veteran RH bullpen arm.

The Racehorse
07-14-2007, 11:44 AM
I'm always hearing the Orioles announcers say that Patterson should bunt way more often to utilize all that speed he has, which according to them is what interim manager Trembley wants... and Corey seems stubborn to that because everytime I'm watching the O's on TV, I can't recall Patterson bunting or even showing bunt during an AB.

I would guess that Patterson enjoys the HR more than just trying to get on base. I say this because he comes pretty close to having a Uribean sized strike zone;

2007 = 14 BB, 43 K for Cory in 268 AB
2007 = 18 BB, 63 K for Juan in 258 AB

His career AVG & OPB are .255 & .296. The stolen bases are great, but if he could just raise that OPB into the .325 to .350 range, it'd be easier to accept the lower batting average.

If he could put up .275/.330 numbers with 30 SB, he'd be a really good ball player.

As for Patterson in a Sox uni? Considering the size of our OF holes, he couldn't hurt.

JB98
07-14-2007, 11:55 AM
I think the Cub-loving media would descend upon Patterson and make his life a living hell if he came to the Sox.

He's better than what we have now in CF, but I'll pass. I think we can aim higher at that position.

santo=dorf
07-14-2007, 11:59 AM
What are the legitimate concerns one would have with a signing of Patterson?
For one, his agent is Scott Boras.
Two, he's making $4.3 million this year, so don't expect any kinda of a cut from there.
Three, despite how good he has looked against us, he's not good

Doesn't walk at all, strikeouts a ton, makes a lot of outs, and doesn't hit for average.

Simply put, he sucks

gene

JB98
07-14-2007, 11:59 AM
One other thought on this topic: I think the Orioles have the right idea hitting Patterson ninth. The numbers he has are fine for a No. 9 hitter who plays good defense. But if Patterson were on our roster, I fear Ozzie would try to turn him into a leadoff hitter or No. 2 hitter just because Patterson has speed. That would be bad.

santo=dorf
07-14-2007, 12:01 PM
I thought they should have got him last year. Just from a SB standpoint, and what we saw from the CF's both this year and last year, he would be a major step up.

Not bad to have a #9 hitter with more than 30SB's.
There are a lot more important things in baseball than stolen bases.

How can he steal a lot of bases if his OBP is .277?
To put some perspective on it, Lucifer himself, had a .290 OBP last season and that was supposedly so bad, the Sox signed a cripple to take over for him.

WhiteSox5187
07-14-2007, 12:21 PM
No, no, no, no, no nonononono! The last thing the Sox need is a guy with a .270ish OBP who swings for the fences a lot. I don't care how great his speed is. It doesn't do him a whole lot of good if he doesn't get on base! What the White Sox REALLY need is a CF and a leadoff guy, preferably one guy to fill both roles. I'm not so sure who you can get to do that, but Patterson ain't that guy. Neither is Rowand. Had Ichiro hit the FA market I'd say sign him and put him in right and get Rowand (a second tier free agent) in center. Now that plan has fallen through. I'm not sure who else is out there that we can get, but neither A-Rod or Hunter really fills this need.

RowanDye
07-14-2007, 12:52 PM
No, no, no, no, no nonononono! The last thing the Sox need is a guy with a .270ish OBP who swings for the fences a lot. I don't care how great his speed is. It doesn't do him a whole lot of good if he doesn't get on base! What the White Sox REALLY need is a CF and a leadoff guy, preferably one guy to fill both roles. I'm not so sure who you can get to do that, but Patterson ain't that guy. Neither is Rowand. Had Ichiro hit the FA market I'd say sign him and put him in right and get Rowand (a second tier free agent) in center. Now that plan has fallen through. I'm not sure who else is out there that we can get, but neither A-Rod or Hunter really fills this need.

So what good is your post then? It's fine if you don't like Patterson, but don't defend your position by saying "we need someone else who doesn't exist".

Unless we make some amazing trade or want to re-sign Kenny Lofton, we're not getting a leadoff guy that plays CF. Be realistic.

Crede_Fan
07-14-2007, 01:05 PM
No, no, no, no, no nonononono! The last thing the Sox need is a guy with a .270ish OBP who swings for the fences a lot. I don't care how great his speed is. It doesn't do him a whole lot of good if he doesn't get on base! What the White Sox REALLY need is a CF and a leadoff guy, preferably one guy to fill both roles. I'm not so sure who you can get to do that, but Patterson ain't that guy. Neither is Rowand. Had Ichiro hit the FA market I'd say sign him and put him in right and get Rowand (a second tier free agent) in center. Now that plan has fallen through. I'm not sure who else is out there that we can get, but neither A-Rod or Hunter really fills this need.

There was no way the Sox were going to sign Ichiro & Rowand.

MDF3530
07-14-2007, 03:38 PM
For one, his agent is Scott Boras.
Two, he's making $4.3 million this year, so don't expect any kinda of a cut from there.
Three, despite how good he has looked against us, he's not good

Doesn't walk at all, strikeouts a ton, makes a lot of outs, and doesn't hit for average.

Simply put, he sucks

geneTook the words right outta my mouth.

Brian26
07-14-2007, 05:47 PM
What are the legitimate concerns one would have with a signing of Patterson?

The major concern is that since he would be playing ON the Sox, he'd never get a chance to play against the Sox, which is the only team he does well against while sucking against other teams. So, if we sign him, get ready for him to bat .215 with about three homers next year.

palehozenychicty
07-14-2007, 06:29 PM
Corey Patterson is a wack player. Brian Anderson can do what he does and possibly improve on that. End of story.

WSox597
07-14-2007, 08:09 PM
Playing well against the Sox again, he just hit a two-run homer off Vazquez.

He's like Jacque Jones, he plays well against the Sox, and not so well against the rest of baseball.

Although, once Patterson left the Cubs he seemed to play a little better. Not $10 million a year better, but better.

JB98
07-14-2007, 08:17 PM
Playing well against the Sox again, he just hit a two-run homer off Vazquez.

He's like Jacque Jones, he plays well against the Sox, and not so well against the rest of baseball.

Although, once Patterson left the Cubs he seemed to play a little better. Not $10 million a year better, but better.

Payton, not Patterson, hit the homer off Javy.

jabrch
07-14-2007, 09:28 PM
IF you sign Patterson, you need someone to play CF against all the LHP in this division. Patterson is a poor hitter against LHP.

Tragg
07-14-2007, 09:49 PM
.296 career OBP. We loaded the team with hackers this year, and 8 below the clip is the result. The hack hitting needs to end, not expand.
No thank you.

chisoxmike
07-14-2007, 09:52 PM
No, everybody looks good against the Sox.

Pass.

balke
07-14-2007, 11:00 PM
He can't hit a high fastball, but he'll sure as heck swing at it.

Palehose Pete
07-14-2007, 11:00 PM
.296 career OBP. We loaded the team with hackers this year, and 8 below the clip is the result. The hack hitting needs to end, not expand.
No thank you.

Excellent point.

FarWestChicago
07-14-2007, 11:25 PM
To put some perspective on it, Lucifer himself, had a .290 OBP last season and that was supposedly so bad, the Sox signed a cripple to take over for him.What is the bizarre obsession you and a few others have with BA? Why do you all think he is The Mick reincarnated? I don't get it. Please explain the BA fascination. I wish he was Mick Jr. But, all empirical evidence indicates otherwise.

santo=dorf
07-14-2007, 11:38 PM
What is the bizarre obsession you and a few others have with BA? Why do you all think he is The Mick reincarnated? I don't get it. Please explain the BA fascination. I wish he was Mick Jr. But, all empirical evidence indicates otherwise.
Why do you always go the strawman route and incorrectly assume that when people disagree with a move they are "rabid haters" and now if people defend a guy they expect him to be the best player in the world? Brian doesn't have to be the next Mick. He can be a solid player, but he hasn't had a fair chance.

You even said it yourself before the season started that BA should be starting over Erstad. At this point in the season are you willing to admit that the signing was completely pointless and blocked the development of a CF (Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, hell....Terrero) and put the Sox in a weaker position to compete?

FarWestChicago
07-14-2007, 11:53 PM
Why do you always go the strawman route and incorrectly assume that when people disagree with a move they are "rabid haters" and now if people defend a guy they expect him to be the best player in the world? Brian doesn't have to be the next Mick. He can be a solid player, but he hasn't had a fair chance.

You even said it yourself before the season started that BA should be starting over Erstad. At this point in the season are you willing to admit that the signing was completely pointless and blocked the development of a CF (Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, hell....Terrero) and put the Sox in a weaker position to compete?You are missing my point completely. I always wanted BA to not suck. I hoped like hell he wouldn't. But, he did. And when you and some of the others use terms like "lucifer", it just makes no sense. He has sucked horses patoots. He has been a disaster. He even sucks in the minors. Your irrational hatred of Erstad makes no sense. He's ****ing injured; not even playing. What's keeping all of your kids from shining? Perhaps it's because they stink like a dead skunk on the side of the road in August? You have this misplaced aggression against Erstad because the kids you want to shine blow. I wish they didn't. But, they do. It's not Erstad's fault. There is no conspiracy against BA. Get a grip. If he didn't completely stink, he would be playing.

JB98
07-14-2007, 11:56 PM
You are missing my point completely. I always wanted BA to not suck. I hoped like hell he wouldn't. But, he did. And when you and some of the others use terms like "lucifer", it just makes no sense. He has sucked horses patoots. He has been a disaster. He even sucks in the minors. Your irrational hatred of Erstad makes no sense. He's ****ing injured; not even playing. What's keeping all of your kids from shining? Perhaps it's because they stink like a dead skunk on the side of the road in August? You have this misplaced aggression against Erstad because the kids you want to shine blow. I wish they didn't. But, they do. It's not Erstad's fault. There is no conspiracy against BA. Get a grip. If he didn't completely stink, he would be playing.

:supernana::supernana:

lostfan
07-14-2007, 11:56 PM
He didn't completely stink. No, really. He was getting better.

Tragg
07-15-2007, 12:20 AM
Rookie Anderson - OPS .649 in 2006. Stellar defense. Has Uribe, POds or Osuna protecting him in the order. Described as terrible.

Veteran Erstad - OPS: 652 in 2007. Solid defense. Has Jim Thome or Iguchi protecting him in the order.

lostfan
07-15-2007, 12:29 AM
Erstad was playing fine once he found a groove. I had no complaints about that, he was close to worthless the first couple of weeks but after that he was fine. However my whole issue was having him start in CF when his injury history was well-known http://www.nfl-fans.com/style_emoticons/default/dunce.gif and he didn't outplay Anderson in ST. Instead the we got the worst-case scenario... Erstad plays ok and gets hurt, and Anderson continues to rot away.

JB98
07-15-2007, 01:17 AM
You guys are aware that Anderson is hurt and possibly done for the year, right?

He's not "rotting away." He's doing nothing, just like Erstad.

lostfan
07-15-2007, 02:41 AM
You guys are aware that Anderson is hurt and possibly done for the year, right?

He's not "rotting away." He's doing nothing, just like Erstad.
Yes but that's kind of irrelevant and doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind about being irritated with that decision when it happened... not that it matters now, what matters is how they plan on un-doing this ****ed up CF situation they've created.

And btw I think that being hurt for the year does qualify as "rotting away." The way things have been going for Anderson he's just gonna be in the minors indefinitely until he quits baseball, which is unfortunate.

santo=dorf
07-15-2007, 08:51 AM
You guys are aware that Anderson is hurt and possibly done for the year, right?

He's not "rotting away." He's doing nothing, just like Erstad.
What does this have to do with him not getting a chance earlier in the season?

Nobody is asking for Anderson right now. Signing Patterson would be worse than re-signing Erstad.

JB98
07-15-2007, 01:00 PM
Yes but that's kind of irrelevant and doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind about being irritated with that decision when it happened... not that it matters now, what matters is how they plan on un-doing this ****ed up CF situation they've created.

And btw I think that being hurt for the year does qualify as "rotting away." The way things have been going for Anderson he's just gonna be in the minors indefinitely until he quits baseball, which is unfortunate.

"This ****ed up CF situation they've created"

That's a laugh. Anderson created this situation by hitting .225 last year.

It's Anderson's fault. Not "they."

santo=dorf
07-15-2007, 01:06 PM
"This ****ed up CF situation they've created"

That's a laugh. Anderson created this situation by hitting .225 last year.

It's Anderson's fault. Not "they."
How come Anderson didn't get the same chance as Crede? I want an answer. Anderson had a.649 OPS last year, and that was so bad, they just had to sign a washed up veteran for 2.5 times the cost to put up a .652 OPS.

I don't recall the Sox signing a washed up third baseman after the 2003, or 2004 season (hell, Crede's regular 2005 season wasn't that good offensively.)

jabrch
07-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Rookie Anderson - OPS
Veteran Erstad - OPS


Tragg -- do you think OPS is a valid tool to compare these two players? I'd propose to you that it is not and it includes certain things that Erstad doesn't/won't ever do that aren't remotely close to what he is asked to do.

That's a very poor way to use statistics to put out a misleading arguement.

Tragg
07-15-2007, 02:16 PM
Tragg -- do you think OPS is a valid tool to compare these two players? I'd propose to you that it is not and it includes certain things that Erstad doesn't/won't ever do that aren't remotely close to what he is asked to do.

That's a very poor way to use statistics to put out a misleading arguement.
What's he asked to do? Not get on base? (his obp is mediocre). Not provide some doubles? Is his responsibility limited to grounding out to either side of the infield on que? If so, why is he batting at the top of the order? His alleged skills are of no use batting in front of Thome.
The offensive philosophy of this team isn't close to what it was in 2005. To me, Erstad is the symbol of Ozzie's philosophy of swing at everything hacking over speed and defense. Hopefully, Williams will shift this team back to the speed and defense emphasis of 2005.

jabrch
07-15-2007, 03:26 PM
What's he asked to do? Not get on base? (his obp is mediocre). Not provide some doubles? Is his responsibility limited to grounding out to either side of the infield on que? If so, why is he batting at the top of the order? His alleged skills are of no use batting in front of Thome.
The offensive philosophy of this team isn't close to what it was in 2005. To me, Erstad is the symbol of Ozzie's philosophy of swing at everything hacking over speed and defense. Hopefully, Williams will shift this team back to the speed and defense emphasis of 2005.

Erstad provides the ability to get hits and he handles the bat well. BA does neither of those things. But to put up OPS there is silly. It adds SLG% into the equation which, if used to compare Erstad to Anderson makes your comparison fairly invalid.

You can prove BA is a better baseball player than Erstad without using SLG%, can't you? I mean - he has to do more things better than Erstad than just get XBH. His (BA) .353 slg% in the majors can't be what you hang your hat on.

Oldschoolsoxguy
07-15-2007, 03:42 PM
Maybe when Brian Anderson grows up someday,he could hope that he was mentioned in the same breath as Darin Erstad.We all know that Erstad is on the downside of his career,but at least he's had one.And his downside right now is more than plenty to keep Anderson in the minor leagues.

RowanDye
07-15-2007, 03:52 PM
"This ****ed up CF situation they've created"

That's a laugh. Anderson created this situation by hitting .225 last year.

It's Anderson's fault. Not "they."

"This ****ed up CF situation" is a lot more than just Anderson. I'm not blaming anyone, but we've gone 2 years now without correctly addressing the problem.

The Erstad signing seemed like a stop-gap, and yet now no one else is really even in line to take over!

JB98
07-15-2007, 04:17 PM
"This ****ed up CF situation" is a lot more than just Anderson. I'm not blaming anyone, but we've gone 2 years now without correctly addressing the problem.

The Erstad signing seemed like a stop-gap, and yet now no one else is really even in line to take over!

Rowand was dealt because the organization believed Anderson was ready. He wasn't, and now the situation has spiraled down the toilet.

Lip Man 1
07-15-2007, 05:18 PM
I think enough circumstantial evidence has come out particularly in the newspaper, that the staff doesn't feel BA has the drive or desire to become a top flight big league player.

For example, I'm thinking about the comment earlier this year by Mark Gonzales before the Sox played Cleveland in Cleveland about the two 'young players watching TV instead of watching tape of the Indian starter' and how the coaching staff 'was amazed' by this.

One of those two players it was confirmed to me by one of the Sox beat writers, was Brian Anderson.

If a reporter noticed this in the locker room, does anyone think Ozzie didn't see it?

For right or wrong, fair or unfair, BA got off to a bad start with the staff and can't get out of the perceptions about him (unprepared, likes to party ect...)

I think if he's healthy he gets dealt this off season to make a new start, if not I think he's down to his final chance next spring with the Sox.

Lip

soxinem1
07-15-2007, 05:20 PM
How come Anderson didn't get the same chance as Crede? I want an answer. Anderson had a.649 OPS last year, and that was so bad, they just had to sign a washed up veteran for 2.5 times the cost to put up a .652 OPS.

I don't recall the Sox signing a washed up third baseman after the 2003, or 2004 season (hell, Crede's regular 2005 season wasn't that good offensively.)

My feelings exactly. BA was NEVER given the opportunity to be a regular, from day one of 2006 or 2007.

Crede was kept in for his glove. Fine. But when BA was in the lineup during the first half of 2006, the Sox led the entire universe in runs scored. The brainiacs in the media had to have Silver Slugger Award winners at every position on the team, and Ozzie gave into them, thus making the 'strong defense' argument that he preached when they traded Carlos Lee and left Crede at 3B look hypocritical.

If they'd have given him 500+ AB's and left him alone, sure the argument would have been stronger to replace him. But BA is a multi-tool player who had the opportunity to be developed, and the team took a **** on him. And that was BS.

BA, Crede, Konerko, Dye, and for the most part AJ were the only solid defenders on the 2006 team. Everyone else was below par.

Plus, Uribe and Iguchi both were definitely a little out of shape last year and were very slow on defense, yet they stayed in the line up, even with the brutal AB's Uribe had from July-September.

And if all the Rowand-lovers get their way and get him back in CF next year, you can consider BA's time in the organization done.

ZombieRob
07-16-2007, 11:10 AM
Think Willy Taveras is within the Sox grasp next year?He's certianly 1 guy I'd look into. I woulnd't think he'd cost alot to get from the Rockies.

Tragg
07-16-2007, 04:27 PM
Erstad provides the ability to get hits and he handles the bat well. BA does neither of those things. But to put up OPS there is silly. It adds SLG% into the equation which, if used to compare Erstad to Anderson makes your comparison fairly invalid.

You can prove BA is a better baseball player than Erstad without using SLG%, can't you? I mean - he has to do more things better than Erstad than just get XBH. His (BA) .353 slg% in the majors can't be what you hang your hat on.What doesn't matter is handling the bat at the top of the order, which is where Ozzie batted him. Bunting in front of Thome? Brilliant strategy. Make sure you make that out to the right side, with the power hitters coming up. Please, that's beyond useless.

Of course OPS is relevent to top of the order hitters - extra bases help a lot. You're offering a circular argument - OPS isn't important because Erstad isn't good at it.

My argument has never been that Anderson was good - it's that we'll take bad in CF IF there's a chance to develop a young player who could improve. With Erstad we take bad because, well, I have no idea why and there is zero chance for improvement.

No I can't prove Anderson was better and he probably isn't. Nor is Erstad much better than him. Anderson is superior defensively. Anderson was young with a chance to improve. Anderson's numbers came via Uribe protection, while Erstad's came via Thome protection.

Ozzie doesn't like Anderson. Fair enough. Then get Ozzie a good CF. What scares me is that we're going to take this poor offense into next season.

lostfan
07-17-2007, 07:50 AM
"This ****ed up CF situation they've created"

That's a laugh. Anderson created this situation by hitting .225 last year.

It's Anderson's fault. Not "they."
He got off to a horrible start and it was all downhill from there, even after he started hitting well. I notice that you bring up his .225 average and pretend that he hit .225 for the whole year... he didn't. I don't really see the point in arguing with you though, this could go in circles forever. I can see why the Anderson debates have become a running joke on this board.

Anderson or not doesn't even matter really, the CF situation is still a mess.

jabrch
07-17-2007, 10:10 AM
Of course OPS is relevent to top of the order hitters - extra bases help a lot. You're offering a circular argument - OPS isn't important because Erstad isn't good at it.

No - I am telling you that I don't give a rats ass what my leadoff hitters OPS is, as long as his batting average and OBP are OK. That's the problem with both of them - they aren't hitting or getting on enough. (Although Erstad did a dang good job after the first month of the season) If you want to debate BA vs Erstad, that's fine - use meaningful statistics. Using their OPS is ridiculous. Sure - a higher OPS is better. But you aren't offering me Carlos Beltran. You are offering me Brian Anderson and telling me that we should go with this guy; who can't hit in the minors because he has more power than Erstad.


Ozzie doesn't like Anderson.

Bull****. BA has performed poorly, and been a dip**** off the field, including failing to behave like a professional. Why do you continue to try and make this into something personal between OG and BA? Ozzie would put a child molester in CF if he felt like that gave the team the best chance. BA has hit poorly this year both Chicago and the minors. It has nothing to do with Guillen liking him or not.

balke
07-17-2007, 10:33 AM
Bull****. BA has performed poorly, and been a dip**** off the field, including failing to behave like a professional. Why do you continue to try and make this into something personal between OG and BA? Ozzie would put a child molester in CF if he felt like that gave the team the best chance.



Yikes.

spiffie
07-17-2007, 10:51 AM
He got off to a horrible start and it was all downhill from there, even after he started hitting well. I notice that you bring up his .225 average and pretend that he hit .225 for the whole year... he didn't.
True. For 4 out of the 6 months of the season he couldn't crack the .200 mark, so .225 would have been a massive improvement.

I think my problem with the whole BA in 2006 thing is that people seem to only accept that stretch from about 7/6 through 8/31 as the real Brian Anderson, and everything else there has to be some excuse.

April - 161/264/290 due to adjusting to major league pitching
May - 167/281/292 due to Ozzie yanking him in and out of the lineup
June - 196/268/333 due to Ozzie putting undue pressure on him in the media
July - 313/328/469 due to him adjusting to his role despite Ozzie
August - 296/367/437 due to him getting to play regularly
September - 188/222/304 due to him being tired, running out of gas

Another thing to note is that really, a lot of his performance in July and August was simply due to luck. His approach didn't change much:

April - 9BB/72PA (12.5%)
May - 7BB/58PA (12.1%)
June - 4BB/56PA (7.1%)
July - 2BB/67PA (3.0%)
Aug. - 6BB/80PA (7.5%)
Sept - 2BB/69PA (2.9%)

And he wasn't really hitting a whole lot more HR or power line drives that turn into doubles or triples:
April - 4XBH/72PA (5.6%)
May - 2XBH/72PA (2.8%)
June - 5XBH/56PA (8.9%)
July - 8XBH/67PA (11.9%)
Aug - 7XBH/80PA (8.8%)
Sept - 6XBH/72PA (8.3%)

But during those months his BAbip was huge. In July it was .373. In August it was .351. Honestly, with the sample size involved, considering that his salad days consist of about 135 PA's or so, it seems more likely to me that Brian just got lucky to get a few extra grounders through the infield or broken bat hits than that anything substantially changed in the way he was hitting.

Maybe in the future he will be a productive player. Hell, maybe he'll be the player some of the folks here seem to believe he is destined to be, which seems to be some sort of mix of Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Jesus Christ. But while obviously it is better for a guy to hit the way BA did in July/August last year, I don't see much in it that makes me believe that there was something about those two months that was the REAL BA appearing, as opposed to the poor abused lad who just couldn't get a break the other 2/3 of the season.

champagne030
07-17-2007, 10:54 AM
Bull****. BA has performed poorly, and been a dip**** off the field, including failing to behave like a professional. Why do you continue to try and make this into something personal between OG and BA? Ozzie would put a child molester in CF if he felt like that gave the team the best chance. BA has hit poorly this year both Chicago and the minors. It has nothing to do with Guillen liking him or not.

:rolleyes:

http://www.pacificsites.com/~lakenews/LCFP%20Graphics/head_up_ass.gif

lostfan
07-17-2007, 11:03 AM
From the way I understood it when I read a Greg Walker article, he came up and his awful swing mechanics, which had worked in every level up to AAA, got exposed badly and he batted around .170 although he was hitting the ball hard on the rare occasions that he actually did. Then after they worked with him he changed some things and simplified his plate approach and started swinging for liners and sacrificing power - I noticed this watching the games but I read Walker's quotes in the preseason. He had finally started putting it together sometime in June/July. Then at the end of the season he tailed, off, I don't know why... because right around that time is when Ozzie started platooning him with Macowiak.

I wouldn't say the July/August Anderson was the "Real" Anderson so much as Anderson turning the corner with consistent playing time. I figured that if he kept getting ABs he would eventually be able to hit for power again as he started making adjustments. That never happened, though. He was supposed to go to winter ball, that was a debacle. Then he was still playing well in ST but Ozzie started Erstad over him. We know the rest.

spiffie
07-17-2007, 11:07 AM
From the way I understood it when I read a Greg Walker article, he came up and his awful swing mechanics, which had worked in every level up to AAA, got exposed badly and he batted around .170 although he was hitting the ball hard on the rare occasions that he actually did. Then after they worked with him he changed some things and simplified his plate approach and started swinging for liners and sacrificing power - I noticed this watching the games but I read Walker's quotes in the preseason. He had finally started putting it together sometime in June/July. Then at the end of the season he tailed, off, I don't know why... because right around that time is when Ozzie started platooning him with Macowiak.

If he tailed off because of lack of playing time, why is his best month (July) one where he had 2 less PA's than in September, when he supposedly wasn't getting enough playing time?

lostfan
07-17-2007, 12:07 PM
If he tailed off because of lack of playing time, why is his best month (July) one where he had 2 less PA's than in September, when he supposedly wasn't getting enough playing time?
Hell if I know. I'm not suggesting that's the reason because Anderson can blame only Anderson for that lack of production at the end, but I am questioning why he (Ozzie) started playing Macowiak when there was no real reason to at that point since Anderson was producing from the bottom of the order. And by now we're all pretty much in unanimous agreement that "Macowiak" and "center field" should never be in the same sentence unless that sentence is "Macowiak should never, ever play center field, ever again."

russ99
07-17-2007, 01:11 PM
Enough of the B.A. manlove for now.

The question we should be asking is can Corey Patterson at $5M+ a season do more for the Sox in 2008-2009 than a rapidly developing Jerry Owens making the minimum. I think no, and barring a big CF Free Agent, Kenny could better spend that cash to fill holes elsewhere.

PennStater98r
07-17-2007, 04:57 PM
We don't need another "lead-off" hitter who with a .315 OBP.

Tragg
07-18-2007, 10:20 AM
Bull****. BA has performed poorly, and been a dip**** off the field, including failing to behave like a professional. Why do you continue to try and make this into something personal between OG and BA? .
Actually, I didn't; I made that one comment and then said "Fine get Ozzie a good CF." I never said Anderson was very good (I believe I said he wasn't), but use his stats only to show that Erstad isn't much better. (none of which you address except to say that slg is irrelevant for Erstad). Ozzie put Erstad as a 2 hole hitter. Of course Slg is important for a 2 hitter - doubles and homers help a lot. You don't need a 40 homer guy, but Iguchi delivered 15-20 homers and a .350 OBP in the 2 hole (demoted for Erstad's .330 and no power). Nor can Erstad come close to Pods' .350 OBP and great base-stealing ability. Indeed, Anderson or perhaps Terrero or Sweeney are the comparables for Erstad (and with those 3, it's the chance to develop another hitter). But not Pods and Iguchi----he's not in their class of hitter.