So Brian Anderson's hitting...

[claydude14]

 

http://www.palehose8.blogspot.com/

[lostfan]

Almost time to change the name of this topic to say "Brian Anderson was hitting". He sees runners on base and retreats into a slump.

Good god, the only other place you see ridiculously polarized arguments like this is with Rex Grossman.

[Chisoxfn]

You can throw all the stats around you want. They have been successful with it and will continue to do so. Many teams would die for a World Series title (especially 80 some years in the making) and only one losing season in the last 7 years.

 

Don't get caught up in the stats and minutia and forget the results. This team has been successful until last year. Now if they run a couple of losing seasons together then you have a case.

 

We'll see if it's last year over again. Who cares what the individual stats are (unless fantasy baseball is more important) Wins and loses are all that matters in the end.

 

This is how guys like David Eckstein look awful when examining stats but somehow are starting shortstops on WS winning teams and win MVP awards. The games are not judged by individual stats. The season is determined by the numbers of wins and loses which are determined by the integration of all the parts. Sometimes the role players add up to more than the sum of their individual stats.

Stats say Mark Buehrle isn't a good pitcher (afterall, he doesn't get strike-outs, higher WHIP than typical, yada yada yad). The thing is, he gets outs, throws innings, doesn't give up many runs and gets wins. I find it so laughable that there are some people that spit out 18 zillion stats that say why a player sucks. Thats not to say you can't look at them, but Its ridiculous how many people live out all of baseball with stats instead of just watching the game.

 

If I looked at stats there are a lot of aspects of a players game I would miss. Ie, how intelligent they were at the plate, whether they could truly handle a bat (some people will hit .280 and it could be a complete aberration with dumb luck for the most part, while someone else could hit .280 and by watching there swing you could sit there and say wow, in time with experience this guy will hit .330).

 

You also can see how fluid of a runner they are, there athletism (which is key, because better athletes tend to be better players) as well as the defensive aspect of the game (plus bunting, being a good base runner, or just knowing when to take pitches/how to work the count as those are aspects that help everyone else on the team).

 

I try to stay out of the stats because aside from a few guys in baseball, you could tear a whole in practically every player and continue to bulls*** about how terrible this guy or that guy is. I try to enjoy the game and while the Sox are clearly not front-runners I know they have talent.

 

I also know that when watching Anderson hit in the 2nd half of 06 (and I was one of Anderson's biggest advocates than because of how f***ing good he was defensively as well as what the other options were) that I still wasn't impressed. He didn't really look like he was improving, more that he was just so entirely terrible earlier that it was just a matter of time for him to make a bit more contact and see a few more things fall his way.

 

I'm looking forward to this swing to see whether his swing is more fluid and improved because stats be damned, he is one of the worse regular offensive players I have ever seen (say what you want about Owens and I'll agree with anyone in that his only value is if he hits around .290+ with a. 350+ OBP and a boatload of steals (and not many caught steals). However, I can easily see Owens actually hitting .290-.310 given his swing (he has a pretty nice swing and can spray the ball opposite field; he needs to work on turning in the inside pitches otherwise he'll never be able to hit for enough of an average to suceed). I also know he won't have a ton of extra base hits and definitely not many HR's, but I don't give a crap about that. I think speed is more important that statistics say they are. Going from 1st to 3rd matters, stealing a base matters, plus just the presence of the speed matters (gets in the pitchers head, makes it more likely for an error to happen).

[Vance Law]

I'm not sure why some of you guys are so unequivocally hostile to Jerry Owens

Most people wouldn't be huge fans of it, but would be kinda ok with Owens starting in center..............if we didn't have Quentin. But we have Quentin and most people really want him to start in left field. Some people think it's completely insane that we would consider starting Owens over Quentin on a regular basis, and are frustrated that it seems things are going that way.

[Vance Law]

Look at all of the past world series winning teams and 9 out of 10 will have this type of batting order for the top four hitters.

 

You can't use a line like that to imply causality.

 

9 out of 10 teams that suck also have a batting order like that.

 

Joe Sheehan wrote a piece on batting orders recently and it's what makes most sense to me.

Have your best hitters get the most at bats.

Have high on-base guys in front of power hitters.

[knightni]

Thome's simply not hitting enough 3 run homers!

[almagest]

Look at all of the past world series winning teams and 9 out of 10 will have this type of batting order for the top four hitters.

 

1. Fast or pesky hitter

2. good bat handler

3. Good ave and power

4. best power guy.

 

I shouldn't have started this again. Every spring I go on this rant because every body has their own ideas on how to build a team. People keep commenting on how Ozzie wants to bring the "Marlins" here but it's the same philosophy most teams use. Being around the game so long you see many things come and go but the typical lineup has remained constant for the most part.

 

Any evidence that backs this up? Because I've already researched the "fast/pesky" leadoff hitter being prevalent on championship teams, and it's not the case. It's in another thread around here somewhere; I think it was actually a response to you.

[lvjeremylv]

The fact of the matter is that the Sox simply have 1 too many hitters that are past their primes and extremely slow. Having Thome and Konerko in the same lineup at this point in their careers is not in the best interest for the Sox IMO. I think they should trade the one with the highest value, and right now I think that's Paulie. Paulie, I love ya, but we have some young guys who are the future of this club that are going to play less because we already have Thome as our DH. I'd say trade Thome since he's 37, but his value is far less than Konerko's.

 

If we traded Paulie, we could get some pretty good prospects in return, save on salary that we can use to sign a top-tier pitcher this next off-season, move Swisher to 1B, and get Quentin into left field (when his shoulder is ready to go). The scenario now if Quentin is in LF is having Swisher in CF, which isn't best for our defense. Or if Owens makes the club as our CF, then you have a young potential stud Quentin sitting on the bench and only playing part time. That's not good for our offense, nor for his development.

 

Let's face it, the Sox aren't going to win in 2008, so why not cut a little of the fat and work our young guys into the mix to get them a lot of big league face time?

[Texsox]

I wonder what happens when a team trades all of their highest value players and keeps their lowest value players. How many have won championships?

[YASNY]

I wonder what happens when a team trades all of their highest value players and keeps their lowest value players. How many have won championships?

 

We could have championships in Charlotte and Birmingham! Wouldn't that be great?

[Texsox]

We could have championships in Charlotte and Birmingham! Wouldn't that be great?

 

exactly. But I was actually thinking about something even more important, perhaps, *the* most important thing of all. Would it result in more profits? That's #1

[lvjeremylv]

I wonder what happens when a team trades all of their highest value players and keeps their lowest value players. How many have won championships?

The teams that are in contention constantly are the teams that realize when it's time to move on and either trade aging players or let them go via free agency. Unless you're the Yankees, who have a $200M payroll.

[Felix]

I wonder what happens when a team trades all of their highest value players and keeps their lowest value players. How many have won championships?

The Marlins have done pretty well in their history, all things considered.

[Disco72]

The Marlins have done pretty well in their history, all things considered.

 

Rebuilding has worked great for Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Kansas City...three different strategies, same lack of success.

[Felix]

Rebuilding has worked great for Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Kansas City...three different strategies, same lack of success.

None of those teams have really traded their highest value players while holding onto their lowest value players (unless you're talking about Miguel Tejada being traded when his value was probably the lowest possible, barring a suspension due to 'roids)

 

I also don't disagree that the ownership in Baltimore is absolutely terrible, but Tampa Bay and KC are pretty well stocked for the upcoming years.

 

I'm also not saying that Florida's plan is the best plan for everyone, but you can't deny their results. 2 World Series rings in 14 years of existence? Not going to get much better than that.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Felix

[Disco72]

None of those teams have really traded their highest value players while holding onto their lowest value players (unless you're talking about Miguel Tejada being traded when his value was probably the lowest possible, barring a suspension due to 'roids)

 

I also don't disagree that the ownership in Baltimore is absolutely terrible, but Tampa Bay and KC are pretty well stocked for the upcoming years.

 

I'm also not saying that Florida's plan is the best plan for everyone, but you can't deny their results. 2 World Series rings in 14 years of existence? Not going to get much better than that.

 

Sure, the Marlins have done it twice very well and, true, Baltimore is a management problem. However, my main point is that the Marlins are more an anomoly than the norm. Rebuilding isn't as easy as some (not saying you, in particular) think that it is. KC has traded some very good players (David Cone, Dye, Damon, Beltran) at a point in which they had a ton of value and has had only one winning season since 1995 when the trading / dumping salaries began. Sure they have good, young talent, but that has been true for awhile now. Same with Tampa Bay - not a single winning season in their ten year existence - though they haven't done much in trading their top players, which was your original point (so TB proves my point but doesn't really disprove your point).

[Texsox]

None of those teams have really traded their highest value players while holding onto their lowest value players (unless you're talking about Miguel Tejada being traded when his value was probably the lowest possible, barring a suspension due to 'roids)

 

I also don't disagree that the ownership in Baltimore is absolutely terrible, but Tampa Bay and KC are pretty well stocked for the upcoming years.

 

I'm also not saying that Florida's plan is the best plan for everyone, but you can't deny their results. 2 World Series rings in 14 years of existence? Not going to get much better than that.

 

So do you win without your most valuable players? Like Bad News Bears?

[Felix]

So do you win without your most valuable players? Like Bad News Bears?

I never said that. You asked how many teams that traded their players with the most value won championships, and I answered you by pointing out the Marlins track record.

[greg775]

He's pulled this "I can hit in spring training" charade before. He really doesnt have much of a spot in this OF. He should be in AAA where he can come up when Dye gets hurt.

 

I don't know if it's a charade. I am not the biggest BA fan because of the

fact he was an automatic out the year he got a chance, but if he earns the

job I'm really going to be pulling for him. I say if he wins the job, more power to BA. I wish I followed spring training closer, but I don't get ultra interested til the regular season. What's today's update. Is BA looking good still?

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Good god, the only other place you see ridiculously polarized arguments like this is with Rex Grossman.

 

+1 for you!

[Vance Law]

The fact of the matter is that the Sox simply have 1 too many hitters that are past their primes and extremely slow.

 

Like with Big Papi and Manny Ramirez and Varitek and Lowell and Youkilis.

 

[Felix]

Like with Big Papi and Manny Ramirez and Varitek and Lowell and Youkilis.

Youkilis is past his prime? He turns 29 in 5 days and has been in the league 4 seasons.

 

(you're right about the others )

Edited March 11, 2008 by Felix

[scenario]

The teams that are in contention constantly are the teams that realize when it's time to move on and either trade aging players or let them go via free agency. Unless you're the Yankees, who have a $200M payroll.

 

I think the two oldest teams in baseball (again) this year are Detroit and Boston.

 

I guess they didn't get the 'gotta trade your old guys' memo.

Edited March 11, 2008 by scenario

[Vance Law]

Youkilis is past his prime? He turns 29 in 5 days and has been in the league 4 seasons.

 

(you're right about the others )

 

Not past his prime, just slow(ish).

 

[lvjeremylv]

I think the two oldest teams in baseball (again) this year are Detroit and Boston.

 

I guess they didn't get the 'gotta trade your old guys' memo.

I'm not saying trade your old guys. I'm saying trade your old guys WHEN it's relatively clear you are not a legitimate contender and can still get some return for them to help you in the future. What good will it do the Sox to keep the same core of players if they're going to most likely finish 3rd at best?