Sox Machine: Chicago White Sox blog

A few more thoughts about Greg Walker

While digging through the archives trying to find that Kenny Williams-Jerry Manuel article I cited in the last post, I came across another one that's still quite interesting in retrospect.  From the Daily Herald's Scot Gregor, May 19, 2003:


Some batting averages on May 19, 2007, in which all the hitters comprising the Sox lineup that day weren't anywhere close to their career averages:

• Team: .223
• Paul Konerko: .193
  
• Jermaine Dye: .218
  
• Joe Crede: .209
• Rob Mackowiak: .198

While Jerry Reinsdorf might consider me brainless, I'd like to think I've been pretty fair in my assessment of Walker so far.  In fact, all I've been asking for is one clear-cut example that states his value to the team, aside from being a nice guy.

Here's a good example of what I'm looking for:

Baseball Think Factory linked to this Philadelphia Daily News story that describes the relationship between Phillies manager Charlie Manuel and Pat Burrell.

While Manuel's managing skills are dubious, nobody's ever questioned his talent for teaching hitting.  As hitting coach, he oversaw  the Cleveland Indians' juggernaut offense of the mid-1990s, including the team that scored over 1,000 runs in 1999.  His Phillies haven't been able to seal the deal in the final month, but it hasn't been for a lack of numbers.

At any rate, after hitting .129 in June, Burrell has been on fire for three straight months, which is by far his most consistent stretch since 2002.  Here's Manuel's explanation:


Weight balance, weight transfer and swing plane -- it's not groundbreaking stuff.  It also sounds vaguely sexual.  But note two things: 1) He can actually point to physical changes and tangible advice that helped a hitter get better, and 2) while he mentions confidence, note that Burrell's increased amount came after changes were made.  He treats swagger as an end, not a mean.

Something like this -- something on which Walker can hang his hat -- is all I'm trying to find.  Brian Anderson is still the only example of somebody who benefited from suggested changes to his technique, but I'd like to find somebody else.  You know, somebody who is still in the Sox's plans.

And before leaving the subject of Charlie Manuel, he is exactly the reason why putting a lot of money down on Aaron Rowand may not be a good idea.  Before he broke his face in May last year, Rowand was hitting .310/.356/.516 for the Phillies.  This year, he's setting career highs in batting average, on-base percentage, walks, RBI and doubles.  With two more homers, he'll have a new high in that category, too.

In Rowand's last year with the Sox, he batted .270/.329/.407 and grounded out to short 19 more times than anybody else on the Sox.  This year?  Well, he's still grounding out to short quite often, but he's enjoying far better results with his other batted balls.

That leads me to belive that "Rowand 6-3," the likable center fielder with the strong tendency to jerk all sorts of pitches into the ground, is still hanging around.
Without a massive change in hitting approach, the Sox clubhouse would be just the environment for enabling the reappearance of that Rowand.  Except this time, he'd be costing roughly three to four times as much.

Like him or not, he'll be staying for a while (updated)

While the length of Ozzie Guillen's contract extension surprised me, the fact that he received one didn't.   Four years, on top of the last year of his existing contract, seems like a long time on both sides.  Whether it's Guillen, Kenny Williams or Jerry Reinsdorf, nobody's had fun this season, and 2008 doesn't look all that bright, either.  I probably would have wagered on three years total with the 2008 segment of his contract reconfigured, giving him security through 2010.

What this new deal confirms is that the current White Sox front office is highly reluctant to place blame on managers until ample evidence presents itself.

For some reason, a Fred Mitchell article in the Chicago Tribune from July 15, 2002 stuck with me.  I don't have a link because I finally dug it out of a pay archive, but here's the key part:


The circumstances surrounding Manuel's vote of confidence and Guillen's extension are quite different, but the message is the same.  Once Kenny Williams has his manager, it will take an awful lot for somebody to convince him to change course.  Especially when he and Jerry Reinsdorf won a World Series ring with said manager.

Manuel lasted another year and a half before getting the boot -- Guillen is set to lead the Sox three times longer than that -- but with the scrutiny Manuel underwent, it seemed like a decade at the time.

There's only one part of this I don't understand:  Nobody has any clue what the White Sox will look like in five years, so how does anybody know if Guillen is the guy to lead them?

Looking at the longest-tenured managers, from Bobby Cox to Tony La Russa to Ron Gardenhire, it's easy to identify which players they could build around.  They all watched plenty of guys come and go, but most of them were complementary players to a young and established core.

The current edition of the White Sox has no core.  Paul Konerko is the only hitter under contract through 2010, but he's not immune from trade rumors.  Josh Fields is the only young hitter that looks like he could penciled in years from now -- and he's not exactly hittting either. 

Mark Buehrle is actually under contract for the length of Guillen's new deal.  Javier Vazquez looks reliable.  After them, the only other pitcher who might be seen on the South Side after 2010 is Bobby Jenks.

Barring some kind of dramatic transformation with several of the Sox's aging players, five years will be a very long time with this club. We're going to either see an incredible amount of turnover, or we're going to see piecemeal additions like David Eckstein or Aaron Rowand in an effort to keep the Sox "competitive," like duct-taping large spots on the exterior of an Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais so bare bones it didn't have reclining seats or a tape deck, in hopes that it won't rust more.  Not that I've ever driven a car like that.

I'd rather see the former -- but that's the only kind of situation in which Guillen hasn't proved himself able.

I do think Guillen is versatile -- he showed himself to be a pretty good improviser with an injury-riddled squad in 2004, and 2005 goes without saying.  He keeps his starters healthy and manages a bullpen pretty well, if you treat this year's crop of relievers as a hopeless wreck.

The only part that has come into question is his handling of young players.  A couple guys (like Jenks) have come up, earned Guillen's respect and integrated themselves into the team seamlessly.  Others, like Brian Anderson and Brandon McCarthy, have been conspicuously repressed, and we only know parts of the stories there.

Guillen's playing plenty of kids this year -- and it appears he hasn't gone overboard with the tough love -- but mainly for a lack of viable alternatives.  Jerry Owens, Andy Gonzalez, Danny Richar and friends aren't exactly blocking anybody.  It's when he's faced difficult decisions that the curious situations arise, and if this year is any indication, he's going to face plenty of tough choices down the road.

We'll see if he's the guy to do it. We don't have a choice there.