Lillian

QUOTE (103 mph screwball @ Sep 3, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) Improvement in my eyes would be Gordon playing at a level below what we expected but a solid hitter. It would be Dunn hitting .240 with 30+ HR. Rios could get his head out of his behind and play somewhat close to his career averages with some defense. Improvement would be whichever young guys that do end up sticking with the club next year do NOT REGRESS! Have we had a young hitter that did not get worse? KW needs to stick because despite the major mistakes with Dunn, Rios, and Peavy, they seemed like good moves that were made to take the Sox to a higher level. Bold moves! They did not work out and that is a problem. However, KW continuously pulls guys out of nowhere like Humber, Thornton, Alexie, and TCQ which helps to average out the times when he swings for the fences and fails. I contend that KW's "guys" would be better with new coaches. Why? Because almost everyone that comes here that swings a stick tends to get worse. Is that always KW's bad judgement? Swisher seems OK now. I'd be willing to bet my Sox cap that Dunn would find his swing if he went somewhere else. We are stuck with those guys whatever guy we bring in for GM. Let's see what new coaching can do. It's hard to argue with that. Very good point, and well stated.

There's the de Aza pinch hit double off the right hander. I'm vindicated!!!

Finally. A nice at bat for Rios. Good for him. It's about time he came through. I wasn't watching the game, but listening, and didn't realize there was a lefty pitching. I thought the RHP was still in there. That makes the suggestion to pinch hit de Aza for Rios not valid.

Nevermind. He's letting Rios hit. Guaranteed out.

Ozzie better pinch hit de Aza for Rios vs the right hander

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) What is worth pointing out again on Flowers and De Aza is that these guys don't need to be all stars. They don't need to put up 1.000+ OPS numbers. De Aza has good speed, plays good defense, and so far hits the ball with authority. His numbers are going to come down a bit from here, he's not this good, but with what he's doing right now there's no reason he can't be a .280 hitter with some moderate pop. His walk rate right now is 1/2 of what it was in Charlotte, so there is still some work to be done here, but a guy who could leadoff, play good defense, be cheap, and give a .750ish OPS would be a substantial upgrade from expensive 50% CS rate Juan Pierre. Flowers is sorta the same boat. He's not going to keep up this batting average with that number of strikeouts, but he's taking walks, his strikeout rate isn't "THAT" much worse than it was in the minors, and when he hits the ball he hits it with authority. There's no reason he can't put up an .800 OPS out of the catcher's spot while being cheap. Of course, none of the youngsters will likely continue at their current torrid pace, . It is however, encouraging to see them demonstrate that they can contribute at the Major League level. I agree with you in that they don't need to be All Stars. The Sox only need Flowers and de Aza to not represent more holes in the lineup. Viciedo, on the other hand, will likely need to be a Star, and I think he will be.

I was searching for de Aza's split OBP at Charlotte in 2010, and finally found it in an old post of mine from last winter. His OBP was .420 vs. RHP. Combine that with this year's AAA split stats vs. RHP of .393 OBP, to go along with his .330 Battng Avg. and .532 Slugging, and you have to be impressed. I've said for a couple of years now that he is a very good hitter vs. RHP, and he is demonstrating that at the Big League level. His MLB numbers may be a small sample size, but we should only be looking to see if he can translate his very good and consistent Minor League numbers to the Majors, and so far he is doing that. Remember he hit .300 when he was called up last year, and he's doing it again. Basically, he has been a .300 hitter at every level for 3 years now. I honestly don't know what there is about him that anyone could dislike, except that he is not a big power hitter. However, that is not his game. He should be a terrific lead off hitter, especially vs. RHP. I hope that he is given that spot next year, and I'll be very interested to see how he does, especially compared to Pierre. I love JP's work ethic, but he doesn't have the tools that de Aza has, and now that he seems to have slowed down a step, Juan isn't even a great base stealer. It will really be nice to see de Aza up there with men on base, knowing that he can drive the ball to the gap, or at least hit a sacrifice fly. Even though I'd like to see the Sox dump that Rios contract, they would have a very good defensive outfield with both de Aza and Rios out there. If they do decide to trade Quentin, an outfield of de Aza, Rios and Viciedo would be fine. But I'd really prefer the offense that Quentin, de Aza and Viciedo would give them. With de Aza leading off, and both Quentin and Viciedo in the middle of the line up with Paulie, this team could be so much better than this year's offense. Dunn is the key. He must rebound, and provide that one, lone left handed presence that has been so badly missing since Thome left.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 29, 2011 -> 11:36 PM) I obviously don't have a trained eye. But you can look at Dayan's skillset and be confident that he has a better chance to succeed long-term than somebody like De Aza or Flowers. The guy has done nothing but rake for a year and a half now and his BB rate has improved dramatically. Score one for KW and Co., and you know that means something coming for me, for identifying and signing this guy. Now we've already dropped the ball as far as waiting this long (and he'd still be in the minors had CQ not gotten hurt) to call him up. He should be in the lineup EVERY game from here on out. I don't think that any of us who like de Aza think that he has anything close to the potential bat of Viciedo. They're completely different players. However, de Aza has tools that Viciedo doesn't. His speed and defensive ability make him a potential lead off hitter to replace Pierre next season.

I'm curious, and please don't misinterpret my motive here. I'm not trying to say "I told you so", as it's much too early to draw any conclusions. However, for those of you who were so certain that de Aza was nothing more than a "AAAA" player, or a "4TH outfielder", have you changed your minds about his ability to play and contribute, on a regular basis, at the Big League level? I personally have always liked his skill set. He's a good outfielder, with speed and a good arm. He hustles, has some pop and just plays the game the way that I like to see it played. He has really been sensational vs. RHP, the last two seasons at AAA, and seems to be able to translate that skill to the Majors. Next season, I'd like to see a Lillibridge/de Aza platoon in Left, if either Quentin or Rios is gone. If the Sox could only unload that Rios contract, I'd love an outfield of Viciedo in Left, a platoon of de Aza and Lillibridge in Center, and Quentin in Right. What do you guys see in de Aza, and what do you think of the platoon idea?

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Aug 29, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) You don't think it's revisionist to assume that De Aza and Viciedo would have necessarily had a positive impact in our lineup at any time you wanted to insert them? You don't think it's also revisionist to assume that moving another player up in the order would have only had a positive effect? My point was that this team is 12 over .500 over its last 98 games. Not good enough for most, I realize, but I couldn't have imagined them realistically winning too many more games than 55 out of 98. It's also possible that more time in the minors actually led to De Aza and Viciedo being more prepared for the majors, hence translating into their recent production. Perhaps you are missing a couple of points. First, if the team is 12 over .500 in the last 98 games, what do you suppose the record would be if it hadn't had the worst hitter in the history of baseball hitting in the middle of the order, for most of those games? Second, it's about accountability. Is a player assured of playing time, no matter how badly he performs, just because his team made the mistake of overpaying him? Is management given a pass simply because the player didn't perform, and therefore there is nothing that they are expected to do to cope with the situation?

The fact is that the Sox are 5TH in the League in ERA, but near last in baseball in runs scored. With any kind of average production from Rios and Dunn, there is little doubt that this team would be considerably better than one game above .500. I don't care what the record was early, or what it has been since. The reality is that these two players, making big money, hitting in, or near, the heart of the order, have been unbelievably bad. I understand that management was reluctant to bench high priced players with good career numbers, but they waited much too long to make changes, when there were other options available in the organization. Both de Aza and Viciedo were putting up great numbers at AAA. There was no accountability regarding the players, and now there seems to be no accountability for management, in the eyes of those who have no problem with the way this situation was handled. For my part, I wouldn't spend a dime on tickets to watch this fiasco. That's my way of holding the organization accountable.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Aug 28, 2011 -> 09:38 PM) But I'm sure that between Rios & Dunn there were very easily 1 or 2 games we would have won if DeAza, Lillibridge, or Viciedo were getting at bats instead of having an uninspiring 0 for 4. There is no question that the Sox would have won several games with almost anyone playing in place of Rios, and especially Dunn. Take all of the losses by a run or two, and we had to have won many of those games with anyone putting up just average Major League offensive production. The black hole that Dunn represented, right in the heart of the order, was damaging in several ways. Not only did he fail to produce, but he robbed the middle of the order of a "presence" which could have protected the hitter in front of him. It was clear, very early on that he was not a hitter to be feared. That meant that no opposing manager ever had to worry about match ups. He was the only significant left handed bat in the lineup, and most teams knew that he was an "automatic" out.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Aug 28, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) It's very important for '12 and onward to get Dunn hitting. He needs to be playing every day and hitting in front of Konerko to see if he can get pitches he can handle. I agree with you, assuming that the organization has given up entirely on this season. If they still think that this team has a remote shot at post season play, do you really want him batting in the middle of the order?

I would sit him the rest of the year, on the pretense that they want to see what Viciedo can do on a regular basis. Next, I would tell him to play Winter Ball. That way there would be a legitimate opportunity for him to demonstrate that he has reacquired the hitting skills which he has mysteriously lost. That would be a much better basis upon which to proceed next Spring. It would also showcase him for a possible trade. No team is going to take him based upon reports that he is in "great shape", and hitting the ball really well, off a tee!!! If he fails to produce in Winter Ball, and Spring Training, they should sit him at the beginning of next year. I don't care how much money they're paying him, there is no reason to sabotage the entire season just because they made a bad investment.

The Sox were just two injuries away from having had a pretty decent season. I'm not talking about two injuries that kept players off the field, but two injuries that needed to happen, but never did. If only Rios and Dunn had gotten hurt and gone on the DL, players like Viciedo, de Aza and Lillibridge might have had enough playing time to erase the total black holes that Dunn and Rios represented.

QUOTE (elgonzo4sox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) This thread is interesting but I'll return to the original topic, the physics of Dunn's swing, to offer my view. I think the physics of his swing are a huge contributor to his problems. The solutions are easy (see below) if Dunn were a kid or instructable, but since he is a veteran with many prior seasons of success, I don't know if Dunn's problems can be fixed. The Sox are not trying the solutions you'd use with a kid. You are absolutely right - Dunn has possibly the longest swing in the major leagues, measuring the total distance traveled by the end of his bat from the start of his swing through the hitting zone (follow through doesn't matter because once the bat leaves the hitting zone nothing more can happen). He's very tall, has long arms, stands away from the plate (unlike Q), uses a long bat, holds it at the knob, and swings with full arm extension. He starts with the bat way back and swings in a huge on-plane arc. Dunn's swing is properly termed a "long" swing. Some people mistakenly say Dunn's bat is slow, because it takes him so long to get his bat from the starting position through the hitting zone (and yes, this is indeed a huge problem for Dunn). However, "bat speed" refers to the speed of the bat as measured when it is in the hitting zone. Dunn's bat speed is plenty high when it is in the hitting zone, which is why he can hit 450 foot home runs if/when he actually makes contact. Dunn also waggles the bat downward (below horizontal) at the start of the swing, a "signature" move that is nearly as bad as Rios's hands-held-low stance, because it means they have to get the bat out of this poor position when they start their swings, which also takes time. Dunn and Rios would say their signature moves are for their comfort and timing purposes, but I would say that moving out of those positions determines the start of their swing, so they've lengthened their swings. A super long swing like Dunn's has only one benefit: when he connects solidly with the ball, the bat speed is great and the ball goes a long distance. It has multiple drawbacks, some obvious, some less so: -- The most obvious drawback is the amount of time it takes to get Dunn's bat into the hitting zone. The longer this time, the earlier Dunn has to make the decision to swing at a pitch, and the earlier Dunn has to judge where the ball is going to be when the ball enters the hitting zone. The result: many more swings and misses, or swings and fouls, or swings and weirdly hit balls that spin wildly into the field of play - and far fewer balls that are hit solidly (one can argue that every time Dunn hits a ball solidly that it should go over the fence, so he's only hit 10 balls solidly so far this season). -- This also creates a huge hole in Dunn's swing: he becomes very susceptible to pitchers with deceiving off-speed stuff, because Dunn has to decide very early to swing. Pitchers know this, and can easily set Dunn up, as CC Sabathia did three times last night, by striking Dunn out on outside sliders nearly in the dirt which Dunn missed by a foot because he had already decided to swing very early in the pitch. -- Dunn's swing is also completely on-plane, which is good for generating bat speed but bad for adjusting to how the pitch is coming towards the plate - in fact he doesn't adjust at all. If the ball isn't exactly where Dunn thought it was going to be when he started his swing, he has 0% chance of hitting it. Many, many other hitters are able to follow the ball to a certain degree and try to make contact - in fact this is exactly what good contact hitters do, sometimes by even throwing their bat at the ball if the hit-and-run is on - but they sacrifice bat speed to do this adjustment during the swing. -- Dunn never varies his swing no matter what the count or the game situation. He doesn't shorten his swing with two strikes. He doesn't try to go to the opposite field when the shift is on. He swings one way, all the time, every time. The opposing pitcher and defense know this, and take advantage of it by putting on the shift. For connoisseurs of hitting, the contrast between Dunn and a good power hitter like Paulie is night and day. Dunn's swing is a simple-minded power swing that never varies. Paulie is a much smarter hitter with completely different mechanics and much better results. Paulie is often able to work the count into his favor by making better judgments on what pitches to swing at, which gets him into more hitter's fastball counts. If behind, Paulie adjusts his swing to try to go to the opposite field or take what the pitcher gives him. AJ also adjusts well to the count, the game situation and the pitch, and he able to get more hits because of his adjustments. Dunn neither adjusts for the count or the game situation (by changing the stance or swing he decides to use) or during the pitch (by changing the bat path during the swing to make better contact). I coach kids, and the solutions to Dunn's problems are easy: 1. SHORTEN THE SWING. Get rid of the waggle. Try starting with the bat 1/4th of the way towards the plate from Dunn's current starting position and only move the bat forward, never backward. Stand closer to the plate and choke up, especially with two strikes. Don't swing for the fences. Watch the ball and move the bat to meet the ball as the ball comes towards the plate. There's no way to turn Adam Dunn into Rod Carew, and these changes will decrease bat speed and power. Dunn doesn't need to do all of these, but he should try some of them to certain degrees. 320 foot home runs into the right field porch at Yankee Stadium count every bit as much as 450 foot ones and are actually better, since a shorter swing gives you a better chance of actually connecting and hitting the ball 320 feet instead of 450. It's been four months, and if there have been any changes or adjustments to Dunn's swing, I haven't seen them. 2. REDUCE THE PRESSURE ON DUNN BY BATTING HIM LOWER IN THE LINEUP AND SITTING HIM AGAINST PITCHERS HE HAS TROUBLE WITH (i.e. lefties). When you're struggling, the added pressure of coming to the plate in key game situations with men on base and a skeptical crowd aggravates the hitter's struggles. No Little League, high school, college or even AAA manager would continue to bat Dunn in the cleanup position after four months of nearly constant struggles and no signs of improvement. So why aren't the Sox doing any of this? I think the Sox and Dunn are afraid to make any fundamental swing changes for fear of causing greater problems (which is hard to imagine) and for fear of losing Dunn's power. Instead the approach taken by Dunn and Greg Walker has been to try to tweak things (like balance) to try to get Dunn back to the ideal Adam Dunn simple-minded long power swing that worked in the past. It's been four months, and it hasn't worked yet. Every single pitcher in the AL knows Dunn is struggling, and they are taking advantage of it. I think the Sox are also afraid of the hit to Dunn's psyche if Ozzie were to bat him lower in the lineup. Yes confidence is very important in hitting and a necessary component of even being able to stand in a batter's box while Justin Verlander throws 100 mph fastballs within a foot of your torso. But I think Dunn has proven that he doesn't react well to pressure (all his prior success has been on second-tier NL teams with zero expectations for winning), so I would move to reduce the pressure and give him the opportunity to start building up some confidence by having some minor successes. I wish the Sox and Dunn would change something. Right now I fear we're doomed for another month of Dunn's struggles until Viciedo finally comes up when the rosters expand, and then Ozzie will finally sit Dunn a little bit. Thank you for your very thoughful and well written post. Also, thank you for bringing the thread back to the original topic I intended.

This topic speaks volumes about the issue of accountability, which we've addressed in other threads. Where was the hitting coach, for the last 4 months? We could all see how terrible Rios' mechanics were, and the results provided pretty good evidence that our perceptions were valid. The coaching staff had to see the same thing. Why wouldn't they insist that Alex change his approach, or take a seat on the bench? And I don't mean for one game, but rather until he changed his approach. That would have been holding a player accountable, and not doing so demonstrates a lack of accountability on the part of the coaching staff, as well. Moreover, if Walker went to Ozzie and told him that Alex wouldn't follow his advice, and Ozzie continued to play him anyway, then he should have been held accountable. How do all of these professional baseball people let something like this go this long before somebody says; "hey, we've got to do something here"? The whole thing disgusts me, and really makes me lose confidence and interest in this organization. I'm ready for some changes. Fire somebody already!!!

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 6, 2011 -> 09:43 PM) No. I still don't believe in De Aza. He is a perfectly capable 4th OF, and I'd like him to stay there, but I'd never want him in a starting position if I could help it. Well, I suspect de Aza will be the lead off hitter next year, replacing Pierre. I sure hope so, at least vs. RHP. He can do a lot more things than Juan.

Do those of you who asserted that de Aza was a AAAA player have a little different assessment yet? I love his hustle and the tools he brings to the game. He has always struck me as a guy who could play, if given a chance.

DUH!!!!!!!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 06:17 PM) We should make a list of players who suddenly hit the brick wall and were terrible like Dunn. 1.) Steve Sax. 2.) Carlton Fisk suddenly couldn't catch the ball behind the plate and was finally done. Although to be fair he was probably 55 years old at the time. 3.) Dan Pasqua with the White Sox. 4.) Bobby Bonds with the White Sox. Those are my starters. Yes, but can you think of an instance where two players both completely forgot how to hit? All of those examples were guys way past their primes, except Sax. It is very rare, I'm sure.

All of your thoughtful comments are appreciated. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that Dunn become a slap hitter. My point is that he is big enough and strong enough to hit home runs even if he were to cut down on the length of his swing. The reference to smaller players is simply to point out the fact that a short guy, with short arms, has an inherently shorter arc to his swing, and thus will be quicker owing to the shorter distance his bat travels through the arc of the swing. Given the same bat speed, his swing is quicker because the arc is shorter. I suppose that Dunn's homers wouldn't go quite as far with that approach, but they don't give extra points for distance, do they? Dunn has the power to cause what would be another player's fly out, to go over the fence. His first priority should be to do everything he can to make contact. The homers would come. Look at Konerko. He's not a huge man, but he is short and quick, and the results are very productive. It just seems foolish, and counter productive for a big man to take a big long swing. It isn't necessary, and it doesn't produce a better result, save the occasional tape measure home run.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) If the PED's helped Bonds maintain bat speed, generate power, and improved vision/reaction time as he aged (and they did), then yes, they're very relevant in the discussion, because those are possible issues that Dunn may be dealing with. Yes, I agree. However, I maintain that if Bonds had also employed a long swing, that the result would not have been as positive. Moreover, Dunn is taller than Bonds, and therefore his swing is inherently longer, to begin with. Look fellas, I'm just seeking clarity here. 1) Is a shorter swing more effective or not? I believe that it is generally accepted that a shorter and quicker swing results in more contact. 2) Isn't the length of the swing determined in part by the length of the swing's arc? That is also not in dispute, as far as I know. 3) Does choking up on the bat also afford a hitter better bat control, resulting in more contact? 4) Shouldn't contact be the most important objective for a guy with issues regarding being able to put the bat on the ball? If the answer to these questions is yes, then I don't see how Dunn wouldn't benefit from such a change in his approach to hitting. One thing is certain. What he has been doing is not working well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) Barry Bonds also was composed more of tetrahydrogestrinone than man. Is that really relevant in this discussion? I would contend that if Bonds had approached hitting in the same manner as Dunn, with a long swing, and long arc, that it would have produced a similarly ineffective result. Big strong guys can generate enough power. PEDS are not necessary to generate bat speed for a strong guy like Dunn. Wouldn't he benefit by being shorter and quicker with his swing? That is the question. If the answer is yes, then it follows that two of the ways to get shorter and quicker are to choke up and simultaneously reduce the length of the swing.

Barry Bonds choked up, and it didn't seem to stop him from hitting homers at a prodigious rate. Yes, Dunn has always used a long bat and held it at the knob. He has also always struck out at an extraordinarily high rate. My point is that big guys like him should want to make more contact, as their natural size and strength will result in lots of homers, if they can just connect with the ball. The ball can't leave the yard, if the hitter can't put the bat on it!!!!!!!!! If a little guy like Pedroia can hit the ball out, it hardly seems necessary for a guy Dunn's size to have such a long swing. Pedroia's success is in part attributable to the same principle. He is very short, and the arc of his swing is therefore correspondingly short. He can wait longer to recognize the pitch before commiting, because the arc of his swing is short.