PDA

View Full Version : Womack's D



TOBTTReds
03-06-2006, 12:15 PM
One of the reasons Tony Womack is here has to be because of his defense (I hope considering his offensive abilities). But yesterday it sounded like had no idea what he was doing out there. He couldn't reach playable balls and dropped a catchable soft-line-drive (this is all according to Marty and Joe who were very upset about his play). Then I go to the Enquirer web site to see pictures and I see this from a run-down play.

I know it is only March 6. But these are plays that have to be made. Hopefully he turns it around soon or Freel is starting.

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 12:17 PM
I have no problem with Womack being on the team if he proves that he deserves it. Hopefully management will be willing to pay him to go home if it proves that he doesn't deserve to be here on merit. This club doesn't need more leaders, and veteran presence doesn't make a bad team good.

As of right now, I think Womack's greatest contribution could be as fodder for Marty...

Heath
03-06-2006, 12:20 PM
I know it is only March 6. But these are plays that have to be made. Hopefully he turns it around soon or Freel is starting.

I'm all in favor of Freel starting.

flyer85
03-06-2006, 12:23 PM
One of the reasons Tony Womack is here has to be because of his defense Womack is a below average defensive player at every position he might play, that is why Woemack is less than zero.

As John McKay might have said about him - He makes up for his lack of offense with his poor defense.

The title of this thread is an oxymoron.

lollipopcurve
03-06-2006, 12:40 PM
Womack will not make the team.

BRM
03-06-2006, 12:41 PM
As John McKay might have said about him - He makes up for his lack of offense with his poor defense.


Woemack is the rare breed of player that combines poor offense with poor defense. But hey, he's fast and can bunt!!

Heath
03-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Proof that there is no 'I' in team and no 'D' in Womack.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 12:59 PM
It appears one of our local columnists already has a case of man-love for Womack.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/SPT05/603060336/1035/SPT

Best bet at second
Womack has winning history

Column by The Post's Lonnie Wheeler

SARASOTA, Fla. - Of the 62 players in the Reds training camp, all but two lefties and a veteran catcher, it seems, are trying to win the starting second-base job. The smart money is on Tony Womack.

Other than an extra outfielder spot, and maybe the bunt sign, it's about the only thing to be determined here. But the suspense is killing no one.

It appears that the youngest candidates, Ray Olmedo and William Bergolla, aren't serious candidates. Rich Aurilia, who finished last season playing well at second, has started one Grapefruit game at third and another at shortstop. Duty could call him anywhere, as it so often does Ryan Freel. At 35, Frank Menechino has been a regular only once in his eight American League seasons.

Womack is a year older, and more thoroughly traveled and, it would seem, more thoroughly considered. His qualifications include running and winning, in either order.

In 2001, he started for the Arizona team that somehow won the World Series. He also started for the Cardinals when they went to the Series in 2004, and has been to the playoffs on three other occasions in the past five years, including last season with the Yankees.

All of this makes Womack, at 5 feet 9, sort of a sawed-off Reggie Sanders, with dirtier trousers. Less the home runs, of course. His last one was two Julys ago against the Reds' Todd Van Poppel, who never met a batter he couldn't turn into Harmon Killebrew.

There's one more thing Womack doesn't much of, which makes him persona non productive among the statistically fashionable. For all of the running he does - three straight times during the late '90s, he led the National League in stolen bases - he doesn't walk much.

"People just keep throwing stats in your face - like, this guy has a better on-base percentage," said Womack in the Reds' spring training clubhouse, where he dresses between Menechino and Jacob Cruz on Roster Spot Row. "Who cares about on-base percentage? It's a matter of where you go at the end of the year. I haven't been home after the end of the year in five out of the last seven years, and I don't plan on going this year.

"I don't play for those people. I play for me, and I play to help my team win and go to the postseason and become champions."

When Dan O'Brien traded for Womack in December, the word was that, like Freel, the veteran would provide speed and versatility, serving in as many as five spots. Feistiness wasn't mentioned, but Womack's large supply of it has him swinging hard for second base, with at least temporary disregard for other positions.

"I'm not an outfielder. I'm not a utility guy," he stated, in spite of having been both at various times, as well as a shortstop. "I'm just trying to win the second base job, and I don't think about anything else. I'll only think about something else if I don't win the job."

He won the same job with the Yankees last year, then, batting only .249, lost it to publicized rookie Robinson Cano. Womack was then recast as a general fill-in, but it failed to change his own sense of role.

"That's just the Yankees," he said. "They do whatever they want to do. Unfortunately, I was the odd man out.

"The Yankees took the year away from me, basically. That's how I felt. They took the year away, and it could have been done differently. I just had to deal with it. I dealt with it, and I'm here now and I'm smiling every day."

There's a pretty evident reason for that. Manager Jerry Narron's kind of player - a thinking veteran who handles his situations - matches up nicely with the scouting report on the little Virginian. It's probably no coincidence that Narron has already deployed Freel and Womack together at the top of his lineup.

If that would occur during the regular season, it would place Freel at third base or in the outfield. It would also tandem two breakneck players who are capable of stealing 100 bases between them.

"The Marlins did, it," Womack observed. "They had two speed guys (Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo) at the top of the big boys.

"Speed kills. You can't teach it. It makes it easier for the big boys below us. They don't have to worry about the 3-run homer all the time. Just manufacture a run and make it easier for the big boys to swing the bat. If it goes out, it goes out; but if it doesn't, we still have a chance to score a run."

The Reds last year scored runs in greater number than any other National League team; but it didn't follow that they, therefore, possessed the league's best offense. They were a big-bang team that could be too easily subdued on days when the balls weren't clearing the walls. The runs they scored were not win-effective.

Womack, on the other hand, has been that, if nothing else.

And there's an opening at second base. Do the math.

flyer85
03-06-2006, 01:02 PM
Anyone else like a sip of the DanO kool-aid? :KoolAid:

BRM
03-06-2006, 01:04 PM
There are so many things wrong with that article I don't know where to start.

pedro
03-06-2006, 01:04 PM
There are so many things wrong with that article I don't know where to start.


no kidding.

TRF
03-06-2006, 01:05 PM
oh

my

god.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 01:06 PM
Chip, you think that's man-love?

Wheeler throws out the OBP thing, lets Womack hilariously attempt to rebut, lets him get all Nerolike delusional about his role, etc.

Then he sarcastically states the factoid-plus-opinion about the offense, interjecting that, "Womack, on the other hand, has been that, if nothing else." Driving home the fact that the guy's been on good teams but basically sucks. Then he acknowledges that the guy will likely start anyway.

Personally, I thought it was a brilliantly done piece with a great double meaning. Read it again.

pedro
03-06-2006, 01:06 PM
"who cares about on base percentage?"

:help:

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 01:08 PM
Womack will make the team, he's a proven major leaguer and all that.

This organization has a weird fixation with past success.

flyer85
03-06-2006, 01:09 PM
"who cares about on base percentage?"

:help:obviously not the right people in the Reds organization.

pedro
03-06-2006, 01:09 PM
Chip, you think that's man-love?

Wheeler throws out the OBP thing, lets Womack hilariously attempt to rebut, lets him get all Nerolike delusional about his role, etc.

Then he sarcastically states the factoid-plus-opinion about the offense, interjecting that, "Womack, on the other hand, has been that, if nothing else." Driving home the fact that the guy's been on good teams but basically sucks. Then he acknowledges that the guy will likely start anyway.

Personally, I thought it was a brilliantly done piece with a great double meaning. Read it again.


yeah doc, I really didn't read it that way. I honestly get the impression that Wheeler thinks Womack should be starting at 2B.

flyer85
03-06-2006, 01:10 PM
This organization has a weird fixation with past success.I think you meant suck-cess.

BRM
03-06-2006, 01:10 PM
yeah doc, I really didn't read it that way. I honestly get the impression that Wheeler thinks Womack should be starting at 2B.

That's certainly how I read it.

M2
03-06-2006, 01:15 PM
Back to the original concern, Tony Womack is one of the worst defenders ever to put on a second basemen's mitt and now he's old - no arm, no range, no instincts, bad hands, can't turn the DP.

oneupper
03-06-2006, 01:18 PM
:( I read it and wept.

BRM
03-06-2006, 01:18 PM
Back to the original concern, Tony Womack is one of the worst defenders ever to put on a second basemen's mitt and now he's old - no arm, no range, no instincts, bad hands, can't turn the DP.

How do guys like this continue to find teams willing to give them a roster spot?

flyer85
03-06-2006, 01:18 PM
Back to the original concern, Tony Womack is one of the worst defenders ever to put on a second basemen's mitt and now he's old - no arm, no range, no instincts, bad hands, can't turn the DP.He is Pokey Reese minus power at the plate, and Soriano minus the arm in the field.

flyer85
03-06-2006, 01:19 PM
How do guys like this continue to find teams willing to give them a roster spot?Stupidty.:angry:

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 01:20 PM
I think you meant suck-cess.
He had 1 good year, same as Aurilia..the Reds think he'll repeat it

Foolish.

BRM
03-06-2006, 01:20 PM
He is Pokey Reese minus power at the plate, and Soriano minus the arm in the field.

He's faster than both of them...and he can play horrible defense at multiple positions. Those guys can only play one or two positions.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 01:21 PM
yeah doc, I really didn't read it that way. I honestly get the impression that Wheeler thinks Womack should be starting at 2B.

There can be a major difference between what Wheeler really thinks and what he believes will happen. I'm surprised no one else is picking this up. All Wheeler does is either a) criticize Womack or b) let Womack dig himself a hole by mouthing off. There's exactly one point of praise: Womack's teams have gone to the World Series. Lonnie knows that some readers (I won't even say most... it's the newspaper) are going to know it's a logic fallacy to believe that a player is good just because he was on a good team.

Sportswriters can't just slash and burn, or they lose their respect and access and people totally ignore them in the lunchroom. The best they can do is imply. Wheeler did a brilliant job of that in this piece.

Is there anyone else here who agrees with me? With the incredibly advanced level of sarcastic prowess we have on this board, it's odd that more people wouldn't recognize it when they see it handed to them.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 01:22 PM
Back to the original concern, Tony Womack is one of the worst defenders ever to put on a second basemen's mitt and now he's old - no arm, no range, no instincts, bad hands, can't turn the DP.

Other than that, he's great.

pedro
03-06-2006, 01:23 PM
I don't read Lonnie much, so I don't really have a sense of his style, but I see what you're saying and if true it really is a back handed slap at the the Reds as well as Womack.

Heath
03-06-2006, 01:28 PM
This organization has a weird fixation with past success.

Which doesn't exactly indicate future results.

Best thing to get Womack ran out of town is an 0-4 with 3 errors on opening day.

People around here tend to remember Opening Day like the 7th game of the World Series.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 01:28 PM
I don't read Lonnie much, so I don't really have a sense of his style, but I see what you're saying and if true it really is a back handed slap at the the Reds as well as Womack.

And that it is.

Wheeler isn't sarcastic as a profession, but for my money he's quite underrated. He gets overshadowed by Paul Daugherty's giant, hulking, everything-I-do-and-say-is-important ego.

Writers know that the Reds are going to do what they want to do regardless of what they say. So acknowledging what likely will happen should be distinguished from the writer's actual opinion.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 01:29 PM
"who cares about on base percentage?"

:help:

That ones going to be sent to BP for their The Week In Quotes.

savafan
03-06-2006, 01:43 PM
I read it the same way you did Doc. Great piece of writing, and sad because it is probably true. That OBP quote by Womack had me shaking my head.

M2
03-06-2006, 01:43 PM
He is Pokey Reese minus power at the plate, and Soriano minus the arm in the field.

Wow, that's pretty much an exact description of the guy.

Falls City Beer
03-06-2006, 01:53 PM
And that it is.

Wheeler isn't sarcastic as a profession, but for my money he's quite underrated. He gets overshadowed by Paul Daugherty's giant, hulking, everything-I-do-and-say-is-important ego.

Writers know that the Reds are going to do what they want to do regardless of what they say. So acknowledging what likely will happen should be distinguished from the writer's actual opinion.

While it certainly was a rather restrained endorsement of Womack, I'd hardly call it flat-out lampooning the guy. And if the article was taking measured jabs at the guy by including and redacting particular quotes, it was far too subtle for the masses, IMO. Perhaps you're reading your own cleverness into what Wheeler is incapable of, I don't know. If the sarcasm was code for the illuminated only, then Wheeler's much more skilled than I give him credit for.

But I will say, the praise was faint. So it's possible.

Roy Tucker
03-06-2006, 03:30 PM
He does have a point about what anyone should really care about is going to the post-season.

But I believer there is a correlation between good stats and winning ball games.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 03:50 PM
While it certainly was a rather restrained endorsement of Womack, I'd hardly call it flat-out lampooning the guy. And if the article was taking measured jabs at the guy by including and redacting particular quotes, it was far too subtle for the masses, IMO. Perhaps you're reading your own cleverness into what Wheeler is incapable of, I don't know. If the sarcasm was code for the illuminated only, then Wheeler's much more skilled than I give him credit for.

But I will say, the praise was faint. So it's possible.

I don't, as a rule, spend too much time overanalyzing sports-section articles. The tone just jumped out at me. And I was quite surprised when I came to RedsZone and saw everyone taking it all at face value. I would never call it a "flat-out lampoon", because the traditional press corps simply can't get away with that sort of thing (at least until someone leaves town, right?) under any circumstances.

Although I do find it hard to see how Wheeler wouldn't look at the selected quotes from Womack and say, "Gee, Joe Reds Fan is going to think this guy is sort of a jerk."

I also think that, thanks to Marty Brennaman, that even the most "uneducated" Reds fan knows that OBP is important to leadoff hitters. Of course, we all know it's important to all hitters, but Marty repeats over and over how important it is for that #1 hitter to get on base. So I credit the casual newspaper reader with that knowledge, at least. Therefore that person would see Wheeler's raised question as significant.

Whether the masses actually get the subtle jabs isn't of concern to me. I was thinking that more of the folks here would get them, though.

Falls City Beer
03-06-2006, 04:37 PM
I don't, as a rule, spend too much time overanalyzing sports-section articles. The tone just jumped out at me. And I was quite surprised when I came to RedsZone and saw everyone taking it all at face value. I would never call it a "flat-out lampoon", because the traditional press corps simply can't get away with that sort of thing (at least until someone leaves town, right?) under any circumstances.

Although I do find it hard to see how Wheeler wouldn't look at the selected quotes from Womack and say, "Gee, Joe Reds Fan is going to think this guy is sort of a jerk."

I also think that, thanks to Marty Brennaman, that even the most "uneducated" Reds fan knows that OBP is important to leadoff hitters. Of course, we all know it's important to all hitters, but Marty repeats over and over how important it is for that #1 hitter to get on base. So I credit the casual newspaper reader with that knowledge, at least. Therefore that person would see Wheeler's raised question as significant.

Whether the masses actually get the subtle jabs isn't of concern to me. I was thinking that more of the folks here would get them, though.

Satire (or sarcasm) is to me like a shark circling its victim--yes, for a while, it can hem and haw, hide its fin, nip, tug...but eventually, it's got to go for the kill to be effective. Not over the top, but it's got to make the lethal chomp.

Otherwise, it risks saying nothing ultimately. So, either Wheeler's not gutsy enough to go for the kill, or he's too subtle for his own good. I really think this is a case of projected genius, Doc.

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 04:48 PM
Of course, in the media if you "go for the kill" it might make for a great story, but it might also alienate you in the clubhouse. That thing which you kill might just be the hand that fed you.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 04:53 PM
Of course, in the media if you "go for the kill" it might make for a great story, but it might also alienate you in the clubhouse. That thing which you kill might just be the hand that fed you.

But Wheeler isn't a beat writer so that really shouldn't be a problem for him. Writers are more critical of players than that but that in and of itself shouldn't alienate you in the clubhouse.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 04:59 PM
Wheeler still needs access to Reds players and management, even if he's not traveling with the team the entire season.

It seems clear to me that Wheeler's line "Womack has certainly been that, if nothing else" is about as close to "going for the kill" as you can get without getting cold stares at the next press conference.

SteelSD
03-06-2006, 06:47 PM
"The Marlins did, it," Womack observed. "They had two speed guys (Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo) at the top of the big boys.

2003 Juan Pierre- .361 OBP
2004 Luis Castillo- .381 OBP

Tony, shut it.

BTW, I don't think there's any way Wheeler's article was an understated satire of Tony Womack. Early last season, I got into an email debate after Wheeler misrepresented the performance of Freel and Lopez at the top of the order and then misrepresented Jim Tracy's words in an article of his.

Without rehashing the entire exchange, let's just say that Lonnie Wheeler just doesn't get it. He's an "old-school", "smallball", "get 'em on/over/in", "don't K for goodness sakes", type. I figure he's actually giddy about who he thinks Tony Womack is. Problem is that's not who Tony Womack is, but good luck telling that to Lonnie Wheeler.

He and Buster Olney had to have shared an egg sack at some point.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 06:51 PM
Well, in good news, Womack was caught stealing *again* today.

"Speed kills." Yeah, rallies.

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 07:10 PM
But at least he tried.

I have a feeling if the bases were loaded and Dunn hit into a triple play that people would be happy because he didn't K

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 07:19 PM
We should take Womack's arrogance against him. Ask him how many bases he's stolen in a single game and how many errors has in ST this year. He might volunteer to back up Freel with that evidence on the table...

ochre
03-06-2006, 07:23 PM
We should take Womack's arrogance against him. Ask him how many bases he's stolen in a single game and how many errors has in ST this year. He might volunteer to back up Freel with that evidence on the table...
Why you want to hold him back man?

Now it's the Yankees and RedsManRick holding him back. Jeez.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 07:25 PM
RedsManRick is the coolest poster ever.

Candy Cummings
03-06-2006, 11:41 PM
Tony Womack is an absolute fool. How can you make the major leagues with so little an idea how? And yes, it Womack was the guy Wheeler thinks he is, then he might be OK. He's not. He's well below average.

Message: Speed isn't a bad thing. Nobody's against speed. But you have to get on base, first.

KronoRed
03-07-2006, 12:02 AM
We should take Womack's arrogance against him. Ask him how many bases he's stolen in a single game and how many errors has in ST this year. He might volunteer to back up Freel with that evidence on the table...
:lol:

A few years ago, I think it was Lenny Dykstra was in camp with someone and was having a horrible spring, but that didn't matter because, in his words he was a "proven major leaguer" who has earned the right to be bad in camp

I'd bet Tony would tell us the same.

Gainesville Red
03-07-2006, 01:54 AM
RedsManRick is the coolest poster ever.

Hey, now, let's not get into name calling.

But seriously, I came away from the article thinking this: Damn, Womack sounds pretty arrogant for not being that good.

savafan
03-07-2006, 02:58 AM
well, if it wasn't intentional sarcasm on Wheeler's part, then it was still a pretty damning article to the knowledgeable baseball fan.

RedsManRick
03-08-2006, 02:22 PM
For what it's worth, I got an email response from Lonnie Wheeler today from what I sent him Monday:

"Rick,

Good lord. I write ad infinitum about the problems of the Reds' pitching, then make one reference
to the holes in their offense, and folks like you come out of the woodwork with unsigned
complaints. No, I wasn't endorsing Womack's remarks. I was quoting him. That's journalism. And I wasn't
lobbying for him to play second base. I wrote that he probably will. And I wasn't saying that the
Reds' offense is their problem. I'm saying that they need to be able to manufacture runs on the
frequent days when the ball isn't flying out of the park. The Reds themselves have acknowledged that.

Lonnie Wheeler"

I emailed him back with some clarification and thanking him for actually responding. Obviously he wasn't too happy with my suggestion, but it was nice to get a real response from him.

flyer85
03-08-2006, 02:31 PM
"I'm saying that they need to be able to manufacture runs on the frequent days when the ball isn't flying out of the park. The Reds themselves have acknowledged that. - Lonnie Wheeler"
The real question is how would Woemack help to manufacture runs when he can't seem to find first base.

RedsManRick
03-08-2006, 02:51 PM
The real question is how would Woemack help to manufacture runs when he can't seem to find first base.

My response was as follows:

Fair enough. We certainly don't need another article pointing out the problems with pitching.
That's a given at this point.

I think the frustration in the fan community I participate in (which I was trying to convey) is
that there seems to be a prevailing thought that an increased ability to manufacture runs would
have had a meaningful impact on our won-loss record. Further, that even if the Reds would like to
manufacture runs on those occasions, Tony Womack specifically would not help us do that due to his
gross inability to get on base and inefficiency in utilizing his speed. This is particularly
frustrating when it appears that Ryan Freel, who is more capable of filling this supposed need,
will likely be relegated to backup roll and Womack given the starting nod, as you've pointed out.

I suppose my confusion is whether you were simply reporting that the Reds have decided they need
to manufacture runs and that Womack is their identified solution, or if you were actively agreeing
with their assessment and solution. That all said, I am most certainly not a journalist, and will
leave that to you. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my email. It's much appreciated.