Y2HH

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) I don't think that's true. When Crede first made the big leagues, he seemed to be pretty overwhelmed at the plate and not very aggressive to me (and that's not criticism -- I can't even imagine what it's like to try to hit at the big league level). I think that's probably how a lot of players are early in their careers. Lots of players have recovered from terrible starts in the bigs, and lots of players haven't. At this point, I think its too early to write Anderson off. Given the health problems of Pods and Erstad, I'd hope the Sox don't ship BA off just yet. I can agree with that. Anderson has all the making of a superstar -- a all-star type CF. He just needs to put it together and do what we all know he can do. I want nothing more than Anderson to succeed, we already know what he offers on the defensive side of the game...now if he can put it together, he's a star...I'm not quite ready to write him off yet...but he's trying my patience, because we KNOW what he's capable of offensivly.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 08:20 PM) didnt Crede just finally adjust his "bad habits" last off-season.... and he is in his upper 20's..... Still, like I said, Crede never appeared afraid at the plate IMO, Anderson does...not sure why that is.

All of this said -- perhaps I will have to re-evaulate my opinion of Weaver's "strategery". History says it worked...I just find myself thinking that it doesn't matter how you score runs, whether it be by the long ball or the small ball approach, just so long as you can do it when the situation dictates and with the personal you have available.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) 1. August 26th, 2005. 2. Just give it a little more than 400 AB's. I'm not saying you have to "Buy Into" Anderson, but just give it a little more time. If you didn't, your opinion of Konerko-Garland-Crede would probably be pretty bad. What's funny about all of this is that was I was a HUGE BA defender all last season, constantly arguing in his favor over Rowand. Most of my friends liked Rowand over Anderson, I did not, and still do not. Anderson just doesn't seem to have what Crede or Kong had even when they were getting beat...not sure what it is, just a feeling I get. Anderson looks like a deer in headlights at the plate -- where it seemed like Konerko or Crede were simply getting fooled by good pitching or having a flaw in their swing exploited, where Anderson simply looks like he's afraid at the ML level for some reason... Another thing, Walk working with AAAnderson all off-season...you know, you'd think that you'd see these "weaknesses" in his approach at the plate BEFORE he hits the majors. All those years in the minors, you'd think one of our experts would have noticed. Basically, he has 20 years of improper technique working agaisnt him now if we are to put any stock in these 'adjustments' they had him make this offseason. Not sure what you think, but IMO 20 years of bad habits will not be shed in a single offseason. This is something they should have noticed a LONG time ago...not just last year.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 08:27 AM) I was disappointed with Brian's AB in the 5th. After an Iguchi ground out, Cintron singled, bringing Brian to the plate. Called strike, called strike, swinging strike. Ouch. Next inning Ozuna singles, Erstad grounds out 4-3 advancing the runner. They pitch around Thome and Ernie Young plates Ozuna with a single. Both Anderson and Erstad went 0 for the afternoon but the veteran player made a contribution. All this against Carrasco. I know this is just a snap shot but I saw the same thing over and over and over with Brian last year. He's got wonderful tools; he's a superior athlete to Erstad, but needs to sharpen that apparently dull tool between his ears. The way he plays the game, he'd have to hit 50 points higher than the next guy to equal him in game winning value. If he could develop some moxie, combined with his defense, you could win with him hitting .220. He needs to learn how to do the appropriate baseball thing at the appropriate baseball time. Agreed. The biggest issue I have with Brian AAAnderson is that 'seemingly' empty space between his ears. Show me what you can do when the pressure is on -- not in garbage time -- and then I'll believe in you. BA hasn't ever been able to do that.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) The last game of the 2005 season was a great example of the lackluster O that season. The lineup was shutdown by Brandon "Cy Young" Backe. They couldn't scratch out a run until the 8th. If you combined the 2005 pitching staff, with the 2006 offense(what you call the HR happy offense), I would bet my season tickets that the Sox would at least have made it back to the Series. Sure it's nice to have a balanced lineup, but the HR has not been the Sox problem, and rarely is ever the problem for a team. It always goes back to the pitching. That we can agree on. I just believe that using any one dimensional offensive approach weakens your game. Don't get me wrong, I like the HR as much as the next person -- but I also like being able to scratch out runs when the HRs aren't coming. But yes, winning lives and dies with pitching. I find the quote from Weaver funny, that's why I use it. I don't care how you score the runs...just score more than the opponent and you're good to go. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 06:52 PM) Nice -- pick one of the post season game where we didn't hit a homer. Because the rest of our wins, the home run was the reason our offense scored runs. Yep -- every single one of them except the for game two of the ALCS. And even in Game 4 of the WS, our offense was bad. One run in nine innings against Backe wasn't good. But Garcia was better than Backe so we won. That's okay... if you want to believe that the reason the Sox score runs is because of magic pixie dust and bunts, go ahead. Just know that the stats show that you're completely wrong. There were other games during the season where we didn't have game tieing or winning HR's and it was nice to win those games, too. It was merely an example that when HRs aren't happening -- there ARE other ways to score. We were able to do them all that year.

We won in 05 because of pitching, and doing what the situation dictated. We didn't win the last game of the world series with long balls. We won it doing the right thing at the right time. That team had a way of finding ways to win, and they did it any way they could, with or without the HR. Yes, the Sox hit a lot of HR's (and have for a while), aided by our bandbox ballpark...but you have to win it inning by inning -- not always swinging for the fence, no matter what park you play in. I just don't buy into sitting on HR's as your only way of winning ballgames. And no, I also don't buy into smartball/smallball -- 05 was a combination of everything at the same time to achieve success, not only Hrs.

All I know is that Ozzie's small/smart/big ball combination brought us a title. Nothing more need be said. I don't like Earl Weavers strategy, no matter how successful it may have been for him...I just don't like it. And I think the league has adjusted to that...look at the Yankees...they are a team built on power after power -- and they've won ZIP since constructing it...even in the years they HAD pitching. I think in todays game, you have to adjust to the given situation -- which I agree, Oz doesn't always do -- but it's a little more complex than sitting on the 3 run HR. Especially considering the surroundings. Perhaps sitting on 3 run HR's in No-Homerica Park isn't a very good idea, while it may work at Sox park...you have to adjust, constantly, in the modern game... At least, in my opinion you do. The 3 run HR worked how well for us before KW reconstructed our team in 05? Oh, that's right...it didn't. At all.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) His career record says otherwise. Ozzie's career record says otherwise, too. So what. With good pitching, you don't need to sit on 3 run homers, because they may never come...then again, Weaver also preached fundamentals -- which in that era of the game consisted of base stealing and bunting properly, too. I personally think he tacked on the 3-run homer thing as a joke...because it makes me laugh.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) I am reading "Weaver on Strategy" right now, and I noticed that quote in his sig last night. Pods would be the Anti-Christ to Weaver. I actually use/like Weavers quote in a cynical way. I think it's beyond stupid.

QUOTE(Craig Grebeck @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) I like BA, but I by no means think he's the greatest player ever. it's just it is absolutely ridiculous to have a player like Darin Erstad playing everyday. he has been so bad the last six years and now he is getting in the lineup because he's a grinder. one more ridiculous comment from ozzie/kw about grinders and my baseball allegiance may be up for grabs until they're both gone. I hear there is a great team to the north you can cheer for. Even if you are named after the "little hurt".

Yesterday was the first time I saw it, and it was great! I wish it was available online. Anyone?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 01:47 AM) Pods has a fan club? Me and? lol Me.

It's no secret Prancer is my favorite Sox. To all of you who disagree...STFU.

Or it's possible, that because Erstad isn't actually doing all that bad this spring -- that THIS could be the reason?! Clowns. Open your biased eyes already. Anderson is doing well thus far in spring -- now if he can carry it into the regular season, I'll be very happy. And this is coming from an avid Anderson basher, I hope he prooves me wrong. Same goes for Erstad.

You are all wrong. Carl Everett + a bag of balls.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) They had us just as bad in 2005 and we won it all, so i'm glad they hate us. I bet they have the Cubs being really good again due to Kerry Wood being healthy too (oops). Using Kerry Woods name and healthy in the same sentence...is st00pit.

Brian Roberts one stand out year = roids.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 09:27 AM) No Tony, its the misconception by some sox fans that because Anderson got to a ball with a nice glide in track that its routine, while if Rowand who took a bad route due to a bad jump and read, then has to overcompentsate and throw himself on the ground to make the catch is giving his all. I guess Anderson needs to smash his face into the wall more to get some respect for his defense. I would rather my rookie OF take a major league approach and learn a difficult park with some wierd winds first, before he starts smashing his face into the wall or say threw himself on the ground. But then again I am the only one that seems to remember Rowand taking bad routes, and having horrible jumps. I seem to remember that after his HOR(The hand of rowand play in New York) that he followed that up by making bad jumps for about 2 weeks in key series like say the Indian series(the infamous Joe Crede coming out party) when Jenks gave up a few weak fly ball in betweeners that would of been caught easily if say Rowand didnt play near the track and take a step back on every play. But hey, the romanticism of the gold glove Aaron Rowand will continue until gracefully he retires. The HOR play will live in sox fans minds forever. I have no such romanticism for Rowand. I know Anderson is a better defensive CF than Rowand...by FAR. That has nothing to do with the fact that as good as I know Anderson is defensivly, I believe he could be better if he had the same heart that Rowand has. I believe that's the point everyone is trying to make...or, at least I am. Personally, as much as I bash Anderson, because I think hes 1/2 the player he CAN be, I want him out there over Rowand any day of the week and twice on double-header days. Again, Anderson should be better offensively AND defensivly (IMO) than he is...partly because of his attitude...and partly because I believe he's simply nervous.

He's gonna be in trouble in there for losing the Super Bowl. They're gonna touch him places... ;D I'm glad that scumbag went to jail. But it shouldn't be for the short time it was. If that was one of us -- we'd have been sentenced for 4 years or something.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you just stating a general baseball thought, or are you implying Anderson "Took plays off"? General baseball thought. I don't think Anderson takes plays off, but I do think he's full of himself, even though he has prooven a whole lot of nothing thus far. My problem with Anderson isn't his defense -- although I do think he could be better than he is. It appears to me that Anderson only gives about 85% defensivly -- and if he pressed the petal to the metal, and gave 100%, he could be one of the very very best there is. My issue with Anderson is his holier than thou attitude, and that he's an absolute black hole at the bottom of our lineup. That said, I'm willing to give him another chance...because if he can turn around his place struggles -- we'd have a winner on our hands with BA.

QUOTE(shoota @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 12:05 AM) Even if Anderson is "lazy" and doesn't take his job seriously, he's still the team's best center fielder. Like last season, Guillen is weakening the team by letting personal relationships dictate playing time. If he's lazy, it's absolutly unacceptable. I'm not sure what kind of team you'd like to see us build -- but a CF who has NEVER prooven himself in the majors has ZERO room to be lazy, EVER. There is no excuse or arguement you can counter that on, either...so please, do not bother. If you'd like to build a team of lazy stars...move north. Herb Brooks, the coach of the amazing 1980 USA Olympic Hockey team said it best, "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm lookin' for the right ones." If Brian Anderson is going to be lazy, and not take his job seriously -- no matter how good he CAN be or IS defensivly -- he doesn't belong on this team.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 03:43 AM) I think the grinder impact is BIG. If I were a pitcher, it is good to know that I have someone out there that lays it out on the line for me, especially CF. Phycologically, I DO think Rowand out there had an impact out there. I'm not saying BA is no slouch though. But Grinders as you will are an intangible that I like on the Sox. But, what do I know? Everyone on soxtalk is a GM, you guys all know how to GM better than Kenny and all of you would manage a game better than Ozzie. I just can't figure out why you guys do your work for free. Well said. It's about time someone else around here sees what I see. I can tell you this -- when I played team organized baseball (still do from time to time), when I'd be pitching, at the start of any game is mental preperation...if I looked at the lineup and the center field was a lazy player, I felt the following: "s***...I can't miss." Then, of course, I'd miss a lot. But if I looked out there and saw a guy who I know would chase down anything, dive, jump, do flips or whatever it took to catch that ball, my mind was at ease. Centerfield is a HUGE HUGE space...it really eases the mind to know that the guy you have out there isn't gonna lolligag around out there. And that goes for any position. I'd rather have a "grinder" out there who'd go all out for me every minute of every game than the best CF in the world who liked to take plays or games off. And yes, in ADDITION to situational hitting, bunting, driving the ball, etc...defenders that go ALL OUT is also part of "grinder baseball", as KW puts it.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 03:48 AM) The point of this thread is an OF of Erstad/BA/Dye > Erstad/Pods/Dye Having a LF/CF combo of Erstad and Pods is screaming for defensive difficulty in that area, you know, where lots of right handed hitters pull the ball to. Pods can't throw for hamburgers, and we want him to anchor our CF position? The guy that hasn't had a good read on a flyball since 2003? Pods makes a great reserve OFer. He can run(in theory), he can spell Erstad because we all know asking Erstad to play 150 games in the OF isn't gonna happen, and he can be a great late game asset. But fact is, Oz is in love with having his 'grinders' out there in LF and CF. I agree with Oz. Pods rules.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) Well, I think I'm getting in the habit of trying to improve my dismal record on game threads by starting them off in ST. Jon Garland on the hill for the White Sox today. Meanwhile, in a "B" game today, Scott Podsednik was scheduled to lead off. Presumably someone will update us on that at some point. They will only update the Scott Podsednik situation if he does poorly.