More BS from Womack and Wheeler

[Wally Mo Pena]

Man, Lonnie Wheeler is a terrible writer. Here's some snippets from his last forgettable piece on Womack:

"People just keep throwing stats in your face - like, this guy has a better on-base percentage," said Womack. "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."

from the man we're in trouble department:

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.

and then this gem from Lonnie:

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.

what we learn from this article (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs....603060336/1027) is that womack thinks the most important skill in baseball is to be on a team with talented players even if you have none yourself, and this somehow makes him Narron's type of player.

We also learn that lonnie wheeler has never heard of bill james and his analysis techniques come circa 1895.

for the record the reds 73 wins were only two off of their projection with james formula using RS and RA, so it would probably be safe to say that the 889 runs the pitchers gave up were a lot less "win-effective" than the 820 runs the reds scored.

[missionhockey21]

When a toddler gets frustrated, often times they hit their heard into the wall. Well, I feel like doing that now. Let's not even jump into the stats because when a player is as bad as Woemack was last year (and yeah, they're weren't many other players last year with that many AB's producing that low), you just can't argue with them. As for the "type" of player that Woemack is, again, is this something even worth debating? Ryan Freel has all the spunk or grit or hustle they'll go on about with Woemack except *gasp* he produces and is young enough to be considered in our plans for the next few seasons. Ryan Freel is not like what the rest of our lineup is overall and I though that Woemack has the capability to play the outfield like Freel, so I don't understand why Freel is all but penciled in as the "super-utility" player.

If this organization wants to continue to get aroused by any player "who knows how to win" (whatever that means), while overlooking superior talent and potential from younger guys, we will continue to go nowhere. They did with Aurilia-FeLo last year, this year with Ed E-Aurilia and Freel-Aurilia-Woemack. Now I am fairly certain that Ed E will get the job no matter what but I am just fed up with this teams strategies.

[Cincy]

I really don't fault the Reds making Aurilia our starting SS at the beginning of last season.

Felipe showed signs of MAJOR selfishness, was a total disaster in the field, and showed little signs of being a good hitter in 2003 and 2004.

[redsrbetter]

Isn't the manager supposed to be the one "who knows how to win." Why worry so much about veterans? Talent far exceeds veteran presence. I always thought that a manager should be the leader and the guy who has everything under control. The guy that is the example. Look at Bobby Cox. This guy is a role model and his teams is fueled off it.

I just don't get why managers today use veteran presence as a need in a clubhouse and on the field especially.

[Cincy]

In our case, Jerry Narron was never really on a winning team, playing for the Rangers and the Mariners in the 80's.

[CincyRedsFan30]

I have seen some good articles from Wheeler before. That one wasn't one of them.

I think he needs to stick to "human interest" stories.

This aritcle almost seems like something he wrote because he had to write a column prior to deadline last night and couldn't think of anything else.