PDA

View Full Version : Stupid quote by Tony Womack



OnBaseMachine
03-06-2006, 02:05 PM
And a stupid article by Lonnie Wheeler.

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.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/SPT05/603060336/1027

RedsBaron
03-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Yes, a stupid quote (actually more than one) from Woemack and a stupid article from Wheeler. :bang: :thumbdown

OnBaseMachine
03-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Who cares about on-base percentage?

Yeah Tony, who cares about OBP? I mean, why should we care about the most important offensive stat. The stat that represents how ofton you get on base and help your team scores runs and win games.


Speed kills

What good is speed when you suck and can't get on base to utilize that speed?


The runs they scored were not win-effective.

You're right, Lonnie. The offense was the reason they didn't win many games last year. The pitching had nothing to do with it.

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 02:18 PM
I bet Narron loves those quotes

Grady little too ;)

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 02:18 PM
Somebody needs to explain to Mr. Womack that speed can't kill when you're sitting on the bench. Furthermore, just because you're not the guy on base, doesn't mean our sluggers shouldn't be taking a balanced approach. If they are taking the wrong approach, we need to fix them. You are not the solution to their problem.

Also, explain to him that the reason the Yankees made the post season (not going home...) is because they were smart enough to bench him in favor of Cano...

Red Leader
03-06-2006, 02:19 PM
The runs they scored were not win-effective.


That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. :rolleyes:

kaldaniels
03-06-2006, 02:24 PM
This may not be popular, but I have to defend Womack...how many times to you hear a player diss individual acheivements due to team failure, i.e. "I don't care about my MVP, I just want to get us a championship, etc."

I think it was in that vain that Womack was speaking that's all. Lets not jump all over the guy for this. All he was saying was he wants Cincy in the postseason, nothing else.

RFS62
03-06-2006, 02:45 PM
Wheeler and Womack are a match made in heaven.

Dumb and dumber.

BCubb2003
03-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Didn't Steel or WOY show that the Reds' league-leading runs were actually well-balanced? If so, we need to politely and firmly refute this notion that the runs weren't "win-effective." It can't be allowed to stand as the "everybody knows" public mindset that these things get turned into.

RFS62
03-06-2006, 02:56 PM
Didn't Steel or WOY show that the Reds' league-leading runs were actually well-balanced? If so, we need to politely and firmly refute this notion that the runs weren't "win-effective." It can't be allowed to stand as the "everybody knows" public mindset that these things get turned into.


Yeah, it's pretty amazing to make a statement like that with no backup or source for his opinion.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 02:58 PM
And there's an opening at second base. Do the math.

Why?

We're not even speaking the same language.

Doc. Scott
03-06-2006, 02:58 PM
I don't want to be a broken record, but I have a differing opinion as to the meaning of this piece. I think most of you are failing to recognize Wheeler's sarcasm.

Try the thread in ORG called "Womack's D".

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=898987&postcount=13

IowaRed
03-06-2006, 03:00 PM
not only is Tony Womack an awful baseball player, he appears to be delusional
"The Yankees took the year away from me, basically" Really Tony, you suck and lost your position to a younger, more talented, player with a much higher ceiling, who put up much better numbers? Yeah, the Yankees really screwed you :rolleyes:

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 03:06 PM
This may not be popular, but I have to defend Womack...how many times to you hear a player diss individual acheivements due to team failure, i.e. "I don't care about my MVP, I just want to get us a championship, etc."

I think it was in that vain that Womack was speaking that's all. Lets not jump all over the guy for this. All he was saying was he wants Cincy in the postseason, nothing else.

It looked to me like he was saying "I'm a good player because I've been on good teams."

Of course, he then also railed the Yankees for benching him. I think he missed the logical disconnect there. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

TheGARB
03-06-2006, 03:09 PM
He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

What else would you do with cake? :D

Come to think of it, maybe we should let Womack have his cake. Lots and lots of cake so that he gets fat and Narron will cut him. "No, Tony, please help yourself to a 2nd slice. Would you like some ice cream with that?"

ochre
03-06-2006, 03:14 PM
I don't care about OBP either, as long as the person only makes outs around 60-65% of their Plate appearances.

Wheelhouse
03-06-2006, 03:20 PM
I don't know how "stupid" Womack's quote is. Pete Rose did not have the best stats of any player ever -- stat fanatics would take Ted Williams over Rose on their team. I wouldn't. Guess I'm stupid. There are such things as winning players. George Foster spoke of the Mets team he first joined after the Reds and in describing the difference said that the Reds "knew how to win baseball games." This involves a unified, team approach to the game, players knowledge of each other, a vigorous appetitie for practice, a heavy spirit of competition with opponents and each other, and consistency. Do the SABR junkies know how CENTRAL all this is to winning championships? It doesn't seem so. I'm not saying there is not a place for stats, but it seems it gets to fundamentalist extremism on this board, especially when alternate points of view are described as "stupid" or "he sucks" (on base machine's interpretation of Narron saying Aurilia "knows how to play the game".) I think some of the stats people need to chill.

ochre
03-06-2006, 03:26 PM
When on offense, outs are bad. I don't need statistics to tell me that. People who make more than their fair share of outs generally suck. That too is independent of statistics. I would take Ted Williams over Pete Rose, that too, largely independent of statistics.

SABR is the Society for American Baseball Research. That's independent of statistics as well. Their 'junkies' probably read more books than statistics.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 03:29 PM
I don't know how "stupid" Womack's quote is. Pete Rose did not have the best stats of any player ever -- stat fanatics would take Ted Williams over Rose on their team. I wouldn't. Guess I'm stupid. There are such things as winning players. George Foster spoke of the Mets team he first joined after the Reds and in describing the difference said that the Reds "knew how to win baseball games." This involves a unified, team approach to the game, players knowledge of each other, a vigorous appetitie for practice, a heavy spirit of competition with opponents and each other, and consistency. Do the SABR junkies know how CENTRAL all this is to winning championships? It doesn't seem so. I'm not saying there is not a place for stats, but it seems it gets to fundamentalist extremism on this board, especially when alternate points of view are described as "stupid" or "he sucks" (on base machine's interpretation of Narron saying Aurilia "knows how to play the game".) I think some of the stats people need to chill.

Pete Rose had a career OBP of .375.

Strikes Out Looking
03-06-2006, 03:30 PM
Actually, there is no opening at 2b as far as I'm concerned. Ryan Freel is the Reds second baseman.

Unfortunately, DanO didn't agree with me and Narron seems to think that he has to stick with DanO's mistake.

This whole issue is my biggest peeve with the Reds this year--I'm madder about this than the (lack of) starting pitching.

pedro
03-06-2006, 03:31 PM
Yeah, that Ted Williams he wasn't any good because he didn't win any World Series. That's the ticket.

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 03:32 PM
I don't know how "stupid" Womack's quote is. Pete Rose did not have the best stats of any player ever -- stat fanatics would take Ted Williams over Rose on their team. I wouldn't. Guess I'm stupid. There are such things as winning players. George Foster spoke of the Mets team he first joined after the Reds and in describing the difference said that the Reds "knew how to win baseball games." This involves a unified, team approach to the game, players knowledge of each other, a vigorous appetitie for practice, a heavy spirit of competition with opponents and each other, and consistency. Do the SABR junkies know how CENTRAL all this is to winning championships? It doesn't seem so. I'm not saying there is not a place for stats, but it seems it gets to fundamentalist extremism on this board, especially when alternate points of view are described as "stupid" or "he sucks" (on base machine's interpretation of Narron saying Aurilia "knows how to play the game".) I think some of the stats people need to chill.

Until you show that
a.) 50 points of OBP is worth a "team approach.. and a heavy spirit of competition"
b.) Tony Womack has a "team approach.. and a heavy spirit of competition"
and
c.) His potential replacement does not have either

I'm going to stick to stats which can be proven that those are more important. I can show you players with championship teams that weren't great friends or considered to have great chemistry. I can't show you championship teams full of guys that, judging by the stats, were some of the worst players in baseball.

Wheelhouse
03-06-2006, 03:34 PM
Hmmm. At what number of books read can one refer to others' opinons as "sucks" and "stupid". What I object to is the POV that there is no other valid view of the game than the SABR model, and rudely insisting on it.

pedro
03-06-2006, 03:34 PM
BTW- Based on the RC/27 formula a team of Ted Williams' would score 12.03 runs a game. A team of Pete Rose's would score 5.65 runs a game.

But then again, stats don't matter.

pedro
03-06-2006, 03:37 PM
Forgetting the stats I challenge anyone to just watch Tony Womack play baseball and then come back here and claim he is a good player. He doesn't hold up to subjective or objective measurements IMO.

ochre
03-06-2006, 03:39 PM
SABR does not mean what you think.

Performance wins championships. Measure the performers against standards and you can realistically predict future results. That's objective. "Gamer", "knows how to play the game", "does all the little things" are subjective, and thus much more difficult (impossible) to measure against a baseline. I'll take the objective method, pretty much every time, over the subjective.

Wheelhouse
03-06-2006, 03:40 PM
RedsManRick, nice to meet you. I've been posting here since 2001 and never heard of you. Guess it's because I don't have enough rep points to be on the other board. Good work in just 2 short years! In response, your request "until you show" is the typical circuitous reasoning of the SABR crowd... i.e. "how can numbers not reveal it all? show me the numbers on that..." yawn.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 03:41 PM
Hmmm. At what number of books read can one refer to others' opinons as "sucks" and "stupid". What I object to is the POV that there is no other valid view of the game than the SABR model, and rudely insisting on it.

So you believe that adding a guy like Womack will automatically make the Reds so much better that they will make the playoffs? Perhaps they should have gone after Reggie Sanders too. Or maybe they should have gotten one of your favorite players, Aaron Boone. He has playoff experience and got the Yankees to the World Series.

Wheelhouse
03-06-2006, 03:45 PM
No you can keep Aaron, thanks. :)

StillFunkyB
03-06-2006, 03:48 PM
That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. :rolleyes:

I absolutely agree. Wow. Win-Effective? What kinda....

Chip R
03-06-2006, 03:49 PM
No you can keep Aaron, thanks. :)

But he's a proven winner. :confused:

RFS62
03-06-2006, 03:49 PM
But he's a proven winner. :confused:


He definitely knows how to play the game.

BRM
03-06-2006, 03:50 PM
I absolutely agree. Wow. Win-Effective? What kinda....

It's easy. A run scored by a sac fly means more than a run scored by a double or home run.

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 03:55 PM
RedsManRick, nice to meet you. I've been posting here since 2001 and never heard of you. Guess it's because I don't have enough rep points to be on the other board. Good work in just 2 short years! In response, your request "until you show" is the typical circuitous reasoning of the SABR crowd... i.e. "how can numbers not reveal it all? show me the numbers on that..." yawn.

Nice to meet you too Wheelhouse. I've been around for only a year or two - a refugee from ESPN... I'm not begining to claim numbers show it all. In fact, I agree with your premise that there is much to the game that can't be measured statistically. However, when you imply that we can ignore stastical measure which shows that a player is not only not good, but that he is one of the worst in baseball -- simply because he might have some positive intangibles -- that's taking the argument too far.

I think you are most definitely right that you can't just build a team in real life by looking at the back of baseball cards. But to pretend, as Womack has, that it doesn't matter that his OBP is crap because he has speed (or in your argument, intangibles), is just as ignorant as ignoring the intangibles altogether.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if I have to choose between Pete Rose and Ted Williams, I take Ted Williams 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Pete might have a bigger heart, he might like to practice, etc. But at the end of the day, Ted Williams was a player of nearly unparalleled on the field productivity. Pete Rose was merely very good for a very long time. Unless you can really argue convincingly that the team would be more successful with Pete than with Ted, I'm gonna stick with Ted Williams. I don't need to have stats to "prove" it, but you can't just play the "sabermatricians are ignorant to non-statistical measures" card blindly either.

Intangibles only matter in so far as they impact the results on the field. It's as simple as that. I don't mean to imply that intangibles don't affect on field results, but a claim that they make up for clearly and vastly inferior performance should be substantianted in some meaningful way.

TeamBoone
03-06-2006, 03:57 PM
Oh my Lord! That was one of the worst article I've ever read. Even more so because it was written by a beat reporter that I actually respect and thought knew something about baseball. He even pretty much said the offense isn't good... at least not at the right times. IMHO, he should have spun it that the pitching isn't good... otherwise, the offense would have won the numerous games where they put up a lot of runs. If that had happened, losing games when they were unable to put up the runs wouldn't have hurt so much.

Ugh!

And Tony Womack... you'd damn well better care about OBP. Your speed won't help the Reds one stinking bit if you can't get on base.

TeamBoone
03-06-2006, 03:59 PM
Contact Lonnie Wheeler at lwheeler@cincypost.com.

I know I'm going to write him. This article is sooooo disappointing coming from him... and the casual fans will eat it up.

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 04:01 PM
Like it was said on the other board..hopfully this was a tounge in cheek article

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 04:07 PM
Contact Lonnie Wheeler at lwheeler@cincypost.com.

I know I'm going to write him. This article is sooooo disappointing coming from him... and the casual fans will eat it up.

My email to him...

Lonnie, please tell me you are a talented satirist who realizes the absolute hilarity in Womack's statements, but feels compelled to keep up good face with the organization. Surely you realize that the Reds offense was NOT the problem in any way, shape, or form and that the addition of Tony Womack in a starting role only serves to ensure that we will see more 2 run homers instead of 3. I'm hoping that my reading of your article as a satire was correct, because otherwise... yikes!

IowaRed
03-06-2006, 04:09 PM
My email to him...

Lonnie, please tell me you are a talented satirist who realizes the absolute hilarity in Womack's statements, but feels compelled to keep up good face with the organization. Surely you realize that the Reds offense was NOT the problem in any way, shape, or form and that the addition of Tony Womack in a starting role only serves to ensure that we will see more 2 run homers instead of 3. I'm hoping that my reading of your article as a satire was correct, because otherwise... yikes!

Nicely done Rick. I'm not familiar with Lonnie Wheeler's "style" so I could be missing out but the sarcasm didn't jump out at me

Chip R
03-06-2006, 04:15 PM
Nicely done Rick. I'm not familiar with Lonnie Wheeler's "style" so I could be missing out but the sarcasm didn't jump out at me

I don't read all his stuff but I read enough of it that I'm familiar with his style. I can see Doc's view that he's really being sarcastic but maybe it's too subtle to me. I guess I might just be used to the local media - and most of the national media for that matter - believing that because he's fast and can bunt and he's a proven winner who knows how to play the game that he's actually an asset to the team. If it was sarcasm, my hat's off to him.

RFS62
03-06-2006, 04:17 PM
RedsManRick, nice to meet you. I've been posting here since 2001 and never heard of you. Guess it's because I don't have enough rep points to be on the other board. Good work in just 2 short years! In response, your request "until you show" is the typical circuitous reasoning of the SABR crowd... i.e. "how can numbers not reveal it all? show me the numbers on that..." yawn.



How ironic.

There's never been a player in the history of MLB who knew his statistics and their relevance to his place in history better than Pete Rose.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 04:19 PM
The runs they scored were not win-effective.

But, their runs allowed were loss-effective.

RFS62
03-06-2006, 04:20 PM
But, their runs allowed were loss-effective.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

westofyou
03-06-2006, 04:22 PM
How ironic.

There's never been a player in the history of MLB who knew his statistics and their relevance to his place in history better than Pete Rose.You must have read that in a book... books is stupid.

NC Reds
03-06-2006, 04:50 PM
The comment about the runs scored not being "win-effective" is just bizarre. Will scoring less make us a better team this year? Womack near the top of the lineup should take care of that.

harangatang
03-06-2006, 06:40 PM
I hate to bring it up again but the Reds were something like 20 games over .500 when they got a quaility start from the starting pitching last year. The notion that the Reds can't win with the offense we have and an improved pitching staff is absurd.

Nugget
03-06-2006, 06:44 PM
The problem is that it is harder for the REDS to improve the pitching staff dramatically than it is to get the offense to help when required.

And what Womack says is true. The only guys who really care about stats are the fantasy freaks (how about enthusiats - no alliteration but more PC). Its about what happens out on the field not on the computer. Yes stats are part of it. But they only tell half the story. Other issues are the REDS defense was poor last year and in some circumstances they relied too much on big hits - too much of an AL thought process. I'd be happy if the REDS won more games by one run walked in than by heap of HRs.

BRM
03-06-2006, 06:46 PM
The problem is that it is harder for the REDS to improve the pitching staff dramatically than it is to get the offense to help when required.

And what Womack says is true. The only guys who really care about stats are the fantasy freaks. Its about what happens out on the field not on the computer. Yes stats are part of it. But they only tell half the story. Other issues are the REDS defense was poor last year and in some circumstances they relied too much on big hits - too much of an AL thought process. I'd be happy if the REDS won more games by one run walked in than by heap of HRs.

Stats tell us what happened on the field. And they tell us that Womack can't get on base and can't play defense. How exactly is he going to help the Reds win more games this year?

westofyou
03-06-2006, 06:47 PM
And what Womack says is true. The only guys who really care about stats are the fantasy freaks.Yeah Chadwick, FC Lane, Spinks and Rickey were freaks.

If the Reds D was so poor why Womack then?

Freaks eh?

Care to be even more degrading in your attempt to make your POV mean something?

harangatang
03-06-2006, 06:54 PM
I'd be happy if the REDS won more games by one run walked in than by heap of HRs.
I'd be happy if the Reds won more games, period.

Shaggy Sanchez
03-06-2006, 06:59 PM
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.

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.


As bad an article as that was and the even worse the comments by Womack this is the part that worried me the most. I am beginning to wonder if Encarnacion will get the playing time he needs with Narron writing out the lineup card each night. I have the fear that we will see a lot of Freel and Aurillia at 3rd for their speed or knowledge of how to play the game over a young guy like Edwin who needs the at bats.

pedro
03-06-2006, 07:01 PM
The problem is that it is harder for the REDS to improve the pitching staff dramatically than it is to get the offense to help when required.

And what Womack says is true. The only guys who really care about stats are the fantasy freaks. Its about what happens out on the field not on the computer. Yes stats are part of it. But they only tell half the story. Other issues are the REDS defense was poor last year and in some circumstances they relied too much on big hits - too much of an AL thought process. I'd be happy if the REDS won more games by one run walked in than by heap of HRs.

:laugh:

ochre
03-06-2006, 07:07 PM
The problem is that it is harder for the REDS to improve the pitching staff dramatically than it is to get the offense to help when required.

And what Womack says is true. The only guys who really care about stats are the fantasy freaks. Its about what happens out on the field not on the computer. Yes stats are part of it. But they only tell half the story. Other issues are the REDS defense was poor last year and in some circumstances they relied too much on big hits - too much of an AL thought process. I'd be happy if the REDS won more games by one run walked in than by heap of HRs.
So you are telling us that a 1% improvement in 20% of the games the Reds played is worth more than a 30% improvement in 80% of the games the Reds played? I made those numbers up, but I think they are in scale with what you are saying. The Pitching is abberantly bad. The offense is at least above average. The faults that you find with the offense only applied to games in which the offense was unable to 'manufacture' a run when the exact conditions would have been conducive to that behavior. The faults I see with the pitching applied to, conservatively 80% of the game activity last season. I call that a conservative number because roughly 4/5s of the rotation was varying degrees of decrepit last season and the bullpen may have been just as bad.

So here we are with just a handful of games that could be positively affected by marginal improvements that *might* occur should one course of action be taken, versus the need for huge improvements (drastic, monumental, enormous) that will affect nearly every game the team will play this upcoming season. I know where my money would be going if I was running a business under those conditions. It sure wouldn't be in stuffing a roster full of 'gamers', unless they could put up an ERA of 4 or less.

Johnny Footstool
03-06-2006, 07:10 PM
I agree that it's unnecessary to use insulting, derogatory terms like "stupid" to describe Womack's opinion.

But then I see words like "stathead" and "fantasy freak" being thrown at those of us who happen to think stats show a lot, so I don't feel quite so bad for poor Tony.

KronoRed
03-06-2006, 07:11 PM
A Womacl/Aurilia combo will mean a lot more 1 run games, we'll lose more games, but our wins will be closer..I guess that will make it better.

Johnny Footstool
03-06-2006, 07:17 PM
A Womacl/Aurilia combo will mean a lot more 1 run games, we'll lose more games, but our wins will be closer..I guess that will make it better.

New team marketing slogan:

"A more exciting brand of losing"

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 07:23 PM
A Womacl/Aurilia combo will mean a lot more 1 run games, we'll lose more games, but our wins will be closer..I guess that will make it better.

Heh, exactly. Last year we were 21-18 in 1 run games. This year we'll be 23-30 and Womack can take all the credit for those 2 extra wins.....

indy_dave00
03-06-2006, 07:27 PM
I'm not a Rich Aurilia fan but I'd be much happier with him at second base than Tony Womack. Womack has played many positions for one reason he's a journeyman at several spots. As has been stated many times he is fast but can't get on base to use that speed , he should bat 8th in a lineup not leadoff.

Aurilia , I thought was brought back because he could play 2b/ss/3b the Womack move made no sense this winter and still doesn't. But lets all be blinded by a new season and have those hopes Womack will be the spark the offense needs. Okay after reading that I got sick. Why Dano why?

Nugget
03-06-2006, 07:36 PM
So you are telling us that a 1% improvement in 20% of the games the Reds played is worth more than a 30% improvement in 80% of the games the Reds played? I made those numbers up, but I think they are in scale with what you are saying. The Pitching is abberantly bad. The offense is at least above average. The faults that you find with the offense only applied to games in which the offense was unable to 'manufacture' a run when the exact conditions would have been conducive to that behavior. The faults I see with the pitching applied to, conservatively 80% of the game activity last season. I call that a conservative number because roughly 4/5s of the rotation was varying degrees of decrepit last season and the bullpen may have been just as bad.

So here we are with just a handful of games that could be positively affected by marginal improvements that *might* occur should one course of action be taken, versus the need for huge improvements (drastic, monumental, enormous) that will affect nearly every game the team will play this upcoming season. I know where my money would be going if I was running a business under those conditions. It sure wouldn't be in stuffing a roster full of 'gamers', unless they could put up an ERA of 4 or less.

Your correct in that improved pitching will make a huge difference. But as you go on to point out it needs a huge improvement and not just an incremental improvement. Yes I believe that Womack and the new set of bench players are only a marginal improvement. But its no use sitting around and saying oh we had a great offense last year, we have a heap of home run hitters so we'll just wait and see if we can get a great pitcher. As most of the trade threads show, if your going to get a stud pitcher its going to take a big piece of the current puzzle so your going to lose some of that great offense anyway. Also you have already lost one of the on base guys - admittedly a slow moving vehicle once he was on base - so some replacement is required. As a mix the REDS current line up has five power or projected power hitters. A real streaky hitting catcher and a new kid on the block. Freel gives you a great balance to that but I don't think he will last everyday the way he plays. More than likely he is going to be spelling one of Kearns and Junior as they are placed in cotton wool. Much more use Dunn or whoever making the big hit with someone on base than with 2 out.

Better to make some incremental improvements than none at all. And realistically speaking the REDS aren't going to dramatically improve their pitching unless they stump up big money for a free agent or are willing to trade one of their prized youngsters. The kind of pitchers you get for the likes of Junior, Casey, et al are #3 and lower who may be on the cusp but have a risk involved as well.

pedro
03-06-2006, 07:40 PM
I still don't understand what is is about Womack that you believe represents an improvement Nugget.

Nugget
03-06-2006, 07:48 PM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS. Yes Freel is a good player but he was fragile last year - not as fragile as Kearns or Junior but then the REDS didn't cotton wool him as much either. As a platoon or even with Womack as a regular the REDS have a better situation at 2B. RA did OK last year but I don't think he is a better 2B than Womack - bringing back RA is a mistake unless he is simply there to cover 3B if EE doesn't work out.

From our previous discussions on the topic I would guess that the first point of contention is the Freel starter or supersub issue. I go for the latter due to what happened last year and the fact you will have both Kearns and Junior playing everyday this year.

Denorfria deserves to play everyday to develop so he should be in AAA, which means essentially your reserve outfielders are at best pinch hitter/late game replacements.

And finally a team of all mashers just doesn't cut it in the NL - it may do so in the AL but not here. A little bit more balance especially now that Casey's gone and with EE maybe starting will mean that teams will have to pitch to the REDS rather than around them.

WMR
03-06-2006, 07:50 PM
Nice to meet you too Wheelhouse. I've been around for only a year or two - a refugee from ESPN... I'm not begining to claim numbers show it all. In fact, I agree with your premise that there is much to the game that can't be measured statistically. However, when you imply that we can ignore stastical measure which shows that a player is not only not good, but that he is one of the worst in baseball -- simply because he might have some positive intangibles -- that's taking the argument too far.

I think you are most definitely right that you can't just build a team in real life by looking at the back of baseball cards. But to pretend, as Womack has, that it doesn't matter that his OBP is crap because he has speed (or in your argument, intangibles), is just as ignorant as ignoring the intangibles altogether.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if I have to choose between Pete Rose and Ted Williams, I take Ted Williams 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Pete might have a bigger heart, he might like to practice, etc. But at the end of the day, Ted Williams was a player of nearly unparalleled on the field productivity. Pete Rose was merely very good for a very long time. Unless you can really argue convincingly that the team would be more successful with Pete than with Ted, I'm gonna stick with Ted Williams. I don't need to have stats to "prove" it, but you can't just play the "sabermatricians are ignorant to non-statistical measures" card blindly either.

Intangibles only matter in so far as they impact the results on the field. It's as simple as that. I don't mean to imply that intangibles don't affect on field results, but a claim that they make up for clearly and vastly inferior performance should be substantianted in some meaningful way.

Quality!!!

westofyou
03-06-2006, 07:54 PM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS. Many did feel it was problem, Tony Womack is the equivalent of plugging up a hole in a dam with toilet paper, no debate can render that fact an untruth

TeamBoone
03-06-2006, 07:57 PM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS.

And you think Tony Womack is the answer?

His OBP is horrible. Isn't it the job of the lead-off batter to get on base?

And he mentioned his speed. Hmmmm, in only 2-3 games in ST, he's already been caught stealing twice. I'm not sure how many times he's actually gotten on base or tried to steal.

ochre
03-06-2006, 07:58 PM
Incremental improvements to pitching will bring drastically better results than incremental improvements to the offense (particularly when those alleged improvements will result in fewer runs scored in aggregate).

pedro
03-06-2006, 08:06 PM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS. Yes Freel is a good player but he was fragile last year - not as fragile as Kearns or Junior but then the REDS didn't cotton wool him as much either. As a platoon or even with Womack as a regular the REDS have a better situation at 2B. RA did OK last year but I don't think he is a better 2B than Womack - bringing back RA is a mistake unless he is simply there to cover 3B if EE doesn't work out.

From our previous discussions on the topic I would guess that the first point of contention is the Freel starter or supersub issue. I go for the latter due to what happened last year and the fact you will have both Kearns and Junior playing everyday this year.

Denorfria deserves to play everyday to develop so he should be in AAA, which means essentially your reserve outfielders are at best pinch hitter/late game replacements.

And finally a team of all mashers just doesn't cut it in the NL - it may do so in the AL but not here. A little bit more balance especially now that Casey's gone and with EE maybe starting will mean that teams will have to pitch to the REDS rather than around them.


What type of balance does Tony Womack bring? He can't field. He can't hit. He can't take a walk. He's not going to help any team, whether in the AL or the NL.

You haven't made one logical argument as to why he is a piece that will help the team improve. That's all we are asking.

If you were pimping Frank Menechino or the 2b job I think you'd have a better argument.

membengal
03-06-2006, 08:18 PM
I would feel a lot better about Tony Womack if he had said "Man, I completely realize I have to find ways to get on base more, and it is something I am working on for 2006."

At least that would show awareness of the problem and give me a smidgen of hope that he might take an additional pitch or two.

In Wily Mo's defense, he at least realizes the task ahead of him. Womack? Not so much.

Nugget
03-06-2006, 08:42 PM
Incremental improvements to pitching will bring drastically better results than incremental improvements to the offense (particularly when those alleged improvements will result in fewer runs scored in aggregate).

Do you not think that they have made an incremental improvement to the pitching - Williams first outings would seem to have that at 50/50 may be less.

However, as stated before I believe that Womack is an adequate everyday 2B. I don't think he is the worst player in the major leagues and he is an average 2B. Relatively inexpensive - and will fill the hole until Bergolla arrives.

Sorry pedro can't vouch for Menechino as I have never seen him play.

Would I be happier if they had Vidro or Reyes or Utley at 2B sure. But we're trying to construct a line up in the real world and your not going to get any of those players without giving up a prized possession and you need to use those to get better pitching, especially as I would want Bergolla to develop into that whole rather than having a situation where you have a young 2B but have got a more expensive option that you have to play there.

RFS62
03-06-2006, 08:42 PM
It really doesn't bother me that Womack is yapping about all the injustices the Yankees perpertrated on him last year. If he doesn't convince himself that he's got some gas left in the tank, he has no chance. Even if he does convince himself, that doesn't mean he'll be any better than the putrid shadow of his good years that he displayed last season.

You can't expect a player to be realistic and accept their fate when they're on the down side of their careers. It's not the nature of a world class athlete to accept the inevitible decline that finishes them all.

So, I don't begrudge a player when their death rattle ignores all logic, all subjective and objective analysis. It's simply the nature of the beast.

However, that doesn't mean I have to give it any weight at all in consideration of his potential contribution. I applaud him for raging against the dying of the light. But that's not reality, not the stuff that GM's and managers can depend on. If he catches lightning in a bottle, huzzah!! But don't depend on it.

I don't hate him for hanging on with his fingernails, loathe to hang up the spikes forever. I just see it for what it is and give it no weight at all.

Let's hope management can do the same.

Raisor
03-06-2006, 08:48 PM
However, as stated before I believe that Womack is an adequate everyday 2B. I don't think he is the worst player in the major leagues and he is an average 2B. .


Well, you're wrong.

He really is one of the two or three worst players in the major leagues and he's no where near an "average" defensive 2B.

The Reds would be better off with a card board cut out of Schotzie at 2nd then playing Womack.

pedro
03-06-2006, 08:49 PM
Do you not think that they have made an incremental improvement to the pitching - Williams first outings would seem to have that at 50/50 may be less.

However, as stated before I believe that Womack is an adequate everyday 2B. I don't think he is the worst player in the major leagues and he is an average 2B. Relatively inexpensive - and will fill the hole until Bergolla arrives.

Sorry pedro can't vouch for Menechino as I have never seen him play.

Would I be happier if they had Vidro or Reyes or Utley at 2B sure. But we're trying to construct a line up in the real world and your not going to get any of those players without giving up a prized possession and you need to use those to get better pitching, especially as I would want Bergolla to develop into that whole rather than having a situation where you have a young 2B but have got a more expensive option that you have to play there.


please, just look at Womack's stats and tell me what it is about them that leads you to believe he is even an average second baseman.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3000

btw- here are Menechino's

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4183

ochre
03-06-2006, 09:06 PM
Do you not think that they have made an incremental improvement to the pitching - Williams first outings would seem to have that at 50/50 may be less.

However, as stated before I believe that Womack is an adequate everyday 2B. I don't think he is the worst player in the major leagues and he is an average 2B. Relatively inexpensive - and will fill the hole until Bergolla arrives.

Sorry pedro can't vouch for Menechino as I have never seen him play.

Would I be happier if they had Vidro or Reyes or Utley at 2B sure. But we're trying to construct a line up in the real world and your not going to get any of those players without giving up a prized possession and you need to use those to get better pitching, especially as I would want Bergolla to develop into that whole rather than having a situation where you have a young 2B but have got a more expensive option that you have to play there.
I have little hope that they will be able to contend this year. It would take so many career years from players (pitchers) who have either left those days behind, or have never really exhibited the requisite abilities to begin with. Should they surprise me and contend, it will not be because they are scoring overwhelming more often, or even well (timely). It will be because the pitching surprises.

pedro
03-06-2006, 09:17 PM
I looked up second baseman stats for 2004, Womacks best season and the season that those who like Womack like to point to as proof that he is a good player. In 2004 23 second baseman in the major leagues had 400 AB's or more. Out of those players Womack was 17th in OPS.

That was his best season. The dude is dog food.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 09:20 PM
Well, you're wrong.Hey stats freak, the game is played between the white lines.....

traderumor
03-06-2006, 09:32 PM
I would feel a lot better about Tony Womack if he had said "Man, I completely realize I have to find ways to get on base more, and it is something I am working on for 2006."

At least that would show awareness of the problem and give me a smidgen of hope that he might take an additional pitch or two.

In Wily Mo's defense, he at least realizes the task ahead of him. Womack? Not so much.36 year-old players don't reinvent themselves.

membengal
03-06-2006, 10:00 PM
TR, I didn't say he could or would reinvent himself. Just that I would feel better if he was aware of the need to reinvent himself, even if he can't actually do it. Awareness of the problem beats stubbornly insisting there isn't a problem.

dougdirt
03-06-2006, 10:30 PM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS. Yes Freel is a good player but he was fragile last year - not as fragile as Kearns or Junior but then the REDS didn't cotton wool him as much either. As a platoon or even with Womack as a regular the REDS have a better situation at 2B. RA did OK last year but I don't think he is a better 2B than Womack - bringing back RA is a mistake unless he is simply there to cover 3B if EE doesn't work out.
So becuase a guy is fragile, you just shouldnt play him and keep him healthy? Rich Aurilia is a ton better at second base than Womack. Womack cant hit the ball. Aurilia gets on base more, by a good percentage, has a higher average, slugging percentage and hits much better with runners on base.



From our previous discussions on the topic I would guess that the first point of contention is the Freel starter or supersub issue. I go for the latter due to what happened last year and the fact you will have both Kearns and Junior playing everyday this year.
Why keep Freel on the bench incase someone gets hurt? We have Denorfia who can play outfield, we have Dunn who can play outfield. Freel is to important to the offense to keep on the bench incase someone gets hurt.



Denorfria deserves to play everyday to develop so he should be in AAA, which means essentially your reserve outfielders are at best pinch hitter/late game replacements.
Denorfia will be 26 years old this year. He doesnt need to develop.



And finally a team of all mashers just doesn't cut it in the NL - it may do so in the AL but not here. A little bit more balance especially now that Casey's gone and with EE maybe starting will mean that teams will have to pitch to the REDS rather than around them.
well if the teams are now going to have to pitch to the Reds, rather than around them, it means we get more pitches to hit. If mashers get more pitches to hit, doesnt that mean they will mash more?

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 10:36 PM
Hey stats freak, the game is played between the white lines.....

Perhaps I should've read the rest of the posts for the appropriate context, but taking this on the face of it, I would point out that Womack sucks equally in the stats and between the white lines.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 11:18 PM
However, as stated before I believe that Womack is an adequate everyday 2B. I don't think he is the worst player in the major leagues and he is an average 2B.

I'm sorry Tony, but you may be the only person who feels this way. You either need to flash the leather or have sneaky power if you're going to bring it with a .316 OB%. You do neither. Sorry...


Relatively inexpensive - and will fill the hole until Bergolla arrives.

Two trading chips combined with a $1.1 MIL salary doesn't make you relatively inexpensive. I'd rather have the chips back, the cash, and Bergolla playing 2B in your stead.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 11:24 PM
...I would point out that Womack sucks equally in the stats and between the white lines.

I would point out that what Womack does between the lines effects his stats, but that's just me. I'm gonna' go read a book now. :)

Heath
03-06-2006, 11:25 PM
I'd prefer a cardboard cutout of Raisor playing second with those blondes around him rather than Womack.

Ryan Freel has a higher OBP, steal %, and more desire. Plus, he's cheaper too. Tony Womack was the final nail in DanO's binder filled coffin.

With hindsight being 20/20 - I'd probably rather have had Pokey Reese rather than Aurilia or Womack. But now that Pokey's left baseball, well, I'd probably still take him.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 11:32 PM
I received an e-mail from John Erhardt earlier today and he seemed pretty amused by the entire article. Anyway, the "Who cares about on-base percentage?" quote will be used in the next TWiQ.

TeamBoone
03-06-2006, 11:35 PM
I received an e-mail from John Erhardt earlier today and he seemed pretty amused by the entire article. Anyway, the "Who cares about on-base percentage?" quote will be used in the next TWiQ.

I have no idea what you're saying; can you explain who John Erhardt is and also TWiQ?

Thanks.

Superdude
03-06-2006, 11:40 PM
I just sent an email blasting Lonnie Wheeler. I can't wait to see if he writes me back.

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 11:47 PM
I'd prefer a cardboard cutout of Raisor playing second with those blondes around him rather than Womack.

Career stats at 2B

FLD% RF ZR
Womack .976 5.12 .813
Raisor W/Blondes .997 6.98 .927

Just sayin'...

Reds Nd2
03-06-2006, 11:57 PM
I have no idea what you're saying;

Me either most of the time. :)


Can you explain who John Erhardt is and also TWiQ?

John E. does a column at Baseball Prospectus called The Week in Quotes. It's part of the free content here (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/), so anyone can read it.

Below is the latest example.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4827

Nugget
03-07-2006, 12:00 AM
Two trading chips combined with a $1.1 MIL salary doesn't make you relatively inexpensive. I'd rather have the chips back, the cash, and Bergolla playing 2B in your stead.

I wouldn't call either of them trading chips - both were available in rule V and weren't taken. And I wouldn't want to rush Bergolla especially as he could have a future rather than being another washout.

Comparatively, we could go with Menechino for 500K less, RA is about the same as Womack. If they signed RA and said look your covering both 2nd and 3rd depending on how EE plays then yes there is no need for Womack. But I don't believe that he is as bad as everyone else think he is. He's a MLB player and an adequate 2B.

ochre
03-07-2006, 12:11 AM
I wouldn't call either of them trading chips - both were available in rule V and weren't taken. And I wouldn't want to rush Bergolla especially as he could have a future rather than being another washout.

Comparatively, we could go with Menechino for 500K less, RA is about the same as Womack. If they signed RA and said look your covering both 2nd and 3rd depending on how EE plays then yes there is no need for Womack. But I don't believe that he is as bad as everyone else think he is. He's a MLB player and an adequate 2B.
I absolutely, positively hoped that Aurilia would move along some place else. Didn't want him back no matter what. Then I saw that they traded for Womack and I instantly hoped that Aurilia would be given a chance ahead of him. Womack is that bad. Womack is so bad that the Yankees should have had to give us their Kevin Howard and Ben Himes so that we'd take Womack off of their hands.

Reds Nd2
03-07-2006, 12:50 AM
I wouldn't call either of them trading chips - .

So you don't like Howard or Himes, that's cool, but both were the property of the Reds and, as such, had some value as a tradeable commodity. Flipping them both and getting the team on the hook for over half of Womacks '06 salary was in a word, stupid.


Comparatively, we could go with Menechino for 500K less, RA is about the same as Womack.

To paraphrase Sparky, I wouldn't embarrass anyone by comparing them to Womack, even Aurilia.


But I don't believe that he is as bad as everyone else think he is. He's a MLB player and an adequate 2B.

Well, yes he is as bad as everyone thinks and his play between the lines proves that to be true. You may hate stats but every available metric shows that Womack was the worst player to put on a uniform in '05 among players who were not taking the mound.

At this point, I'd think you'd be happy if Lima was in the rotation.

SteelSD
03-07-2006, 12:59 AM
But I don't believe that he is as bad as everyone else think he is. He's a MLB player and an adequate 2B.

Just because you refuse to believe it, that doesn't make it untrue.

Tony Womack 2005: 2.67 RC/27 Outs (MLB 2B Rank- 60th out of 75)

Let's put that in perspective...

51st Ranked 2B- D'Angelo Jimenez (3.47 RC/27)
59th Ranked 2B- Bret Boone (3.05 RC/27)

Jimenez, apparantly while he wasn't really trying, was worth 0.80 RC/27 Outs MORE than Tony Womack in 2005. Jimenez was tossed on the scrap heap while sucking less than Tony Womack.

Bret Boone just retired because he'd rather not suck any longer. Yeah the guy directly AHEAD of Womack- and a guy worth almost a third of a Run more per 27 Outs- RETIRED because he couldn't take his own level of SUCK.

Oh, and #61 through #75 on that list? No one ranked lower than Womack had more than 137 AB (Keith Ginter) in 2005. In fact, #61 through #75 combined for fewer than 500 AB (476). Y'know why? Because they sucked too.

Tony Womack didn't just suck at 2B in 2005. He was TEH SUCK in every sense of the phrase. I'm not sure what about Womack's performance that makes you somehow twist SUCK into "adequate", but it's not there. Simply doesn't exist.


.249 BA/.276 OBP/.280 SLG.
THAT SUCKS!!!

In fact, other than Christian Guzman, you can't find a MLB infielder who played as much baseball in 2005 and who sucked as hard as did Tony Womack. And at least Guzman has some adequate glovework in his bag of tricks. Womack? Nothing. Nada. And that sucks too.

ochre
03-07-2006, 02:06 AM
Tony Womack is the best thing that's ever happened to Rich Aurilia. Well, that and hitting in front of Bonds.

dougdirt
03-07-2006, 02:25 AM
Tony Womack is the best thing that's ever happened to Rich Aurilia. Well, that and hitting in front of Bonds.
HAHA! that made my night.

dougdirt
03-07-2006, 02:26 AM
And oh my goodness, I actually just agreed with SteelSD on something. I better go lay down.

Raisor
03-07-2006, 06:45 AM
Career stats at 2B

FLD% RF ZR
Womack .976 5.12 .813
Raisor W/Blondes .997 6.98 .927

Just sayin'...


Me and the girls are scrappy.

Ron Madden
03-07-2006, 07:54 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It hasn't been that long ago that Cincinnati Reds Fans were considered the most knowledgble fans in all of baseball.

It's been a long time since that has been true.

Most fans believe whatever they hear on radio or read from the sports page.

Don't even try to tell these folks the truth.. after all Marty and Hal are in The Hall Of Fame, Beat Writers and Talk Show Host are always right because it's their job to know more than any average fan like you.

Listen to SportsTalk on WLW and read the local sports sections for just one week and you will wittness the dumbing down of a fan base.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 11:01 AM
I know many people on the board didn't think so but I was one and there were a few others prior to the offseason that thought 2B was one of the problem areas for the REDS. Yes Freel is a good player but he was fragile last year - not as fragile as Kearns or Junior but then the REDS didn't cotton wool him as much either.

I'm not trying to pile on to you here, Nugget, since this seems to be the party line from the Reds media about Freel. They justify keeping him on the bench because he's fragile and people buy this. Yeah, he gets hurt but if you don't start a guy who is talented enough to start because he gets injured all the time, that would mean guys like Eric Davis, J.D. Drew, Ken Griffey, Jr. and Austin Kearns should not have been/be starters. I'm not saying Freel is in the class of any of those players - except possibly Kearns - but he brings much more to the table offensively and defensively than Aurilia and Womack. If he gets hurt, he gets hurt. But don't use him as a reserve because he might get hurt.

IowaRed
03-07-2006, 11:16 AM
Just because you refuse to believe it, that doesn't make it untrue.

Tony Womack 2005: 2.67 RC/27 Outs (MLB 2B Rank- 60th out of 75)

Let's put that in perspective...

51st Ranked 2B- D'Angelo Jimenez (3.47 RC/27)
59th Ranked 2B- Bret Boone (3.05 RC/27)

Jimenez, apparantly while he wasn't really trying, was worth 0.80 RC/27 Outs MORE than Tony Womack in 2005. Jimenez was tossed on the scrap heap while sucking less than Tony Womack.

Bret Boone just retired because he'd rather not suck any longer. Yeah the guy directly AHEAD of Womack- and a guy worth almost a third of a Run more per 27 Outs- RETIRED because he couldn't take his own level of SUCK.

Oh, and #61 through #75 on that list? No one ranked lower than Womack had more than 137 AB (Keith Ginter) in 2005. In fact, #61 through #75 combined for fewer than 500 AB (476). Y'know why? Because they sucked too.

Tony Womack didn't just suck at 2B in 2005. He was TEH SUCK in every sense of the phrase. I'm not sure what about Womack's performance that makes you somehow twist SUCK into "adequate", but it's not there. Simply doesn't exist.


.249 BA/.276 OBP/.280 SLG.
THAT SUCKS!!!

In fact, other than Christian Guzman, you can't find a MLB infielder who played as much baseball in 2005 and who sucked as hard as did Tony Womack. And at least Guzman has some adequate glovework in his bag of tricks. Womack? Nothing. Nada. And that sucks too.

Not only is this hilarious, it should be sent immediately to any Reds executive, including the manager, who somehow believes that Tony Womack doesn't suck. He may be a fine man, father, community leader, etc. I hope so and wish him well. He IS NOT a baseball player deserving of a roster spot on this or any other ML team.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 11:20 AM
What's REALLY funny about all this is I got in an argument with what was most likely Tony's wife at a D Backs ST game 6 years ago when she eavesdropped on me slamming Tony's game.... Of course rather than debate his game she asked me how much money I made. At the time I told her that Tony was just a high paid Pokey Reese.

In light of Reese's activities this week I can hope that Tony ponders something similar in the future.

I think that would be most "adequate."

blumj
03-07-2006, 11:57 AM
The comparison is actually an insult to Pokey. Say what you want about his bat, Pokey's glove is real. If Womack could save you runs on defense like Reese, he might actually be worth some of the extra outs on offense.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 12:22 PM
The comparison is actually an insult to Pokey. Not when comparing dollars. once past a certain cost Pokey's defensive value was no longer effective, that was proven when he was jettisoned a year later. My argument was that any player has a value as long as the cost didn't get out of hand. This also was around the time Tony had 58 or more steals 3 straight seasons and could play SS. However I told his "wife" that they spent too much on him, but at the cost before it was a bargain.

That went over well.

RFS62
03-07-2006, 01:12 PM
I told his "wife" that they spent too much on him, but at the cost before it was a bargain.

That went over well.


Things really went downhill when you told her her baby was ugly and she dresses funny.

Just sayin'


:cool:

Maldonado
03-07-2006, 01:31 PM
Yeah Tony, who cares about OBP? I mean, why should we care about the most important offensive stat. The stat that represents how ofton you get on base and help your team scores runs and win games.



What good is speed when you suck and can't get on base to utilize that speed?



You're right, Lonnie. The offense was the reason they didn't win many games last year. The pitching had nothing to do with it.


If Tony Womack worked for Billy Beane or Theo Epstein, you'd better believe he'd care about OBP. I think this quote is a foreshadowing of the internal war that baseball will have in the upcoming years - the jocks versus the geeks.
Since the geeks sign the checks, the jocks had better play ball, and yes the terrible pun was intended.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 01:35 PM
I think this quote is a foreshadowing of the internal war that baseball will have in the upcoming years - the jocks versus the geeks.

Yeah that will a new battle.

http://www.afro.com/history/Robinson/branch.gif

Doc. Scott
03-07-2006, 02:28 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It hasn't been that long ago that Cincinnati Reds Fans were considered the most knowledgble fans in all of baseball.

It's been a long time since that has been true.

Most fans believe whatever they hear on radio or read from the sports page.

Don't even try to tell these folks the truth.. after all Marty and Hal are in The Hall Of Fame, Beat Writers and Talk Show Host are always right because it's their job to know more than any average fan like you.

Listen to SportsTalk on WLW and read the local sports sections for just one week and you will wittness the dumbing down of a fan base.


Ron, I don't think the majority of the fan base has changed. But the minority that has is really vocal.

KronoRed
03-07-2006, 02:30 PM
Listen to SportsTalk on WLW and read the local sports sections for just one week and you will wittness the dumbing down of a fan base.
I've noticed the same thing in past years, HAIL MARTY AND HAL they know best...Dunn sucks..Castro RAWKS!

:bang:

TeamBoone
03-07-2006, 09:09 PM
Name: Tony Womack

Position: IF/OF

Bats/Throws: Left/Right

Age: 36

Height/Weight: 5-9/175

Acquired: From the Yankees, along with cash, for infielder Kevin Howard and outfielder Ben Himes on Dec. 8, 2005

On the field: Originally drafted by the Pirates in the seventh round of the 1991 draft, and signed by Leland Maddox, he has played in 40 postseason games with three teams (Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Yankees).

Favorite meal: Chicken

If you could go to dinner with one person who would it be: "My father. He's in Heaven right now."

Favorite TV show: "I'm a comedy guy. So anything that's funny I'll watch it."

First car: 1989 Dodge Challenger

Fun fact: Holds a bachelor's degree in sports management from Guilford College in Greensboro, N.C.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060307/SPT04/603070392/1071

Ron Madden
03-08-2006, 04:49 AM
Ron, I don't think the majority of the fan base has changed. But the minority that has is really vocal.

Thanks Doc.

I really hope you're right.

Chip R
03-08-2006, 02:02 PM
I think I know the answer to this question already but I want to ask it to make sure. Assuming Womack wins the 2B job and bats leadoff. Would his presence alone cause the Reds offense to be that much worse than it was last year. Going back to last April and May Miley put out some pretty odd lineups where he had Dunn batting 6th several games and Rich Aurilia batting ahead of him on a regular basis. We didn't have Felipe as a regular till May and Jr. wasn't up to par till May either. Would Womack absolutely kill this offense?

KronoRed
03-08-2006, 02:03 PM
Depends on how long he stays there, if it's all season then yeah I think he will.

deltachi8
03-08-2006, 02:50 PM
Well, something snapped and I emailed Mr. Wheeler to complain about his commentary in the article. I thought I would share his response:


In comparison to the pitching, no, the offense was not the problem; of course not. I've written that dozens and dozens of times. But it's true that their offense was not all that the numbers cracked it up to be. That was evident to anyone who followed them throughout the season.

Johnny Footstool
03-08-2006, 03:44 PM
In comparison to the pitching, no, the offense was not the problem; of course not. I've written that dozens and dozens of times. But it's true that their offense was not all that the numbers cracked it up to be. That was evident to anyone who followed them throughout the season.

Dear Lonnie,

In addition to your own observations and those of the people who followed the Reds throughout the season, what evidence do you have that the Reds offense wasn't all it was cracked up to be? How many specific instances can you cite in which the Reds inability to execute "beyond the numbers" on offense actually cost them a game?

Eagerly awaiting your response,

-Johnny

registerthis
03-08-2006, 03:48 PM
Dear Lonnie,

In addition to your own observations and those of the people who followed the Reds throughout the season, what evidence do you have that the Reds offense wasn't all it was cracked up to be? How many specific instances can you cite in which the Reds inability to execute "beyond the numbers" on offense actually cost them a game?

Eagerly awaiting your response,

-Johnny

No kidding.

And what the hell is a "win-efficient" run?

BRM
03-08-2006, 03:50 PM
No kidding.

And what the hell is a "win-efficient" run?

Any run scored via productive out in the 8th inning or later that either ties the game or scores the go ahead run. All runs scored prior to that do not contribute to the win in as meaningful a way.

Superdude
03-08-2006, 04:09 PM
I finally got an email back from Wheeler. He said that even Dan O'Brien acknowledged that the Reds needed more "win-efficient" runs. I think putting any stock into a quote made by the worst "former" GM in baseball was his first mistake!

Chip R
03-08-2006, 04:20 PM
I finally got an email back from Wheeler. He said that even Dan O'Brien acknowledged that the Reds needed more "win-efficient" runs. I think putting any stock into a quote made by the worst "former" GM in baseball was his first mistake!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Well, if DanO said it it must be true. Bob Howsam couldn't hold a candle to the genius that is DanO.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 04:31 PM
Any run scored via productive out in the 8th inning or later that either ties the game or scores the go ahead run. All runs scored prior to that do not contribute to the win in as meaningful a way.

You almost had me there for a moment...

registerthis
03-08-2006, 04:32 PM
I finally got an email back from Wheeler. He said that even Dan O'Brien acknowledged that the Reds needed more "win-efficient" runs. I think putting any stock into a quote made by the worst "former" GM in baseball was his first mistake!

I can't believe that man was able to get two GM jobs. good Lord.

And so much for Wheeler's piece being completely satirical. :rolleyes:

BRM
03-08-2006, 04:34 PM
You almost had me there for a moment...

You didn't pick up the sarcasm right away?

registerthis
03-08-2006, 04:39 PM
You didn't pick up the sarcasm right away?

We're talking DanO-related stuff here, I'd say it was entirely possible. :)

WMR
03-08-2006, 05:42 PM
Don't Hate On Womack!!! Hes Going Too Blow All U Guyz Away This Year!!

The Yeankees Were Messing With His Play Jeter Doesn't Know How To Turn A Double

Go Tony Go

KronoRed
03-08-2006, 05:43 PM
Welcome Tony :)

WMR
03-08-2006, 05:44 PM
Thanks kronored!!!

tony has burnerz not too mention he can lay down a bunt when you need him too!

pedro
03-08-2006, 05:45 PM
Don't Hate On Womack!!! Hes Going Too Blow All U Guyz Away This Year!!

The Yeankees Were Messing With His Play Jeter Doesn't Know How To Turn A Double

Go Tony Go

Dear Tony,

It's really creepy when you talk gibberish in the 3rd person.

Sincerely,

Pedro

RFS62
03-08-2006, 05:46 PM
Whither Tom Lawless fan?

pedro
03-08-2006, 05:47 PM
Whither Tom Lawless fan?

I hate that guy for stealing Wheel's girlfriend.

BRM
03-08-2006, 05:47 PM
tony has burnerz not too mention he can lay down a bunt when you need him too!

Have you figured out how to steal first base yet?

WMR
03-08-2006, 05:48 PM
Dear Tony,

It's really creepy when you talk gibberish in the third person.

Sincerely,

Pedro

pedro,

i just know a good player when i see 1!!!!

freel makes too many mentals out there!! his glove is madde out of granit!\\

pedro
03-08-2006, 05:48 PM
pedro,

i just know a good player when i see 1!!!!

freel makes too many mentals out there!! his glove is madde out of granit!\\

good to know. :)

Red Leader
03-08-2006, 05:52 PM
pedro,

i just know a good player when i see 1!!!!

freel makes too many mentals out there!! his glove is madde out of granit!\\


Hey blind guy:

Does the 250 in your user name indicate a OBP prediction for Tony this year?

BRM
03-08-2006, 05:52 PM
Hey blind guy:

Does the 250 in your user name indicate a OBP prediction for Tony this year?

Who cares about OBP?

WMR
03-08-2006, 05:56 PM
if u get on base 1 every 4 times but u score every time u get on base thats better than somebody who gets on base 2 timez every 5 if that person doesn't know how to take a basee and score a run!!/

KronoRed
03-08-2006, 05:57 PM
Stats r 4 lozers

BRM
03-08-2006, 05:57 PM
Stats r 4 lozers

So are books.

pedro
03-08-2006, 05:59 PM
as Ween said Don't Get 2 Close (2 My Fantasy)

Red Leader
03-08-2006, 06:02 PM
if u get on base 1 every 4 times but u score every time u get on base thats better than somebody who gets on base 2 timez every 5 if that person doesn't know how to take a basee and score a run!!/

Great point.

No wonder we lose so many games.

Adam Dunn doesn't know how to take a base.

I hope Tony teaches him.

westofyou
03-08-2006, 06:03 PM
if u get on base 1 every 4 times but u score every time u get on base thats better than somebody who gets on base 2 timez every 5 if that person doesn't know how to take a basee and score a run!!/
I think I spent the dog-food money
But he'll love me just the same
And if you really love me baby
Help me scrape the mucus off my brain

WMR
03-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Great point.

No wonder we lose so many games.

Adam Dunn doesn't know how to take a base.

I hope Tony teaches him.

but i like dunn. he givez up too many abs tho. id like to see him protect the plate some more

Red Leader
03-08-2006, 06:08 PM
but i like dunn. he givez up too many abs tho. id like to see him protect the plate some more

Well I know Tony can teach him how to get better at that.

After all, Tony is the maestro of good AB's.

WMR
03-08-2006, 06:10 PM
Well I know Tony can teach him how to get better at that.

After all, Tony is the maestro of good AB's.

what good is getting on base if u dont know what to do when u get there??? tony knows i guarante u that!

the yankes batted him too low in the order so he didnt have ne protection; put him up top! he will produce for u!!/

BRM
03-08-2006, 06:15 PM
177 of Tony's 329 at-bats last year came from the leadoff and #2 spots in the order - .184 OBP hitting leadoff, .272 OBP hitting 2nd.

WMR
03-08-2006, 06:16 PM
how many came from #2?? thats where he should be. that sample is too small from #2 abs i bet to really know what he can do there for a whole season

Red Leader
03-08-2006, 06:17 PM
what good is getting on base if u dont know what to do when u get there??? tony knows i guarante u that!

the yankes batted him too low in the order so he didnt have ne protection; put him up top! he will produce for u!!/

I agree. I mean Jeter, A-Rod, Sheff, Giambi, Matsui, and Posada should NOT be hitting ahead of Tony Womack.

BRM
03-08-2006, 06:18 PM
how many came from #2?? thats where he should be. that sample is too small from #2 abs i bet to really know what he can do there for a whole season

140 at-bats. Enough to realize he stunk.

WMR
03-08-2006, 06:18 PM
I agree. I mean Jeter, A-Rod, Sheff, Giambi, Matsui, and Posada should NOT be hitting ahead of Tony Womack.


jeter should be leadoff then tony can either move him along or slap a single then a-rod then your big bats!!

WMR
03-08-2006, 06:23 PM
I think I spent the dog-food money
But he'll love me just the same
And if you really love me baby
Help me scrape the mucus off my brain


mucus off my brain????

iz that a hippie joke? :laugh: :laugh:

Red Leader
03-08-2006, 06:25 PM
jeter should be leadoff then tony can either move him along or slap a single then a-rod then your big bats!!


Hanson hit the top 40 with more authority than Tony Womack.

Just sayin'.

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 07:03 PM
And what the hell is a "win-efficient" run?

A "win-efficient" run is now right up there with my favorite moment in Game 3 of last year's World Series, around the 13th or 14th inning, when Tim McCarver stated that whoever was going to win the game was "going to have to do so unconventionally".

westofyou
03-08-2006, 07:13 PM
how many came from #2?? thats where he should be. that sample is too small from #2 abs i bet to really know what he can do there for a whole season

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=511236&postcount=101

Johnny Footstool
03-08-2006, 07:24 PM
I finally got an email back from Wheeler. He said that even Dan O'Brien acknowledged that the Reds needed more "win-efficient" runs. I think putting any stock into a quote made by the worst "former" GM in baseball was his first mistake!

The origin of that obtuse term comes as no surprise.

Did DanO furnish a definition for what he considers "win-efficient" runs?

deltachi8
03-08-2006, 07:36 PM
WomackRULZZZ250, the son of BadFundamentals.

...with Attitude!

gm
03-08-2006, 08:04 PM
What's REALLY funny about all this is I got in an argument with what was most likely Tony's wife at a D Backs ST game 6 years ago when she eavesdropped on me slamming Tony's game.... Of course rather than debate his game she asked me how much money I made.

At least she didn't go all Kendra Davis on you...right?

westofyou
03-08-2006, 08:07 PM
At least she didn't go all Kendra Davis on you...right?
She had a baby in a baby tote... she probably pondered how she could drop me and not wake the tyke up.

Reds Nd2
03-08-2006, 09:53 PM
Hanson hit the top 40 with more authority than Tony Womack.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Highlifeman21
03-09-2006, 05:09 PM
if u get on base 1 every 4 times but u score every time u get on base thats better than somebody who gets on base 2 timez every 5 if that person doesn't know how to take a basee and score a run!!/


And to think, I've wasted a decade worth of education when the math was really this simple...

I really hope this is all an act and you aren't this blatantly ignorant, but then again, it's good to see that ToWo has 1 fan.

Highlifeman21
03-09-2006, 05:12 PM
jeter should be leadoff then tony can either move him along or slap a single then a-rod then your big bats!!


And somewhere, Joe Torre knows his future is in jeopardy with the Yankees.....

wheels
03-09-2006, 07:33 PM
Okay dudes....

womackrulzzzzz is definitely not me.

RFS62
03-09-2006, 08:11 PM
Okay dudes....

womackrulzzzzz is definitely not me.


Yeah, I thought he was Tom Lawless Fan signed in under a new name.

Same MO

wheels
03-09-2006, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I thought he was Tom Lawless Fan signed in under a new name.

Same MO

But my delivery was much better.

Besides...TLF jumped the shark months ago.

Falls City Beer
03-09-2006, 08:19 PM
But my delivery was much better.

Besides...TLF jumped the shark months ago.

So was TLF really Raisor?

Raisor
03-09-2006, 08:52 PM
So was TLF really Raisor?


I was actually Bad Fundamentals.








ok, not really, but that would have been funny.

Ron Madden
03-10-2006, 04:36 AM
I was actually Bad Fundamentals.








ok, not really, but that would have been funny.


Well my goodness...I'm wrong again.

I would have bet big money that you were just one more of DennyReds many screen names. ;)

Revering4Blue
03-11-2006, 05:56 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/398745p-337902c.html


Womack still seeing Red

BY SAM BORDEN
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

SARASOTA, Fla. - Tony Womack is happy to be competing for the Reds' second base job this spring, but he believes he never got a fair shot during his lone season in pinstripes.

Womack, who signed a two-year deal to be the Yankees' second baseman in December 2004, was moved to the outfield to make room for Robinson Cano last May before finishing the year as a little-used pinch-runner. He was traded to Cincinnati at the winter meetings and although no one with the Yanks ever blamed him publicly for the Bombers' early struggles, Womack said yesterday he feels he was unfairly portrayed as a scapegoat.

"I was the guy they could get - what could I do?" Womack said. "That's the Yankees, though. The blame is always on somebody else other than (where) it should be."

Womack wouldn't go into exactly what made him feel that way and there weren't any instances last season in which a player or coach specifically targeted him as a reason for the team's rocky start. Still, Womack said he was shocked and upset when he was told he'd be moved from second to the outfield to make room for the rookie Cano.

GM Brian Cashman said the move was made because it was what was best for the team at the time; he didn't want to get into anything regarding Womack. "It didn't work out for Tony and we turn the page and go on," Cashman said. "It's in the past."

Womack got the news of his position change on the team plane, he said. The Bombers had just lost a Sunday matinee to the Blue Jays on May 1 and were flying to Tampa for a four-game set. Joe Torre called Womack up to the front of the plane and, according to Womack, told him the Yanks were trying to shake things up and that he'd now be playing center field.

"I wasn't the only one struggling," Womack said. "They made changes that screwed me. I'm not young; I'm not saying you should just give me respect, (but) you can't just whip me around, make me a whipping ball for anyone."

Womack was signed to become the Yanks' leadoff hitter, giving the Bombers a prototypical speed player at the top of the order. That had been a fascination of George Steinbrenner, and several of his Tampa-based executives pushed to sign Womack over bringing back Miguel Cairo.

When the Bombers stumbled at the beginning of the season, however, a sense of urgency emerged and it was obvious that something had to be done. The Yanks were 10-15 when Cashman and other Yankee officials decided Cano might give them a spark.

Womack was supposed to replace Bernie Williams in center field but that didn't last long, either, as it quickly became clear he wasn't suited to play there. He ended up playing just 24 games at second base.

"They never gave me a chance to do anything," Womack said. "It's easy to put you on the back burner. It's easy to say someone didn't do anything when you don't give them a chance."

Now the 36-year-old is hoping to become an everyday player for the Reds. He said last year "doesn't exist" in his mind and believes he has several good years left in his legs.

"I'm past being angry and I'm past being frustrated," he said. "I'm not going to let anybody dictate how my career is going to end

puca
03-11-2006, 08:40 AM
"I was the guy they could get - what could I do?" Womack said. "That's the Yankees, though. The blame is always on somebody else other than (where) it should be."

This could be the most ironic quote of the year.

Instead of blaming himself for his bad year Tony blames the fact that the Yankees always blame someone other than who is responsible. Huh?

puca
03-11-2006, 08:52 AM
"I wasn't the only one struggling," Womack said. "They made changes that screwed me. I'm not young; I'm not saying you should just give me respect, (but) you can't just whip me around, make me a whipping ball for anyone."


His OBP was around .300 and his OPS was around .600 through May, about the time he was replaced. Sadly this is about the norm for Tony, so maybe he has a point. Is a player really struggling when he is performing at about career norms?

Redsland
03-11-2006, 12:06 PM
I wish I had a whipping ball.

KronoRed
03-11-2006, 02:49 PM
Sounds like Graves after he landed with the Mets.

TeamBoone
03-11-2006, 02:57 PM
n/m - wrong thread