Links

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Big Papi's Slump

Shaughnessy discusses the batting struggles of David Ortiz. He says Big Papi is struggling with injuries; he is struggling with umpires; and he is struggling with bad luck. He says Big Papi will snap out of it soon enough and all will be well.

He employs references to Murphy's Law, the Mendoza Line, Rob Lowe and Barry Manilow. He also dusts off the history books (Did you know that Ortiz used to platoon with Jeremy Giambi?)

This is your standard Shaughnessy fare...simple observations coupled with a litany of benign/mundane pop culture references. It is what it is....a snoozefest

9 comments:

dbvader said...

That's the thing. Ortiz and Giambi didn't platoon. They were both poorly fielding, slow left-handed hitters.

Look at Giambi's game log for 2003 and compare it to Ortiz's game log.

Ortiz played first and Giambi was at DH. The deal was that Grady was trying to fit 5 players (Mueller, Giambi, Hillenbrand, Millar, Ortiz) into three position (1b, 3b, DH). There was no platoon. I was 700 miles away and I understood what was going on. Dan was covering the team.

JJS37 said...

Maybe it's the vacation, but I was mildly entertained by CHB this time. Mildly. I thought "he's lower than low, lower than Rob Lowe" was actually funny...Although, he did have to get a shot in at Manny. You know why? Dan is a douche.

dbvader said...

Here is what people are saying about the column at baseballthinkfactory

Anonymous said...

"...a slugger of Ruthian proportion..."

Gratutous Babe Ruth Reference? Check.

roger bournival said...

And then he blossomed into the most feared clutch hitter in baseball, a slugger of Ruthian proportion. He was Yaz-like when it mattered and there was no way to pitch to him.

So, is / was he Ruthian or Yaz-manian? Side by each? Is it OK if I mix some more metaphors?

Does the board's R.A. wish to weigh in on this quandry, since he understands Dan so much better than the rest of us?

Would it kill Dan to reference a musician who isn't my mother's age?

objectivebruce said...

It all depends on how you want to define platoon. It wasn't the classic Stengle platoon, but it does fit with a theory of balancing power and defense -- if you go with a better gloveman at first, make sure you get some power out of DH o r3B. In March-April 2003, either Ortiz OR Giambi, but not both, played in 13 of 27 games; in another three games, one came in during the sixth or a later inning. IN the first nine games, both were in the lineup twice. Obviously not a one-for-one position platoon, nor a lefty/righty platoon, but Giambi and Ortiz do seem to have done some early season alternating in the number two slugger's role in the lineup in the early season. It was something of a three-man rotation with Scab Millar who played all but two games the first month. Giambi was hitting roughly .125, Ortiz .210 and Millar .300 at the end of April with nearly as many at-bats as Giambi and Ortiz combined.

I'd say you're quibbling at the margins.

dbvader said...

Obtusebruce,

You are smart enough to look at the boxscores, but too stupid or disingenuous to understand the facts.

As I pointed out, it wasn't a matter of Giambi v. Ortiz. It was Millar, Ortiz, Hillenbrand, Mueller, and Giambi.

There is nothing in the use of Giambi and Ortiz in April that suggests a platoon, i.e. that the two hitters were used interchangeably.

You cannot redefine platoon to mean what you want it to mean so that it can support your buddy Shank.

Anonymous said...

OB/Dan:

"Quibbling at the margins?" I love it when you go all journalistic on us!

By the way, the Globe whacked out Jackie Mac because things are going so swimmingly over there at the Pravda on Morrissey.

Your pal,

Timmy

dbvader said...

OB,

You suck. Admit you were wrong about the signal taping and that you have no clue what platooning is.

Yours truly,

dbvader