Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) Some of you guys are amazing. Talk about coming in with an impenetrable bias. The guy has thrown 4 shutout innings, struck out 4, gotten it done WITH RUNNERS ON (one of his weak points), and is throwing his curveball without hanging it most of the time. And somehow, you make it into him looking terrible. I guess once you have all baseball players are incapable of improving in your eyes. Perfect he is not tonight, but he looks pretty darn good. My only concern, something I didn't really pay attention to until tonight... he is HORRIBLE at holding runners on. I mean, we all knew he pitched weakly in those scenarios, but he is as bad at allowing runners to lead and steal as Contreras. He is facing a lousy, lousy lineup tonight. Hawk was mocking them. He would not have these results against anything resembling a good lineup. And by my count he's given up two deep, deep shots that would've been gone in any other park. Good results, like I said, but he is definitely lacking tonight and his performance tonight doesn't inspire me to say, "I'd love to have him starting for a contender!"

The opposite to that is he's living in some people's living rooms and paying most of the rent around here because he's been oh-so-bad in the last 100+ innings and through this season but if he does good, he's just fulfilling "potential" and when he does bad it's just...what? Luck? A fluke? I don't know. Ozzie, maybe. Ozzie being bad to the young player. I posted what I think is an accurate assessment of his outing. Good END results that came from sloppy pitching, unimpressive command and fairly weak stuff tonight. Especially when you're "judging" Floyd based on what he does now you've got to look at more than what GameDay's line tells you.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 07:09 PM) Listen Tiger, if it was a curveball you might have a point. He threw a curveball the pitch before. The pitch he got Rayburn out on wasn't a curveball, unless Floyd's curveball now comes in at 85 MPH. His curveball is usually 81-82. It was either a big stupid rolling curveball he overthrew and didn't finish or a big stupid rolling changeup he overthrew and didn't finish. Looked like a curveball to me. Either way, he doesn't finish his pitches or consistently throw anything over.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 07:07 PM) Exactlly. Floyd is pitching pretty poorly, but the Tigers are making him look decent. I meant 81 MPH rolling curveball. Needless to say, I agree with you. Floyd just threw a filthy curve to Guillen for the K one batter and half an inning after throwing several ridiculously weak curveballs last time out. He's so, so inconsistent with the good but consistent with the bad.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 07:04 PM) Floyd just about took off Raburn's head and Raburn swung anyways on a 3-2 count. With a rolling eighty one MPH fastball. It was silly.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) At work tonight, have to follow on gameday. Analysis would be appreciated Like I just alluded to, Gavin let a curveball go that didn't curve and floated up toward Raburn at eighty one MPH and Raburn went around looking absolutely ridiculous on a pitch that there's absolutely zero reason to ever swing at. It's bases loaded with half a decent hitter there.

I'm not necessarily trying to mock Floyd. I genuinely wish he'd succeed, but he's not very good and the results here are there but the method just isn't. It's like copying your homework. That doesn't mean you've passed any tests. Take that last at-bat, for instance, to end the inning. The guy looked like an idiot swinging at a curveball that was around his neck. Listen Tiger, he's not Blyleven throwing a curveball at your head that's going to break into the strikezone. It was one that got away all the way and if you were half a decent hitter, you'd have never even thought of swinging at it.

Not to crap all over Floyd but he doesn't look too hot facing this terrible lineup. His pitches don't look that good, nor does his location. If this were a slightly better lineup, or if Ivan Rodriguez were a little more than half the man he used to be, he'd be in a huge hole. Even Hawk is ridiculing this offense.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) Is Donny Lucy supposed to be our eventual AJP replacement? Only if we want to be like the Astros. Which is a great compliment to Lucy, though it's not warranted as I doubt his defense is AS good as Ausmus'. Might be someday, though. Ah, Suzuki...to have either Suzuki...

What's contradictory? It's a complicated issue. He certainly has a great curveball one pitch out of twenty every other day. His mechanics are the biggest source of that because his motion is absolutely inconsistent. Sure, he lacks confidence, but his velocity isn't what it's advertised and his curveball can't be rated too great because he might throw it beautiful once or twice when given five dozen chances to throw it in a game. He's a lot of things but good isn't one of them.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) I think if that were the case, he'd be more erratic within each outing, from throw to throw. But he's not. He is erratic from outing to outing, indicating a problem with frame of mind. He is a head case. In plenty of outings you see him throw a curveball that flies over the catcher's head because he doesn't finish it or it slips out and then ten curveballs later he's got a beautiful curve a couple of times over and then boom, it's gone again. He's a headcase, sure, but his problem is mainly that his arm is nowhere near the power arm people thought it was, too. His stuff isn't as good as whatever Kenny William's scouting report says about him.

I still don't see what others see with the "arm" being there as if he's got exceptional stuff and if only -- if only -- he'd "focus" and "attack" he'd be good! No. He's a 91-93 MPH pitcher with an inconsistent motion and an inability to consistently finish his pitches as a result. His problems are mechanical, first, and confidence fifth.

You know who I have a huge problem with? Arianna Huffington. As I see it, she's an attention whore who loves to go to war against the incumbent political parties and I've especially disliked her since she hung out with Chalabi and asked him no significant questions. If she wants to rag on the press, she's got my intellectual backing but she can't criticize Tim Russert as an elitist insider when she's drinking wine with the man who may have betrayed American secrets to Iran, who she has been railing against, contrary to her public pronunciations on questioning officials of all realms. And I still remember her as Newt Gingrich's best friend. She had her own take on Craig's case and it greatly irritated me. From my blog: I wrote: You sure you don’t feel like that because your ex-husband was a closet Republican, Arianna? Remember that? And you didn’t care because he would let you run his campaign for the Senate on his behalf and he allowed you to debate his opponent for him, amIright? I think you’re projecting sweetheart. Let’s call it Freudian, eh? (Her criticism is weak, also, because there were definitely plenty of policemen to go around. The airport didn’t go unprotected because someone was in the bathroom waiting for someone looking for unprotected sex inside of a stall.) -- I just -- it bothers me. The idea that Craig did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been detained. The excuses made for him. The defenses and the various reasons for them. There is no defense for what he did. And I'm not in favor of criminalizing human sexuality. But I am definitely in favor of arresting people who have sex in public restrooms (though not, of course, for something crazy like twenty year prison sentences or something). I'm definitely in favor of detaining people who go through specific, well-known mating rituals (in this case Gay Bathroom Sex, in others of course there are all sorts of rituals) and telling them, "Hey, you can't do that here. This is a public restroom. We've got complaints. We need to keep this clean. f***ing children come in here, man." That's why I don't s*** in public restrooms.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) I'm still a little confused about this. As far as I can tell, the "disorderly" part is because of the way he asked for sex, not the fact that he asked for it. I was under the impression that he was charged, basically, for annoying/alarming the guy in the next stall. While if he simply went up to someone and asked for sex, point blank, the asking wouldn't be illegal -- only the act that might follow the asking. Right or wrong? I believe that's right and I think there's some invasion of privacy in there, too. -- Spoke today to a friend of mine who was a Republican state congressman years ago but still has a lot of contacts in the GOP and recently spent some time at an education conference with Jeb Bush, among others. He told me that "everyone knows" about Craig's "orientation." "I figured," I said, "as that type of thing is not secret in politics amongst the politicians." Not that there's anybody here confused about his orientation or whether this was a one-time "mistake."

Unless I'm really mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- he wasn't busted for solicitation, at least not legally.

Where some take solace in the "He was good this year" part of the article, I take his lack of a breaking ball and College numbers and the tougher leagues coming into consideration. No, really. I'm not trying to be a downer with regard to Poreda. He seems alright and I really hope he develops a good breaking pitch. Will he? I don't know that I trust this organization to teach him a good one. In fact, if I had to bet I'd bet that he turns into Matt Thornton. But I still wish him the best and really, really hope he develops other pitches.

Keep going, Milwaukee. Win this thing.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) I would agree of course, the reason I brought it up was if choosing Poreda was a by product of sr. mgmt. telling the scouting staff to pick players who might have a higher ceiling, I like it. Plus I think taking left handed pitching, within reason, is a good idea. Within reason means, no Wes Whislers.

Well, yeah, but that's not saying much.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:28 PM) More and More, the Tigers look to be the 2006 Sox, without the ring of course... Yeah, I never liked that team or its core.

Who projected him as a first round draft choice besides us? I doubt the Braves would've taken him in the first round. I doubt anybody would've except perhaps Oakland because they liked him, too, but I've never heard that they WOULD have taken him first round. He wasn't first round material except for us. He can be a great player, perhaps. Good for him if he is and I'm rooting for him. Seems he's alright through the lower levels but his College stats aren't that impressive and I still don't believe he's a first round draft choice.

I believe in selecting the higher ceiling. I believe Poreda represents lousy principles ("draft slots..." "no Boras..." "no big money..." "safety"). Poreda might be hot now, but I'm not jumping all over his bandwagon though I do like him a little.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 07:57 PM) You'd sure hate some of the other managers around the league then. I posted earlier in this thread as to how many White Sox players have exceeded expectations this year. For pitchers I came up with Jenks and possibly Wasserman (because Wasserman made the majors despite being a major underdog). Another poster said Vazquez which I mildly quibbled with as I felt Vazquez is merely meeting some long term expectations. It's tough to look good when 80% of your pitching staff is basically underachieving and not doing the job. Lest someone suggest I think Guillen is the be all end all, I don't. I question some of his outbursts and wearing his heart on his sleeve all the time. Granted that's his personality but I believe some of that stuff can backfire. Also I am concerned with all the hit and runs he does when he has players who strike out a lot. Just tonite it backfired twice. I understand trying to make things happen but he has the wrong players for what he's trying to do sometimes. It's not his fault that all his players lack in the Fundamentals! department.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 07:15 PM) I usually agree with your baseball stuff, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. Then you can go straight to hell for practicing witchcraft and blasphemy! But seriously...he doesn't let their pitch count get crazy, protects Danks, does a fair enough job righty-lefty (old-school, to a point, but not bad) and works hard to let his pitchers know that he has their trust and support and they support and trust him.

He wasn't charged with soliciting sex, if I'm not mistaken. He was busted for invasion of privacy and given misdemeanors, but they'd have been well within reason to bust him for solicitation as k masterfully points out.