PDA

View Full Version : Sounds like Owens has beat Anderson


Pages : [1] 2

Domeshot17
03-23-2008, 11:33 AM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080322&content_id=2452090&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cwsthe

Mod Edit: Don't Quote, summarize. SUMMARY: Ozzie has told Jerry he won a spot on the 25 man, and will also get his wish to start in CF and lead offThe First half of the article is pretty much talking about how Owens has locked up his 25 man spot and Ozzie sounds like he is giving him the job. Personally I think this is a huge mistake, and Im not a big Brian fan. However, Anderson is 100 x better defensively then Owens. Owens is really a poor mans Jaun Pierre, and his shown the inability to change that this spring. He has 1 walk in 32 at bats. He is never going to be a high OBP guy. The only thing he has over Brian at this point is speed, but Brian is showing he has power and defense and plate patience (11 walks already).

My biggest fear is this is going to put Anderson back in pout mode. He actually comes out and wins a job finally, and he gets passed over by Ozzie playing favorites.


Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the new non qoute summary thing

Tragg
03-23-2008, 11:42 AM
Has Owens learned how to work a count and take a walk this spring? Is he driving the ball or still slapping grounders? Did he develop a throwing arm?

RowanDye
03-23-2008, 11:43 AM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080322&content_id=2452090&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cwsthe

The First half of the article is pretty much talking about how Owens has locked up his 25 man spot and Ozzie sounds like he is giving him the job. Personally I think this is a huge mistake, and Im not a big Brian fan. However, Anderson is 100 x better defensively then Owens. Owens is really a poor mans Jaun Pierre, and his shown the inability to change that this spring. He has 1 walk in 32 at bats. He is never going to be a high OBP guy. The only thing he has over Brian at this point is speed, but Brian is showing he has power and defense and plate patience (11 walks already).

My biggest fear is this is going to put Anderson back in pout mode. He actually comes out and wins a job finally, and he gets passed over by Ozzie playing favorites.

You could see this coming from a mile away.

Anderson just needs to maintain the same attitude he has had all spring, and be happy with the fact that he won himself a spot on the team.

Lately I've been hearing rumors that Alexei may see significant playing time in CF. Regardless, Anderson will get at-bats and if he produces he will hopefully get more at-bats.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 11:45 AM
Easy to claim it's about Ozzie playing favorites when you don't really understand the reason.

Owens fits Ozzie's description of a leadoff hitter, Anderson doesn't. I think that's what it comes down to at the moment. It may also be designed to see how Anderson reacts and if indeed he has reached Zen state when it comes to playing baseball. If he pouts and whines and holds his breath, then the rest has just been an act until now. If, on the other hand, he shrugs it off and dedicates himself harder to making the team, then indeed he is becoming the professional he claims he is.

Sockinchisox
03-23-2008, 11:49 AM
Easy to claim it's about Ozzie playing favorites when you don't really understand the reason.

Owens fits Ozzie's description of a leadoff hitter, Anderson doesn't. I think that's what it comes down to at the moment. It may also be designed to see how Anderson reacts and if indeed he has reached Zen state when it comes to playing baseball. If he pouts and whines and holds his breath, then the rest has just been an act until now. If, on the other hand, he shrugs it off and dedicates himself harder to making the team, then indeed he is becoming the professional he claims he is.

Actually, he doesn't. Ozzie has said numerous times during Spring Training that the only thing he needs his lead off hitter to do is get on base, something Owens hasn't been very good at.

Domeshot17
03-23-2008, 11:58 AM
Actually, he doesn't. Ozzie has said numerous times during Spring Training that the only thing he needs his lead off hitter to do is get on base, something Owens hasn't been very good at.


That was my feeling too. Ozzie always talks about guys who get on base for his boppers, but I don't know. I will not Deny 2 things, Owens could lead the league in Stolen Bases and he has hit well this spring in limited at bats. However, to me, Brian has shown IMPROVEMENT. No one will continue to hit 350+ when real pitchers in throwing the entire game and throwing 100%. However, the thing Brian impressed me with most this spring that was different was his EYE. He has taken tough pitches for balls and not done a tone of chasing. He still Ks, but now its almost a 1:1 k:bb (the Thome and Swisher Ratio). Owens is still swinging early in counts, swinging at balls. Like I said, after he played poor me for 2 years I stopped being a big fan of Anderson's, but he has clearly won this job.

Tragg
03-23-2008, 12:01 PM
Ozzie has said numerous times during Spring Training that the only thing he needs his lead off hitter to do is get on base, something Owens hasn't been very good at.
I never read that he said that, but if he did, it's certainly encouraging.
But Guillen's actions consistently suggest that he wants his light hitters slapping and hacking, versus taking pitches. I think Owens' real problem is that he can't drive a ball; and because he can't drive the ball, he poses no threat to an opposing pitcher, and is thus thrown too few balls with with which to draw a walk.

This team needs speed, but it doesn't necessarily need steals.

As for Anderson, he had a good spring last year but sat for Erstad. Something's not there, whatever it is.
Let Ozuna or Ramirez lead off and let Brian play CF. At least with Anderson, we know that we get good D.

Sockinchisox
03-23-2008, 12:04 PM
I never read that he said that, but if he did, it's certainly encouraging.
But Guillen's actions consistently suggest that he wants his light hitters slapping and hacking, versus taking pitches. I think Owens' real problem is that he can't drive a ball; and because he can't drive the ball, he poses no threat to an opposing pitcher, and is thus thrown too few balls with with which to draw a walk.

This team needs speed, but it doesn't necessarily need steals.

As for Anderson, he had a good spring last year but sat for Erstad. Something's not there, whatever it is. At least with Brian, we know that we get good D.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/840093,CST-SPT-sox13.article

It's in there.

Elephant
03-23-2008, 12:04 PM
This sucks.

DoItForDanPasqua
03-23-2008, 12:08 PM
I think Brian Anderson has earned another chance to show that he can get on base in front of the big hitters. He has already proven that he can keep people off base with his defense.

I have always maintained that outfield defense is underrated. The difference between a double to the gap and fly out is a matter of inches, but it can be the difference in a game.

DickAllen72
03-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Anderson came into this spring with most observers not even giving him a chance to remain in the Sox organization, let alone making the team. He has approached the situation with an apparently changed attitude and has played well enough to earn himself a spot on the 25 man roster.

Owens played well during the last month or so last season and also has had a good spring.

I don't see what the problem is here.

sox1970
03-23-2008, 12:13 PM
Ozzie will probably have 150 different lineups this year, so I'm sure Anderson will get his AB's.

flo-B-flo
03-23-2008, 12:13 PM
............He has already proven that he can keep people off base with his defense.

I have always maintained that outfield defense is underrated. The difference between a double to the gap and fly out is a matter of inches, but it can be the difference in a game. Anything he gives offensively is icing. I just love the guys that go get it............

kittle42
03-23-2008, 12:26 PM
Is there a Managing for Dummies book?

A. Cavatica
03-23-2008, 12:33 PM
Both of them earned roster spots this spring, so it doesn't really matter who is the "regular" as long as Ozzie uses them properly...and as long as he doesn't put Owens and Ozuna in the same lineup.

Since I think one of Ozzie's hallmarks the last two seasons is his failure to use his players properly, let me say what I think he should do: let Owens lead off the game (when Ozuna is not playing) and replace him with Anderson whenever it looks like the CF's next at-bat will not lead off an inning. You want B.A. in there for defense, and you might as well take advantage of his superior slugging ability as soon as possible. You want Owens leading off innings.

Ozuna shouldn't play 2B and lead off, but Ozzie's going to use him that way. When that happens, start B.A., and save Owens for pinch-running duty.

I'm not sure what the right way to use Ramirez is yet, because we haven't seen enough of him.

AZChiSoxFan
03-23-2008, 12:48 PM
Is there a Managing for Dummies book?

I love your style Kittle! I typically crack up whenever I read your posts (I mean that in a good way). Keep them coming!

ChiTownTrojan
03-23-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm not a big fan of this. But whoever was "named" the starter, I don't think it was going to be a very solid hold on the spot. Ozzie will switch back and forth between the two for a while, until one of them clearly stands out. Like others have said, I don't think Ozuna and Owens should be in the same starting lineup (one should be on the bench as a pinch runner, the other will lead off). And since Ozuna has already been named to the opening day lineup, I think we'll see Anderson on opening day.

I have no idea how Ramirez fits into the equation either, I guess that's for Ozzie to figure out. I do know that I'm pretty happy with a bench of Owens/Ramirez/Pablo, all guys that are quick and very versatile, allowing for a lot of lineup combinations and substitutions based on the situation. Their versatility will also help keep the 12-man pitching staff intact, which should keep the bullpen fresh, which we'll need for our young starters.

It would be nice to have some power on the bench, though.

chisoxmike
03-23-2008, 01:30 PM
Great.

jabrch
03-23-2008, 01:38 PM
Actually, he doesn't. Ozzie has said numerous times during Spring Training that the only thing he needs his lead off hitter to do is get on base, something Owens hasn't been very good at.

Isnt he a career .294/.362 hitter in the minors? How is that not getting on base? (BA has nearly the same minor league numbers with more power - FWIW)

I don't care either way. You can make a reasonable arguement for either player, if you want to be reasonable.

If you want to be unreasonable, you can argue against either player as well. That just so pointless to me...

RowanDye
03-23-2008, 01:40 PM
Both of them earned roster spots this spring, so it doesn't really matter who is the "regular" as long as Ozzie uses them properly...and as long as he doesn't put Owens and Ozuna in the same lineup.

Since I think one of Ozzie's hallmarks the last two seasons is his failure to use his players properly, let me say what I think he should do: let Owens lead off the game (when Ozuna is not playing) and replace him with Anderson whenever it looks like the CF's next at-bat will not lead off an inning. You want B.A. in there for defense, and you might as well take advantage of his superior slugging ability as soon as possible. You want Owens leading off innings.

Ozuna shouldn't play 2B and lead off, but Ozzie's going to use him that way. When that happens, start B.A., and save Owens for pinch-running duty.

I'm not sure what the right way to use Ramirez is yet, because we haven't seen enough of him.

I'm not a big fan of this. But whoever was "named" the starter, I don't think it was going to be a very solid hold on the spot. Ozzie will switch back and forth between the two for a while, until one of them clearly stands out. Like others have said, I don't think Ozuna and Owens should be in the same starting lineup (one should be on the bench as a pinch runner, the other will lead off). And since Ozuna has already been named to the opening day lineup, I think we'll see Anderson on opening day.

I have no idea how Ramirez fits into the equation either, I guess that's for Ozzie to figure out. I do know that I'm pretty happy with a bench of Owens/Ramirez/Pablo, all guys that are quick and very versatile, allowing for a lot of lineup combinations and substitutions based on the situation. Their versatility will also help keep the 12-man pitching staff intact, which should keep the bullpen fresh, which we'll need for our young starters.

It would be nice to have some power on the bench, though.

I'm not sure if you two are addressing the article. or just didn't catch this.

Take Opening Day, as an example. While Owens figures to be on the field in Cleveland, he will form a double leadoff man alignment, of sorts, with Pablo Ozuna, hitting down in the ninth hole against C.C. Sabathia. Hopefully this is just speculation [by Scott Merkin], because as you guys say, I think it would be a mistake to have Ozuna and Owens regularly in the same lineup.

SoxNation05
03-23-2008, 02:13 PM
Where the hell is Carlos Quentin? What did we trade our top position prospect for if we're going to play the likes of Brian Anderson and Jerry Owens over him?

DumpJerry
03-23-2008, 02:17 PM
Where the hell is Carlos Quentin? What did we trade our top position prospect for if we're going to play the likes of Brian Anderson and Jerry Owens over him?
He's hurtin'

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 02:24 PM
If this is the year that Anderson finally breaks out and Quentin develops as well. The Sox could have a good young outfield for quite a few years with Swisher, Anderson, Quentin.

Tragg
03-23-2008, 02:35 PM
Owens played well during the last month or so last season and also has had a good spring.

I don't see what the problem is here.
I'm going to edit this down to say:
Overall, this is the same structured offense as last year's disaster, with the addition of Nick Swisher. 4 good hitters (presuming Dye starts hitting) surrounded by 7 so-so or worse hitters, none of whom are good at even just getting on base to be driven in by the good hitters.

Owens' ceiling is Podsednik.

Anderson plays stellar defense and has a higher ceiling.

goon
03-23-2008, 02:37 PM
As said, this probably came down to Ozzie wanting Owens as hitting in the lead-off spot. This sucks because Anderson has looked great in ST (Owens has looked pretty good) and he's a much better option in CF than Jerry. It seems like defense should be an important element on this team considering we have two young pitchers in the rotation. Why not try Swisher leading off?

gogosox16
03-23-2008, 02:40 PM
I expected Jerry to be our leadoff man but with the way BA has played so far this spring, I would have no problem with a platoon. BA has earned another look.

champagne030
03-23-2008, 02:42 PM
Overall, this is the same structured offense as last year's disaster, with the addition of Nick Swisher. 4 good hitters (presuming Dye starts hitting) surrounded by 7 so-so or worse hitters, none of whom are good at even just getting on base to be driven in by the good hitters. Williams talks about obp, Ozzie gives it some lip-service, but year after year it's swing at everything. Even no-value Iguchi could get on base better than most of the hitters on this team. It's the exact same bench (in philosophy) as last year, too.

Owens' ceiling is Podsednik. If he played at that ceiling, fine, but why invest in someone in hopes, that he can become an average leadoff hitter? He doesn't walk and doesn't drive the ball, so at times his grounders will scoot through, but it's unlikely they do 35% of the time. His defense isn't exceptional either.

Anderson plays stellar defense and has a higher ceiling.

Hell, I don't know. At least Oney got to play yesterday. Why is he even on the team, yet alone, in a game this late in ST? :scratch:

munchman33
03-23-2008, 02:52 PM
Easy to claim it's about Ozzie playing favorites when you don't really understand the reason.

Owens fits Ozzie's description of a leadoff hitter, Anderson doesn't. I think that's what it comes down to at the moment. It may also be designed to see how Anderson reacts and if indeed he has reached Zen state when it comes to playing baseball. If he pouts and whines and holds his breath, then the rest has just been an act until now. If, on the other hand, he shrugs it off and dedicates himself harder to making the team, then indeed he is becoming the professional he claims he is.

Owens can't get on base, place the ball where the defenders aren't, or bunt. He's also not a great defender. He does not fit what Ozzie is looking for.

I'm no BA fan, but Owens isn't even the lesser of two evils.

getonbckthr
03-23-2008, 02:56 PM
I expected Jerry to be our leadoff man but with the way BA has played so far this spring, I would have no problem with a platoon. BA has earned another look.

Ozzie will probably have 150 different lineups this year, so I'm sure Anderson will get his AB's.
Platoons are bad news. For once I want to have the same lineup for 120 games. Those other 42 should only be random days off and inter-league National League park games.

cards press box
03-23-2008, 02:58 PM
If this is the year that Anderson finally breaks out and Quentin develops as well. The Sox could have a good young outfield for quite a few years with Swisher, Anderson, Quentin.

I agree -- that outfield has a lot of upside in terms of defense and power.

I expected Jerry to be our leadoff man but with the way BA has played so far this spring, I would have no problem with a platoon. BA has earned another look.

An Owens/Anderson platoon might work out fine. I suspect that Ozzie will work the entire bench into the lineup and that's a good thing, too. Earl Weaver had a knack for recognizing each player's particular strengths and weaknesses. The differences between players could be quite nuanced but Weaver was able to get the most out of the strengths and hide the weaknesses. I think Guillen has that same knack.

cards press box
03-23-2008, 03:03 PM
Platoons are bad news.

That just isn't always the case. Platooning had been dormant from the 1920's through the late '40's until Casey Stengel brought it back. It worked out fine for him.

Earl Weaver would occasionally platoon and he did so skillfully. Platoons allow a manager to work in a hitter who feasts on fastballs but not breaking pitches when the other team runs a fastballer out there. Platoons also allow a manager to hide weaknesses, such a lefty who can't hit lefthanders.

At the end of the day, Guillen will work Ramirez, Anderson, Ozuna and Quentin into the lineup quite a bit.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 03:09 PM
That just isn't always the case. Platooning had been dormant from the 1920's through the late '40's until Casey Stengel brought it back. It worked out fine for him.

Earl Weaver would occasionally platoon and he did so skillfully. Platoons allow a manager to work in a hitter who feasts on fastballs but not breaking pitches when the other team runs a fastballer out there. Platoons also allow a manager to hide weaknesses, such a lefty who can't hit lefthanders.

At the end of the day, Guillen will work Ramirez, Anderson, Ozuna and Quentin into the lineup quite a bit.

Right, with the expected starting 2B out for a month or so to start the season and all of the rest playing well in ST, it makes sense to give them all a chance to perform under live pitching situations. It will shake out fairly quickly.

I don't think anyone can point at a given lineup as being THE one that will carry the Sox as far as possible right now. The only guy who has a clear advantage defensively is Anderson, but is that enough for him to be the clear cut starter for 120 games this season?

At this stage of the game, anyone who answers yes is making an awful lot of assumptions, IMO.

jabrch
03-23-2008, 03:10 PM
The only problem with a platoon is that guys don't get used to playing against pitchers of their same hand, so when it comes down to key situations, you are vulnerable to substitution with a manager with depth in the pen from both sides.

That said, with the depth we have (BA, Quinten, Owens, Ramirez and Pablo along with Dye and Swisher) we can afford to play L/R in CF.

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 03:16 PM
Maybe the Dodgers will trade us Pierre for BA straight up. Then we can have a TRIPLE leadoff lineup!!

Daver
03-23-2008, 03:17 PM
The only guy who has a clear advantage defensively is Anderson, but is that enough for him to be the clear cut starter for 120 games this season?


It should be, this team can't afford to give away outs.

A. Cavatica
03-23-2008, 03:18 PM
Earl Weaver had a knack for recognizing each player's particular strengths and weaknesses. The differences between players could be quite nuanced but Weaver was able to get the most out of the strengths and hide the weaknesses. I think Guillen has that same knack.

"I knew Earl Weaver. Earl Weaver was a friend of mine. And Ozzie, you are no Earl Weaver."

Tragg
03-23-2008, 03:20 PM
At least Oney got to play yesterday. Why is he even on the team, yet alone, in a game this late in ST? :scratch:
I never head of Oney until yesterday. Is he a legitimate player or is this in the lineage of drafting Scheuler's daughter? A couple of other questions: which roster spots are still in doubt? Back up catcher, I guess. Anything else? Any young pitchers still have a chance to make the team?
How has Floyd looked? Thanks

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 03:22 PM
It should be, this team can't afford to give away outs.

But the one time a game Owens gets on bases and RUNS is worth any loss of power or defense from BA.

Talk about taking the winds outta my opening day sails. I was really tricking myself that baseball would be fun to watch this year. Its not that I am one of the BA cultists, but I had hope that after last years debacle, Ozzie had turned a corner when it came to letting the best players (at the time) on the field.

I dont care if Owens is a typical leadoff hitter. you're going to start him against a lefty AND sit the hottest spring training hitter on opening day? ***?

champagne030
03-23-2008, 03:29 PM
I never head of Oney until yesterday. Is he a legitimate player

No.

or is this in the lineage of drafting Scheuler's daughter? Yes.

How has Floyd looked?Like Gavin.....****ty.

kittle42
03-23-2008, 03:32 PM
The differences between players could be quite nuanced but Weaver was able to get the most out of the strengths and hide the weaknesses. I think Guillen has that same knack.

Based on what?

LoveYourSuit
03-23-2008, 03:42 PM
Bad message to send IMO.

BA really busted his ass to show he belonged as starting CF, but it meant nothing. BA and Owens each only do one thing that would be considered top level around the league, BA's defense and Owens speed. Give me the defense because it is very hard to steal First Base.

The platoon thing is not going to work for BA beacause Ozuna will play in place of Owens to lead off (Opening Day).

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 03:44 PM
No.

Yes.

Like Gavin.....****ty.

Floyd looked good in his start against the Giants. He was agressive got his curveball over, threw strikes and gave up 2 runs in 6 IP.

Do you have a single post on this board that doesn't include you bitching about something? :rolleyes:

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 03:49 PM
Bad message to send IMO.

BA really busted his ass to show he belonged as starting CF, but it meant nothing. BA and Owens each only do one thing that would be considered top level around the league, BA's defense and Owens speed. Give me the defense because it is very hard to steal First Base.

The platoon thing is not going to work for BA beacause Ozuna will play in place of Owens to lead off (Opening Day).

Bad message? Yeah

Bad baseball? Yeah

Questionable managing? Yeah

Will we still watch? Yeah

LITTLE NELL
03-23-2008, 03:59 PM
I feel sorry for Anderson, he had a great spring. What Ozzie is hoping for is a 2005 Podsednik type year out of Owens and I hope we get that. Im not sure if I want Swisher leading off, but if Owens fails I dont know who else would lead off.

Optipessimism
03-23-2008, 04:01 PM
My biggest fear in this situation is that Ozzie accepts a .295/.335 line and ****ty defense from Owens as good enough to continue playing him regularly. Then when Quentin comes back BA is sent back to Charlotte to await a trade.

I like Owens as a 4th OF/pinch runner but by no stretch of the imagination should he be the starting CF. It has nothing to do with Owens hate or Anderson love; the guy just is not a CF. He shouldn't be there. He's a borderline starting LF on either a horrid team overall or a team with tons of power coming from non-power positions. He's not a CF and he's not better than Quentin, Swisher, or Dye, so he shouldn't be starting in this OF at all.

BA should get a long look this year as the starting CF, and if he isn't the answer then it doesn't mean Owens is; it means that the Sox need to go out and get a real CF.

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 04:01 PM
I feel sorry for Anderson, he had a great spring. What Ozzie is hoping for is a 2005 Podsednik type year out of Owens and I hope we get that. Im not sure if I want Swisher leading off, but if Owens fails I dont know who else would lead off.

Inferior defense is alot easier to cover up in Left Field than Center...

But, I've been scratching my head at the brass' decisions for a while now.

Its not like I can threaten my loyalty over another loser of a year.

Tragg
03-23-2008, 04:06 PM
I dont care if Owens is a typical leadoff hitter. you're going to start him against a lefty AND sit the hottest spring training hitter on opening day? ***?
If Owens starts against Sabathia, then this spring has been the usual lip service. When it comes down to it, Ozzie loves his hackers.
Same thing happened last year.

tick53
03-23-2008, 04:06 PM
This sucks.

Donkeys! Anderson has worked his ass off to make this team. Sure he made some mistakes in the past but I probably would have done the same thing if I had been in his position. You know what bothers me? The Sox will launch him and some other team will scoop him up and have themselves one helluva ballplayer. I'm not down on Owens but in my opinion he's another Chris Singleton who can't his as well.

Optipessimism
03-23-2008, 04:16 PM
The differences between players could be quite nuanced but Weaver was able to get the most out of the strengths and hide the weaknesses. I think Guillen has that same knack.

I disagree. Ozzie seems to observe players' weaknesses but then plays them anyway and exposes those weaknesses so long as they possess a tool (like speed) which he values more than another part of the game (like defense).

Ozzie hasn't had a true lead-off man since he's been here. The closest was Pods for most of '05, but still, he needs to have that guy at the top of his lineup even if his GM didn't go out and acquire one. So, he puts the player that he thinks best fits his mold into the lead-off spot, even if that move causes problems with the rest of the lineup or defense.

I truly hope KW can come up with a REAL lead-off guy sometime in the future, and by that I mean a player with plus speed, great instincts, gets on base enough, and can actually play a defensive position in the Major Leagues. Maybe then Ozzie can make out an intelligent lineup.

cws05champ
03-23-2008, 04:27 PM
What's the big deal? I mean Owens will strain his groin 2 weeks into the season and BA will start in center anyways. :cool:

champagne030
03-23-2008, 04:47 PM
Floyd looked good in his start against the Giants. He was agressive got his curveball over, threw strikes and gave up 2 runs in 6 IP.



I'm glad you're not a scout for the Sox because he didn't look good. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Brian26
03-23-2008, 04:50 PM
Anderson came into this spring with most observers not even giving him a chance to remain in the Sox organization, let alone making the team. He has approached the situation with an apparently changed attitude and has played well enough to earn himself a spot on the 25 man roster.

Owens played well during the last month or so last season and also has had a good spring.

I don't see what the problem is here.

The problem is that BA has a much higher upside than Owens. He might be on the cusp of breaking out, and I see a bench position for him now as another setback, especially after playing so well thing Spring (with almost twice as many at-bats as Owens).

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 05:30 PM
I'm glad you're not a scout for the Sox because he didn't look good. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

MAYBE HE IS THE SCOUT =)

LoveYourSuit
03-23-2008, 05:46 PM
I'm glad you're not a scout for the Sox because he didn't look good. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Speaking of scouting and young starters, I predict another roller coaster ride with Danks this year. He is starting to make me feel itchy again about the outlook of the season. The high pitch counts is something that can drive any manager nuts, he did again today vs KC.

HBaines03
03-23-2008, 05:50 PM
I'm starting to struggle with what management is trying to accomplish. We went after Torii Hunter and many of the comments were directed at his defense being the main reason for chasing him (failed). We than made a silent play for Jim Edmonds, I assume again, for defense in CF. Both of these would have cost way to much money and added to our aging ball club. If they want defense and youth we already have both in Brian Anderson, yet it appears we are going to use Owens. I'm a little puzzled. I feel like we have held onto Uribe and Crede way to long and are banking the season on 2 very young inexperienced pitchers to carry us thru. We went after Miguel Cabrera for offensive output but again utilize Owens over Anderson and Crede over Fields. If Joe can show signs of 2006 than I am fine with the decision but I have not seen that this spring. Anderson offers much more than Owens in my opinion but struggles to get recognized by front office brass. How much does Jerry let the team make decisions on who to go after on the free agent market? I remember Thomas getting a say about A. Belle and I remember Dye talking up Hunter this offseason. Quentin is a good friend of Fields....... do our scouts really get a say on who to go after and who should play?

LoveYourSuit
03-23-2008, 06:26 PM
Brian goes yard !!!!

A. Cavatica
03-23-2008, 06:28 PM
Save it for the game thread.

I sure hope Ozzie wasn't watching a B game on the other field.

DSpivack
03-23-2008, 06:30 PM
Save it for the game thread.

I sure hope Ozzie wasn't watching a B game on the other field.

There is no game thread. :tongue:

LoveYourSuit
03-23-2008, 06:31 PM
Save it for the game thread.

I sure hope Ozzie wasn't watching a B game on the other field.


go ahead and start one.:tongue:

btrain929
03-23-2008, 06:46 PM
Brian goes yard !!!!

God, he has looked good at the plate this spring. He's being smart and being aggressive early in the count when he's most likely to see fastballs, and ripping them.

Best case scenario, BA takes the starting job, bats 9th with Swisher leading off, sees alot of fastballs because of the man on deck, and can hit .275/17/75 with great defense. Worst case, he platoons with Owens and they both make strides in their careers being successful in their respective roles. I just don't wanna see Owens starting 5-6 days a week, and Brian just getting the 9th inning defense replacement/day off treatment.

btrain929
03-23-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm glad you're not a scout for the Sox because he didn't look good. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

After the first 3 batters of the game, Gavin looked really good. He didn't walk anybody, mixed in his changeups along with his breaking ball, and at one point retired 9 in a row.

One thing I will say that I didn't like at all, is the pitch-calling from AJ. I don't know if its directions from Coop, but with Floyd the other day, and Danks today, it seems like all they are throwing are fastballs until they get to 2 strikes. It can be 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, 2-0, 1-1, etc. Every pitch was a fastball. If you do that against the Tigers, Indians, and BoSox, you will get rocked. The only explanation I can see for it is Coop told AJ to call it like that so they can work on locating the fastball early in the count. If it was just AJ being fastball-happy, then that just sucks. That will lead to them teeing off on fastballs early in the count, or expecting the curveball anytime there's 2 strikes.

kittle42
03-23-2008, 06:50 PM
Floyd looked good in his start against the Giants. He was agressive got his curveball over, threw strikes and gave up 2 runs in 6 IP.

Do you have a single post on this board that doesn't include you bitching about something? :rolleyes:

Gavin Floyd does suck.

btrain929
03-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Gavin Floyd does suck.

Let's remember that he is going to be the NUMBER 5 starter on our team, guys.....

balke
03-23-2008, 06:55 PM
Yeah, I don't think this is permanent if Anderson stays. I could see him packaged with Crede to alleviate controversy, but Owens is going to have to hit the cover off the ball not to have competition for the CF spot.

munchman33
03-23-2008, 06:56 PM
Let's remember that he is going to be the NUMBER 5 starter on our team, guys.....

That isn't the problem. As a five, he's fine. The problem is you can make a case for him at 3 in our rotation.

russ99
03-23-2008, 07:07 PM
The problem is that BA has a much higher upside than Owens. He might be on the cusp of breaking out, and I see a bench position for him now as another setback, especially after playing so well thing Spring (with almost twice as many at-bats as Owens).

You've gotta be kidding me. That's a vast overstatement.

Owens has a shot to be that prototypical lead-off guy and steal 50-75 bases this season and you think Anderson has a higher upside?!?

One good spring doesn't wipe away a horrid rookie season and not doing much when he got back down to AAA, injury aside.

Let's be honest here, Brian Anderson's upside is a better fielding Joe Borchard. I don't think anyone would give up on Owens' potential, raw is he still is, for that.

btrain929
03-23-2008, 07:08 PM
That isn't the problem. As a five, he's fine. The problem is you can make a case for him at 3 in our rotation.

The depth/proven quality of our rotation is definitely a question mark. But when I looked at this offseason, I thought of it as an offensive overhaul/reload. We got Swisher, Cabrera, Quentin, Alexei, etc. Combine them with Fields, BA (maybe), Richar (maybe), and we have a nice, young core offensively. I think that was the goal for KW this season, along with shoring up our bullpen.

With that said, I believe next offseason we are going to make some serious splashes thru trade or free agency for SP's. I feel confident with Buehrle/Vazquez/Danks as 3 of our 5 that will be around for awhile. Floyd, we'll see what happens with him this year. But Contreras will be in his contract year, and we have a tendency to trade pitchers in the last year of their contract. If Contreras has a rebound/solid year this year (which I'm expecting), that will save us 10 million-ish from the books. Crede and Uribe should be gone by then, saving us another 10 million. Then we don't know what will happen with Thome. If healthy, I wouldn't mind bringing him back for 7-8 mil, which will cut money from our books.

Some of that saved money will go to Jenks and a possible O.Cabrera extension. Outside of that, we can pursue some free agents SP's or trade for some young, good SP's. I know its early to think about all of this. But, I feel that's somewhat the gameplan KW is following, and what I expect to see next offseason.

And after that rant, let's hope for a successful '08!

Daver
03-23-2008, 07:09 PM
You've gotta be kidding me. That's a vast overstatement.

Owens has a shot to be that prototypical lead-off guy and steal 50-75 bases this season and you think Anderson has a higher upside?!?

One good spring doesn't wipe away a horrid rookie season and not doing much when he got back down to AAA, injury aside.

Brian Anderson's upside is a better fielding Joe Borchard. I don't think anyone would give up on Owens' potential, raw is he still is, for that.

Another vast overstatement.

spawn
03-23-2008, 07:21 PM
I'm glad you're not a scout for the Sox because he didn't look good. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
He looked a lot better than Danks did today.

Tragg
03-23-2008, 08:03 PM
You've gotta be kidding me. That's a vast overstatement.

Owens has a shot to be that prototypical lead-off guy and steal 50-75 bases this season and you think Anderson has a higher upside?!?

One good spring doesn't wipe away a horrid rookie season and not doing much when he got back down to AAA, injury aside.

Let's be honest here, Brian Anderson's upside is a better fielding Joe Borchard. I don't think anyone would give up on Owens' potential, raw is he still is, for that.Owens has no chance to be a "prototypical" leadoff hitter. He has a decent chance to become Podsednik, an average leadoff hitter, in his best years.
Tim Raines is a prototypical leadoff hitter. He had speed, patience, a batting eye, he could whack the ball and had power when he needed it. Owens is a slap hitter who can't walk.
Anderson's "horrid" rookie year was about the same as Owens' rookie year. Anderson was batting in the 8 or 9 hole and after the 1st half, was yanked in and out of the lineup and groused about by the manager. Owens, on the other hand, was given the favorable leadoff spot and left there unfettered by the manager.

Brian26
03-23-2008, 08:48 PM
You've gotta be kidding me. That's a vast overstatement.

The only area that Anderson will never touch Owens in is raw speed. Anderson is a better overall player if given the chance and could turn into a perennial gold-glove centerfielder with above average offensive numbers. He's not going to hit 40 HRs, but I can see him topping off with 20-22 HRs and batting .280 with gold-glove defense.

I'm not sold on Owens slow bat. He reminds me of Chris Singleton or Daryl Boston.

My BA argument is moot if he doesn't get a chance to play every single day.

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 08:48 PM
Owens has no chance to be a "prototypical" leadoff hitter. He has a decent chance to become Podsednik, an average leadoff hitter, in his best years.
Tim Raines is a prototypical leadoff hitter. He had speed, patience, a batting eye, he could whack the ball and had power when he needed it. Owens is a slap hitter who can't walk.
Anderson's "horrid" rookie year was about the same as Owens' rookie year. Anderson was batting in the 8 or 9 hole and after the 1st half, was yanked in and out of the lineup and groused about by the manager. Owens, on the other hand, was given the favorable leadoff spot and left there unfettered by the manager.

Owens was sent down when he struggled. He was then brought up a second time during an injury riddled season in which the Sox were not contending. Ozzie had the luxury of putting him in the leadoff spot, which is where he fits in the lineup. When he got called up the second time he actually hit pretty well.

Anderson didn't hit his weight in most of a year in which the Sox had a legitimate chance to make the playoffs. You wanted him to hit leadoff when he was hitting under .200? If he had a pissy attitude like he supposedly had I have no problem with Ozzie calling him on it.

I like BA and I really hope this is the year that both him and Quentin break out because it gives the Sox a good young, cheap outfield for a while with Swisher, Anderson, Quentin, but he hasn't done jack yet. He's had a good spring 3 years in a row and it hasn't translated yet, I hope it does.

For never having done **** at the major league level BA sure has a lot of fanboys around here. You could make a very reasonable case that Owens has done more at the ML level than Anderson to this point.

Brian26
03-23-2008, 08:51 PM
Anderson didn't hit his weight in most of a year in which the Sox had a legitimate chance to make the playoffs. You wanted him to hit leadoff when he was hitting under .200?

Nobody in this thread has ever suggested Anderson should be the leadoff hitter.

Dan Mega
03-23-2008, 08:52 PM
For never having done **** at the major league level BA sure has a lot of fanboys around here. You could make a very reasonable case that Owens has done more at the ML level than Anderson to this point.

BA's defense is 10x what Owens brings for defense in the majors.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 08:52 PM
I just love how we're back to the argument that Ozzie mistreated BA in years past. Never mind that BA himself has admitted he had an attitude problem and never took the game seriously until this past off season.

If you were in Ozzie's shoes, would you be trusting the season to this guy based on past performance and questionable work ethics or would you want to take it a bit slow, give him a slot on the team and a probable platoon position and the chance to earn more PT if he excels.

I mean if they both excel, who gives a ****, right? Having too much talent is never a problem. At the least you can trade some of it for a position you need to fill.

Still, handing BA a guaranteed starting slot hasn't worked in the past and though he seems to be taking things more seriously and is putting up good numbers, he's also doing it with the threat of being traded, sent down or simply cut hanging over his head and in a place not known as a hotbed of social activity the way Chicago or many of the other cities the Sox will visit this year are.

I want BA to succeed as much as anyone, but he has to prove he wants it and continue to succeed when he's facing genuine ML talent and under the spotlight glare good and bad that comes with his job title.

But go ahead, scream about the poor misunderstood abused Mr. Anderson some more. Me, I'll trust Ozzie to make the right decision for the team.

Dan Mega
03-23-2008, 08:52 PM
Nobody in this thread has ever suggested Anderson should be the leadoff hitter.

Sometimes the blind BA hate clouds reality doesn't it?

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 08:56 PM
Sometimes the blind BA hate clouds reality doesn't it?

Yeah, and the blind love is pretty funny too...

Daver
03-23-2008, 08:59 PM
Me, I'll trust Ozzie to make the right decision for the team.

Yeah, Ozzie does what's best for the team, like having Mackowiak trot his ass out to CF for half a season.

Dan Mega
03-23-2008, 08:59 PM
Yeah, and the blind love is pretty funny too...

But nobody suggested he be the leadoff hitter as Brian stated.

A lot of balls will be hit in the outfield this year, deep. Why not put the best gloves out there?

kittle42
03-23-2008, 09:00 PM
Yeah, and the blind love is pretty funny too...

Has there ever been a player who has generally been less highly-touted, produced less, and been as well-regarded here as Anderson?

Dan Mega
03-23-2008, 09:01 PM
Has there ever been a player who has generally been less highly-touted, produced less, and been as well-regarded here as Anderson?

Again, defense is 1/2 the game, or are you conveniently ignoring this?

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 09:02 PM
Yeah, Ozzie does what's best for the team, like having Mackowiak trot his ass out to CF for half a season.

Maybe that had something to do with BA not taking the job seriously and Ozzie not trusting him.

Daver
03-23-2008, 09:03 PM
Again, defense is 1/2 the game, or are you conveniently ignoring this?


Offensive production is all most of the posters on this forum care about.

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 09:04 PM
Nobody in this thread has ever suggested Anderson should be the leadoff hitter.

Tragg was complaining that BA was batting 8th or 9th. I'm curious as to where you should hit a rookie hitting under .200.

BA's defense is 10x what Owens brings for defense in the majors.

That's irrelevant. I wasn't saying that Owens is a better player than Anderson, he has however done more at the ML level than Anderson to this point. Neither one of them has done a lot.

How about this guys? We realize that its March 23rd and let the season shake out about before we piss and moan about how awful Owens is and how poor ole Brian Anderson just never gets an honest shake. Both of them are going to get a chance to show what they can do and hopefully both of them succeed. Its too early to be getting all bent out of shape about this.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 09:05 PM
Again, defense is 1/2 the game, or are you conveniently ignoring this?

Right and 85% of defense is spelled P I T C H I N G.

The CF is going to get what, 4 chances a game defensively? Of those, 3 will be routine plays and 75% of the ones left will be plays that Swisher (for example) would have no problem making.

Playing a guy because of his glove rarely pays the dividends people claim it does unless the offensive skills are almost identical.

Daver
03-23-2008, 09:07 PM
Right and 85% of defense is spelled P I T C H I N G.


Guess what the Sox have this season?

Questionable pitching.

Let's address it by playing Owens and Fields so that the defense is questionable too!

Brian26
03-23-2008, 09:11 PM
Tragg was complaining that BA was batting 8th or 9th. I'm curious as to where you should hit a rookie hitting under .200.

You need to go back and read what he wrote. Tragg was not complaining that BA was hitting 8th or 9th. He was just recounting where BA was hitting in the lineup.

Brian26
03-23-2008, 09:14 PM
That's irrelevant. I wasn't saying that Owens is a better player than Anderson, he has however done more at the ML level than Anderson to this point. Neither one of them has done a lot.


Defense is not irrelevant.

However, what is irrelevant is your idea that Owens' performance last year in a non-pressure situation against garbage-time September pitching is somehow equivalent to BA trying to succeed in a situation where he never knew when he was going to get a chance to play and was effectively benched on the second game of the season in 2006.

Brian26
03-23-2008, 09:17 PM
Right and 85% of defense is spelled P I T C H I N G.

The CF is going to get what, 4 chances a game defensively? Of those, 3 will be routine plays and 75% of the ones left will be plays that Swisher (for example) would have no problem making.

Playing a guy because of his glove rarely pays the dividends people claim it does unless the offensive skills are almost identical.

Without getting the SABR charts out, I'd contend that a good centerfield pays subtle dividends in other ways. Maybe a good CF's range allows the corner OFs to play the lines closer, maybe catching some balls that would otherwise fall in. Maybe a good CF's arm and ability to hit the cut-off man keeps some runners from getting into scoring position or even from scoring on close plays. Maybe a pitcher's confidence is bumped up a degree and lets the hitters put more balls in play knowing that his outfield can catch what's hit to them.

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 09:27 PM
Defense is not irrelevant.

However, what is irrelevant is your idea that Owens' performance last year in a non-pressure situation against garbage-time September pitching is somehow equivalent to BA trying to succeed in a situation where he never knew when he was going to get a chance to play and was effectively benched on the second game of the season in 2006.

I never said defense is irrelevant. Dan's point that BA's defense is better than Owens, which I agree with, as a response to me saying that Owens has done more than Anderson to this point is irrelevant.

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP

93 356 44 95 9 2 1 17 111 27 63 32 8 .324 .312 .267
134 365 46 82 23 1 8 33 131 30 90 4 7 .290 .359 .225

The first line is Owens 07, the bottom is Anderson's 06. Neither one is that great but you could argue that Owens has done more.

DISCLAIMER! I'm not arguing that Owens is a better player, I feel that Anderson is better. What I'm calling out is the fact that Anderson hasn't done a thing yet, Owens has done slightly more, its March 23, and instead of bitching about this let's let things play out a bit.

Also, somehow everyone wants to point out how unproven and mediocre Owens is while ignoring the fact that Anderson is just as unproven.

Daver
03-23-2008, 09:36 PM
I'm not a big fan of Owens or Anderson, so I'm not going to get all worked up about the debate going on in this thread.

Then why post in it?

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 09:40 PM
Again, even if Ozzie wants to platoon Owens and BA, It makes NO SENSE to put Owens in for Opening Day against CC. NONE. Maybe he's worried about disrespecting Owens by not playing him on OD. (I don't know the man, but from what is reported about Jim Thome, I sincerely doubt he's going to cry in his beer if hes dropped lower in the lineup against lefties, respect or no.)

TomBradley72
03-23-2008, 09:42 PM
We can't possibly keep Owens, Anderson, Ramirez AND Quentin, can we?


We can...but it means releasing Uribe. We basically have two slots left...and three candidates: Uribe, Anderson and Quentin.

Corlose 15
03-23-2008, 09:42 PM
Again, even if Ozzie wants to platoon Owens and BA, It makes NO SENSE to put Owens in for Opening Day against CC. NONE. Maybe he's worried about disrespecting Owens by not playing him on OD. (I don't know the man, but from what is reported about Jim Thome, I sincerely doubt he's going to cry in his beer if hes dropped lower in the lineup against lefties, respect or no.)

Has Ozzie actually said that Owens is going to play on opening day or is that just Merkin speculating? I haven't seen anything actually from Ozzie that says that.

DickAllen72
03-23-2008, 09:52 PM
How about this guys? We realize that its March 23rd and let the season shake out about before we piss and moan about how awful Owens is and how poor ole Brian Anderson just never gets an honest shake. Both of them are going to get a chance to show what they can do and hopefully both of them succeed. Its too early to be getting all bent out of shape about this.

Amen to that!

When BA was handed the starting job on a silver platter not only did he fail on the field but he apparently pissed off a lot of the coaching staff with his attitude.

So he came into this offseason a longshot to even stay in the organization. After the way the Sox handled him last year and going into this spring, he responded with a surprisingly great attitude, worked his ass off and has apparently earned a spot on the 25 man roster as well as earning the respect of many.

However, spring training is just spring training. He'll get his chances during the regular season. If he continues with his newfound great attitude and takes advantage of his opportunities, he'll win that starting CF job eventually and both BA and the Sox will be better for it.

If he pouts again or doesn't produce when he's given the opportunity, then he won't last long.

I have a good feeling that he's turned the corner. Let's see how it plays out.

Daver
03-23-2008, 09:58 PM
Because I think Quentin should be in the mix.

Then start a Carlos Quentin thread.

JB98
03-23-2008, 10:02 PM
Then start a Carlos Quentin thread.

I've deleted all my posts out of this thread. I hope that will make you feel better.

Daver
03-23-2008, 10:03 PM
I've deleted all my posts out of this thread. I hope that will make you feel better.

Kind of pointless as they have been quoted.

PalehosePlanet
03-23-2008, 10:48 PM
Coming into ST I thought Owens would make a good 4th OF'er. Now I think I was wrong and that Owens is actually a 5th OF'er. Swisher, Dye, Quentin and BA are all ahead of him talent wise, IMO.

So Owens starts because he's faster over 2 much better all around players?? That makes no sense.

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 10:55 PM
Coming into ST I thought Owens would make a good 4th OF'er. Now I think I was wrong and that Owens is actually a 5th OF'er. Swisher, Dye, Quentin and BA are all ahead of him talent wise, IMO.

So Owens starts because he's faster over 2 much better all around players?? That makes no sense.

Welcome to the Cookie Party!

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 11:06 PM
Offensive production is all most of the posters on this forum care about.

I think position defense is the least valuable part of the main three categories (pitching, hitting, position defense). I don't think BA is so much better than Swisher or Owens that the Sox can afford to play him if he puts up another .650 OPS regardless of where he hits in the order.

If he can actually maintain his ST offensive output and continue to prove he gives two ****s about playing the game like a professional, then I have no problem with BA and because of his glove he would be a great thing to add to the outfield, but he needs to do the rest too. His glove alone won't make the difference this season if it means benching someone with another 150 points of OPS or the same OBP with an extra 50 steals.

Daver
03-23-2008, 11:15 PM
I think position defense is the least valuable part of the main three categories (pitching, hitting, position defense).

Suffice it to say I am glad you are not the GM of the team I like.

You can't just discount a facet of the game without considering the whole picture, you shore up your weaknesses with your strengths, if your pitching is weak, you make sure your defense is the best you have available, if your pitching is strong, you compromise defense to add offense. The White Sox do not have a strength at pitching, not even close.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 11:22 PM
Suffice it to say I am glad you are not the GM of the team I like.

You can't just discount a facet of the game without considering the whole picture, you shore up your weaknesses with your strengths, if your pitching is weak, you make sure your defense is the best you have available, if your pitching is strong, you compromise defense to add offense. The White Sox do not have a strength at pitching, not even close.

I'd argue the other side of things actually, that if your pitching is weak and you expect to give up a bunch of runs this year, you put as much offense on the field as possible and try to outscore the competition.

It would take one major difference in glove work to affect my position and as good as I think BA is with his glove, I only want it to be the deciding factor if all else is equal or only marginally better.

Of course the good news is that I am NOT the GM of your favorite team nor even the FM of said team, so we are free to argue about it all day and night and it doesn't mean squat.

The only thing I came here to say was that I am not surprised the same tired crap is getting thrown around by the arm chair GM/FM who post here. BA can be the CF, he merely needs to earn it and if the people making those decisions are a bit leery of his sudden change of heart, he has no one to blame but himself.

Given the quotes from BA himself in recent times can you blame OG for going slowly when it comes to trusting him?

If the choices is above average offense and average defense or above average defense and average offense, the choice seems obvious to me because I don't see the 1 play a week a guy will make with his glove worth the 2 times a week the better offensive player will reach base.

The Immigrant
03-23-2008, 11:24 PM
Owens will be on a very short leash.

Daver
03-23-2008, 11:25 PM
I'd argue the other side of things actually, that if your pitching is weak and you expect to give up a bunch of runs this year, you put as much offense on the field as possible and try to outscore the competition.

It would take one major difference in glove work to affect my position and as good as I think BA is with his glove, I only want it to be the deciding factor if all else is equal or only marginally better.

Of course the good news is that I am NOT the GM of your favorite team nor even the FM of said team, so we are free to argue about it all day and night and it doesn't mean squat.

The only thing I came here to say was that I am not surprised the same tired crap is getting thrown around by the arm chair GM/FM who post here. BA can be the CF, he merely needs to earn it and if the people making those decisions are a bit leery of his sudden change of heart, he has no one to blame but himself.

Given the quotes from BA himself in recent times can you blame OG for going slowly when it comes to trusting him?

If the choices is above average offense and average defense or above average defense and average offense, the choice seems obvious to me because I don't see the 1 play a week a guy will make with his glove worth the 2 times a week the better offensive player will reach base.

Jerry Owens can't steal first base.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 11:26 PM
Owens will be on a very short leash.

Good, they all should be.

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 11:35 PM
Good, they all should be.

Except for the management, right? We won it all in 2005!!

Hitmen77
03-23-2008, 11:36 PM
I'm glad Owens, Anderson and Quentin (of late) are looking good this spring. I'm really eager to see them all have a chance to show if they can carry that over into the regular season.

Is it possible for all 3 of them to make the team? I'm guessing not and that we'll take 2 out of the 3 north with us.

I don't care about whether BA got a fair chance or not. If he's turned the corner and can be a solid offensive producer - I'd love to have his glove in CF. Quentin has a ton of upside....if he can reproduce his minor league #s in the majors, he'd be a huge addition to our offense (plus I believe he's a pretty good corner OF defensively). Owens? If he can produce a decent avg. and OBP, I'd love his speed and SB potential on our team.

I'm just rooting for the Sox to have the best team possible. I don't "love" or "hate" any of these guys - I just want us to be able to have people on our roster who will be great contributers to our 162 game campaign.

I'm thrilled that our "problem" at this point is that we have 3 guys who look pretty solid competing for 2 roster spots. A far cry from last summer when we were trotting out Luis Terrero out there and putting Ozuna in the OF.

Tragg
03-23-2008, 11:43 PM
Owens was sent down when he struggled. He was then brought up a second time during an injury riddled season in which the Sox were not contending. Ozzie had the luxury of putting him in the leadoff spot, which is where he fits in the lineup. When he got called up the second time he actually hit pretty well.

Anderson didn't hit his weight in most of a year in which the Sox had a legitimate chance to make the playoffs. You wanted him to hit leadoff when he was hitting under .200? If he had a pissy attitude like he supposedly had I have no problem with Ozzie calling him on it.

I like BA and I really hope this is the year that both him and Quentin break out because it gives the Sox a good young, cheap outfield for a while with Swisher, Anderson, Quentin, but he hasn't done jack yet. He's had a good spring 3 years in a row and it hasn't translated yet, I hope it does.

For never having done **** at the major league level BA sure has a lot of fanboys around here. You could make a very reasonable case that Owens has done more at the ML level than Anderson to this point.
Owens was sent down once, but the second time up, he was unfettered at leadoff. I didn't say Anderson should have led off - just pointing out the more favorable circumstances in which Owens scored his roughly equal offensive output to Anderson. (and perhaps I implied that Owens SHOULDN'T lead off). Also note the circumstances - Anderson was benched for the dreadful (defensively) Mack; Owens, however, never left lead off, despite alternatives; for example, Richar could have been given some chances - Richar demonstrated patience and had a touch of speed and has 5 times the baseball talent of Owens. Ozzie didn't give him a single at bat at leadoff.

All this stuff about a pissy attitude - how do we know this? And we seem to have an inordinate number of young players with a "pissy attitude" that get run off; what is that exactly? Everyone needs to be a Joey Cora?

You can make your case - I think they are about equally (un)accomplished offensively. The difference is that Anderson has more talent and more potential and deserves a real chance. 'He's had 2 great springs - nada. This spring, he even started drawing walks - although that may be a negative to this coaching staff.
And we have a manager who doesn't see OBP as terribly relevant, at leadoff or anywhere else.

voodoochile
03-23-2008, 11:45 PM
Except for the management, right? We won it all in 2005!!

I am inclined to give a management team that won the first WS title in any of our lifetimes a fair chance to do it again. For me that tends to mean more than 2 more seasons one of which they won 90 games in.

I've said it before and for me it still holds true. So long as he regularly keeps the Sox in contention for the playoffs, KW can be the GM for the next decade (well 8 more years now). If the team stops being in contention on a regular basis or only makes token runs at the playoffs without ever actually getting there then another 3 years he deserves to be evaluated and held accountable for the failings of his teams.

jabrch
03-23-2008, 11:55 PM
Jerry Owens can't steal first base.


He doesn't need to. Despite what people are telling us, Jerry can do things other than run.

It's Dankerific
03-23-2008, 11:57 PM
And I think failing to capitalize on what could have been a White Sox era, instead of a one and done luck shot should be met with more severe consequences than the long leash you support. With the farm system the way it is, any new management team is STILL going to need YEARS afterwards to just get back to average.

The players on the 2005 team are regularly shoved off in a "what have you done for me lately" approach. You won 72 games and gutted a farm system, what, exactly, have you done for me lately. I would prefer this season be more important to the current management's careers, but I know that is just another pipe dream. I feel very lucky our world series was in the DVD generation.

Don't mean to hijack the thread. but when the management seems not to reward a player for doing exactly what they told him he needed to do coupled with a couple *** for the team, I start questioning the leadership.



I am inclined to give a management team that won the first WS title in any of our lifetimes a fair chance to do it again. For me that tends to mean more than 2 more seasons one of which they won 90 games in.

I've said it before and for me it still holds true. So long as he regularly keeps the Sox in contention for the playoffs, KW can be the GM for the next decade (well 8 more years now). If the team stops being in contention on a regular basis or only makes token runs at the playoffs without ever actually getting there then another 3 years he deserves to be evaluated and held accountable for the failings of his teams.

jabrch
03-23-2008, 11:58 PM
Except for the management, right? We won it all in 2005!!

and won 90 games the year after that...and they are the same managment team. Since managers (GMs and FMs) skills don't (in threory) degrade with age, then yes. We did win it in 2005, and we won 90 games the year after - so I think it is pretty damn ignorant to be calling for management's head over a bad season.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 12:04 AM
And I think failing to capitalize on what could have been a White Sox era, instead of a one and done luck shot should be met with more severe consequences than the long leash you support. With the farm system the way it is, any new management team is STILL going to need YEARS afterwards to just get back to average.

The players on the 2005 team are regularly shoved off in a "what have you done for me lately" approach. You won 72 games and gutted a farm system, what, exactly, have you done for me lately. I would prefer this season be more important to the current management's careers, but I know that is just another pipe dream. I feel very lucky our world series was in the DVD generation.

Don't mean to hijack the thread. but when the management seems not to reward a player for doing exactly what they told him he needed to do coupled with a couple *** for the team, I start questioning the leadership.

So we're lost, toast and done and the season hasn't even started yet?

So guys like Richar, Quentin, Fields, Swisher, Ramirez and even Owens and Anderson hold nothing to be hopeful for in the future?

So the Sox are below average and we're doomed to years of mediocrity no matter what we do?

So Anderson is all that matters and obviously you have some inside information that proves OG promised BA the starting CF job if he met certain criteria this spring and BA never actually admitted he had an attitude and work ethic problem in the past?

You know some people find odd places to draw the line in the sand, but March 23rd and Brian freaking Anderson is definitely a new one for me...:?:

santo=dorf
03-24-2008, 12:23 AM
Yeah, and the blind love is pretty funny too...
You mean just like before the 2006 season where people here said all he had to was play good defense and CF and his bat wouldn't be too much of a liability because of the addition of Thome and his effect on the lineup?:scratch: The majority of WSI had it correct but too bad Ozzie decided to routinely stick Mack in CF and overplay the worthless Darin Erstad.

The same people that were blindly loving Anderson calling him a "future star" and "make us forget about Rowand" are now the same people childishly describing the defense of Anderson as "whining." :whiner:


:rolleyes:

thomas35forever
03-24-2008, 12:26 AM
He doesn't need to. Despite what people are telling us, Jerry can do things other than run.
This is true. He's hit .361 this spring and has a .378 OBP. His one SB shows he wasn't concentrated on swiping bags right now. Everyone knows he can run. This must be why Ozzie wants to bat him leadoff on Opening Day.

santo=dorf
03-24-2008, 12:29 AM
This is true. He's hit .361 this spring and has a .378 OBP. His one SB shows he wasn't concentrated on swiping bags right now. Everyone knows he can run. This must be why Ozzie wants to bat him leadoff on Opening Day.
Gotta love that plate discipline!

Let's see how that translates into the regular season. Even Ozzie Guillen wants his leadoff hitter to focus primarily on OBP. (http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=ozzie+guillen+OBP+leadoff&fr=slv8-acer&u=www.southsidesox.com/story/2007/8/22/185148/489&w=ozzie+guillen+obp+leadoff&d=OSijxfH_QeBh&icp=1&.intl=us)

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 12:34 AM
You mean just like before the 2006 season where people here said all he had to was play good defense and CF and his bat wouldn't be too much of a liability because of the addition of Thome and his effect on the lineup?:scratch: The majority of WSI had it correct but too bad Ozzie decided to routinely stick Mack in CF and overplay the worthless Darin Erstad.

The same people that were blindly loving Anderson calling him a "future star" and "make us forget about Rowand" are now the same people childishly describing the defense of Anderson as "whining." :whiner:


:rolleyes:

Well maybe BA's recent revelations about his approach to the game then and now have altered some people's perceptions about why BA got benched in the first place.

I never did buy in to the Ozzie has it out for him garbage that was so regularly thrown out there and don't fault OG at all for being cautious about handing the job to him. If he takes it (and it looks like he'll get at least some chance to do so) great, but basing it on ST stats is silly.

Oh and two other points...

1) BA was far below average as a hitter that season. He got 400 AB and put up an OPS of .639. That's got to be one of the worst in the game that year for a player with that many AB.

2) In 2006 we had Pods leading off coming off a season as a major sparkplug for the team. This year the leadoff slot is up for grabs at the moment and OG seems to be leaning toward Ozuna and Owens splitting time there to start the season. Is that the right decision? I don't know, but it worked in 2005 (insert large text and TM symbol here)...

Edit: Oh and honestly, don't you think the struggles in 2006 had a lot more to do with the dead arm phase all of the pitchers went through in the second half?

santo=dorf
03-24-2008, 12:58 AM
Yes the pitching was the number 1 factor in 2006, but we were still close to the playoffs, and we did lose runs due to Mack's glove in CF which arguably led to losses. I never said Mack is the main reason why we didn't make the playoffs that year, and I would like to see who here thinks that.

The offense died late in the season. The pitching was not the same throughout the season and by the time we were getting consistant starts from Javy, the offense couldn't score a run. Cotts went back to his normal ways. Politte didn't go back to his normal ways and was actually much worse. Mackowiak was a joke in CF and BA was jerked around.

Now of all those events, which one(s) did Ozzie have complete control over?

Jerry Owens had over 380 PA's last year and had an OPS of .636 last year and somehow he's the new chosen one just because people are flashing back to 2005 with Pods.
Minimum 350 PA's, AL rank in OPS:
BA in 2006: 115/119 (Pods was 112)
Owens in 2007: 115/119
How about that?

Dude, Jerry Owens is suffering a groin injury, just like Pods!

cards press box
03-24-2008, 01:12 AM
"I knew Earl Weaver. Earl Weaver was a friend of mine. And Ozzie, you are no Earl Weaver."

This may set this board into collective apoplexy but in Guillen, I see elements of not only Weaver but other managers as well. Certain aspects of Ozzie's managerial style remind me of Casey Stengel, Whitey Herzog and Walt Alston. Let me add a fifth manager: Sparky Anderson. Allow me to explain.

Based on what?

Glad you asked. Like Herzog, he trusts his own evaluation of players. If Herzog determined a guy could play, he didn't worry if others had not yet reached the same judgment. The same is true with Ozzie. Pablo Ozuna is a case in point. By 2005, Ozuna had been a minor leaguer for a while. He was not established but Guillen trusted his own talent evaluation skills and at the end of spring training, Ozzie brought Ozuna north with the club and he helped quite a bit in 2005.

Some managers, like Dusty Baker, play veterans because they are already established and the decision to play vets is less likely to generate press criticism than the decision to play a young player.

Like Weaver, he was able to squeeze results out of players who had not done as well playing for other managers. Others saw Ozuna as a prospect who didn't make it; Guillen saw Ozuna as a versatile and valuable member of a bench. Same is true with Ross Gload. Guillen got better results from Bobby Jenks, Jon Garland and Paul Konerko than other managers.

Like Alston, Guillen is willing to bunt, play small ball, handles pitchers well and is unafraid to use players at multiple positions.

Like Stengel, Guillen is cognizant of the importance of turning double plays and finding ways to avoid hitting into double plays (such as utilizing the bunt, hit and run or stolen base). In addition, like Stengel, Guillen is willing to absorb press attention and take the heat of his players.

Like Anderson, Guillen sticks with players through rough patches in the hope of straightening them out and enjoying the fruits of their efforts.

I disagree. Ozzie seems to observe players' weaknesses but then plays them anyway and exposes those weaknesses so long as they possess a tool (like speed) which he values more than another part of the game (like defense).

Ozzie hasn't had a true lead-off man since he's been here. The closest was Pods for most of '05, but still, he needs to have that guy at the top of his lineup even if his GM didn't go out and acquire one. So, he puts the player that he thinks best fits his mold into the lead-off spot, even if that move causes problems with the rest of the lineup or defense.

I truly hope KW can come up with a REAL lead-off guy sometime in the future, and by that I mean a player with plus speed, great instincts, gets on base enough, and can actually play a defensive position in the Major Leagues. Maybe then Ozzie can make out an intelligent lineup.

Remember the bottom of the 6th inning of Game 3 of the ALDS in 2005? The Red Sox had the bases loaded with no one out. Guillen had a lot of options of which pitcher to bring in but he chose Orlando Hernandez. Why? Because, as Guillen said later, he knew the situation called for a cool headed veteran and Hernandez fit the situation to a tee. With the exception of the ill-fated decision to occasionally use Rob Mackowiak in CF in 2006, Guillen has been pretty good about this. Another example: juggling his rotation down the stretch and in the playoffs in 2005 to make sure that he used Freddy Garcia on the road as much as possible.

If Ozzie had a Tim Raines or a Rickey Henderson, I'm sure that he would use them. Those guys are hard to find unless you develop them internally. Guillen and Williams have played the hand dealt to them and have given the Sox more offensive and defensive balance than I have seen in years. It's no surprise to me that the White Sox won the World Series in 2005. I don't think that Guillen and Williams are done.

Tragg
03-24-2008, 01:33 AM
This is true. He's hit .361 this spring and has a .378 OBP. His one SB shows he wasn't concentrated on swiping bags right now. .
The most revealing stat is that his obp is a mere .017 above his batting average. Owens doesn't walk - that's bad, bad news for a slapper who specializes in grounders and beating out bunts. If Owens doesn't get on base a minimum of 35% of the time, he's liability.

nitetrain8601
03-24-2008, 01:36 AM
Ozzie has said Owens will bat against lefties in the 9 hole. You will see those two in the same lineup alot this year, including opening day.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 01:54 AM
This is true. He's hit .361 this spring and has a .378 OBP. His one SB shows he wasn't concentrated on swiping bags right now. Everyone knows he can run. This must be why Ozzie wants to bat him leadoff on Opening Day.

And he hit well in the minors most of his career also.

It amazes me how many facts some people are willing to completely ignore to bolster their flimsy straman arguements.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 02:12 AM
So we're lost, toast and done and the season hasn't even started yet?

So guys like Richar, Quentin, Fields, Swisher, Ramirez and even Owens and Anderson hold nothing to be hopeful for in the future?

So the Sox are below average and we're doomed to years of mediocrity no matter what we do?

So Anderson is all that matters and obviously you have some inside information that proves OG promised BA the starting CF job if he met certain criteria this spring and BA never actually admitted he had an attitude and work ethic problem in the past?

You know some people find odd places to draw the line in the sand, but March 23rd and Brian freaking Anderson is definitely a new one for me...:?:

It sure would be nice if you would take the time to actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions. Tell me, exactly, how saying that I wish that THIS season would mean something for the careers of management means I think the season is over already? I just think if THIS season is the second stinker in a row, it shouldn't be business as usual in management for another few years.

I give two ****s what BA's problems in the past were. What he has done LATELY is earn a shot. We give second chances to a ton of other players from OTHER TEAMS. Carl Everett? Bobby Jenks? You jump to conclusions when you say i think he was guaranteed a starting job, but he certainly should be starting against a lefty. Thats just obvious.

PS, I said the farm team is doomed to mediocrity.

Don't jump on me because you have a rabid hate for Brian Freaking Anderson. I dont care who the player is, if he plays his butt off in ST, he deserves a shot. Owens, Richar, Quentin, whoever. But don't tell me that it makes sense to start a slap hitting left hander against one of the best lefties in the AL.

LoveYourSuit
03-24-2008, 02:17 AM
Well, bottom line is we did not get a ML caliber lead off hitter this offseason.


So now I feel like this team has cornered themselves into believing that Jerry Owens is the answer to lead off for a "contending team." They see no other option here because I guess their two initial plans to lead off in Swisher and Cabrera appear to fit much better hitting 5th and 2nd respectively.


The only reason Owens will start is because he is the only guy close to reminding Kenny and Ozzie of what Pods brought in 2005. It is like this un-written rule that lead off hitters by law need to be fast and slap hitters, and also pretty much bad at everything else.


My take is to stick with the "plan" when you brought Swisher in here which was to lead off, his OBP% will serve much more there for us than his 25 HRS in the 5th hole where you have 5 other guys that can fill that for you. Quentin's slow recovery pretty put him right where Richar will be ....AAA and rehabbing. So now you have to pick a CF between Owens and Anderson to hit 9th ........ Anderson is a no brainer to me.

Dabchsx28
03-24-2008, 02:35 AM
I wish the sox would trade Josh Fields and owens for Brian Roberts

Roberts
Cabrera
thome
konerko
dye
swish
aj
crede
ANDERSON

Would be one of the best lineups in Baseball. Also then it would allow Crede to start at 3rd , Anderson to start in Center leaving the Sox with 3 people who might be up for gold gloves at the end of the year in Crede ,Anderson and Cabrera

LoveYourSuit
03-24-2008, 02:54 AM
I wish the sox would trade Josh Fields and owens for Brian Roberts

Roberts
Cabrera
thome
konerko
dye
swish
aj
crede
ANDERSON

Would be one of the best lineups in Baseball. Also then it would allow Crede to start at 3rd , Anderson to start in Center leaving the Sox with 3 people who might be up for gold gloves at the end of the year in Crede ,Anderson and Cabrera

I would pull the trigger on giving up Fields for Roberts and finaly do away with this ridiculous lead off hitter issue and arguement we have. Roberst has two years left on him before FA, and we can worry abot the future at 3B in a different dirrection.

If there is one guy who should have the right to complain is Josh Fields because he is getting a raw deal if sent down to AAA. He won that job away from Crede with what he did last season and unless Crede would have had an incredible spring, he should have never lost that job.

Only reason Crede is starting is because of $$$ and the fact that no one wants to trade for him right now.

TomBradley72
03-24-2008, 09:26 AM
You've gotta be kidding me. That's a vast overstatement.

Owens has a shot to be that prototypical lead-off guy and steal 50-75 bases this season and you think Anderson has a higher upside?!?

One good spring doesn't wipe away a horrid rookie season and not doing much when he got back down to AAA, injury aside.

Let's be honest here, Brian Anderson's upside is a better fielding Joe Borchard. I don't think anyone would give up on Owens' potential, raw is he still is, for that.

Owens is 27 years old...he's far from being a "raw prospect". BA is 26 and I believe he brings more to table overall...anchored by his defense. Owens' key strength is his speed/ability to steal bases,but his lack of ability to draw walks, his mediocre arm and average defense offset that strength in my mind. Based on some significant flaws...he looks like a 4th OF to me...or belongs in LF where his defensive liabilities are minimized.

If there was a straight up choice....I'd take Anderson over Owens every time. With his defense...if Anderson could put up .265-10-60...I'd be happy...and I think he can this year.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 10:22 AM
I think position defense is the least valuable part of the main three categories (pitching, hitting, position defense).

And you're technically right...but it's not SO minimal that you take a moderate (at best) upgrade with the stick in exchange for a HUGE downgrade in defense.

If the choice were Swisher or Anderson, MAYBE you go with Swisher to get his stick in the lineup, but Owens over ANderson? GMAB

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 10:22 AM
Yes the pitching was the number 1 factor in 2006, but we were still close to the playoffs, and we did lose runs due to Mack's glove in CF which arguably led to losses. I never said Mack is the main reason why we didn't make the playoffs that year, and I would like to see who here thinks that.

The offense died late in the season. The pitching was not the same throughout the season and by the time we were getting consistant starts from Javy, the offense couldn't score a run. Cotts went back to his normal ways. Politte didn't go back to his normal ways and was actually much worse. Mackowiak was a joke in CF and BA was jerked around.

Now of all those events, which one(s) did Ozzie have complete control over?

Jerry Owens had over 380 PA's last year and had an OPS of .636 last year and somehow he's the new chosen one just because people are flashing back to 2005 with Pods.
Minimum 350 PA's, AL rank in OPS:
BA in 2006: 115/119 (Pods was 112)
Owens in 2007: 115/119
How about that?

Dude, Jerry Owens is suffering a groin injury, just like Pods!

Right and I'm not saying Owens is the answer either. I think Ozzie made a good choice here, bring 'em all up and let the regular season sort it out. Maybe BA gets a platoon maybe he doesn't. Won't help him that Quentin seems to be finding some consistency now either and at that point, I'd rather see Swisher in CF and Quentin in LF over either of these two.

There is a slight difference in the stats for Owens and Anderson. That is that Owens at least reached base at close to a ML average clip in his time up last season and stole a bunch of bases in the process. In ~ 350 PA he stole 32 bases. That adds a dynamic to the team that Anderson can't. People seem to be upset that the Sox are a one dimensional station to station team and then want to put another one dimensional player in the lineup with BA.

Owens also improved as the season went along. Yes, most of the improvement showed up in September, but he faced some pretty solid pitching in September too as the Sox faced several teams still in the playoff hunt.

I don't see how this is decided in ST. Both of them have performed well and both of them deserve to make the club. Looks like that's what will happen barring a trade. After that, it's purely speculation as to what will happen next.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 10:35 AM
It sure would be nice if you would take the time to actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions. Tell me, exactly, how saying that I wish that THIS season would mean something for the careers of management means I think the season is over already? I just think if THIS season is the second stinker in a row, it shouldn't be business as usual in management for another few years.

I give two ****s what BA's problems in the past were. What he has done LATELY is earn a shot. We give second chances to a ton of other players from OTHER TEAMS. Carl Everett? Bobby Jenks? You jump to conclusions when you say i think he was guaranteed a starting job, but he certainly should be starting against a lefty. Thats just obvious.

PS, I said the farm team is doomed to mediocrity.

Don't jump on me because you have a rabid hate for Brian Freaking Anderson. I dont care who the player is, if he plays his butt off in ST, he deserves a shot. Owens, Richar, Quentin, whoever. But don't tell me that it makes sense to start a slap hitting left hander against one of the best lefties in the AL.

Oh, sorry, how exactly do your interpret this comment in a positive way?

And I think failing to capitalize on what could have been a White Sox era, instead of a one and done luck shot should be met with more severe consequences than the long leash you support. With the farm system the way it is, any new management team is STILL going to need YEARS afterwards to just get back to average. :scratch:

Please explain how the Sox are one and done? Is it because so far in the Buehrle/Konerko/Pierzynski/Crede/Dye/etc. era the Sox have only managed to win one so far?

Which players from 2005 would you like to have back that would help right now? Rowand and Garland are the only two I can think of and one of them would cost way more than he is worth and the other got traded to fill another gaping hole.

Frankly, I don't care if the minor league system sucks right now. There is so much young talent ON the big league club at the moment that it seems silly to be worrying about the lack of it in the minors. Couple of drafts, little bit of development and the minor league system will be fine in no more than a couple of years. I never worry about the minor league system anyway because so few prospects even catch a cup of coffee in the bigs.

Finally, since you are so keen on people reading what others wrote, please tell me where you came up with the concept that I hate Brian Anderson? I don't, I just don't think he's worth all this wailing and gnashing of the teeth. He's done very little for the big league club in games that count. He's admitted he never took his job seriously and had an attitude problem in the past. Maybe he goes on here or somewhere else to have a solid major league career. Maybe not. I just find the rabid BA love over the top and trust Ozzie's judgment on the matter...

TomBradley72
03-24-2008, 10:45 AM
I just find the rabid BA love over the top and trust Ozzie's judgment on the matter...

Ever since he played Mack out in CF in 2006....my trust in Ozzie when it comes to CF just isn't there. It's not so much BA love (he FINALLY seems to be taking his career seriously once his back was completely against the wall)...but it's BA and what he can bring to the table in comparison the alternatives over the past few years (Mack, Erstad, Owens).

If we had a legitimate starting CF...I really wouldn't give a crap about BA...but we don't...and with the number of good hitters in our line up every day...I'll take his gold glove defense over Owens' stolen bases.

AZChiSoxFan
03-24-2008, 10:46 AM
I give two ****s what BA's problems in the past were. What he has done LATELY is earn a shot. We give second chances to a ton of other players from OTHER TEAMS. Carl Everett? Bobby Jenks? You jump to conclusions when you say i think he was guaranteed a starting job, but he certainly should be starting against a lefty. Thats just obvious.



Preach it bro!

I'm so mad that Ozzie is once again sticking it to BA. Anyone who doesn't think the guy has earned another shot with his play this spring hasn't been paying attention.

Ozzie is a hypocrite in my book. Earlier this spring, when talking about the the inability to trade Crede, he went on some rant about how political baseball is, in terms of who plays and who doesn't. Then, he goes and does the same thing with BA that he just complained about. :rolleyes: And another thing, I thought Ozzie cared about being a good defensive team? If he really believed that, we would see Crede and BA on a regular basis this season.

Rant over.

hi im skot
03-24-2008, 10:57 AM
I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm guessing that a fairly accurate summary is as follows:

Poster 1: "Owens is getting the starting job? His defense sucks!"

Poster 2: "But he has speed!"

Poster 1: "**** speed, I want Anderson's glove out there!"

Posters 3 through 47: "Yet another example of Ozzie screwing over Anderson! Boy, Ozzie sure hates BA! What's his problem, anyway?" Then mention Mackowiak's defense, Erstad's existence.

Posters 48 and 49: "GOD I HATE KENNY WILLIAMS! GOD I HATE OUR FARM SYSTEM!"

From there, mostly arguing, possibly a Rowand mention...

Am I in the ballpark on this one?

jabrch
03-24-2008, 10:59 AM
I wish the sox would trade Josh Fields and owens for Brian Roberts

Brilliant!!!!!

spiffie
03-24-2008, 11:02 AM
I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm guessing that a fairly accurate summary is as follows:

Poster 1: "Owens is getting the starting job? His defense sucks!"

Poster 2: "But he has speed!"

Poster 1: "**** speed, I want Anderson's glove out there!"

Posters 3 through 47: "Yet another example of Ozzie screwing over Anderson! Boy, Ozzie sure hates BA! What's his problem, anyway?" Then mention Mackowiak's defense, Erstad's existence.

Posters 48 and 49: "GOD I HATE KENNY WILLIAMS! GOD I HATE OUR FARM SYSTEM!"

From there, mostly arguing, possibly a Rowand mention...

Am I in the ballpark on this one?
You forgot Tragg using the macro he has on his computer to make sure the word "slapper" is used in every sentence where he mentions Jerry Owens.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 11:03 AM
I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm guessing that a fairly accurate summary is as follows:

Poster 1: "Owens is getting the starting job? His defense sucks!"

Poster 2: "But he has speed!"

Poster 1: "**** speed, I want Anderson's glove out there!"

Posters 3 through 47: "Yet another example of Ozzie screwing over Anderson! Boy, Ozzie sure hates BA! What's his problem, anyway?" Then mention Mackowiak's defense, Erstad's existence.

Posters 48 and 49: "GOD I HATE KENNY WILLIAMS! GOD I HATE OUR FARM SYSTEM!"

From there, mostly arguing, possibly a Rowand mention...

Am I in the ballpark on this one?

Seems like you are up to speed. It's the usual nonsense from the usual suspects.

hi im skot
03-24-2008, 11:06 AM
You forgot Tragg using the macro he has on his computer to make sure the word "slapper" is used in every sentence where he mentions Jerry Owens.

Oh, right. Any mention of "swagger" by any chance?

Seems like you are up to speed. It's the usual nonsense from the usual suspects.

The season can't come soon enough, eh?

Tragg
03-24-2008, 11:09 AM
And he hit well in the minors most of his career also.

It amazes me how many facts some people are willing to completely ignore to bolster their flimsy straman arguements.
Did he have a .350 OBP in the minors? He did in Birmingham, but not in Charlotte.
Same offensive approach the Sox used last year: sit better talent to make room for speedy hackers. Hope it works out better this year.

I predict Anderson starts opening day against CC Sabathia and then sits.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 11:13 AM
Seems like you are up to speed. It's the usual nonsense from the usual suspects.

Yes! What nonsense! Getting upset at Ozzie for choosing a player who's a lousy hitter and a lousy fielder over a player who's a lousy hitter and a great fielder.

Oh but I forgot: The lousy hitter and lousy fielder will try to bunt for hits and steal maybe 40 bases this year.

WOOOOO

spiffie
03-24-2008, 11:17 AM
Did he have a .350 OBP in the minors? He did in Birmingham, but not in Charlotte.

I predict Anderson starts opening day against CC Sabathia and then sits.
He did have a .361 OBP in his second stint in Charlotte. And a .362 overall. But yes, he did have one stint, during one season, in the minors with a sub-350 OBP. So I guess that proves the point.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 11:23 AM
The season can't come soon enough, eh?


The season starting will be nice - I can't wait.

But it won't dull the constant thumping sounds of a few people beating their stale old drum. The first bad day by player X followed by a good day from player Y will have poster Z in his usual "I told you so" mode, followed immediately by player Y slumping, player X hitting, and some other poster saying I told you so.

If the guys stay healthy and we get a few breaks this team should contend regardless of which mediocre option plays CF. I just don't understand how anyone can have any passion for or against any of our options since none is particualrly proven to be good, and since none has particularly proven to not be good.

balke
03-24-2008, 11:25 AM
I don't think its worth 10 pages to argue one crap player over the other (which is really overall what they've shown so far).

I do think that Brian Anderson won a spot on this team at the least with his Spring. You always ride the hot bat in baseball, some players only have one good year in them. Right now, Brian is having a better Spring than anyone in a Sox uniform. Even if it is only Spring, it has carried itself over 50 AB's.

21 hits, 4 HR, and a .464 OBP is pretty damn hot hitting. Let him play for a while in the regular season and see if he cools down. He'll get playing time regardless at this point, but I'm in the camp that believes he gets consistent playing time until he shows inconsistency this season.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 11:29 AM
He did have a .361 OBP in his second stint in Charlotte. And a .362 overall. But yes, he did have one stint, during one season, in the minors with a sub-350 OBP. So I guess that proves the point.

Owens hit .294/.362 in the minors. He hit in both Birmingham (.331/.393) and in his second stint in Charlotte (.284/.361). But I'm sure the armchair WSI GMs are right. He can't hit.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 11:36 AM
Owens hit .294/.362 in the minors. He hit in both Birmingham (.331/.393) and in his second stint in Charlotte (.284/.361). But I'm sure the armchair WSI GMs are right. He can't hit.

:rolleyes:You want to look at BA's minor league stats?

spawn
03-24-2008, 11:40 AM
I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm guessing that a fairly accurate summary is as follows:

Poster 1: "Owens is getting the starting job? His defense sucks!"

Poster 2: "But he has speed!"

Poster 1: "**** speed, I want Anderson's glove out there!"

Posters 3 through 47: "Yet another example of Ozzie screwing over Anderson! Boy, Ozzie sure hates BA! What's his problem, anyway?" Then mention Mackowiak's defense, Erstad's existence.

Posters 48 and 49: "GOD I HATE KENNY WILLIAMS! GOD I HATE OUR FARM SYSTEM!"

From there, mostly arguing, possibly a Rowand mention...

Am I in the ballpark on this one?
Yep...that is a very accurate assessment. :thumbsup:

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 11:42 AM
:rolleyes:You want to look at BA's minor league stats?

:gah:

spiffie
03-24-2008, 11:43 AM
:rolleyes:You want to look at BA's minor league stats?
Okay. BA's minor league line 293/364/474

JO's minor league line 294/362/368.

BA will give you a better glove and more power according to his minor league numbers. JO gives you a more traditional leadoff hitter and a ton of SB's.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 11:45 AM
Okay. BA's minor league line 293/364/474

JO's minor league line 294/362/368.

BA will give you a better glove and more power according to his minor league numbers. JO gives you a more traditional leadoff hitter and a ton of SB's.

And for a CF, which is more important?

We're not talking about LF here...

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 11:48 AM
:gah:

Boo hoo ****ing hoo. I'm not the one who brought up JO's minor league stats like they ****ing mean something.

Here's the facts:

Both have similarish MLB numbers but Owens put his up in a much lower pressure, consistent situation

Both have relatively similar Minor League numbers.

Owens has much more speed, though it's not like Anderson is Konerko

Anderson plays much better defense, though it's not like Owens is Mackowiack.

The White Sox need a leadoff hitter and a defensive CF.

Having no speed at the leadoff hitter spot affects the lineup marginally.

Having poor defense at the CF spot affects the pitching staff astronomically.

What part of baseball did you say was the most important again, Voodoo--pitching or hitting?

Taliesinrk
03-24-2008, 11:50 AM
I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm guessing that a fairly accurate summary is as follows:

Poster 1: "Owens is getting the starting job? His defense sucks!"

Poster 2: "But he has speed!"

Poster 1: "**** speed, I want Anderson's glove out there!"

Posters 3 through 47: "Yet another example of Ozzie screwing over Anderson! Boy, Ozzie sure hates BA! What's his problem, anyway?" Then mention Mackowiak's defense, Erstad's existence.

Posters 48 and 49: "GOD I HATE KENNY WILLIAMS! GOD I HATE OUR FARM SYSTEM!"

From there, mostly arguing, possibly a Rowand mention...

Am I in the ballpark on this one?

This thread has been kinda frustrating to read, but that's some funny stuff. Pretty close too.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 11:54 AM
Hey - how about this?

Jerry Owens sucks.

Brian Anderson sucks.

Though they both suck in slightly different ways, they still both suck.

There.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 12:05 PM
Hey - how about this?

Jerry Owens sucks.

Brian Anderson sucks.

Though they both suck in slightly different ways, they still both suck.

There.


Sounds fine to me. They're 26 and each have approximately one full season under their belt, so it's definitely not ridiculous to make pronouncements about their quality as a ballplayer based on that.

The bottom line is Owens does only one thing well: have speed (it's a stretch to say he runs the bases well)

Anderson does only one thing well: play Center field.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 12:07 PM
Boo hoo ****ing hoo. I'm not the one who brought up JO's minor league stats like they ****ing mean something.

Here's the facts:

Both have similarish MLB numbers but Owens put his up in a much lower pressure, consistent situation

Both have relatively similar Minor League numbers.

Owens has much more speed, though it's not like Anderson is Konerko

Anderson plays much better defense, though it's not like Owens is Mackowiack.

The White Sox need a leadoff hitter and a defensive CF.

Having no speed at the leadoff hitter spot affects the lineup marginally.

Having poor defense at the CF spot affects the pitching staff astronomically.

What part of baseball did you say was the most important again, Voodoo--pitching or hitting?

Pitching, but Ozzie seems to prefer a team that can hurt the other team offensively in many ways. Speed is part of that equation.

Oh, is similarish to similar the same thing as irregardless to regardless? :tongue:

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 12:15 PM
Pitching, but Ozzie seems to prefer a team that can hurt the other team offensively in many ways. Speed is part of that equation.

Oh, is similarish to similar the same thing as irregardless to regardless? :tongue:

No. Similarish doesn't pretend to be a real word.

At any rate, we know what Ozzie prefers. It's quite obvious that Owens will start. That doesn't mean that Ozzie is "right" to prefer a guy who will likely OBP .330 and play lousy CF just because the guy can steal a few bases and never punched out his son (or whatever)

Optipessimism
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Hey - how about this?

Jerry Owens sucks.

Brian Anderson sucks.

Though they both suck in slightly different ways, they still both suck.

There.
How about something more accurate?

Owens is not capable of playing CF. Owens has to hit over .300 to maintain the OBP necessary to lead off. Still, even if he can hit .310 or so, he does not belong in CF. Even if he helps us on offense he hurts us on defense.

With Anderson starting we'd have one of the best defensive CF's in baseball. Anderson only has to hit .271/.324/.469 to equal Torii Hunter's offense, who the Sox almost gave $75 million to. If Brian can do that, considering that Torii will be on the downswing of his career, Brian will end up as the better player of the two maybe even as soon as this year.

The Sox do not have a true lead-off man. They cannot make a true lead-off man out of nothing. They can however make a stupid decision by putting a weaker player (Owens) in the lead-off spot instead of putting a stronger player (Swisher) in that spot.

Most managers understand you can only play the type of game that you have the pieces to play. The Sox do NOT have a small-ball team; they have a starting staff 3-5 that is questionable at best, a bunch of sluggers, and a bullpen that should be pretty good. Knowing that, I would think most managers would try to produce a lineup that looks to out-slug the opposition early, play strong defense, and win a good share of games against teams with weaker bullpens. I would think most managers would be willing to adjust their philosophy in years when they can not successfully implement it. But of course, Ozzie is Ozzie.

Hooray for the Owens experiment. I hope it ends quickly.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 01:11 PM
I know this is the part where people say "I hope Owens succeeds even if I think it's the wrong decision"

I don't know that I hope that, as I don't like seeing managers rewarded for immensely stupid decisions.

Probably the worst thing that could happen to us is that Owens hits .300 with a .320 OBP as that will keep him in the leadoff spot as long as he can hit .300...of course to many that would be "success"

To be fair, Anderson will almost certainly not hit .270, and certainly not with the power of Hunter, but in the end, we are talking about the most important non-battery defensive position on the field. And people are more interested in who more accurately fills the LEADOFF spot?

Ridiculous.

Optipessimism
03-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Sounds fine to me. They're 26 and each have approximately one full season under their belt, so it's definitely not ridiculous to make pronouncements about their quality as a ballplayer based on that.

The bottom line is Owens does only one thing well: have speed (it's a stretch to say he runs the bases well)

Anderson does only one thing well: play Center field.

If Anderson can hit .270 with some pop that is all he has to do to be successful. He has shown so far this spring that he is not afraid to take a walk. He also looks stronger.

Owens on the other hand needs to either learn how to take a walk AND hit for high average, or he needs to learn how to hit for very high average. He also needs to play LF, and there is no way he should be playing LF over the likes of Swisher and Quentin.

There is a reason Anderson was drafted where he was and a reason Owens was drafted where he was and traded for what he was traded for. Anderson has the ceiling of another Torii Hunter. Owens has the ceiling of a slightly less powerful Scott Podsednik. If CF is a square hole, Owens is a triangular peg. It doesn't work. Maybe Anderson won't turn into anything, but we at least know he has the potential to help the Sox long term there. Owens helps nothing because he doesn't fit anywhere outside of the bench.

sox1970
03-24-2008, 01:17 PM
The thing about Anderson---we've seen him suck so much, it'll be a big surprise if actually plays well in April and May. His spring training means nothing to me, other than it probably got him on the plane on Thursday.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 01:22 PM
If Anderson can hit .270 with some pop that is all he has to do to be successful. He has shown so far this spring that he is not afraid to take a walk. He also looks stronger.

Owens on the other hand needs to either learn how to take a walk AND hit for high average, or he needs to learn how to hit for very high average. He also needs to play LF, and there is no way he should be playing LF over the likes of Swisher and Quentin.

There is a reason Anderson was drafted where he was and a reason Owens was drafted where he was and traded for what he was traded for. Anderson has the ceiling of another Torii Hunter. Owens has the ceiling of a slightly less powerful Scott Podsednik. If CF is a square hole, Owens is a triangular peg. It doesn't work. Maybe Anderson won't turn into anything, but we at least know he has the potential to help the Sox long term there. Owens helps nothing because he doesn't fit anywhere outside of the bench.

That's a big if. However, I think even if Anderson hits something like .250/.310/.450 he would be much much more valuable than Owens with his likely .270/.320/.350

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 01:22 PM
The thing about Anderson---we've seen him suck so much, it'll be a big surprise if actually plays well in April and May. His spring training means nothing to me, other than it probably got him on the plane on Thursday.

You mean that whole entire 2006 season when he was 24? Or do you mean the 16 or so AB in 2007 when he would only play against pitchers like Verlander, Sabathia, and Santana?

Can you believe how much we've seen him suck?

So much.

Tragg
03-24-2008, 01:26 PM
. Anderson has the ceiling of another Torii Hunter. Owens has the ceiling of a slightly less powerful Scott Podsednik.
Exactly

Optipessimism
03-24-2008, 01:27 PM
That's a big if. However, I think even if Anderson hits something like .250/.310/.450 he would be much much more valuable than Owens with his likely .270/.320/.350
I agree with this. The bottom line is Anderson doesn't need to do a whole lot offensively to warrant his position while Owens would have to hit a ton in order to justify his. Defense in CF for 9 innings >>> Speed on the basepaths maybe once or twice per game if we're lucky.

soxinem1
03-24-2008, 01:43 PM
It's a ****ing conspiracy against BA, if this is true.

Guillen and Williams will never let him develop, so they should just trade him to someone who will let him.

The double-standards in this organization are just incredible sometimes.

Optipessimism
03-24-2008, 01:52 PM
The double-standards in this organization are just incredible sometimes.
Very true. I'm sure when the Sox decide to cut Josh Fields they will say it's because they want defense. When they make Owens the starter in CF and put Anderson on the bench, if he does indeed make the team, they will say it's because offense is more important. *** is it already?

jenn2080
03-24-2008, 01:53 PM
You mean that whole entire 2006 season when he was 24? Or do you mean the 16 or so AB in 2007 when he would only play against pitchers like Verlander, Sabathia, and Santana?

Can you believe how much we've seen him suck?

So much.

:bandance::bandance::bandance:

AMEN!


The Brian Anderson hate on this board is unreal.

sox1970
03-24-2008, 01:56 PM
You mean that whole entire 2006 season when he was 24? Or do you mean the 16 or so AB in 2007 when he would only play against pitchers like Verlander, Sabathia, and Santana?

Can you believe how much we've seen him suck?

So much.

Yes, in 2006 he should have been much better. Not only was his overall offensive game horrible, his late inning and RISP splits are just pitiful. I don't trust the guy to get a big hit--ever. I hope he gets the chance to prove me wrong, but I don't put much into his spring training just yet.

sox1970
03-24-2008, 01:58 PM
The Brian Anderson hate on this board is unreal.

...and I don't get the BA love. I don't hate Brian Anderson. I just don't have much faith in him being a very good offensive player.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 02:01 PM
Yes, in 2006 he should have been much better. Not only was his overall offensive game horrible, his late inning and RISP splits are just pitiful. I don't trust the guy to get a big hit--ever. I hope he gets the chance to prove me wrong, but I don't put much into his spring training just yet.

Yeah most players are as good as they're ever going to be when they're 24. Also most players are as good as they're ever going to be in their rookie year.

But at least you threw in the standard, chicken**** "but I hope I'm wrong!!!!"

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 02:01 PM
...and I don't get the BA love. I don't hate Brian Anderson. I just don't have much faith in him being a very good offensive player.

It's not faith in him being a "very good offensive player". It's faith in him being, sooner rather than later, "an acceptable hitter who plays outstanding defense".

kittle42
03-24-2008, 02:04 PM
Brian Anderson is just like any other Sox player to me...hope he does well, and if he doesn't, kick him to the curb and bring me another sack o' crap.

The kid has some skills and has shown some of them on occasion. But what in the world is it that some folks at this board see in him that NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL seems to?

And please, respond without reference to Ozzie, Jerry Owens or anyone else "standing in his way."

sox1970
03-24-2008, 02:06 PM
Yeah most players are as good as they're ever going to be when they're 24. Also most players are as good as they're ever going to be in their rookie year.

But at least you threw in the standard, chicken**** "but I hope I'm wrong!!!!"

Ok, I'll be more specific why I don't like his offensive game:

His big loopy swing, and how it looks like he's swinging a sledge hammer.

Sorry, but he's gotta do it in April and May for me to think he's turned it around.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Um, the Sox did not make the playoffs in 2006, they were absolutely horrible in 2007. My whole point of posting was that if 2008 is another stinker like last year, the chance for an era is OVER. Am I personally optimistic about this being a playoff season? Not so much. I never said I was "positive" about the season. I said I didnt say they were doomed to failure.

Can you name some Championship teams with a god awful minor league system? Thanks.

Finally, I said you must hate BA because if you took what I wrote and understood that to be BA preaching, you've got BA on the brain.

To summarize:

1) IF this season sucks AGAIN, management should be held accountable
2) Putting Owens out against a top tier lefty is STUPID.
3) Players, any player who is not competing against an Allstar, should get a chance to play when they have an awesome ST. If he's up against an Allstar, they should try to find somewhere he can play.
4) Past personal problems should be forgiven. Its about baseball, thats it.

Oh, sorry, how exactly do your interpret this comment in a positive way?

:scratch:

Please explain how the Sox are one and done? Is it because so far in the Buehrle/Konerko/Pierzynski/Crede/Dye/etc. era the Sox have only managed to win one so far?

Which players from 2005 would you like to have back that would help right now? Rowand and Garland are the only two I can think of and one of them would cost way more than he is worth and the other got traded to fill another gaping hole.

Frankly, I don't care if the minor league system sucks right now. There is so much young talent ON the big league club at the moment that it seems silly to be worrying about the lack of it in the minors. Couple of drafts, little bit of development and the minor league system will be fine in no more than a couple of years. I never worry about the minor league system anyway because so few prospects even catch a cup of coffee in the bigs.

Finally, since you are so keen on people reading what others wrote, please tell me where you came up with the concept that I hate Brian Anderson? I don't, I just don't think he's worth all this wailing and gnashing of the teeth. He's done very little for the big league club in games that count. He's admitted he never took his job seriously and had an attitude problem in the past. Maybe he goes on here or somewhere else to have a solid major league career. Maybe not. I just find the rabid BA love over the top and trust Ozzie's judgment on the matter...

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 02:12 PM
Ok, I'll be more specific why I don't like his offensive game:

His big loopy swing, and how it looks like he's swinging a sledge hammer.

Sorry, but he's gotta do it in April and May for me to think he's turned it around.

have you watched him this spring? is he still swinging loopy?

spiffie
03-24-2008, 02:13 PM
Brian Anderson is just like any other Sox player to me...hope he does well, and if he doesn't, kick him to the curb and bring me another sack o' crap.

The kid has some skills and has shown some of them on occasion. But what in the world is it that some folks at this board see in him that NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL seems to?

And please, respond without reference to Ozzie, Jerry Owens or anyone else "standing in his way."
Apparently he throws a fine right hook. So far that seems to be the thing people like most about him. It compensates for the fact that we basically were a National League team with him in the lineup.

Also, while Anderson is a good CF, surely the best out of our current lot, I feel like he has gotten somewhat overrated around here. I suspect some of it is the post-Rowand backlash, where the BA fans had to make him 100X the CF Rowand is. Brian gets solid jumps, but he seems to have trouble interacting with the other two OF sometimes, enough that in 2006 it was quite noticeable to me in a way that it hadn't been watching CF previously. I don't quite think he is the Gold Glove Willie Mays level CF that his unbelievably fervent fanbase here has him painted as.

Personally, I would prefer Owens simply because I feel like Brian Anderson is going to be a bust. I have no rational reason beyond what we have seen over the last few years. I feel like I've seen this story before, with Anderson hitting great in Spring Training, and then coming up and becoming Pedro Cerrano once the season starts. I figure Owens can't be worse than Aaron Rowand, who WSI has taught me is in fact a terrible OF who cannot play the position on a major league level, and yet things worked out well enough for a pitching-centered team in 2005. Not to get all IT'S JUST 2005 ZOMG~! on the thread, but in this case it seems relevant.

I suspect that Owens has a better chance of being acceptable than Anderson. Or more accurately, that Anderson has a better chance of being so unacceptable that it becomes 2006 again where we were playing 8-on-9 offensively (7-on-9 when you factor in Uribe, who we also seem to be destined to have around forever).

sox1970
03-24-2008, 02:14 PM
have you watched him this spring? is he still swinging loopy?

It's been better. Again, get it done when the games count.

SI1020
03-24-2008, 02:19 PM
Gavin Floyd does suck. He certainly does. Of course I would like to for him to prove me wrong, but I've seen nothing to make me think that will be the case.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 02:20 PM
It's been better. Again, get it done when the games count.

How exactly can he do that? Its still spring, and he might not even get to play. Asking him to do more than available to do is :scratch:

Lukin13
03-24-2008, 02:22 PM
As an Anderson fan, part of me hopes he is sent down to start the season.

Call him up in May when the ball will start flying out of The Cell.

sox1970
03-24-2008, 02:22 PM
How exactly can he do that? Its still spring, and he might not even get to play. Asking him to do more than available to do is :scratch:

Ozzie is the manager. He'll get his AB's.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Apparently he throws a fine right hook. So far that seems to be the thing people like most about him. It compensates for the fact that we basically were a National League team with him in the lineup.

Also, while Anderson is a good CF, surely the best out of our current lot, I feel like he has gotten somewhat overrated around here. I suspect some of it is the post-Rowand backlash, where the BA fans had to make him 100X the CF Rowand is. Brian gets solid jumps, but he seems to have trouble interacting with the other two OF sometimes, enough that in 2006 it was quite noticeable to me in a way that it hadn't been watching CF previously. I don't quite think he is the Gold Glove Willie Mays level CF that his unbelievably fervent fanbase here has him painted as.

Personally, I would prefer Owens simply because I feel like Brian Anderson is going to be a bust. I have no rational reason beyond what we have seen over the last few years. I feel like I've seen this story before, with Anderson hitting great in Spring Training, and then coming up and becoming Pedro Cerrano once the season starts. I figure Owens can't be worse than Aaron Rowand, who WSI has taught me is in fact a terrible OF who cannot play the position on a major league level, and yet things worked out well enough for a pitching-centered team in 2005. Not to get all IT'S JUST 2005 ZOMG~! on the thread, but in this case it seems relevant.

I suspect that Owens has a better chance of being acceptable than Anderson. Or more accurately, that Anderson has a better chance of being so unacceptable that it becomes 2006 again where we were playing 8-on-9 offensively (7-on-9 when you factor in Uribe, who we also seem to be destined to have around forever).

Thanks. I appreciate the well thought-out and rational response to my question, something which many seem incapable of doing when it comes to a discussion of Brian Anderson. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I feel we are doomed with either of them in the lineup every day, but hey, it's pick your poison time!

Craig Grebeck
03-24-2008, 02:43 PM
How, when, and why did Brian Anderson jump ahead of Carlos Quentin? This organization is embarrassing. Play Quentin! What the **** does this guy have to do?

spawn
03-24-2008, 02:44 PM
How, when, and why did Brian Anderson jump ahead of Carlos Quentin? This organization is embarrassing. Play Quentin! What the **** does this guy have to do?
Be healthy, which he hasn't been for most of the spring.

Craig Grebeck
03-24-2008, 02:49 PM
Be healthy, which he hasn't been for most of the spring.
If he wasn't healthy he wouldn't be playing.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 02:51 PM
He's not just someone like Carlos Quentin. He's THE Carlos Quentin.

For me, Williams' quote which is paraphrased above was just about the biggest eye-roller of the offseason.

spawn
03-24-2008, 02:54 PM
If he wasn't healthy he wouldn't be playing.
But you just said he wasn't playing...now you're saying he is. Which is it? He's gotten starts now that he's been healthy. Anderson hasn't gotten as many starts since Quentin and Owens have gotten healthy. That's why he got the majority of the playing time so far. He was healthy. They weren't. Anderson made the most of his opportunity. That's how he jumped ahead of Quentin. Have you been paying any attention to what's gone on so far this spring?

Craig Grebeck
03-24-2008, 03:11 PM
But you just said he wasn't playing...now you're saying he is. Which is it? He's gotten starts now that he's been healthy. Anderson hasn't gotten as many starts since Quentin and Owens have gotten healthy. That's why he got the majority of the playing time so far. He was healthy. They weren't. Anderson made the most of his opportunity. That's how he jumped ahead of Quentin. Have you been paying any attention to what's gone on so far this spring?
I'm saying, there is no reason for Quentin not to be the starter. He should be first on the depth chart in RF, with JD in LF and Swish in CF.

Have I been paying attention? Yes - spring stats don't mean ****. A few good weeks in glorified batting practice doesn't make any swinging dick a ballplayer.

Putting him down in AAA is absolute bull****.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 03:15 PM
I'm saying, there is no reason for Quentin not to be the starter. He should be first on the depth chart in RF, with JD in LF and Swish in CF.

Have I been paying attention? Yes - spring stats don't mean ****. A few good weeks in glorified batting practice doesn't make any swinging dick a ballplayer.

Putting him down in AAA is absolute bull****.

Is this due to the long and storied career successes of Carlos Quentin?

spawn
03-24-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm saying, there is no reason for Quentin not to be the starter. He should be first on the depth chart in RF, with JD in LF and Swish in CF.

Have I been paying attention? Yes - spring stats don't mean ****. A few good weeks in glorified batting practice doesn't make any swinging dick a ballplayer.

Putting him down in AAA is absolute bull****.
And what has he done exactly to deserve to start on Opening Day?

Corlose 15
03-24-2008, 03:26 PM
I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it's March 24th here.

How about we actually let things shake out a bit before we go ape****?

We've still got another week of ST and then a 162 game season in which to figure some things out.

The roster could look a lot different once Richar is healthy or if the Sox find a suitable trade for Crede or Uribe, or once Quentin proves that he's healthy.

Man, the season can't start soon enough.:gulp:

spawn
03-24-2008, 03:28 PM
How about we actually let things shake out a bit before we go ape****?

You do realize you're posting at WSI right? :tongue:

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 03:32 PM
I posted a thread in the offseason, but let me know the window of which its no longer too early to be worried and yet not too late that its all hindsight.


I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it's March 24th here.

How about we actually let things shake out a bit before we go ape****?

We've still got another week of ST and then a 162 game season in which to figure some things out.

The roster could look a lot different once Richar is healthy or if the Sox find a suitable trade for Crede or Uribe, or once Quentin proves that he's healthy.

Man, the season can't start soon enough.:gulp:

JorgeFabregas
03-24-2008, 03:34 PM
If he wasn't healthy he wouldn't be playing.
By most accounts, he was not fully healthy last year and was playing. It's not that simple.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 03:35 PM
The Brian Anderson hate on this board is unreal.

So is the toothfairy, the easter bunny and santa clause...along with BA-Hate, none of them exist.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 03:36 PM
So is the toothfairy, the easter bunny and santa clause...along with BA-Hate, none of them exist.

You may be able to accurately claim YOU dont hate BA. But you can't say there are not people on this board who hate BA. some of them even say "I hate BA"

Corlose 15
03-24-2008, 03:38 PM
I posted a thread in the offseason, but let me know the window of which its no longer too early to be worried and yet not too late that its all hindsight.


I'm not totally sure but I would say you could have most of April to figure some things out. The key in April is to be within striking distance, the Sox don't need to be tearing April up (though I'd enjoy that), they just need to not get burried.

I don't see Owens vs. Anderson vs. Quentin as being the determining factor as to whether the Sox are within striking distance at the end of April. Especially when it's a week before the season has started.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 03:38 PM
You may be able to accurately claim YOU dont hate BA. But you can't say there are not people on this board who hate BA. some of them even say "I hate BA"

I just hope that, if he gets a chance, that if he consistently performs well, those who bash Anderson mercilessly let up and admit he has skill, and that if he consistently sucks again, those who seem to think he is the next coming of Kirby Puckett admit that he's a failure.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 03:41 PM
Anderson only has to hit .271/.324/.469 to equal Torii Hunter's offense, who the Sox almost gave $75 million to. If Brian can do that, considering that Torii will be on the downswing of his career, Brian will end up as the better player of the two maybe even as soon as this year.

Only he says... :rolleyes:

You do realize there were 7 CF in ALL of baseball with an OPS over .780 last year. Oh and one of them is currently on the Sox.

I know this is the part where people say "I hope Owens succeeds even if I think it's the wrong decision"

I don't know that I hope that, as I don't like seeing managers rewarded for immensely stupid decisions.

Probably the worst thing that could happen to us is that Owens hits .300 with a .320 OBP as that will keep him in the leadoff spot as long as he can hit .300...of course to many that would be "success"

To be fair, Anderson will almost certainly not hit .270, and certainly not with the power of Hunter, but in the end, we are talking about the most important non-battery defensive position on the field. And people are more interested in who more accurately fills the LEADOFF spot?

Ridiculous.

So you'd rather Owens fail so you can wag your finger and say, "I told you so" then see him succeed and have the Sox do well.

At least you've got the guts to admit it, most people won't...

That's a big if. However, I think even if Anderson hits something like .250/.310/.450 he would be much much more valuable than Owens with his likely .270/.320/.350

Okay, now we're up to 10 CF in all of baseball with an OPS over .760. Still only 8 with a slg over .450, but who's counting. Brian is sure to hit that well, he's done it in the past... no... wait... Oh who cares, he'll surely improve his slg % by 100 points because damn it, the fans want him to succeed. Not Owens now mind you, but Brian "the maligned God" Anderson absolutely.

It's a ****ing conspiracy against BA, if this is true.

Guillen and Williams will never let him develop, so they should just trade him to someone who will let him.

The double-standards in this organization are just incredible sometimes.

:rolling:

...and I don't get the BA love. I don't hate Brian Anderson. I just don't have much faith in him being a very good offensive player.

:thumbsup:

er... no I mean... what are you talking about? BA would be the next HOF CF if the Sox would only play him. He's TorIIII Hunter +$75M. Haven't you been reading? Come on... get with the program. BA is destined for greatness. He's only being held back by Sox management. A blind labotomized monkey could see that, but we're stuck with Ozzie...

:rolleyes: :rolling: :rolleyes:

jabrch
03-24-2008, 03:42 PM
You may be able to accurately claim YOU dont hate BA. But you can't say there are not people on this board who hate BA. some of them even say "I hate BA"


Hating that he hit .225 in 350+ ABs in 2006 is very different than hating him.

I have not seen anyone not acknowledge that he is a good defensive CF. I have not seen anyone no acknowledge that he has a world of potential. And while I may have missed it, I haven't seen anyone who has said that they hate HIM.

Hating his crappy hitting is very different than hating him.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 03:44 PM
Hating that he hit .225 in 350+ ABs in 2006 is very different than hating him.

I have not seen anyone not acknowledge that he is a good defensive CF. I have not seen anyone no acknowledge that he has a world of potential. And while I may have missed it, I haven't seen anyone who has said that they hate HIM.

Hating his crappy hitting is very different than hating him.

:gah: <-------------------teal :tongue:

jabrch
03-24-2008, 03:46 PM
Voo - please note - BA is sure to get better - significantly,
Owens is sure to get worse than he was since being called back in July - significantly.

Because...

WSI's smartest posters have said so.

spiffie
03-24-2008, 03:49 PM
There's only one solution to this whole mess.

We need to trade and get Jeremy Reed back.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 03:51 PM
There's only one solution to this whole mess.

We need to trade and get Jeremy Reed back.



LMAO!!!! Well done Spiffie. Well done

kittle42
03-24-2008, 03:55 PM
The Reed supporters had it easier - Reed had never failed at the bigs the way Anderson has thus far. See, just more ways for the Anderson crowd to prove you all wrong! :tongue:

spiffie
03-24-2008, 03:59 PM
The Reed supporters had it easier - Reed had never failed at the bigs the way Anderson has thus far. See, just more ways for the Anderson crowd to prove you all wrong! :tongue:
This is true. Reed was like Fautino De Los Santos v.1. His HOF induction was just a matter of waiting. Anderson had the temerity to come up and hit like a blind man with a bad case of pinkeye and a penchant for wearing two eyepatches at once.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 04:07 PM
This is true. Reed was like Fautino De Los Santos v.1. His HOF induction was just a matter of waiting. Anderson had the temerity to come up and hit like a blind man with a bad case of pinkeye and a penchant for wearing two eyepatches at once.


:sahaf
"This is a common misperception, but BA has never had a bad year in baseball. His Godlike skills are unquestioned. The only reason he has not played more is because of a blind irrational hate from his nemesis in pinstripes, Ozzie "the Great Satan" Guillen and his demonic brats who BA was forced to lay a whooping on. If only The Great One had died in this battle he would already be enjoying his 80 virgins in Paradise. I say 80 because TGO is to magnificent to be held to a mere 70. One day he will claim is rightful place in the outfield of Allah's team and then and only then will you defilers and unbelievers finally come to acknowledge the greatness that is BA..."

Procol Harum
03-24-2008, 04:38 PM
:sahaf


Wow--first time I remember seeing the ol' Minister of Mis-Information on this board in quite a while!

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 05:05 PM
It's been better. Again, get it done when the games count.

So your problem is his swing, which he's improved, but his improved mechanics don't count because the games don't count? :?:

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 05:10 PM
So you'd rather Owens fail so you can wag your finger and say, "I told you so" then see him succeed and have the Sox do well.

At least you've got the guts to admit it, most people won't...

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm sick of seeing Ozzie make stupid moves and have the players satisfy HIS definition of success. Given Owens' walk rate, he could hit .300 and still have a lousy OBP, but Ozzie would define that as success.

I'm getting sick and tired of the way Ozzie runs this team, and it's getting real hard to root for his half-assed, dumbassed definition of success.



Okay, now we're up to 10 CF in all of baseball with an OPS over .760. Still only 8 with a slg over .450, but who's counting. Brian is sure to hit that well, he's done it in the past... no... wait... Oh who cares, he'll surely improve his slg % by 100 points because damn it, the fans want him to succeed. Not Owens now mind you, but Brian "the maligned God" Anderson absolutely.




What is your malfunction voodoo?

No one's saying that Owens couldn't improve as well. What we're saying is that given the fact that both are likely to improve, Anderson is the one you want out there.

Anyway, given the fact that

a.) Anderson has shown power at every level
b.) Most players are likely to improve after a full year of play at the MLB level

It's really not that unlikely that he would raise his SLG somewhere between 50-100 points.

And furthermore: WHO CARES what other CF's in baseball do. What about Anderson besides "der...he had der...a bad 2006 in his first full season in a limited role" makes you think he can't improve to a modest 750 OPS?

Frater Perdurabo
03-24-2008, 05:12 PM
I just hope that, if he gets a chance, that if he consistently performs well, those who bash Anderson mercilessly let up and admit he has skill, and that if he consistently sucks again, those who seem to think he is the next coming of Kirby Puckett admit that he's a failure.

This is completely fair and reasonable. It also has 0% chance of happening, because everyone will define "consistently performs well" differently.

For the record, I would prefer that Ozzie name BA the starter in CF and live with it. If at midseason BA is repeating his 2006 effort at the plate, then it's time to find another solution.

I hope and expect better, but I can live with BA playing GG-caliber defense and hitting .250, with 15 homers and 25 doubles over a full season.

I value CF defense, even if it is impossible to quantify it as well as we can quantify hitting statistics.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 05:12 PM
:sahaf
"This is a common misperception, but BA has never had a bad year in baseball. His Godlike skills are unquestioned. The only reason he has not played more is because of a blind irrational hate from his nemesis in pinstripes, Ozzie "the Great Satan" Guillen and his demonic brats who BA was forced to lay a whooping on. If only The Great One had died in this battle he would already be enjoying his 80 virgins in Paradise. I say 80 because TGO is to magnificent to be held to a mere 70. One day he will claim is rightful place in the outfield of Allah's team and then and only then will you defilers and unbelievers finally come to acknowledge the greatness that is BA..."

a.) Did Anderson or did he not improve as 2006 went along?

b.) Did Ozzie or did he not play Anderson in some strange platoon with Mackowiack, taking Anderson out after one or two at bats in some games, holding him on the bench till late innings in others, spotting him against the tough lefties in our division, and generally putting him on shaky ground throughout his largely tempestuous rookie year?

It's not about BA NOT having an unsuccessful 2006. It's about examining, as we go into 2008, the extenuating circumstances that would seem to suggest that his entire career should not be evaluated strictly on the basis of numbers he put up in a single season marked by inconsistent playing time and questionable chemistry b/t him and his manager

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 05:14 PM
This is completely fair and reasonable. It also has 0% chance of happening, because everyone will define "consistently performs well" differently.

For the record, I would prefer that Ozzie name BA the starter in CF and live with it. If at midseason BA is repeating his 2006 effort at the plate, then it's time to find another solution.

I hope and expect better, but I can live with BA playing GG-caliber defense and hitting .250, with 15 homers and 25 doubles over a full season.

I value CF defense, even if it is impossible to quantify it as well as we can quantify hitting statistics.

Well said

:bandance::bandance::bandance:

Frater Perdurabo
03-24-2008, 05:22 PM
:sahaf
"This is a common misperception, but BA has never had a bad year in baseball. His Godlike skills are unquestioned. The only reason he has not played more is because of a blind irrational hate from his nemesis in pinstripes, Ozzie "the Great Satan" Guillen and his demonic brats who BA was forced to lay a whooping on. If only The Great One had died in this battle he would already be enjoying his 80 virgins in Paradise. I say 80 because TGO is to magnificent to be held to a mere 70. One day he will claim is rightful place in the outfield of Allah's team and then and only then will you defilers and unbelievers finally come to acknowledge the greatness that is BA..."

:rolleyes:

Please, Voodoo. All I have ever said was that among options available at the time, BA was the best option to start in CF because:

A. It was stupid and wrong to give regular, planned playing time to Mackowiak in CF in 2006, and then continue to do so even after Mackowiak himself admitted that he wasn't very good at it;

B. It was stupid and wrong to anoint Darin Erstad as the starting CF for most of 2007 (using BA as a DH was the height of absolute stupidity);

C. Owens isn't a very good CF, and based on BA performance in Spring Training, and evidence that BA has changed his approach to the game overall (maturity) and at the plate specifically, and given that Swisher might be the best option to lead off because of his ability to get on base, Anderson would be the better option to start in CF in 2008.

If that equates me with Mr. Propaganda Minister in your mind, can you please pass me the bong?

:)

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 05:25 PM
That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm sick of seeing Ozzie make stupid moves and have the players satisfy HIS definition of success. Given Owens' walk rate, he could hit .300 and still have a lousy OBP, but Ozzie would define that as success.

I'm getting sick and tired of the way Ozzie runs this team, and it's getting real hard to root for his half-assed, dumbassed definition of success.




What is your malfunction voodoo?

No one's saying that Owens couldn't improve as well. What we're saying is that given the fact that both are likely to improve, Anderson is the one you want out there.

Anyway, given the fact that

a.) Anderson has shown power at every level
b.) Most players are likely to improve after a full year of play at the MLB level

It's really not that unlikely that he would raise his SLG somewhere between 50-100 points.

And furthermore: WHO CARES what other CF's in baseball do. What about Anderson besides "der...he had der...a bad 2006 in his first full season in a limited role" makes you think he can't improve to a modest 750 OPS?

I don't have a malfunction and whichever person ends up being the CF for the Sox I want them to succeed. If that's Owens, I hope he finds a comfort zone early in the year, hits .290 and finds a way to walk enough to and another 40-60 points to his OBP and then steals 60 bases. If that's Anderson, I hope he performs like all of you seem so sure he will, but I admit that I am skeptical about Anderson while remaining hopeful about Owens.

Oh and I'm not the one rooting for one of them to fail, so if anyone seems to have a malfunction...

BoysMom3
03-24-2008, 05:25 PM
I can't even believe this. Of course I could be wrong, but I feel like BA is going to go on to be a fantastic CF for someone else eventually. When he could be defending CF like a pro for us. I'm really mad about this right now. Nothing else to say.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 05:37 PM
I can't even believe this. Of course I could be wrong, but I feel like BA is going to go on to be a fantastic CF for someone else eventually. When he could be defending CF like a pro for us. I'm really mad about this right now. Nothing else to say.

Nobody questions his ability to do that.

BoysMom3
03-24-2008, 05:39 PM
^ I know, but he won't be out there defending CF if he's on the bench or with another team. He's batting good enough now.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 05:39 PM
^ I know, but he won't be out there defending CF if he's on the bench or with another team. He's batting good enough now.

...in spring training

He will get ABs even if he isn't playing everyday.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 05:46 PM
...in spring training

He will get ABs even if he isn't playing everyday.

Like last year?

russ99
03-24-2008, 05:48 PM
For the record, I would prefer that Ozzie name BA the starter in CF and live with it. If at midseason BA is repeating his 2006 effort at the plate, then it's time to find another solution.

I hope and expect better, but I can live with BA playing GG-caliber defense and hitting .250, with 15 homers and 25 doubles over a full season.

I value CF defense, even if it is impossible to quantify it as well as we can quantify hitting statistics.

This is so ridiculous. So you're for repeating the exact same mistake as the Sox made in 2006?? Aren't people supposed to learn from their mistakes?

Anderson hasn't proven a thing yet. If he's hitting .300 in April then I'll eat crow, but I seriously doubt it.

Also, a lot of you are basing your reasons handing Anderson the CF job based on minor league power, which doesn't always translate to the majors. He'd likely hit 10-15 a season full time with the Sox, but I don't see him joining the list of sluggers like Paulie and Thome.

IMO: Owens just brings more to the table and I'm confident Owens outfield defense has improved with experience. He may not have the arm or instincts of Anderson, but he'll eventually have much more range.

Then again, maybe both should ride the pine and Ozzie go with an outfield of Dye, Swisher and Quentin.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 05:48 PM
Like last year?

No last year he wasn't taking his job seriously and had an attitude problem. Assuming those things really are fixed, I expect he'll see more PT.

jabrch
03-24-2008, 05:50 PM
Like last year?

If he looks like he did last year, and takes things the same way he did last year, then he will get all the ABs that he deserves - which he got last year.

kittle42
03-24-2008, 05:52 PM
Anderson hasn't proven a thing yet.

But he and Quentin would have guaranteed spots on any major league roster!

jabrch
03-24-2008, 05:52 PM
Then again, maybe both should ride the pine and Ozzie go with an outfield of Dye, Swisher and Quentin.


Whatever the case may be, I trust the guys who watch this team in person every day over the internet genuises. OG and KW will make what they believe is the best move for this team. That's fine with me.

spiffie
03-24-2008, 05:52 PM
a.) Did Anderson or did he not improve as 2006 went along?

b.) Did Ozzie or did he not play Anderson in some strange platoon with Mackowiack, taking Anderson out after one or two at bats in some games, holding him on the bench till late innings in others, spotting him against the tough lefties in our division, and generally putting him on shaky ground throughout his largely tempestuous rookie year?

It's not about BA NOT having an unsuccessful 2006. It's about examining, as we go into 2008, the extenuating circumstances that would seem to suggest that his entire career should not be evaluated strictly on the basis of numbers he put up in a single season marked by inconsistent playing time and questionable chemistry b/t him and his manager
A) Not really. He had one good six week stretch, followed up by his dropping back below .190 for the month of Sept. Had he put together nearly three solid months it might be a different story in terms of how people view him. But considering that his worst month in terms of OPS was Sept that makes it kind of hard to view his trend in 2006 as an upward one.

B) BA by the numbers in 2006:

He appeared in 134 games. He played complete games in 82 of these games. He started another 24 games that he did not finish. In those games he was pulled after the following number of plate appearances:
1 PA- 1 time
2 PAs - 5 times
3 or more PAs - 18 times

In 6 instances he was removed from a game after only 1 or 2 attempts at bat. So in 100 out of 162 games BA was given at least 3 times at bat. He didn't appear at all in 28 games. And in the other 34 games he had a total of 23 plate appearances. So 382 of his 405 plate appearances came in games where he was not being yanked in and out of the lineup, forced to jump in cold against some unknown pitcher.

As for who he faced...I'll grant he, by virtue of being in the AL Central, had a hard road to face in who he saw on the bump. His most commonly seen pitchers in 2006 were Sabathia, Lee, Robertson, Santana, and Silva. However those guys weren't the problem. Going down the list some you run into batches of data like this:
In 79 PA's against the following pitchers, BA put up a line of 000/089/000:
Jimmy Gobble
Jason Grilli
Mark Hendrickson
Luke Hudson
Scott Kazmir
Joe Kennedy
Ted Lilly
Sean Marshall
Eric Milton
Guillermo Mota
Jamie Moyer
Joel Pineiro
Fernando Rodney
Ron Villone
Esteban Yan
Scott Baker
Rick Bauer
Denny Bautista
Boof Bonser
Fernando Cabrera
Bruce Chen
Roman Colon
Bryan Corey
Jesse Crain
Manny Delcarmen
Scott Dohmann
Scott Downs
Kason Gabbard
Matt Garza
Danny Graves
Felix Hernandez
Jon Huber

If looking at BA's numbers in 2006 it was simply him struggling against the top flight lefties while showing the ability to hit the lesser lights of the league, your critique would be more meaningful. But he couldn't hit anyone. If anything some of his best work came against high-end pitchers. His 888 OPS against Kenny Rogers, 1.300 OPS against Zito, 1.000 against Mussina. It was his inability to get himself anything against the Bruce Chen and Rick Bauer types that dragged him down so badly.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 06:21 PM
Whatever the case may be, I trust the guys who watch this team in person every day over the internet genuises. OG and KW will make what they believe is the best move for this team. That's fine with me.

I remember you posting and believing in those same people last year too. How'd that work out?

Gotta love those power arms and no minor league depth!! woohoo!! I'll go wear my 2005 world series t-shirt to everygame!!

kittle42
03-24-2008, 06:26 PM
I remember you posting and believing in those same people last year too. How'd that work out?

Gotta love those power arms and no minor league depth!! woohoo!! I'll go wear my 2005 world series t-shirt to everygame!!

If the Sox finish .500 or below, I wonder how quickly 2005 will become a distant memory for those still handing out the passes to Guillen and Williams.

kobo
03-24-2008, 06:27 PM
but I admit that I am skeptical about Anderson while remaining hopeful about Owens.


I'm skeptical about both. Anderson has showed signs of life, again, in Spring Training. We've seen this before. Owens had a great September last year but has been plagued with a groin injury that could possibly be a problem this season. At this point it's a wash between the two with only 2 things certain: Owens has speed and Anderson can play D.

All I want Ozzie to do is play the person who gives the team the best chance to win. And if he's wrong, to make the proper adjustment. I hope that's not too much to ask.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 06:32 PM
I'm skeptical about both. Anderson has showed signs of life, again, in Spring Training. We've seen this before. Owens had a great September last year but has been plagued with a groin injury that could possibly be a problem this season. At this point it's a wash between the two with only 2 things certain: Owens has speed and Anderson can play D.

All I want Ozzie to do is play the person who gives the team the best chance to win. And if he's wrong, to make the proper adjustment. I hope that's not too much to ask.

Me 2...

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 06:36 PM
A) Not really. He had one good six week stretch, followed up by his dropping back below .190 for the month of Sept. Had he put together nearly three solid months it might be a different story in terms of how people view him. But considering that his worst month in terms of OPS was Sept that makes it kind of hard to view his trend in 2006 as an upward one.

Let's talk SAMPLE SIZE, not "months".

Pre All-star break:

182 AB, .192 AVG, .280 OBP, .324 SLG

Post All-star break:

183 AB, .257 AVG, .301 OBP, .393 SLG



B) BA by the numbers in 2006:

He appeared in 134 games. He played complete games in 82 of these games. He started another 24 games that he did not finish. In those games he was pulled after the following number of plate appearances:
1 PA- 1 time
2 PAs - 5 times
3 or more PAs - 18 times

In 6 instances he was removed from a game after only 1 or 2 attempts at bat. So in 100 out of 162 games BA was given at least 3 times at bat. He didn't appear at all in 28 games. And in the other 34 games he had a total of 23 plate appearances. So 382 of his 405 plate appearances came in games where he was not being yanked in and out of the lineup, forced to jump in cold against some unknown pitcher.
3 AB is not a complete game. So we have him being allowed to play complete games in only 1/2 of the 162 games played in 2006?

You can say what you want about that and how much it affects his production. Frankly, I think when you stop letting a rookie play complete games it puts added pressure to produce and there's a lot of very good baseball minds who would agree with me. It's not an EXCUSE for Anderson, but it's a circumstance that is very real and a reason to take his 2006 #'s with a grain of salt.

3 ABs are more than half the game's at bats, but they're still limited at bats.

Also: The point I made about pitchers had to do with 2007 not 2006.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm skeptical about both. Anderson has showed signs of life, again, in Spring Training. We've seen this before. Owens had a great September last year but has been plagued with a groin injury that could possibly be a problem this season. At this point it's a wash between the two with only 2 things certain: Owens has speed and Anderson can play D.

All I want Ozzie to do is play the person who gives the team the best chance to win. And if he's wrong, to make the proper adjustment. I hope that's not too much to ask.

That's a wash? For CF? One guy can actually field the position, the other can't field the position, or hit much better, but he has SPEED?

That's a wash?

Elephant
03-24-2008, 06:47 PM
I think BA was slightly screwed, but mostly he plain flopped. You just can't defend a .200 hitter too much, regardless of the circumstances. But we know that A. it was his rookie year, B. he was victim of some hurtful circumstances and C. he is hitting right now and really won the job that Owens was granted because he's an "ideal" "leadoff" "hitter" or some other Ozzie nonsense.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 06:49 PM
I think BA was slightly screwed, but mostly he plain flopped. You just can't defend a .200 hitter too much, regardless of the circumstances. But we know that A. it was his rookie year, B. he was victim of some hurtful circumstances and C. he is hitting right now and really won the job that Owens was granted because he's an "ideal" "leadoff" "hitter" or some other Ozzie nonsense.

More or less. Anderson should have hit better than he did. But he didn't.

Anderson probably should have had a better attitude. But he didn't.

But what the **** does he have to do to get a chance to have a better attitude and hit if he can come to camp in shape, knock the **** out of the ball, and still get beat out by a punch and judy hitter who will OBP .320 and play ****ty CF defense?

Elephant
03-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Hey, Owens is like a little, speedy guy, therefore he's probably a better center fielder and should definitely be playing every day. It just, like, seems right, ya know?

:rolleyes:

Now we have to hope that Owens really tanks it bad, costing us a few games most likely, and simply has to be benched, so that the better guy can get his shot. Because if not, he's gonna hit .240 or .250, cost us runs in the outfield, and will never play himself out of the job.

It's what smart managers do to win ballgames.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 06:52 PM
Hey, Owens is like a little, speedy guy, therefore he's probably a better center fielder and should definitely be playing every day. It just, like, seems right, ya know?

:rolleyes:

Now we have to hope that Owens really tanks it bad, costing us a few games most likely, and simply has to be benched, so that the better guy can get his shot.

It's what smart managers do to win ballgames.

You would rather see the Sox fail so that you can be right about Anderson. It's official.

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 06:53 PM
Let's talk SAMPLE SIZE, not "months".

Pre All-star break:

182 AB, .192 AVG, .280 OBP, .324 SLG

Post All-star break:

183 AB, .257 AVG, .301 OBP, .393 SLG


3 AB is not a complete game. So we have him being allowed to play complete games in only 1/2 of the 162 games played in 2006?

You can say what you want about that and how much it affects his production. Frankly, I think when you stop letting a rookie play complete games it puts added pressure to produce and there's a lot of very good baseball minds who would agree with me. It's not an EXCUSE for Anderson, but it's a circumstance that is very real and a reason to take his 2006 #'s with a grain of salt.

3 ABs are more than half the game's at bats, but they're still limited at bats.

Also: The point I made about pitchers had to do with 2007 not 2006.

This is truly some hilarious rationalization. Guess what, guys with crappy offensive stats often get PH for late in games. Maybe he should have produced more in his first three AB and then he would have gotten the 4th one, but to claim this is some proof that BA got jerked around is simply ludicrous.

You are so blinded by your hate for OG and conviction that BA is the next coming of TorIIII that you are going to stick with your argument that BA got messed with. Face it, you put the argument out there and got totally pwned when someone took the time to actually evaluate your claim.

Give it up...

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 06:57 PM
This is truly some hilarious rationalization. Guess what, guys with crappy offensive stats often get PH for late in games. Maybe he should have produced more in his first three AB and then he would have gotten the 4th one, but to claim this is some proof that BA got jerked around is simply ludicrous.

good grief. I'm still trying to figure out your major malfunction that causes you to put words in people's mouths.

It maybe be "what often happens" to a slumping hitter but it WILL ALSO MAKE A HITTER LESS LIKELY TO SNAP OUT OF SLUMPS.

I'm not using it as "proof BA got jerked around" I'm using it to explain why Owens stats, during constant playing time without the pressure of playoff implications, should be taken with the same grain of salt Anderson's are.


You are so blinded by your hate for OG and conviction that BA is the next coming of TorIIII that you are going to stick with your argument that BA got messed with.Nope


Face it, you put the argument out there and got totally pwned when someone took the time to actually evaluate your claim.

Give it up...Oh yeah dude I totally got pwned!:rolleyes: U R all 2 1337 4 me.

Or maybe I'm trying to show that Anderson's season line of .220 is not exactly what it seems--

1.) His BA and OPS increased significantly over the second half of the season (in an equal # of at bats as the first half)

2.) He only got to play 82 complete games.

It's not a matter of "right or wrong" or "jerked around"--it's a matter of establishing that BA's 2006 stats should not be used to fully represent him as a player.

But go ahead dude. Keep "pwning" me--which you'll be able to do since you're unwilling or unable to hear the actual argument I'm trying to make. Ozzie Rules! 2005 heals all 72 win wounds!

Elephant
03-24-2008, 06:59 PM
This is truly some hilarious rationalization. Guess what, guys with crappy offensive stats often get PH for late in games. Maybe he should have produced more in his first three AB and then he would have gotten the 4th one, but to claim this is some proof that BA got jerked around is simply ludicrous.

You are so blinded by your hate for OG and conviction that BA is the next coming of TorIIII that you are going to stick with your argument that BA got messed with. Face it, you put the argument out there and got totally pwned when someone took the time to actually evaluate your claim.

Give it up...

Ozzie is obviously blinded by his hate for BA. God forbid the guy in his doghouse proves him wrong. And no, I'm not one of those guys, but I mean what other explanation is there?

Pods steals --> Sox win WS --> Steals good --> Owens starts

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 07:02 PM
good grief. I'm still trying to figure out your major malfunction that causes you to put words in people's mouths.

It maybe be "what often happens" to a slumping hitter but it WILL ALSO MAKE A HITTER LESS LIKELY TO SNAP OUT OF SLUMPS.

I'm not using it as "proof BA got jerked around" I'm using it to explain why Owens stats, during constant playing time without the pressure of playoff implications, should be taken with the same grain of salt Anderson's are.

Nope

Oh yeah dude I totally got pwned!:rolleyes: U R all 2 1337 4 me.

Or maybe I'm trying to show that Anderson's season line of .220 is not exactly what it seems--

1.) His BA and OPS increased significantly over the second half of the season (in an equal # of at bats as the first half)

2.) He only got to play 82 complete games.

It's not a matter of "right or wrong" or "jerked around"--it's a matter of establishing that BA's 2006 stats should not be used to fully represent him as a player.

But go ahead dude. Keep "pwning" me--which you'll be able to do since you're unwilling or unable to hear the actual argument I'm trying to make. Ozzie Rules! 2005 heals all 72 win wounds!

No, you're right his .220 wasn't what it seemed. It was .220 with a crappy attitude and a questionable work ethic.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 07:03 PM
No, you're right his .220 wasn't what it seemed. It was .220 with a crappy attitude and a questionable work ethic.

Yes. It was that. And it was also a .220 that came from a rookie batting .190 in the first half and .250 in the second half of his ****ING ROOKIE SEASON:rolleyes:

Go on. Keep missing the point. Eventually it will make you right!!!!!

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 07:09 PM
Ozzie is obviously blinded by his hate for BA. God forbid the guy in his doghouse proves him wrong. And no, I'm not one of those guys, but I mean what other explanation is there?

Pods steals --> Sox win WS --> Steals good --> Owens starts

Am I missing something or am I nuts? Didn't BA himself admit he didn't take his job seriously until this off season?

Translation: Mad skillz, $0.10 head.

If you were the manager, would you play him then or 100% trust that the turnaround we have seen this spring is going to carry over once the spotlights turn on?

On the other hand, Owens seems to be listening to the coaches from the get go and doing whatever it takes to make the team.

I honestly hope BA (or Owens) (or both) come out on fire and the Sox solve the CF problem, but I don't fault Ozzie for taking it slow with a guy who's burned him in the past. That's the only part I take exception to here. People are willing to blame OG and hang him in effigy but gloss over BA's own SELF ADMITTED attitude problem.

But go ahead, keep blaming the organization for screwing this standup sure fire stud of a ball player...

Elephant
03-24-2008, 07:13 PM
Am I missing something or am I nuts? Didn't BA himself admit he didn't take his job seriously until this off season?

Translation: Mad skillz, $0.10 head.

If you were the manager, would you play him then or 100% trust that the turnaround we have seen this spring is going to carry over once the spotlights turn on?

On the other hand, Owens seems to be listening to the coaches from the get go and doing whatever it takes to make the team.

I honestly hope BA (or Owens) (or both) come out on fire and the Sox solve the CF problem, but I don't fault Ozzie for taking it slow with a guy who's burned him in the past. That's the only part I take exception to here. People are willing to blame OG and hang him in effigy but gloss over BA's own SELF ADMITTED attitude problem.

But go ahead, keep blaming the organization for screwing this standup sure fire stud of a ball player...

What does the past have to do with the fact that Owens got outplayed this spring and has less talent overall, not to mention no power to back up a likely .330 obp?

Owens is batting .361 and his on base is .378! On top of that, he has as many steals as Anderson--1.

Yeah, total prototype leadoff guy.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 07:15 PM
Am I missing something or am I nuts? Didn't BA himself admit he didn't take his job seriously until this off season?

Yeah, you are missing something

a.) the "last season" part
b.) the part about this being "making an MLB starting lineup" not a mayoral election


If you were the manager, would you play him then or 100% trust that the turnaround we have seen this spring is going to carry over once the spotlights turn on?Why was he even invited to ST if NOTHING HE COULD HAVE DONE WOULD HAVE PROVEN HIS WORTH? :rolleyes:


On the other hand, Owens seems to be listening to the coaches from the get go and doing whatever it takes to make the team.And yet he still sucks at fielding and hitting. Anderson sucks at hitting but not fielding even if he isn't "listening to dem coaches, being chicago tough in dat chicago wea-der"


But go ahead, keep blaming the organization for screwing this standup sure fire stud of a ball player...It's not about blaming the organization for mistakes they made in the past. It's blaming the organization for MISTAKES THEY ARE ABOUT TO MAKE BY STARTING OWENS.

Whatever's past is past. The Sox screwed up by letting Ozzie **** over Anderson. Anderson screwed up by playing like **** and apparently not taking the job seriously.

c'est la vie. The fact is now that Anderson outperformed Owens, and it's not like Owens stats last year show he has any kind of track record.

1.) Anderson outplayed Owens in the spring
2.) Owens can't ****ing field his position
3.) Owens's career stats aren't exactly head and shoulders above Anderson's career stats
4.) Owens's speed is something that would be a bonus if he were a good ballplayer, but since he's not is largely irrelevant.
5.) Owens, with his likely .320 OBP is going to be a horrible leadoff hitter, "leadoff" being the only possible reason you might argue he should start ahead of the superior talent (in potential, and in actuality with the glove)

And yet Owens will start and THAT is the problem.

Why is it you refuse to acknowledge that THAT is the problem here and not one of the other non-sequitirs you've been trying to introduce as straw men?

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 07:19 PM
What does the past have to do with the fact that Owens got outplayed this spring and has less talent overall, not to mention no power to back up a likely .330 obp?

Are you missing the whole "Bad Attitude" thing or just being intentionally obtuse?

You ever managed anyone, let alone a bunch of people?

When one person in a group doesn't think the rules apply to them and in addition they are the new guy on the team, it sends a bad message to the rest of the team.

The guy gets demoted but a couple years later he makes a bunch of statements and says, "I admit it, I was a ****head, but I've seen the light and I'm going to take the job seriously now." He returns to your team and with the threat of being fired hanging over his head and working on smaller less important projects he seems to be doing a better job. Now comes the big project your team has been working toward.

Do you:

A) Hand a major role to the guy who burned you before because he looked okay the past month or so?

or

B) Continue to give the guy a lesser role but allow him to work on the big project to see if he can be depended on in crunch time with the hope that he will and you can use him in a bigger role in the future?

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with spring training stats.

It's Dankerific
03-24-2008, 07:20 PM
Am I missing something or am I nuts? Didn't BA himself admit he didn't take his job seriously until this off season?

Translation: Mad skillz, $0.10 head.

If you were the manager, would you play him then or 100% trust that the turnaround we have seen this spring is going to carry over once the spotlights turn on?

On the other hand, Owens seems to be listening to the coaches from the get go and doing whatever it takes to make the team.

I honestly hope BA (or Owens) (or both) come out on fire and the Sox solve the CF problem, but I don't fault Ozzie for taking it slow with a guy who's burned him in the past. That's the only part I take exception to here. People are willing to blame OG and hang him in effigy but gloss over BA's own SELF ADMITTED attitude problem.

But go ahead, keep blaming the organization for screwing this standup sure fire stud of a ball player...

Burned him in the past? Thats good.

Listening to coaches is all it takes? I have 0 real baseball skillz, but a great listener, get me a tryout?

I also take 0 stock in a "SELF ADMITTED" attitude problem. Lets see, the person(s) who is/are in direct control of your livilihood say you have a serious attitude problem. You have two choices, a) say you don't have a problem and they use it as more evidence of your insubordination or b) say whatever the **** they want you to say so that you get a half a chance.

BA may or may not have had an attitude problem. Who ****ing cares. Is he hitting the ball right now? Is he the BEST defensive CF we have?? He can shoot me the bird in the stands if hes the best choice for the team.

I guess every time a starter gets pulled and the reliever blows it, it'll still be the starter's fault for not controlling his own situation and destiny NOT the people making the baseball decisions.

Elephant
03-24-2008, 07:21 PM
Hell, you can and should blame the Sox for handing a rookie a starting job on a championship team.

I mean where the accountability there? If your kid flunks out of 4th grade, sure he didn't do the work, but where were you when he needed supervision?

Nevertheless, again, who cares about the past? He doesn't appear to have any iota of a bad attitude these days, and he's playing his ass off.

Even if the two put up the same offensive stats, great defense > stolen bases.

Elephant
03-24-2008, 07:22 PM
Are you missing the whole "Bad Attitude" thing or just being intentionally obtuse?

You ever managed anyone, let alone a bunch of people?

When one person in a group doesn't think the rules apply to them and in addition they are the new guy on the team, it sends a bad message to the rest of the team.

The guy gets demoted but a couple years later he makes a bunch of statements and says, "I admit it, I was a ****head, but I've seen the light and I'm going to take the job seriously now." He returns to your team and with the threat of being fired hanging over his head and working on smaller less important projects he seems to be doing a better job. Now comes the big project your team has been working toward.

Do you:

A) Hand a major role to the guy who burned you before because he looked okay the past month or so?

or

B) Continue to give the guy a lesser role but allow him to work on the big project to see if he can be depended on in crunch time with the hope that he will and you can use him in a bigger role in the future?

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with spring training stats.

Just like a baseball team has absolutely nothing to do with a restaurant staff. :shrug:

voodoochile
03-24-2008, 07:26 PM
I give up.

I hope BA succeeds.

I hope Owens succeeds.

I hope Ozzie finds a way to use them all effectively or that when one is traded we get a ton in return for him.

fquaye149
03-24-2008, 07:34 PM
I give up.

I hope BA succeeds.

I hope Owens succeeds.

I hope Ozzie finds a way to use them all effectively or that when one is traded we get a ton in return for him.

I mean, that's all it's about in the long run.

It's just frustrating to see Ozzie make bullheaded, WRONG decisions so often these days

BoysMom3
03-24-2008, 08:07 PM
I mean, that's all it's about in the long run.

It's just frustrating to see Ozzie make bullheaded, WRONG decisions so often these days

That's not all it's about, fquaye. BA is all the things that you said plus he's hot. Start him!!