and you can really see how all that bad attitude is affecting a-rod's playing. tewksbury is an idiot. does he hear the things that come out of his mouth?

and speaking of bad attitudes, what's with jim's "the tone of this site needs to change"? people can't get worked up about issues in a public forum? is he gonna take his ball and go home?

It's not a public forum.

I totally forgot that JT Snow was on the team. Maybe the Cubs would want him so they could move Walker back over to 2B? I can't really think of a team that would want Snow, especially at $2M.

Choi hasn't exactly been tearing it up in AAA, either. The OBP looks good, but his SLG doesn't impress. He'd be a better pinch-hitting option, if nothing else.

The Giants could probably take him back. Niekro's not looking so hot. But then, they could have had Choi or Pena for less, as could jsut about any team in the majors, so why would they give anything for Snow?

I think Tewksbury makes a ton of sense, actually.

I can't see anyone giving anything of value for Snow. But, it makes sense to invest some energy into making him happier and attempting to dump him.

Mattbert Posted: May 18, 2006 at 03:56 PM (#2026392)
It's not a public forum.

And it is his ball, and he can take it home if he wants to.

I think Tewksbury makes a ton of sense, actually.

Same here, and he's certainly not to the first one to suggest that Manny's "affability" is a key part of his success. Extending the Manny Model to others is more of stretch, but it's not idiotic.

A-Rod is an extraordinary player, yes. It's hard to argue argue a guy's mental approach to the game is flawed when he's been one of the best, if not the best, players in baseball for years. But you can't rule out the chance that A-Rod could be better if he had, in Tewksbury's view, a healthier response to failure. I have my doubts, but it's not completely outlandish. Not everybody can be Mr. Intensity and play like a Paul O'Neill clone. Not everybody can take Manny's dispassionate attitude, either, but the conventional wisdom is that baseball players have to be able to accept failure as a part of the game and not obsess over it.

I think Hee-Seop Choi would be a disaster of a bench player. His defense is bad and Francona seems to forget about players on the bench for long stretches--hey, let's sit a player for one full week, that's no problem or let's leave a young pitcher just called up in the bullpen for ten days and then lose faith in him when he can't throw strikes for his inning of work--so he wouldn't get that much playing time. The majority of his bats would come from key pinch hitting situations against righties. Some may be happy to have him in this role but Choi's approach at the plate, patient and non-contactal, doesn't go all that well for someone coming in cold off the bench to face a tough reliever. I also never got the sense he could hit the ball when he had to. Youkilis is the antithesis of most high isolated on-base percentage guys in that with men in scoring position, he can actually pull the trigger and make good contact, something a whole bunch of Oakland hitters struggled with last year. Choi I don't think can't. He may take a walk and post a decent obp but in situations when excitement is building and it would be nice if he got a hit, I think he'll fail to come through too often that the interest in him will fade. The guy had wonderful minor league numbers coming up but it's been frustrating to him work the count in his favor and then remain passive. Swing the bat aggressively, Asian Bull, the team is counting on you to use your power to drive in runs.

Really, though. All Choi has to do is hit .270 .350 .440. and play decent defense. He can certainly do that.

your buddy bl disagrees.

But you can't rule out the chance that A-Rod could be better if he had, in Tewksbury's view, a healthier response to failure. I have my doubts, but it's not completely outlandish.

it is completely outlandish. let's take this and turn it on its head and suggest that manny, who, while very good, is not as great as a-rod, could be a better player if he were a little less affable. saying that a-rod could be better at baseball than he is simply because someone else is very good because at baseball because he's good at being easygoing is by definition ludicrous. yeah, i guess i can't rule it out, but tewksbury's very assertion is specious since it can't be demonstrated that he's right. he's finding causes where there are none.

it's not "completely outlandish" ... it may or may not be true. tewks is just stating his opinion, and maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but you are in no position to say it's NOT true for sure. argue the point if you want, but throwing around "completely outlandish" adds nothing, given that it's perfectly plausable.

it is completely outlandish. let's take this and turn it on its head and suggest that manny, who, while very good, is not as great as a-rod, could be a better player if he were a little less affable.

That seems like a very reasonable line of argument to me. If I'm willing to allow for the chance that A-Rod could be a better player if he changed his mental approach, I have to be willing to allow for the same thing to be true of Manny. (Incidentally, I don't really buy the whole "loopy hitting savant" persona for Manny. Gammons, among others, has reported many times that Manny is among the most tireless batting cage fiends and obsessive watchers of video around.)

I'd say it's only partially outlandish.

Choi as a statue on the bench will be a waste, but he's a waster at AAA right now too. He will probably strengthen the bench, but the concern over his approach is pretty un-outlandish.

I like the idea of dealing Snow for squat and then using the savings on Clemens.

it is completely outlandish.

...

yeah, i guess i can't rule it out

Your witness.

I don't buy the hitting-savant thing, either. You aren't born with Manny's hitting mechanics. And he's been amazingly consistent. You have to keep making adustments to maintain that kind of consistency.

i can't remember where it was, but the other day i heard something about how manny is very good at finding flaws in other players' approach at the plate from video.

I'm sure Manny prepares extensively, but once he gets in the box he does seem to shut out outside pressures. This may help him succeed in high-pressure situations, which he does. A-Rod has not succeeded in certain high-pressure situations. I haven't read the article, but this is the one area of the game where I think Tewksbury's argument might have some bearing.

Anyone going to the Yankee games this week? (Can we get a pre-Yankee series thread, please?)

I'll be there on Tuesday, because it's required by state law that at least 80% of games I attend must be started by Tim Wakefield.

Be interesting to see Schilling vs. Wang tonight. Schilling seems to be settling in as about 2/3 good-ankle Schilling and 1/3 bad-ankle Schilling. Too many hits and homers due to too little splitter action, but enough juice on the fastball and enough good splitters to be an effective starter. His current 4.20 ERA is probably not much worse than where he'll end up, I think. (The question as to whether some of his struggles were caused by the 133-pitch outing is open at this point. I tend to be skeptical, but the numbers are not so pretty.)

Wang, on the other hand, is a guy the Sox should pound into the ground, like the Yankees always used to do to Lowe (Game 7 excluded, natch.) Wang has a real nice sinker, but a guy without great control and without swing-and-miss stuff shouldn't be able to get through 5 innings against a lineup like hte Sox'. Those expectations, though, tend to lead to frustating viewing experiences.

Damnit, if Snow is on the block, that will increase the number of people aiming for a 'fancy fielding first baseman', which means that it'll be harder for the Royals to trade Mientkiewicz.

How did Schilling look last night? I missed the game.

Eric Van had an interesting post over at SoSH about Wang:

***
Someone in the game thread suggested that the split is the result of his being deceptive out of the windup but not out of the stretch. And consider:

-- He's a rare guy who has below average K and BB rates, and is better than average on every measure of hardness of contact. The poster child for easy outs early in the count, and that spells deception with a capital D.

-- He has a big career split in ERA between within-division and outside, doing much worse within. This suggests that the more guys see him, the worse he fares.

All of this suggests that his MLB success so far is largely the result of deceiving folks who are unfamiliar with his windup derlivery. The only thing counter to this is that his runners-on numbers this year have gotten worse, whereas the hypothesis says the base-empty numbers should be worse in his second year.
***

Schilling threw tons of splitters, and he commanded the pitch very well. Schilling seemed to be getting away from the "I will throw only outside fastballs" game that he'd be getting killed with, but the main reason was that he had better command of his split than in any other game I've seen. If he keeps throwing the pitch this well, he'll be one of the best pitchers in baseball again.

On Wang, it's certainly an interesting theory, but his windup looks pretty generic to me. I don't see where a hitter would get deceived.

On Wang, it's certainly an interesting theory, but his windup looks pretty generic to me. I don't see where a hitter would get deceived.

He nearly comes to a stop at the top of his windup. I could definitely see this messing with players' timing, particularly ones who spin the bat or point it at the pitcher to set up their timing. It's as good a theory as any why Wang has been reasonably successful with a K rate that has not allowed any others to succeed.

Like EVM, I have wondered if teams seeing him a 2nd and 3rd time might start to catch up to him because of this. I hope it's true.