I should start by saying I actually like Juan Pierre. It's hard not to. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, and from everything I've heard, he's a very dedicated, hard working individual. Those are the types of guys that people should cheer for.
That being said, he's been a pretty big disappointment thus far, and that's putting it lightly. To begin with, he looks like he's lost a step, and when that's your only redeemable quality (besides intangibles, of course), that's not good. Not at all. He's played some questionable "D" in left, albeit better than Pods, and he's been useless at the plate. He's not a power hitter, sure. We all knew that. But 0 extra base hits a month into the season is pretty terrible. But worse than that, he seems to struggle at doing anything other than grounding out to middle infielders...that is...unless that would be beneficial, in which case he pops out to first basemen...ugh.
So now Ozzie has dropped him from the leadoff spot, which was pretty impressive on Ozzie's behalf. I love accountability, and Ozzie has held him accountable. Now if only Greg Walker could be held accountable for the team's annual failure to show an semblance of situational hitting....but I guess that's another post. I'm not sure I agree with the decision to bat Alexei leadoff, but I can deal with it. I'd be surprised if Teahen isn't batting there tomorrow against Vazquez, but still. I like the idea to shake things up a little bit. I'd love it if we could find ourselves a legit leadoff man, but that's easier said than done, of course. I'm sill on the Brett Gardner bandwagon, but again...easier said than done. It's disappointing Alejandro De Aza is off to a rough start at AAA, because I saw his speed/patience combo as having some potential.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. I have no absolute solution to offer. I wasn't a huge fan of the Pierre acquisition, but it was fair to assume he'd be a passable leadoff hitter. It's far too early to say he can't, but it's also not too early to contemplate some emergency alternatives. What they are, we'll have to wait and see. Or, we'll have to wait and see what kind of return we can get on AJ, Paulie, and the gang.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Bonds = Gaylord
This title may not only seem off topic for a White Sox blog, but also bigoted. I assure you, it's neither. Recently, there's been some debate over whether or not Pierzynski is a cheater. The cause of this discussion is a faked hit-by-pitch that occurred during a Ricky Romero start against the White Sox where the Sox were nearly no-hit. AJ pretended to be hit on the foot (which he didn't appear to be), and headed to first base. Umpire Tim "The Terrible" McClelland accepted AJ's claims, and awarded him first base. Alex Rios immediately followed with a 2-run home run. The Jays still won, but Romero was denied his no-hit bid.
Rob Neyer seems to have ignited the "AJ's a cheater" argument. To me, not only is this ridiculous, it's completely irresponsible on Neyer's behalf. Calling a player a cheater is a big deal. What he said about AJ was no different than claiming a player is on steroids without any significant evidence. Except..well..what AJ did wasn't really cheating. It might be frowned upon, but it's not cheating. It's not against the rules to try and trick an umpire. Fact is, it's commonplace.
When a player traps a fly ball and tries to sell it as a catch, is that not the same thing? When a player turns his back on an inside pitch, but also leans into the pitch to get hit, is this not the same thing? They both involve theatrics to convince an umpire that something happened, which didn't. The reason is to help their team win. This is not wrong. Players should do this. There's a reason Buck Martinez, former catcher/manager and TV announcer for the Blue Jays, gushed at AJ's intelligence after the play, and throughout the series. He's a former player, and he knows the deal.
But anyways, you may be curious as to what this all has to do with Bonds being a Gaylord. Well it all started when I got all uppity and began responding to people on Fan Graphs' article that basically showed their stat-nerd writers are running out of numbers to crunch. Neyer, a stat nerd revolutionist himself, had his opinion treated as gospel by his nerdy minions. Anyways, it all led to me making a post that kind of enlightened myself to a point I had never even thought of. One poster, named "Walt", said that cheating is not accepted in baseball. I disagreed, saying that aside from PED use, cheating is widely accepted. In fact, it's often celebrated, and all one need to do to support this fact is look at the Hall of Fame.
There's several players currently in the Hall that did the same things that AJ did, but because that's not cheating, they're probably not quite "cheaters". But then I thought of one particular player. Gaylord Perry. Perry was notorious for doctoring baseballs. He wasn't just a spitballer, but he also greased up baseballs to a ridiculous extent. He was caught, and suspended for this while he played. His own catcher, Gene Tenace (coincidentally a Blue Jays alumni coach) had this to say: "I can remember a couple of occasions when I couldn't throw the ball back to him because it was so greasy that it slipped out of my hands. I just walked out to the mound and flipped the ball back to him." I got that from Wikipedia, and they have it referenced from somewhere else. Just in case. They also mention he approached Vaseline about endorsing their product because he used so much of it...and not to keep his skin baby soft.
But anyways, the point is, if Perry knowingly did all these things, how did he get elected to the Hall? I thought the Hall of Fame shunned cheaters. No Mark McGwire's allowed. No Barry. No Clemens. Right? Isn't that the assumption? But really, is what Perry did and what those guys did any different? Actually, considering for much of the time steroids weren't outlawed by baseball - and doctoring the ball was during Perry's era - doesn't that make Perry worse?
Truth is, I don't know. I'm not sure I really want to think that hard about it because I don't really like the thought of juicers in the Hall. But if Gossage gets in under the reasoning that Sutter got in...doesn't that same logic imply that cheaters should get in if Perry (among others) got in? They were all just trying to get an edge, right? Some used drugs, others used Vaseline. Is that really so different?
I'm not making a claim so much as I'm posing a question. I'm curious as what other people think about this. What is it that upsets us so much about PED use, but not other forms of cheating that have the same overall effect? If Perry had broken sacred records, would people still be so nonchalant about his Hall of Fame status? I'm not saying they would. I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm saying it's worth thinking about.
Rob Neyer seems to have ignited the "AJ's a cheater" argument. To me, not only is this ridiculous, it's completely irresponsible on Neyer's behalf. Calling a player a cheater is a big deal. What he said about AJ was no different than claiming a player is on steroids without any significant evidence. Except..well..what AJ did wasn't really cheating. It might be frowned upon, but it's not cheating. It's not against the rules to try and trick an umpire. Fact is, it's commonplace.
When a player traps a fly ball and tries to sell it as a catch, is that not the same thing? When a player turns his back on an inside pitch, but also leans into the pitch to get hit, is this not the same thing? They both involve theatrics to convince an umpire that something happened, which didn't. The reason is to help their team win. This is not wrong. Players should do this. There's a reason Buck Martinez, former catcher/manager and TV announcer for the Blue Jays, gushed at AJ's intelligence after the play, and throughout the series. He's a former player, and he knows the deal.
But anyways, you may be curious as to what this all has to do with Bonds being a Gaylord. Well it all started when I got all uppity and began responding to people on Fan Graphs' article that basically showed their stat-nerd writers are running out of numbers to crunch. Neyer, a stat nerd revolutionist himself, had his opinion treated as gospel by his nerdy minions. Anyways, it all led to me making a post that kind of enlightened myself to a point I had never even thought of. One poster, named "Walt", said that cheating is not accepted in baseball. I disagreed, saying that aside from PED use, cheating is widely accepted. In fact, it's often celebrated, and all one need to do to support this fact is look at the Hall of Fame.
There's several players currently in the Hall that did the same things that AJ did, but because that's not cheating, they're probably not quite "cheaters". But then I thought of one particular player. Gaylord Perry. Perry was notorious for doctoring baseballs. He wasn't just a spitballer, but he also greased up baseballs to a ridiculous extent. He was caught, and suspended for this while he played. His own catcher, Gene Tenace (coincidentally a Blue Jays alumni coach) had this to say: "I can remember a couple of occasions when I couldn't throw the ball back to him because it was so greasy that it slipped out of my hands. I just walked out to the mound and flipped the ball back to him." I got that from Wikipedia, and they have it referenced from somewhere else. Just in case. They also mention he approached Vaseline about endorsing their product because he used so much of it...and not to keep his skin baby soft.
But anyways, the point is, if Perry knowingly did all these things, how did he get elected to the Hall? I thought the Hall of Fame shunned cheaters. No Mark McGwire's allowed. No Barry. No Clemens. Right? Isn't that the assumption? But really, is what Perry did and what those guys did any different? Actually, considering for much of the time steroids weren't outlawed by baseball - and doctoring the ball was during Perry's era - doesn't that make Perry worse?
Truth is, I don't know. I'm not sure I really want to think that hard about it because I don't really like the thought of juicers in the Hall. But if Gossage gets in under the reasoning that Sutter got in...doesn't that same logic imply that cheaters should get in if Perry (among others) got in? They were all just trying to get an edge, right? Some used drugs, others used Vaseline. Is that really so different?
I'm not making a claim so much as I'm posing a question. I'm curious as what other people think about this. What is it that upsets us so much about PED use, but not other forms of cheating that have the same overall effect? If Perry had broken sacred records, would people still be so nonchalant about his Hall of Fame status? I'm not saying they would. I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm saying it's worth thinking about.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Mandruw Jones Mups the Mante...
I really liked the Andruw Jones signing from the start. It was a great deal at 500K, and I enjoyed the thought of his bat coming off the bench. I wasn't quite so enamored, however, with the decoration that he would be part of a DH tandem with Mark Kotsay. Actually, I didn't really buy it. But, then the season rolled around and we had a DH duo of Jones and Kotsay. Not exactly inspiring. Still, from what I saw of Jones in Spring, he looked pretty solid. You could see that he slimmed down quite a bit, and he was not only hitting the ball with authority, but playing a solid outfield.
That's a big deal. If Jones can play defense even close to the level that he did in Atlanta, he suddenly becomes a very valuable player. If he gets regular time in the outfield, while hitting something around .250/.340/.450 or thereabouts, that's a solid regular. A solid regular at 500K is a hell of a steal.
Still, just like I tried to not get too down about him being a semi-regular, I'm trying to not get too worked up from what I've seen this season. Truth is, he got off to a torrid start in 2009 as well, only to see his on-base skills, and eventually power, diminish. After April, spent 3 of the remaining 5 month+October hitting below .200. And when he did hit above .200, it wasn't by much. Not very good numbers. Especially since he spent most of the time as a designated "hitter". As mentioned, his power remained for a few more months -- he hit 8 home runs and slugged .627 in July! -- but didn't hit a home run for the reason of the season after he hit two on July 29th.
I think there is a difference, however, in Andruw Jones 2009, and the 2010 edition. For one, he's slimmed down. That was evident in Spring this year, not just in his appearance, but in his performance. He was tracking down fly balls, and stealing bases, etc. Plus, his bat speed appeared to come back a little bit, which is big news. I think it's reasonable to suggest that his offensive abilities (and defensive, for that matter) should stay reasonably in tact as the season wears on. He's not a fatty anymore, and he's not playing in Texas either. I'd imagine being fat in the Texas heat isn't much fun, which also leads to the question of why there's so many fat people in Texas. You think they'd want to slim down, or that they'd at least sweat out the fatness. Maybe it's just too hot to jog?
Aaanyways, I don't expect him to continue this torrid pace, and if you think he will, you're dreaming. He's not hitting .350 with 50 homers. However, something close to the line I posted earlier would be just a-ok - especially if he plays the field well. It's more than early, but it's not too early to get just a little excited about his start. I know I am.
That's a big deal. If Jones can play defense even close to the level that he did in Atlanta, he suddenly becomes a very valuable player. If he gets regular time in the outfield, while hitting something around .250/.340/.450 or thereabouts, that's a solid regular. A solid regular at 500K is a hell of a steal.
Still, just like I tried to not get too down about him being a semi-regular, I'm trying to not get too worked up from what I've seen this season. Truth is, he got off to a torrid start in 2009 as well, only to see his on-base skills, and eventually power, diminish. After April, spent 3 of the remaining 5 month+October hitting below .200. And when he did hit above .200, it wasn't by much. Not very good numbers. Especially since he spent most of the time as a designated "hitter". As mentioned, his power remained for a few more months -- he hit 8 home runs and slugged .627 in July! -- but didn't hit a home run for the reason of the season after he hit two on July 29th.
I think there is a difference, however, in Andruw Jones 2009, and the 2010 edition. For one, he's slimmed down. That was evident in Spring this year, not just in his appearance, but in his performance. He was tracking down fly balls, and stealing bases, etc. Plus, his bat speed appeared to come back a little bit, which is big news. I think it's reasonable to suggest that his offensive abilities (and defensive, for that matter) should stay reasonably in tact as the season wears on. He's not a fatty anymore, and he's not playing in Texas either. I'd imagine being fat in the Texas heat isn't much fun, which also leads to the question of why there's so many fat people in Texas. You think they'd want to slim down, or that they'd at least sweat out the fatness. Maybe it's just too hot to jog?
Aaanyways, I don't expect him to continue this torrid pace, and if you think he will, you're dreaming. He's not hitting .350 with 50 homers. However, something close to the line I posted earlier would be just a-ok - especially if he plays the field well. It's more than early, but it's not too early to get just a little excited about his start. I know I am.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A few predictions that probably won't come true.
At the start of every season, people make predictions. And, aside from the one's that any idiot could predict - the Yankees will win a lot of games, Pujols will be good, etc. - very seldom do any of them come true. I've notice this has led some bloggers, and even some in the mainstream media, to create predictions that are blatantly stupid, and for that matter...not very funny. So I won't fall into that trap. Here's some stuff I can actually see happening, but probably won't.
1.) Mark Teahen will actually be pretty good. Maybe it's my inner-scout beating up my inner-sabermetric-nerd, but I think this is the year he breaks through and breaks the dreaded "ex-Royals who ruin out lives" curse. I see him putting up a .270/.340/.460 batting line, which is fine by me.
2.) Sergio Santos is the next David Aardsma. I think he'll struggle this year, and really, who can blame him. As noted in my previous post, he's as raw as any big league pitcher you'll find. That being said, like Aardsma, he has a great arm and I suspect he'll find success someday with another team, and Alexei Ramirez will make us all smile by hitting a game winning home run off him.
3.) Scott Linebrink will be suck, blame his shoulder, go on the DL, come back, suck some more, and then be released. He then will blast the organization, and Ozzie will publicly blast him for being a turd.
4.) Gordon Beckham will be awesome.
5.) Carlos Quentin will lead the team in home runs...and at bats as DH.
6.) Jake Peavy will make a smooth transition to the AL. He won't be quite what he was with San Diego, but that's fine. He'll finish 3rd in AL Cy Young voting, right behind King Felix and Javier Vazquez.
Just kidding..
7.) Alex Rios finally stops being a dink, and lives up to most of his potential. He doesn't live up to all of it - think Matt Kemp - but he plays like an All-Star and makes KW look like a genius.
8.) Dayan Viciedo has a good first half, terrific second half, and ends the season as the best prospect in our system.
9.) Ken Williams makes a Geoff Blumesque deadline deal to replace an injured Mark Kotsay, but that's about it.
10.) The White Sox beat out the Twins in the final week of the season, winning the division by 1 game. They end the season 88-74, and are eliminated in the ALCS by the eventual World Series winning Tampa Bay Rays.
Well that's about it. In hindsight that was probably a pretty boring read. Sorry about that. Y'all come back now!!!!
1.) Mark Teahen will actually be pretty good. Maybe it's my inner-scout beating up my inner-sabermetric-nerd, but I think this is the year he breaks through and breaks the dreaded "ex-Royals who ruin out lives" curse. I see him putting up a .270/.340/.460 batting line, which is fine by me.
2.) Sergio Santos is the next David Aardsma. I think he'll struggle this year, and really, who can blame him. As noted in my previous post, he's as raw as any big league pitcher you'll find. That being said, like Aardsma, he has a great arm and I suspect he'll find success someday with another team, and Alexei Ramirez will make us all smile by hitting a game winning home run off him.
3.) Scott Linebrink will be suck, blame his shoulder, go on the DL, come back, suck some more, and then be released. He then will blast the organization, and Ozzie will publicly blast him for being a turd.
4.) Gordon Beckham will be awesome.
5.) Carlos Quentin will lead the team in home runs...and at bats as DH.
6.) Jake Peavy will make a smooth transition to the AL. He won't be quite what he was with San Diego, but that's fine. He'll finish 3rd in AL Cy Young voting, right behind King Felix and Javier Vazquez.
Just kidding..
7.) Alex Rios finally stops being a dink, and lives up to most of his potential. He doesn't live up to all of it - think Matt Kemp - but he plays like an All-Star and makes KW look like a genius.
8.) Dayan Viciedo has a good first half, terrific second half, and ends the season as the best prospect in our system.
9.) Ken Williams makes a Geoff Blumesque deadline deal to replace an injured Mark Kotsay, but that's about it.
10.) The White Sox beat out the Twins in the final week of the season, winning the division by 1 game. They end the season 88-74, and are eliminated in the ALCS by the eventual World Series winning Tampa Bay Rays.
Well that's about it. In hindsight that was probably a pretty boring read. Sorry about that. Y'all come back now!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)