Jacque Jones Appreciation

[UK1679666180]

I seperate major league baseball and little league/high school.

 

I watch a hell of alot more HS/college games than major league or even minor league games, after this year, it has all blended together.

[Rob]

To me, if I complain about a player with constant leg injuries, the 1st thing I look at his conditioning program. Oddly enough, one of things Ramirez worked on this past off-season was better conditioning to prevent leg injuries and not various opportunities when to loaf it.

 

Don't presume I'd rather Aramis loaf than get in shape. The question rises in whether or not his body can physically take 162 games, no matter how hard he works? I don't believe he can survive without getting a few too many of those nagging injuries he's become so famous for.

 

Emotional attachment is probably the best way to describe it, I think it helps separate those who have a passion for the game and those who don't. I believe in a purity of the game and respect for the game as well as those who are watching, one of the ways to give back is by giving effort.

 

My passion has become insane for this game, now that I see it as the art form that it is. I see baseball everywhere I go... I see it everytime I sit through physics class...

 

A lack of hustle is an errant brushstroke. A bad front office direction is an 800 pound gorilla falling on your water lillies.

 

Hustle is always good, even with health considerations.

 

That's an extremely short-sighted view to take.

 

Tell me, is the blatant abuse of our pitching staff in 2003 working out well for us? Those "gamers" in our rotation really "gave it their all" for 120 pitches a game.

 

No one has answered my question about Andruw Jones....

 

Sorry, I had missed it.

 

Bobby Cox certainly made the right decision, as he is apt to do.

 

Once again, he has the foresight necessary to avoid silly short-sighted decisions. He recognized that the cost of Andruw coming out for one game would possibly positively benefit his team down the road... putting a work ethic into a young, impressionable player.

 

But it's important to note that Andruw Jones was 19 and needed direction.

 

Pulling Barry Bonds in that situation now wouldn't net you a bloody thing.

 

I really do find it odd that you essentially refuse to believe anything but the short-sighted view of hustle in guys like Aramis could be wrong... while simultaneously trying to use an example where Bobby Cox was trying to use the situation to bring about more long-term success as the basis for your argument.

[UK1679666180]

 

Don't presume I'd rather Aramis loaf than get in shape. The question rises in whether or not his body can physically take 162 games, no matter how hard he works? I don't believe he can survive without getting a few too many of those nagging injuries he's become so famous for.

 

My passion has become insane for this game, now that I see it as the art form that it is. I see baseball everywhere I go... I see it everytime I sit through physics class...

 

A lack of hustle is an errant brushstroke. A bad front office direction is an 800 pound gorilla falling on your water lillies.

 

That's an extremely short-sighted view to take.

 

Tell me, is the blatant abuse of our pitching staff in 2003 working out well for us? Those "gamers" in our rotation really "gave it their all" for 120 pitches a game.

 

Sorry, I had missed it.

 

Bobby Cox certainly made the right decision, as he is apt to do.

 

Once again, he has the foresight necessary to avoid silly short-sighted decisions. He recognized that the cost of Andruw coming out for one game would possibly positively benefit his team down the road... putting a work ethic into a young, impressionable player.

 

But it's important to note that Andruw Jones was 19 and needed direction.

 

Pulling Barry Bonds in that situation now wouldn't net you a bloody thing.

 

I really do find it odd that you essentially refuse to believe anything but the short-sighted view of hustle in guys like Aramis could be wrong... while simultaneously trying to use an example where Bobby Cox was trying to use the situation to bring about more long-term success as the basis for your argument.

 

No player can typically play for 162 games, it's rare to begin with. I would not expect Ramirez or any player to do that. I would probably rest my position players more often than most currently do when given that luxury.

 

There's a clear separation between how the Cubs' staff was used in '03 and "hustle". That's as obvious as the difference between night and day, when the did the players make the decision of when they take themselves out of the game? When did hustling become a similar tearing down process as pitching?

 

So... Let's see, you'd punish Jones for lack of hustle but not Bonds? That sounds like a certain manager with a veteran preference and what tone does that set for the rest of the club?

 

Nothing short-sighted about wanting to see players hustle and being upset when you don't see it.

[Guest]

I would definitely have a different standard for Bonds and Frank Thomas than for someone like Jones. Bonds value isn't stretching a single into a double, its hitting the ball out of the ballpark. For him to risk injury trying to beat out an infield hit is not wise. I love to see players play hard but I think you have to make an assessment of the individual and their skills and relative injury risk. The reality is even with great offseason regimens, some players are at high risk for injury.

[UK1679666180]

I would definitely have a different standard for Bonds and Frank Thomas than for someone like Jones. Bonds value isn't stretching a single into a double, its hitting the ball out of the ballpark. For him to risk injury trying to beat out an infield hit is not wise. I love to see players play hard but I think you have to make an assessment of the individual and their skills and relative injury risk. The reality is even with great offseason regimens, some players are at high risk for injury.

 

I agree that Bonds is the exception rather than the rule, but there's a diff. between lack of effort and injury risk, even for someone like Bonds and not like Ramirez. I think Bonds gives his all, of course, with the injuries his all doesn't appear as much as others.

[Rob]

No player can typically play for 162 games, it's rare to begin with. I would not expect Ramirez or any player to do that. I would probably rest my position players more often than most currently do when given that luxury.

 

There's a clear separation between how the Cubs' staff was used in '03 and "hustle". That's as obvious as the difference between night and day, when the did the players make the decision of when they take themselves out of the game? When did hustling become a similar tearing down process as pitching?

 

So... Let's see, you'd punish Jones for lack of hustle but not Bonds? That sounds like a certain manager with a veteran preference and what tone does that set for the rest of the club?

 

Nothing short-sighted about wanting to see players hustle and being upset when you don't see it.

 

You wouldn't have to rest your players if you were the manager. Most would get plenty of DL time in.

 

And no, there's really not a whole lot of separation in the pitching analogy. On both sides, you're leaving your body out there in a position where it will deteriorate given that it's left in such high stress situations for longer than advisable. You're attempting to force the players to hustle irregardless of health issues... that's not at all dissimilar from leaving a pitcher out there after 120 pitches irregardless of the health issues.

 

Smooth move trying to allude to me being like Dusty. But it has absolutely nothing to do with a veteren preference. It's called being a realist.

 

Andruw Jones at 19 had good knees and the ability to heal quickly.

 

Barry Bonds at 41 barely has knees and cannot heal quickly at all.

 

If you honestly want to pretend you're the same player, that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

And can you honestly tell me that...

 

Hustle is always good, even with health considerations.

 

is anything but short-sighted? It's the utter definition of it! You're potentially giving up large future gains for satisfaction in the short term. You can argue to how sane an idea it may be, but not how short-sighted it is most of the time.

[UK1679666180]

You wouldn't have to rest your players if you were the manager. Most would get plenty of DL time in.

 

And no, there's really not a whole lot of separation in the pitching analogy. On both sides, you're leaving your body out there in a position where it will deteriorate given that it's left in such high stress situations for longer than advisable. You're attempting to force the players to hustle irregardless of health issues... that's not at all dissimilar from leaving a pitcher out there after 120 pitches irregardless of the health issues.

 

Smooth move trying to allude to me being like Dusty. But it has absolutely nothing to do with a veteren preference. It's called being a realist.

 

Andruw Jones at 19 had good knees and the ability to heal quickly.

 

Barry Bonds at 41 barely has knees and cannot heal quickly at all.

 

If you honestly want to pretend you're the same player, that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

 

is anything but short-sighted? It's the utter definition of it! You're potentially giving up large future gains for satisfaction in the short term. You can argue to how sane an idea it may be, but not how short-sighted it is most of the time.

 

Are you telling me that by expecting my players to hustle that most would be on the DL at some point during the season?

 

Talk about an idiotic thought process.

 

I can't believe I have to explain on why there's a physical difference between wear and tear on a pitcher's arm and a player hustling. As I mentioned in the next post, someone like Bonds is giving it his best and even someone going thru the pain that he is. I do believe that Bonds is the exception rather than the rule BECAUSE HE IS INJURED.

 

No, the physical breakdown of the arm, shoulder and upper and lower back during an extended pitching outing is not the same as a player hustling on the field.

 

Hustle is always good, even with health considerations.

 

Don't pull that double switch w/me, that crap don't work. That was in regards to Rowand and the potential of injury from increased effort not some injured player people think is loafing out there.

 

Yes, if a player is healthy, I expect him to hustle when he is out there, I expect him to run out every ground ball to the point or pace where he can reach 1B. I expect him to chase fly balls and use his judgement as to whether or not he can make a play of the fly, play it in the corner, or on the ground. Same goes for infielders. There are plenty more examples.

[Rob]

 

Are you telling me that by expecting my players to hustle that most would be on the DL at some point during the season?

 

Talk about an idiotic thought process.

 

 

You mean to tell me "giving 110%" and "pushing it to the limit" isn't exactly the sort of thing that instigates freak injuries?

 

At any rate, perhaps my vitrol got to be a bit much while making such a backhanded comment. I think it's fairly obvious to both of us that it's very unlikely "most" of your players wouldn't end up on the DL.

 

The ones most at risk are the high-talent ones, though... the ones accustomed to loafing when hustle is counterproductive. Those are the people I would least like injured.

 

I can't believe I have to explain on why there's a physical difference between wear and tear on a pitcher's arm and a player hustling. As I mentioned in the next post, someone like Bonds is giving it his best and even someone going thru the pain that he is. I do believe that Bonds is the exception rather than the rule BECAUSE HE IS INJURED.

 

No, the physical breakdown of the arm, shoulder and upper and lower back during an extended pitching outing is not the same as a player hustling on the field.

 

If you want to play your cards like that, you may as well go with...

 

"Nuh uh... pitchers use their arms! Fielders are more likely to hurt their legs!"

 

I'm not saying asking a player to hustle real hard all of one game is the same as asking a pitcher to go 130 pitches.

 

I'm saying that asking a player to give it 110% for 162 games is like letting your starting pitcher average about 110 pitches a game. Only a select few can even come close to that without catastrophic results, be it appearing in the form of injury or simple fatigue-related performance decline.

 

I will grant you that you did mention that if given the job as a manager you said you would give your players more frequent days off. The one thing that could give your argument any validity whatsoever (in my eyes at least...) is if you could tell me approximately how often you would play certain guys. A healthy Lee, an oft injured Aramis, Barrett, and Murton are the ones that interest me most.

 

Hustle is always good, even with health considerations.

 

Don't pull that double switch w/me, that crap don't work. That was in regards to Rowand and the potential of injury from increased effort not some injured player people think is loafing out there.

 

Perhaps this is merely a semantic argument we can clear up. Can we both agree you shouldn't have put the word "always" in your quote?

 

Yes, if a player is healthy, I expect him to hustle when he is out there, I expect him to run out every ground ball to the point or pace where he can reach 1B. I expect him to chase fly balls and use his judgement as to whether or not he can make a play of the fly, play it in the corner, or on the ground. Same goes for infielders. There are plenty more examples.

 

Given the fact I've been drinking Crown Royal the last 5 hours, I'll give this a bit more of a concilliatory approach.

 

I get peeved when the runners don't even bother to touch first base on a routine groundout. I find it extremely offensive that the players can't even be bothered to launch the minimum effort required to reach the bag.

 

It may just be the liquor, but I'm becoming confused as to what exactly your stance is... so I think it'd be best if I put "running it out" in most certain terms. How would you feel for the following:

 

1. Aramis hits a hard grounder to Scott Rolen at third, which he fields cleanly before Aramis is hardly out of the box. Aramis jogs to first, touches the bag (clearly out by a mile) and trots back to the dugout.

 

2. Aramis bounces one back up the middle that Maddux fields cleanly inside of half a second. Aramis trots to first, touches the bag (out once more) and trots back to the dugout.

 

3. Aramis hits a routine grounder to Everett at short. He hustles out of the box, but slows down once he sees the ball hit Berkman's glove at first... still touching the bag and then trotting back.

 

4. Same as above, but it's a hard grounder. Aramis only trots out of the box, as Everett already has the ball in his glove before Aramis is even a quarter down the first base line.

 

5. Aramis hits a routine grounder up the first base line to Helton. Once again, he hustles until Helton touches the bag... Aramis then loafs up the line to touch first, turns around, and trots back.

 

Sorry to force such answers out of you. I'm just curious and maybe a bit drunk.

 

However, let me point out this fact...

 

ARAMIS IS ESSENTIALLY ALWAYS INJURED.

 

No, that does not excuse the lack of a great offseason conditioning programs. But the fact remains that he is almost always injured, or on the verge of being injured. Since you yourself admitted that there's a difference with injured players, why doesn't Aramis get a pass?

 

BTW, I retain the right to alter my arguments contained in this post.... Stupid wonderful Crown Royal.