When Phil Rogers isn't pimping the Cleveland Indians (you love the Wahoos, Phil, we get it, and although I despise that team even I'll stand up to say that Rogers' comparison of the 2007 model to the 2003 Cubbies doesn't even begin to be fair or accurate), he's cutting hard into the White Sox.
In his 2008 preview today, Dr. Phil again criticizes White Sox fans--season ticketholders specifically--for wanting to root for a winning team vs. a rebuilding team. Aside from the fact that if White Sox fans wanted to see the Charlotte or Birmingham teams play, we'd fly there and watch them, what's with condemning a fan base for wanting to see wins?
But here's his most puzzling point:
While the pitching staff as a whole was a big problem in 2006 and the bullpen a disaster in '07, the Sox's slide may have had even more to do with the complete lack of production from three spots in the lineup: center field, left field and shortstop.
Consider the year-by-year on-base-plus-slugging rankings among AL teams at those positions:
•In center, where Aaron Rowand was replaced by a cast including Brian Anderson, Darin Erstad and Jerry Owens: sixth in 2005, 13th in '06 and 14th in '07.
•In left, where Scott Podsednik was counted on as the regular all three seasons: 14th, 12th and ninth.
•At short, where Uribe has been the regular: 10th, eighth and ninth.
While no one's gonna argue with the paltry production put forth from those three positions, do you see anything wrong with the math? Center field has been mostly a disaster since the job was handed to the surf n' turf party boy in 2006, and it's no surprise that the White Sox's OPS rankings have plummeted there. But in exhibits B and C, LF and SS, the team rankings have gone UP since 2005, which runs contrary to whatever point Dr. Phil was trying to make.
He also chooses to spotlight the 917 at-bats given to Jerry Owens, Danny Richar, Andy Gonzalez, and Alex Cintron last season. As compelling an issue as that might be, and White Sox fans may forever wonder how so many at-bats were issued to those so little deserving, the latter two are the only glaring examples, and Rogers knows it. He makes it seem as if Owens and Richar were starters out of spring training, when in truth the two only saw playing time due to injuries (Owens replacing the broken Erstad) and trades (Richar plays after the Iguchi giveaway), in the second half of a lost season.
Rogers chastises Owens for not getting his first RBI until his 99th at-bat (crazy weird, but hardly a fair or sensible criticism who got many of those at-bats during a horrid first stint for the team and who, as the speedy leadoff guy is charged with piling up SBs--32 in 93 games, projecting to 52 in 150 games at a tasty 80% success rate--not RBIs); no mention is made of his improved and fairly impressive second-half numbers.
Richar was in his first major-league stint and while his on-base percentage was weak, he displayed impressive pop for a guy who looks like he weighs about 100 pounds. Apparently he hasn't rolled around in the infield dirt enough to acquire that Ryan Theriot "grit" (yet Richar as a 24-year-old rook went .230-.289-.406, the 27-year-old, eyeblacked Cubbie .266-.326-.346, in his third year).
The story that Ken Williams has been telling all offseason, true or not, is that the biggest key on offense for the White Sox is simply to have their reliables (Dye and Konerko, looking your way) push closer to their average seasons. Aside from the offhanded mention that Konerko is still on the team, there's no mention of this from Rogers. Wouldn't it have been informative to do a little research to find out if Williams' offseason-long plan (again, this wasn't a default belief of the GM's, but what he's said all winter) is a pipe dream (i.e. guys in their 30s don't ever bounce back to average seasons without HGH, etc.) or a reasonable expectation? As long as Rogers was counting up at-bats for fellas who are no longer on the ballclub, couldn't he have projected (with his own brutal math, common sense, or with the aid of a million Web sites and formulas out there) what the White Sox offense should produce this season? I mean, Dr. Phil has only had all winter to figure this out. Clearly the man does own a calculator, although at times you wonder if it's only used as a paperweight.
If you're going to roast the White Sox GM (and even their innocent season ticketholders) for foolishly wanting to compete against those world-beating Wahoos and Bengals rather than opting for prudent and austere "rebuliding," shouldn't your due diligence be to prove WHY this is the smarter plan? I mean, I'm a fairly intelligent baseball fan and I truly don't know what the smarter direction is. We're supposed to believe that rebuilding is the wise choice because, what, Phil Rogers is the Tribune's baseball expert? He watches a lot of baseball? He likes the Wahoos a whole lot? It's Detroit's, Cleveland's, Kansas City's, Minnesota's and Cubbies' turn? What's the reasoning? And shouldn't real, live editors at the Tribune be asking these questions BEFORE such an incomplete article reaches readers?
It just goes to show: new ownership or no, when in doubt, the Tribune will criticize the White Sox first, and do the math later.
-- Brett BallantiniLabels: Chicago Tribune, paperweight calculator, Phil Rogers, pretzel logic, real live Tribune editors
