Sox Machine: Chicago White Sox blog

Stuck in the middle

As a blogging neophyte, I found Deadspin founder Will Leitch’s essay on the traditional baseball media pertinent.  As a member of the traditional media, I found my kind being misunderstood.

No matter which hat I’m wearing, all I know is that both sides could consider me “one of them.”

The whole piece is worth reading, and it spares us from the run-of-the-mill mainstream media jokes and actually brings up some thought-provoking questions.  Here’s the part that stood out to me in particular:

We do not need reporters to tell us the facts; we need people to tell us what it means. Or, more specific, to ask us what we think it means.

I’d respectfully but strongly disagree with Leitch on the first point, although I can easily see where he’s coming from.  As somebody who watches/listens to the games, I look to blogs for things I may have missed, and I’ve received suggestions from readers on how I may be able to use this space to provide the same service Leitch demands.  

But to prioritize analysis over facts is to ignore the majority of people who still actually subscribe to a tangible newspaper (God bless ‘em).  A majority of these people are on the other side of 50, and I’d guess that a worthwhile percentage of them find out how the game ended from the paper in the morning because they fell asleep during the fifth inning the night before.  Others may be interested in how their team is doing, but aren’t as hungry for info because they’re not as passionate.  The recaps and notebooks suit these people fine.

And you won’t see me knock beat writers often around here.  Columnists, of course, but the beat writer’s job isn’t an easy one.  I’ve spent enough time killing moths in press boxes to know that the job only gets more complicated as a journalist climbs up a ladder.  

It’s easy to get impatient with “the way things are” because an increasing number of people are getting their info how they want it.  RSS, XML and other feeds/aggregators give people news a la carte, and the idea that Jon Stewart and Fox News seem to have a greater impact on public discourse than network news gives the impression that consumers already consider themselves aware enough to take information with a side of spin.

In light of this, the newspaper, with its once-a-day press time and methodical reporting, is a dinosaur that needs to get with a program, right?  Not entirely.

The time will come when newspapers will be able to take full advantage of the 24-hour news cycle, when they will invest more into online content than they will their dead tree editions, but right now, the incentive isn’t there.  In this case, as it is with almost every other, the word “incentive” can be replaced with “money.”  Advertising in print is still far more lucrative than online advertising – even as more and more people head to the Internet than the newsstand.

It’s a transition that the newspaper can’t win – if they move too fast to explore the studio space online, they’ll be working much too hard for the revenue they’ll receive, as people are not conditioned to pay for information online at this point (who hasn't bitched about ESPN Insider yet?).  But while newspapers test the waters and experiment to figure out what’s profitable and what’s not, it appears that they’re dragging their feet.  

Slow and steady wins the race in this case.  As long as people are still subscribing to the newspaper, it’s best to meet the needs of those people first.  Circulation rates may be dropping, but each reader’s subscription buys time for media companies to figure out not what’s next, but how next.

For the time being, it’s up to bloggers to provide the snark with the news.  From all indications, it seems the worldwide community is all too ready on the whole.

Taking five, giving five back

The Tribune and the Sun-Times have taken enough time away from debating Ozzie Guillen’s patriotism to start pondering the top five questions for the White Sox entering Spring Training.  

Oddly enough, 4 1/2 of the five questions from both papers are the same, pointing to either a lack of creativity of a lack of legitimate issues.  I’d consider it the latter, because it took me awhile to think of ones that didn’t repeat the same themes.  

Here were the ones that matched:

#1:  Can Jim Thome and other assorted Sox stay healthy?
#2:  Can Brian Anderson handle center field?
#3:  Can Uribe hit in the No. 2 spot?
#4:  Who will be the bullpen's second lefty?

The Sun-Times additionally asked “What about Brandon?”, a question the Tribune addressed in the health issue.  The Trib asked about positional depth, which is somewhat redundant when considering they asked about injury issues earlier.

Either way, that’s not a particularly troubling batch of questions.  I’ll take my stab at answering them:

#1:  Thome’s injuries are the only ones that could potentially cripple the team, so the Sox better hang onto Ross Gload.  Herm Schneider generally does an excellent job with helping players stay on the course to recovery, although it seemed he couldn’t do much for Frank Thomas.  I’d consider it a victory if Thome played 120 games, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a voluntary DL stint or two just to keep him fresh throughout the season.

Otherwise, Crede has a backup in Mackowiak.  Scott Podsednik can be replaced by Jerry Owens, although Pods can first help himself by not running so often.  Jermaine Dye would be difficult to replace – as it stands now, Joe Borchard would be the first in line to replace him if Guillen preferred to keep Mackowiak in the supersub role.

#2:  As I said a couple of days ago, Anderson should be fine as long as he can passably fill in for Aaron Rowand defensively.

#3:  Uribe was fine in the No. 2 spot in 2004, hitting .285/.331/.515 in 260 at-bats.  I’d put more stock in those numbers than the ones he put up over 23 at-bats in 2005.  He hit for better contact last year, and is probably the best bunter on the team.  I don’t see what the big deal is.  Of course, I’d be happiest with Tadahito Iguchi hitting second and being allowed to swing the bat like he would in the No. 6 spot, but I guess Pods has to run.

#4:  The easiest job in baseball has to be the second lefty out of the pen – people are ecstatic whenever you don’t suck.  So I’m glad the Sox avoided spending big money on a Scott Eyre type when he may only pitch 40 innings.  What’s strange about the fixation on Lefty No. 2 is that for years, the best bullpen in baseball has belonged to Anaheim, and Mike Scioscia typically doesn’t deploy even one lefty reliever.  K-Rod, Brendan Donnelly, Scot Shields and Kelvim Escobar usually overmatch hitters no matter which side of the plate they’re standing on.

This lefty situation we can explore a bit further.  The Sox bullpen will need to put up another year like 2005 before they’re considered on the same level as the Angel firemen, but here’s what the team’s righties did against lefties in terms of OPS (righties’ OPS in parentheses):

Cliff Politte:  .579 (.576)
Bobby Jenks:  .414 (.795)
Dustin Hermanson:  .721 (.556)
Brandon McCarthy:  .602 (.879)

Throw in southpaw Neal Cotts, who shut down both lefties and righties, and the Sox should be fine with whatever LOOGY they come up with…as long as it’s not Kevin Walker.  Of course, they’d be fine with 11 pitchers, but Ozzie seems hell-bent on carrying 12, so we may as well plan for it.

As far the other half-issues are concerned.  I’m happy with McCarthy in the bullpen.  We’re all excited to see what he can do, but when Contreras is traded, Tim Redding will be the new emergency starter.  Not so fun now, is it? 

Depth?  Well, the Sox bench can be more balanced than last year depending on who they decide to carry.  They’ll have all the positions covered with Ozuna, Mackowiak and Widger, which will leave the last spot between Joe Borchard and Ross Gload – Gload gives them another lefty hitter, while Borchard gives the Sox a true fourth outfielder.  I’d be more concerned if the Sox were a NL team.

Now, if I were to come up with five questions that 1) are significant and 2) I couldn’t answer myself, it’d probably be:

#1:  How many games can we squeeze out of Thome?

Like I said, anything more than 120 would be outstanding, but it’s the No. 1 question mark.

#2:  Jose Contreras and Jon Garland – flukes or for real?

Both pitchers established new standards of performance, but they’re far from sure things entering the season.  That is especially the case for Contreras, who won’t have El Duque as a second pitching coach this year.

#3:  Will we see any help from Charlotte or Birmingham?  

The trades for Javier Vazquez and Thome depleted the farm system of some of its most MLB-ready candidates. 

#4:  Are Joe Crede and Juan Uribe on the same cycle?  

Like women who spend a lot of time together, the South Siders’ third  baseman and shortstop had their ups and downs at the same time in 2005.  If you were to list their months in order from best to worst in terms of OPS, they’d both look like this:

September – April – July – June – May – August

We’ve seen what the offense can do when they’re both hitting.

And finally,

#5:  Is Ozzie Guillen un-American or what?  

We should know after a few more months of solid discussion.