PDA

View Full Version : Bender Update !!!



oregonred
06-01-2004, 04:01 AM
Just poking fun at some of the old days when this was a daily reminder... :mhcky21:

Bender

BA: .240
OPS: .680
TB: 41
RC; 14.9

Player X

BA: .394 (MLB #1)
OPS 1.081 (MLB #7)
TB: 124 (MLB #2)
RC: 49.5 (MLB #5 and 1B #1)

:evil:

Chip R
06-01-2004, 07:59 AM
Small sample size!!! :D

RedFanAlways1966
06-01-2004, 08:11 AM
Player X? Is that Speed Racer's long lost brother (you young-pups won't understand!)?!?! Player X... I love it.

This Player X character is having a heck of year so far. I wonder if he has a good attitude, gets along with teammates and is well-received by the fans and opposing teams?

Back before HRs meant everything... Player X would be in serious consideration for the N.L. MVP award.

BuckeyeRed27
06-01-2004, 08:39 AM
If player X hits .380 and Team Y makes the playoffs Player X WILL BE the NL MVP.

creek14
06-01-2004, 08:44 AM
If player X hits .380 and Team Y makes the playoffs Player X WILL BE the NL MVP.
And Manager Z will be Manager of the Year. But will that be enough for a contract extension?

RedsRock
06-01-2004, 08:56 AM
And Manager Z will be Manager of the Year. But will that be enough for a contract extension?

Probably not if banned from baseball ex-manager A is reinstated to the game.

zombie-a-go-go
06-01-2004, 09:12 AM
And Manager Z will be Manager of the Year. But will that be enough for a contract extension?

Not if Big-O has anything to say about it.

Yachtzee
06-01-2004, 09:26 AM
Player X definitely seems to be playing better than the Name Brand 1Bs.

RANDY IN INDY
06-01-2004, 11:30 AM
The" I-mobile" is back.

oregonred
06-01-2004, 11:50 AM
The" I-mobile" is back.

The I-Mobile lives again.

What a BEAU-TI-FUL looking set of wheels! :thumbup:

MWM
06-01-2004, 11:54 AM
What's the point of these threads? :confused:

Chip R
06-01-2004, 11:59 AM
What's the point of these threads? :confused:
The same point as the Bender update threads.

oregonred
06-01-2004, 12:06 PM
What's the point of these threads? :confused:

That maybe the boys wouldn't be 30-21 without Player X. Or that the run differential would be about 35 fewer without player X. Or that a roster of $325K sub-par guys would be the worst team in baseball.

And last but not least, giving some much deserved props to so-called Player X (and if it also pokes some gentle fun then who am I to complain!) :mhcky21:

Bill
06-01-2004, 12:14 PM
I've been expecting this thread for a few days, after all Ben has been in a bad slump dragging his average down from .290 where it was for most of the season. It's time to mark him up as a failure but let us not forget the Reds' failures too in their own slumps- Kearns, Larue, Jimenez, Dunn.

Ben, in his rookie year, matched Casey. Sure he is not going to do that this year, but lets see where he ends up at season's end before we take fun from his failure. Let's wait a bit on player X too. If Casey slips, so do the Reds.

Also do not forget that the player the Reds received in return in that shrewd trade is now toiling in Buffalo below BB.

Bill
06-01-2004, 12:35 PM
Broussard shoos away his slump
Monday, May 31, 2004
Paul Hoynes
Plain Dealer Reporter
Strange thoughts were bubbling in Ben Broussard's head.

He talked about burning incense or, maybe, a bat. He was open to any suggestion when Casey Blake offered him his old baseball shoes.


"They were size 12," Broussard said. "Casey said there were a lot of hits in them."

Broussard didn't need to hear another word. He grabbed the shoes, laced them up and waited for the hits to come Sunday in the Tribe's 4-3 victory over Oakland.

It took a while.

Tim Hudson struck out Broussard in the second inning. He bounced out to first in the fourth. By the time Broussard batted in the seventh, he was 0-for-27 and felt like he'd been fitted with a cement overcoat for the next episode of "The Sopranos."

"You start feeling that weight," Broussard said.

The weight lifted when Broussard lined a single off Eric Chavez's glove at third base.

"It's like when you hit your first big-league home run . . . you don't remember anything," he said.

Broussard has been through slumps in the minors, but never in the big leagues.

"This is a different demon up here," he said.

Broussard was happy the Indians won and that he went through a slump like this in May instead of September.

"I've got four months to build on it," he said. "I can enjoy the off-day and come back Tuesday and start from ground zero."

As for Blake's shoes, Broussard is keeping them.

Chip R
06-01-2004, 12:44 PM
Ben, in his rookie year, matched Casey. Sure he is not going to do that this year, but lets see where he ends up at season's end before we take fun from his failure. Let's wait a bit on player X too. If Casey slips, so do the Reds. Unfortunately that cat is out of the bag. I don't see anything wrong with poking a bit of fun at the Broussard lovers since they certainly had their share of fun poking fun at Casey and his fans. At least no one is doing one of these every single day. What comes around goes around.

MWM
06-01-2004, 01:51 PM
These types of threads rub me the wrong way, Chip, because they are meant as nothing more than folks sticking their noses in the air to those critical of Casey's performance over the past 3 seasons because of his hot start. I don't remember anyone ever "poking fun" at Casey.

I'll gladly admit I was one of those who didn't think Casey's performance was very good at all the past three seasons. But I never once was criticial of Sean Casey the person. No one wanted Sean to succeed as much as I did. I rooted like hell for the guy, but let's face it - he didn't produce. Most likely, injuries contributed significantly to his decline in those seasons and it looks like he's healthy now. Believe me, I hope Sean continues his current trend for the next 10 years while wearing the Cincinnati Red uniform. Nothing would make me happier. I just wasn't willing to let my love for the guy make me believe that he was performing at the level the Reds needed him to.

It's just all this "ha ha. I was right, you were wrong" strikes me as rather juvenile. These two months have been great, but it still doesn't erase the past three years. Let's just hope what we're seeing now is the real Sean Casey. For the record, I think it is. Do I think he'll continue with a 1.000+ OPS for te entire season? Nope. But I think a high .900s OPS in very realistic and I'm pulling for the guy. Everyone is pulling for him. So why all the childish finger pointing? I just don't know what you're getting satisfaction over. Is it that you think people were rooting against Sean Casey? Should people now feel foolish because they were critical of Sean over the last 3 seasons? Are these same people going to feel foolish themselves if he regresses back to his 2001-2003 performance levels the rest of the season? (Something I don't think will happen, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.) I don't get what all the laughing is about.

traderumor
06-01-2004, 01:55 PM
Player X has changed his name to Chris Reitsma, I think.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 02:00 PM
I don't remember anyone ever "poking fun" at Casey.


How about comments like "he leads the league in hugs" every time anyone dared to say anything at all positive about him?

Mike, you know I like you and respect you. But you must have missed a lot of posts in the past three years if you don't remember the lambasting that Casey received here.

And the worst part, to me at least, was the absolute certainty with which the detractors made their pronouncements.

To me, it seems rather gutless now that all the people who had so much fun at Casey's expense the past few years don't step up and admit they were wrong. I'm not expecting it, though.

Casey played through pain and injury during that time, and he was the ongoing butt of an endless stream of jokes and criticism. Well, it's just like Chip said.... what goes around comes around.

And don't mistake any of this as dislike for Bender. Heck, I wish him nothing but the best, and I really liked him when he was in our organization, as I still do today. But the Bender update was the symbol of disrespect and dissatisfaction that used to drive the Casey supporters here crazy, and it doesn't bother me at all to now see those who listened to all that crap for so long to get a chuckle out of it now.

oregonred
06-01-2004, 02:11 PM
RFS62 summed it up nicely.

The abuse Casey took around here was pathetic at best. The board was almost unreadable at times with the 15 threads a day on how Casey was the problem. Before Bender, remember the countless Konerko threads? I think the pro-Casey backers have been very considerate in the response to date.

Most of the board abuse centered around his 2004/2005 contract numbers (6.8/8M) and how the Reds could not compete with Casey's dollars on the roster. Beyond the daily threads, dismissing his leadership qualities and poking fun at his cheerleading are what annoyed me the most.

The month Casey puts up an .800 OPS stretch I'm sure the trade Casey threads will be filling up the screen.

No one is poking fun of Bender, he looks like a low-ceiling 27 yr. old prospect for a middling team.

Now Graves has been the 2004 whipping boy de jour despite a 1.07WHIP and sub 3 ERA.

The boys are 30-21. I know everyone is happy Case is having a great year. So, time to relax and have some fun! :D

VR
06-01-2004, 02:23 PM
I was an advocate of eschewing Sean and his under performing contract. He was hurt, played with pain when he shouldn't have been and didn't have any bat speed the last two years. I'll gladly eat crow.

I think the thread title is hilarious. It's what makes this site so great. Being able to laugh at some of the absolute mantras' that get going in here.
I didn't read that OR was trying to rub anything in anyone's face, just trying to bring out some levity while things are going great. Thus the 'just poking fun' start to the thread.

If everyone was held accountable in here to there high and mighty predictions, we would all look like idiots. Some thrive on the need to be right, some thrive on just having some open discussions. It's really the crux of many of the negative vibes this board has had over the last year and a half. Well that, and losing. ;)

Chip R
06-01-2004, 02:23 PM
These types of threads rub me the wrong way, Chip, because they are meant as nothing more than folks sticking their noses in the air to those critical of Casey's performance over the past 3 seasons because of his hot start. I don't remember anyone ever "poking fun" at Casey.As I said, MWM, what comes around goes around. As for threads poking fun at Casey, rest assured there were plenty of posts poking fun at him. Things like that he's only good for giving hugs. Or that when he came up with a runner on first it was a sure double play. You might want to tiptoe through some of the threads from last season to look at all the posts and threads that made fun of Casey. Unfortunately we don't have them from the year before so you could take a look at those threads too.

If making fun and criticizing Casey by propping Broussard was fair game then making fun and criticizing Broussard by propping Casey is as well. Surely Broussard and his posse aren't immune to these gibes.

I personally don't get any satisfaction from this "finger pointing". Nothing would please me more than to see Broussard and Casey succeed. But I'm sure some of Casey's backers are getting satisfaction at seeing him doing well at the expense of Broussard. No one would have cared about how Broussard was doing if there wasn't a "Bender Update" thread every day he got a hit. If you are going to dish it out, you're going to have to take it too. I know most of Broussard's posse want Casey to do well. But I'm sure there are others who may secretly wish he does poorly so the Reds will get rid of him. And there may be some who are rooting for Casey to do well so the Reds can trade him. Yes, Casey stunk the past 3 seasons and he very well may stink again. But right now he is playing like one of the best players in the game so it shouldn't be a shock to see his backers dish out a little of what they have been taking for the better part of the last three seasons.

gm
06-01-2004, 02:33 PM
Also do not forget that the player the Reds received in return in that shrewd trade is now toiling in Buffalo below BB.

That was my thinking, as well. It never was fair (although it remained popular for awhile) to compare BenB with Player X. The deal was "Broussard for Branyan" and clearly the Tribe has gotten the better of it (FWIW, if the Reds still had BB, they would have a stronger bench and no need to acquire Vander Wal, etc) But Red's ownership rectified the underlying problem by showing JimBo the door, last July

backbencher
06-01-2004, 02:38 PM
It's just all this "ha ha. I was right, you were wrong" strikes me as rather juvenile.
So why all the childish finger pointing? I just don't know what you're getting satisfaction over.

If this Bender Update fits the "juvenile" and "finger-pointing" criteria, the former ones did as well. There is NO difference between the threads other than the performance of the respective players.

Bill
06-01-2004, 02:44 PM
The bender updates were not to poke fun at Casey but rather express our angst over a stupid deal. No one ever thought BB would be a star but would hit about .280 with 20 hr 80 rbi or so and at a much reduced cost. Sure Casey is producing now, but he did not over several seasons whilst being paid handsomely. We'll never know whether the FO would have spent Casey's salary on more pitching if BB had been made the 1B a couple seasons ago, but they would have had the opportunity. Perhaps the funds would have been there to get Finley or some of the better starters and keep them in the race than the affordable and very hittable pitchers they did acquire for the stretch run.

I too am pulling for Casey, I have always liked him but I certainly would have dealt him long ago based on his extended performance and used the cash elsewhere. Perhaps that would appear to be a dumb move today, but most on here thought Casey's contract was a dumb move the day it was signed. He's got a ways to go to justify it.

backbencher
06-01-2004, 02:49 PM
The bender updates were not to poke fun at Casey but rather express our angst over a stupid deal.

The original posts, then and now, were numbers.

RedFanAlways1966
06-01-2004, 03:04 PM
If this Bender Update fits the "juvenile" and "finger-pointing" criteria, the former ones did as well. There is NO difference between the threads other than the performance of the respective players.

"Ain't so fun when Player X has got the gun."

:biggun50:

Hit and shoot away, Sean!

Chip R
06-01-2004, 03:17 PM
The bender updates were not to poke fun at Casey but rather express our angst over a stupid deal.Oh. yes, Bill, I'm sure no one who participated and started those updates ever had the intention of poking fun at Casey. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you didn't like the trade of Branyan for Broussard but where was Broussard going to play? He surely wasn't going to knock Casey out of the lineup since Sean had signed that long term deal. If anyone thinks the Reds would have benched Casey in favor of Broussard they are dreaming. Broussard was either going to sit on the bench and spot start or play in AAA. You and others may not have liked it or agreed with it but unless Casey had been injured for a significant amount of time it wasn't going to happen.

Let Casey's backers have their fun just like they let Ben's backers have their's.

red-in-la
06-01-2004, 03:22 PM
RFS62 summed it up nicely.

The abuse Casey took around here was pathetic at best. The board was almost unreadable at times with the 15 threads a day on how Casey was the problem. Before Bender, remember the countless Konerko threads? I think the pro-Casey backers have been very considerate in the response to date.

Most of the board abuse centered around his 2004/2005 contract numbers (6.8/8M) and how the Reds could not compete with Casey's dollars on the roster. Beyond the daily threads, dismissing his leadership qualities and poking fun at his cheerleading are what annoyed me the most.

The month Casey puts up an .800 OPS stretch I'm sure the trade Casey threads will be filling up the screen.

No one is poking fun of Bender, he looks like a low-ceiling 27 yr. old prospect for a middling team.

Now Graves has been the 2004 whipping boy de jour despite a 1.07WHIP and sub 3 ERA.

The boys are 30-21. I know everyone is happy Case is having a great year. So, time to relax and have some fun! :D

OR, I think you need to go back and read those threads. In virtually every one of them, the point was made by even the most ardent anti-Casey posters that IF he indeed ever put up the numbers he is now putting up, he WOULD BE an asset and worth his contract.

The issue was NEVER that Casey was a problem in the abstract.

You also need to go back and look at Casey's career splits. He has behaved in this fashion in two other years, and the other half of those seasons were very bad.....so before you bestorw baseball sainthood on the Mayor, maybe you better wait to see if he can keep it up for 162 games first.

MWM
06-01-2004, 03:33 PM
RFS62,

I remember comments like that from time to time and they were defnintely out of line. But I know I never made any comments like that and the couple of people I'm thinking of generally kept the comments around his performance. My recollection was that those types of comments came from a small minority. I always pulled for Sean. He's my favorite Red outside of Barry Larkin and I hope he stays with the Reds his entire career assuming he continues to produce.

As far as the "absolute certainty" of the detractors, I agree with you. Some went too far in writing Casey's career off without really taking into account the true impact of his injuries. I think most of everyone on RedsZone hoped that his lack of performance was related to injuries, but I think it's pretty certain that he didn't produce at a high level in those three years, regardless of the reason. You and I are probably talking about different things here, but some were probably talking about his performance at that time, while others took issue with the appearance of writing the guy off.

Jut to offer an opposing viewpoint on the issue from the other side, it seemed like certain players are beyond reproach because how likeable they are. Let's face it, some of Casey's detracors were probably unjustly lambasted for daring to be critical of such a wonderful human being. I remember being ripped apart on more than one occassion for merely montioning Sean Casey's production or even hinting at trying to trade the guy. The second someone mentioned that his numbers were near the bottom for 1B, they were crucified for Casey "bashing." I think that's probably where the "leading the lead in hugs" came from. I don't care for those types of comments, but it was probably just a defense mechanism for people who were ripped apart for criticizing Sean Casey. It goes both ways and I saw it from both sides. But as you know, that's usually how I see things. Where does the truth lie? Probably somewhere in the middle.


step up and admit they were wrong.

You know I'm a big fan of yours RFS, but exactly what were they wrong about? Are you completely convinced by these two months that he's back for good? I'm hoping like hell he is and I think there's a good chance he is, but I'm not entirely convinced yet. And even if he puts up an entire season of stellar production, does that make seomone wrong about 2001-2003. Again, we might be talking about two different groups of people. You're probably referring to those who pretty much wrote off his entire career.

Here was my take. I wrote off the second half of 2001 because of the shoulder injury. Actually, I think most probably did. Even 2002 I assumed was related to being less than a year removed from the shoulder surgery. Many, including myself predicted big comeback years in 2002 and 2003 for Casey. When it didn't happen clear into 2003, what were we supposed to think? It seemed like enough time had passed for the shoulder not to be blamed. It appeared to me the guy had just lost bat speed and his approach to hitting had completely changed. I commented several times last year that he almost never took the ball to the opposite field anymore and that was the source of his problems. I didn't see how that was injury related, but it's possible it could have been. Now we hear things about an injured hip last year. Well, I didn't know about that until recently. Did all of his "supporters" (and I put that term in quotes because I was always a huge Casey supporter) know something his "detractors" didn't? After three years and several failed predictions of a comeback, what were we supposed to think? I admit, I didn't expect what we're seeing from him this year. No one is more thrilled than me. But let's be honest, how many thought this is the Sean Casey we'd see. How many who are now laughing actually predicted Sean Casey would have an OPS of 1.000+ through May and be a legitimate MVP candidate? I think Chase from 24 could count the number of those people on his left hand. :mhcky21:

RFS62
06-01-2004, 04:05 PM
MWM, I can only speak for myself here, and I certainly did not include you in my reference to the Casey "lambasters". I know they have regular meetings and a secret handshake and all, and I never suspected that you were a member of that nefarious group.

And most definitely, Casey's performance was fair game, especially given the contract he signed.

My gripe was then and still is now the personal nature of the attacks.

Here's what I wrote in one of the prediction threads in the archives....

Time to rev up the Idiotmobile.

One of the main reasons that scouts are interested in a players "makeup" is the near certainty that a player will be faced with adversity many times in his career.

How you respond to that adversity can differ greatly among players, and for that matter, individuals in all walks of life.

I pick Sean Casey for surprise of the year.

It may well be that his makeup hurt him while he was injured. He struggled to play through not just pain, but injury. I'm betting that he comes back more fit and more determined than ever to prove his detractors wrong.



I believed that his injuries were the reason his performance dropped off, and it always rankled me when personal attacks the likes of "he leads the league in hugs" and many, many others just like that were being heaped on a good man who never failed to leave it all on the field.

I also made the point many times, to much derision, that Casey represented the "brand", to use a marketing term, of the Cincinnati Reds, and as such had additional value to the team in a very real monetary sense.

If sabermetrics has helped us to understand that baseball is a business, then part of that business plan also has to be marketing. And Casey and his relationship to the community is marketing 101 at its finest.

But it didn't matter what you said about Casey while he was down, you could always count on a slew of smart-alec remarks that made you feel like you were being talked down to and ridiculed for being so naive.

I think this is a common perception among the folks on this board who dared to support Casey through the past few years.

When I look back at great atheletes and great performers in all walks of life over the years, the ones who have overcome adversity are the ones who stand out in my mind. Casey exemplifies everything that I love about sports, and the way he carried himself through the numerous down periods of his career just add to the legend.

I refuse to reduce it to simple numbers. I've said it many times over the years here, and always to the amusement of many, I'm sure, but you can't measure heart, you can't measure the metaphysical side of the game that doesn't show up in the numbers. But you can observe it, if you know what you're looking at.

It doesn't bother me one iota that a statement like that will be laughed at by many as naive. I've been around athletes all my life, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

Our connection to sports takes many different forms and can be defined in many different ways. Sean Casey is worth the money he's been paid by the Reds, and then some. No spreadsheet will ever convince me otherwise.

westofyou
06-01-2004, 04:17 PM
Sean Casey is worth the money he's been paid by the Reds, and then some. No spreadsheet will ever convince me otherwise.

Casey is the biggest Caucasion Brand that the Reds have had since Pete Rose and Bench, the biggest in Cincinnati since Boomer.

That's not lost on me by any means.

RANDY IN INDY
06-01-2004, 04:20 PM
I think that oregonred was being "lighthearted" for the most part in his original comment, and I know that I was being totally lighthearted in bringing back the "I-Mobile" avatar. I certainly have been a fan of Casey's and I hope his big year continues, but I am well aware that all the lightheartedness" that this thread may exhibit will turn to a "lynch" mentality if Casey falters at all. I never really expected anyone to get all bent out of shape over this thread, but I have been wrong, many times before. Here's hoping that Casey keeps it up, and Broussard can get his mobile headed in the right direction.

Falls City Beer
06-01-2004, 04:26 PM
"You know I'm a big fan of yours RFS, but exactly what were they wrong about?"

They were wrong, ultimately, about Broussard.

I know, now the "small sample size" excuse will be given to defend Ben's putrid two months of the season (and .727 lifetime ML OPS--an OPS, incidentally, I feel QUITE certain Branyan could maintain from the bench or even starting for that matter).

Look, I was one of Casey's detractors, without question. I'll be a good sport and say I was wrong and take the crow. I thought the guy was Wally Joyner Light, and still think he's more Joyner than the guy that's played these last two months. But I also knew this Ben "I'm bench chattel" Broussard pimping was going to blow up in a lot of people's faces, and it's either inattention or disingenousness that has people wondering why, oh why, these Bender updates are being lampooned. I'm not a big "eye for an eye" person, but the spirit of these threads seems appropriate and largely in good fun.

Chip R
06-01-2004, 04:33 PM
Casey is the biggest Caucasion Brand that the Reds have had since Pete Rose and Bench, the biggest in Cincinnati since Boomer.

That's not lost on me by any means.
And Jr. is the biggest Negro Brand the Reds have had since Eric Davis.

Falls City Beer
06-01-2004, 04:37 PM
"Casey is the biggest Caucasion Brand that the Reds have had since Pete Rose and Bench, the biggest in Cincinnati since Boomer."

Since this thread has taken a "colorful" turn, let me add one of my own:

RED (HERRING)

I know Cincy's a fairly racist town, but I don't get how this is germane to the discussion AT ALL.

westofyou
06-01-2004, 04:37 PM
And Jr. is the biggest Negro Brand the Reds have had since Eric Davis.

Nah Barry is that guy, before him it was E.D.

MWM
06-01-2004, 04:38 PM
Fair enough RFS. Good points. He probably did endure a little more than his fairf share of criticism, but as you pointed out his production was fair game considering his contract. Maybe I'm just practicing selective memory here, but I recall the majority of the comments focussed more on performance and salary than anything personal. I know at one point I was a proponent of trading Sean Casey if you could get anyone to take his contract. But I also remember much criticism hepaed my way for such a suggestion. I also remember every time he had a good game reading multiple posts to the tune of "where are all the proponents of trading Casey now!"


I also made the point many times, to much derision, that Casey represented the "brand", to use a marketing term, of the Cincinnati Reds, and as such had additional value to the team in a very real monetary sense.

You might be surprised that I agree with this. I don't remember you saying this, but I'm glad to hear you look at this way too. It kind of validates my thoughts on the matter. BTW, Redsland can back me up on this because he and had a conversation about this very subject at the game a couple of weeks ago.

I commented that Casey has now been around long enough that he has become synonymous with the Cincinnati Reds. I didn't always believe this and if we could have traded him as recently as last year, my opinion might have been different. But he's now in his 7th season with the Reds. That's probably half of his career. Some of my saber buddies might cringe at the thought of this, but I definitely believe there is a real value to having players who spend their entire career with the Reds and become synonmymous with the city and the franchise. As you mentioned, I think it's all part of "branding" the baseball franchise. These are the players who continue to live in the city after their careers and who people will always associate with Reds baseball. Johnny Bench comes to mind for the Reds, Ozzie Smith for St. Louis, Yaz for the Red Sox. I really believe that's a value and Sean Casey might have passed that theshhold of time with the club that he can replace Barry Larkin as that person.

But there's a limit to how far I'm willing to take that. The player has to at least be decent and his contract has to be at least reasonable. Am I willing to pay a couple million dollar premium over production? That's about as far as I go. While I believe there is a value, I wouldn't be willing to overpay for that value. In other words, how much additional "brand" euqity does that player provide. Ultimately, a winning team is the best way to increase brand value, and if keeping a player like Casey prohibits the franchise from putting a winning team on the field, then I sacrifice the player for winning. But as long as that's not the case, I'd try to keep him in Cincinnati.

RANDY IN INDY
06-01-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by RFS62:

MWM, I can only speak for myself here, and I certainly did not include you in my reference to the Casey "lambasters". I know they have regular meetings and a secret handshake and all, and I never suspected that you were a member of that nefarious group.

And most definitely, Casey's performance was fair game, especially given the contract he signed.

My gripe was then and still is now the personal nature of the attacks.

Here's what I wrote in one of the prediction threads in the archives....

Time to rev up the Idiotmobile.

One of the main reasons that scouts are interested in a players "makeup" is the near certainty that a player will be faced with adversity many times in his career.

How you respond to that adversity can differ greatly among players, and for that matter, individuals in all walks of life.

I pick Sean Casey for surprise of the year.

It may well be that his makeup hurt him while he was injured. He struggled to play through not just pain, but injury. I'm betting that he comes back more fit and more determined than ever to prove his detractors wrong.



I believed that his injuries were the reason his performance dropped off, and it always rankled me when personal attacks the likes of "he leads the league in hugs" and many, many others just like that were being heaped on a good man who never failed to leave it all on the field.

I also made the point many times, to much derision, that Casey represented the "brand", to use a marketing term, of the Cincinnati Reds, and as such had additional value to the team in a very real monetary sense.

If sabermetrics has helped us to understand that baseball is a business, then part of that business plan also has to be marketing. And Casey and his relationship to the community is marketing 101 at its finest.

But it didn't matter what you said about Casey while he was down, you could always count on a slew of smart-alec remarks that made you feel like you were being talked down to and ridiculed for being so naive.

I think this is a common perception among the folks on this board who dared to support Casey through the past few years.

When I look back at great atheletes and great performers in all walks of life over the years, the ones who have overcome adversity are the ones who stand out in my mind. Casey exemplifies everything that I love about sports, and the way he carried himself through the numerous down periods of his career just add to the legend.

I refuse to reduce it to simple numbers. I've said it many times over the years here, and always to the amusement of many, I'm sure, but you can't measure heart, you can't measure the metaphysical side of the game that doesn't show up in the numbers. But you can observe it, if you know what you're looking at.

It doesn't bother me one iota that a statement like that will be laughed at by many as naive. I've been around athletes all my life, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

Our connection to sports takes many different forms and can be defined in many different ways. Sean Casey is worth the money he's been paid by the Reds, and then some. No spreadsheet will ever convince me otherwise.

That post is worth reading a few times! Great post, RFS62. Pretty much sums up my feelings as well!
:thumbup: :GAC:

RFS62
06-01-2004, 05:04 PM
You might be surprised that I agree with this. I don't remember you saying this, but I'm glad to hear you look at this way too. It kind of validates my thoughts on the matter. BTW, Redsland can back me up on this because he and had a conversation about this very subject at the game a couple of weeks ago.



Mike, as you well know, I consider you a friend and I have the utmost respect for you. Your word is all I need on the matter. It's no stretch of my imagination that anyone with a business background would see it this way, in fact, I'd be surprised if you didn't, and Redsland too, with his advertising background.

And I must admit, the Bender aspect of this thread was totally irrelevant to me when I started my rant. I've been itching to post my thoughts on this subject for some time now, and this just was the thread that uncorked all my pent up frustrations.

So, I apologize if I hijacked the thread from its original purpose.

And I don't really begrudge anyone for looking only at the numbers on this one. I would, however, implore anyone considering the subject to look deeper, in the truest spirit of the sabermetric movement of understanding all aspects of the game in the most complete fashion possible.

westofyou
06-01-2004, 05:11 PM
but I don't get how this is germane to the discussion AT ALL

It's not intended to touch on anything more than marketing.

If I'm marketing a product I first examine who my customer is, what my product is and then move from there. Back in the day JB and Pete were everywhere as far as ads, then Boomer, Paul O'Neil use to pitch Famous Recipe Chicken. Lately the only Reds employee I've seen in a commercial is barry now and then and Marty or Joe.

Sean has tenure, is a avowed middle america guy with a family and a firm handshake and a look in your eye. That's apple pie and ice cream in the marketing world, a guy like that having a monster year is marketing gold,especially in a market that is predominatly white and a fan base that is predominatley white it's a puzzle piece that can't be denied.

Even if it isn't PC to the core.

Chip R
06-01-2004, 05:29 PM
It's not intended to touch on anything more than marketing.

If I'm marketing a product I first examine who my customer is, what my product is and then move from there. Back in the day JB and Pete were everywhere as far as ads, then Boomer, Paul O'Neil use to pitch Famous Recipe Chicken. Lately the only Reds employee I've seen in a commercial is barry now and then and Marty or Joe.

Sean has tenure, is a avowed middle america guy with a family and a firm handshake and a look in your eye. That's apple pie and ice cream in the marketing world, a guy like that having a monster year is marketing gold,especially in a market that is predominatly white and a fan base that is predominatley white it's a puzzle piece that can't be denied.

Even if it isn't PC to the core.And if he were black he'd just be another average player, right Mr. Rodman? ;)

westofyou
06-01-2004, 05:34 PM
And if he were black he'd just be another average player, right Mr. Rodman? ;)

McDonalds uses pregnent women to pitch their new "Healthy Menu" not teens or construction workers.

Now that's marketing.

Nothing more, nothing less.

4256 Hits
06-01-2004, 07:23 PM
I'm with you WOY why do you think Freel is so loved even though he is OPS is much lower than Pena which the same fans want Pena out of town on the first bus.

Chip R
06-01-2004, 07:29 PM
McDonalds uses pregnent women to pitch their new "Healthy Menu" not teens or construction workers.

Now that's marketing.

Nothing more, nothing less.
I guess I fail to see how marketing a product or a player is relevant about which player is better, Casey or Broussard.

MWM
06-01-2004, 07:33 PM
How can you criticize someone who says that Casey leads the league in hugs? He DOES lead the lead in hugs. In fact, I'd venture to say, he's got to be close to the all time record for hugs. :mhcky21:

westofyou
06-01-2004, 07:40 PM
I guess I fail to see how marketing a product or a player is relevant about which player is better, Casey or Broussard.

It doesn't, it has to do with RFS62 comment that Casey was a marketing asset to the Reds.

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 08:21 PM
To me, it seems rather gutless now that all the people who had so much fun at Casey's expense the past few years don't step up and admit they were wrong.

Y'know, I've attempted to type a response to this three times now and I honestly don't know how to respond. This passage has thrown me for a loop- partly because of the namecalling (which I never would expect from you, RFS) and partly because you're, again, pulling an "I told you so" rabbit out of your hat early in the season. That's another thing I wouldn't have expected from a guy who's normally seems a lot more even-keeled.

And most puzzling is why you wouldn't name names here. I know you've called me out previously to today about Casey, but I certainly never saw this kind of emotional outburst coming. Are you seriously telling all those who've had issues with Casey's past performance to proclaim they're dead-on absolutely wrong a quarter into a long baseball season? Are you seriously calling those who'd take more time to evaluate "gutless"?

Sorry for all the questions, but your behavior on this thread has left me quite stunned.

Bill
06-01-2004, 08:26 PM
Chip, if memory serves, Ben was around and producing when the Reds gave Casey his current deal. Broussard's prescence on the farm made the long-term deal with Casey unnecessary. My notion was not for BB to beat out Casey but rather to replace him at a fraction the cost with the $ saved spent on pitching. It was not even imperative that BB succeed since 1Bmen are a readily available and cheap commodity.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 08:43 PM
I'm not calling you out, Steel. If you didn't proclaim with absolute certainty that Casey was never going to be productive again, then why would you feel any need to respond?

If you did, then I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your response indicates that you need more time to decide.

That's OK, either way. But don't act like you don't know that a lot of Casey bashing has gone on for the past few years here, and on a very personal level. If you don't think you took part in any of it, fine. I'm sure the people who post and read here have drawn their own conclusions, one way or another.

Here's what I would contend, and quite certainly you and everybody else is perfectly entitled to your opinion..... Sean Casey has been lambasted for the past couple of years here, often on a very personal level. And anyone who dared say anything positive about him felt the full force of a lot of ridicule. If you don't agree with that, fine... we'll just agree to disagree.

And I'm not talking about his production vs. his contract. I'm talking about cheap personal shots which offended me and I also believe offended a lot of other posters here. Hey, if you don't feel you are a part of that, then you have nothing to worry about and no reason to assume that you're being called out.

Seems to me to be a case of when you dish it out, you should be able to take it. And yes, I do think after these two months of what I've seen from Casey, that he's back, and I'll be the first one in line for the serving of crow if I'm wrong.

And if my "emotional outburst" as you put it really has you befuddled, believe me, it's been coming for a long time, and it's not a shoot from the hip display. It's the result of my perception that a great man and excellent major league baseball player has been relentlessly dogged here on a very profound and personal level for a long time. If you don't feel that you've been part of that characterization, then fine, you've got nothing to explain, do you?

Boss-Hog
06-01-2004, 09:07 PM
Well put, 62. You're not the only one who noticed the criticism of Casey that unfortunately at times extended to a personal level over the past few years.

remdog
06-01-2004, 09:16 PM
Most of the BB protagonists were not Casey antagonists. They simply wanted more production (injury or not) out of a position that is widely regarded as an 'offensive' position.

The hypothesis was/is that BB could produce 'power' numbers in a ratio exceeding the salary ratio for SC/BB.

SC makes $6.8M this year; BB $324,100. What could you do with $6,475,900 in terms of solving the other Reds problems? By that ratio, SC should hit 20 times more HRs than BB, drive in 20 times more runs, etc.....(in simplistic terms).

To me, taking the best 2 months of Sean Casey's ML career and comparing it to the worst 2 months of Ben Broussard's ML career while ignoring the experience factor and the salary factor is a bit short-sighted. And, yes, it did come off to me as 'gloating'. We'll see a few years down the road 'cause that's when the balance sheet will be tallied vis a vie Broussard/Casey/Branyon.

There are hardly any posters on this site that don't think that SC is a great person. There are however, posters on this site that would like to see more production for the money. And I doubt that there are any posters on this site that think that SC will keep up his current pace for the rest of the season, although we would all be happy about it if he did.

Rem

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 09:21 PM
If you didn't proclaim with absolute certainty that Casey was never going to be productive again, then why would you feel any need to respond?


If you don't think you took part in any of it, fine. I'm sure the people who post and read here have drawn their own conclusions, one way or another.


Hey, if you don't feel you are a part of that, then you have nothing to worry about and no reason to assume that you're being called out.


If you don't feel that you've been part of that characterization, then fine, you've got nothing to explain, do you?

Interesting.

My last post wasn't about Casey. It was about my complete incredulity that you'd call a group of people- real or perceived- "gutless". Furthermore, I hang my head that one who calls himself "balanced" would hang his own hat on 1/4 of a season. Really surprising stuff considering how you position yourself to others.

However, what's not surprising is your attempt at subterfuge. Evasive as ever- choosing to throw a punch at the back of the neck of a collective rather than being honest and picking your foe. Articulate you may be, but you can't hide your undercurrent of distain with obfuscation and veiled indictments.

What others might not be able to guage from your words is that you've just called me out...again...and using bad judgement at that. How do we know this? Because, RFS, we both understand the nuances of what's said versus what's not. And I think we completely understand each other at this point.

You think I'm a "Casey Basher". And now we know that I'm one of the folks you were talking about. You're wrong. But let's get on with it.

But let's play the game as real men instead of hiding behind vague references when we both know what's going on.

In short, let's not be cowardly about things.

Chip R
06-01-2004, 09:23 PM
Chip, if memory serves, Ben was around and producing when the Reds gave Casey his current deal. Broussard's prescence on the farm made the long-term deal with Casey unnecessary. My notion was not for BB to beat out Casey but rather to replace him at a fraction the cost with the $ saved spent on pitching. It was not even imperative that BB succeed since 1Bmen are a readily available and cheap commodity.
So obviously the Reds thought more highly of Casey than they did Broussard. Broussard did just fine in the minor leagues but he was blocked by Casey and his long term deal. Did you really think that the Reds were going to sit Casey and bring up Broussard at the first slump Casey went through? This isn't fantasy baseball where moves are made in a vacuum. Even if you traded Casey now and got great value for him, most fans would never forgive the Reds for doing that.

creek14
06-01-2004, 09:24 PM
Gesh Steel, I would have never, ever gotten RFS calling you out from any of his posts. In fact I think RFS is man enough if he wanted to call you out, he would come right out and do it.

But your reaction to his posts makes me think he must be hitting a little too close to home for you.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 09:25 PM
You calling someone else a coward. Now that's rich.

Don't flatter yourself.

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 09:40 PM
You calling someone else a coward. Now that's rich.

Don't flatter yourself.

Huh?

Geez, RFS. I just said that, by your response (well written I might add) that you obviously group me with the "Casey Basher" group. Not hard to figure out. You've attempted to call me on it before and then, in this thread, you questioned my motivation for responding. That's not a contestible point.

I didn't call anyone a "coward" in that last post. I simply suggested that we don't use cowardly behavior when discussing the point.

Or, is it just that it's very frustrating when someone else uses your own methodology when responding to you?

Redsfaithful
06-01-2004, 09:41 PM
To me, it seems rather gutless now that all the people who had so much fun at Casey's expense the past few years don't step up and admit they were wrong

They weren't wrong. Sean Casey wasn't a very good first baseman the past three years.

Now if someone said in the past that "Sean Casey sucks now and for all eternity" then yeah I'm with you, they were wrong. But I think most of the bashing was in the present tense.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 09:43 PM
Actually, you went into chat and called me a coward behind my back, and you know it. That, I would suggest, is cowardly behavior.

I guess I might have said something profound like "methinks thou dost protest too much", but why bother?

Everybody here knows you and your style, Steel. You seem determined to turn this into a discussion about you.... wow, what a surprise.

MWM
06-01-2004, 09:48 PM
I really didn't mean for it to come to this. I think rem said it perfectly.

I don't deny that some of the anti-Casey sentiment got a little personal, but I'm being perfectly honest when I say that I don't remember MOST of it being that way. I remember an occassional comment here and there, but my recollection is that the vast majority of the Casey criticism centered around what rem said in his post above. As a matter of fact, i remember a lot of people saying that if Casey produced at '99-'00 levels, then he was worth the contract.

I know it might be asking a lot, but I wish someone would give me an example (outside of game threads) where the lambasting of Casey got personal.

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 10:10 PM
Actually, you went into chat and called me a coward behind my back, and you know it. That, I would suggest, is cowardly behavior.

I guess I might have said something profound like "methinks thou dost protest too much", but why bother?

Everybody here knows you and your style, Steel. You seem determined to turn this into a discussion about you.... wow, what a surprise.

A discussion about me? No. This is a discussion about how you've broken with tenants you've claimed to hold dear- like "balance". It's also not (because you've decided to go that way) about how you're indicting folks as "gutless" because they don't follow your methodology....which, of course, isn't at all balanced so it seems.

Dislike me all you want, man. But it doesn't change the fact that I'm not claiming to be something I'm not.

And if my "style" means that I'll take things head on, then I'll take that as a compliment. Because you certainly don't.

BTW- Calling me out due to a comment you heard I made in chat? Does that mean it's open game to use anything you've ever PM'd me? Or anything that someone has said on the Hall of Fame forum? Do you seriously want me to sink to the depths of using your own PM's against you?

My God.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 10:26 PM
A discussion about me? No. This is a discussion about how you've broken with tenants you've claimed to hold dear- like "balance". It's also not (because you've decided to go that way) about how you're indicting folks as "gutless" because they don't follow your methodology....which, of course, isn't at all balanced so it seems.

I don't believe I've ever, in the entire time I've posted here, indicted anyone as "gutless" for not following my methodology, nor did I use the term "balance" anywhere in this thread. Those were your debating techniques to cloud the issue. But since you brought it up, my belief that Casey is back is based on both his numbers, but more importantly what I'm observing, which is the heart of every post I've ever made referencing balance.





BTW- Calling me out due to a comment you heard I made in chat? Does that mean it's open game to use anything you've ever PM'd me? Or anything that someone has said on the Hall of Fame forum? Do you seriously want me to sink to the depths of using your own PM's against you?

My God.

As far as I know, I've only once responded to a PM from you where you offered to educate me on sabermetrics so I could better understand the game. Much of the pm was nice, but I took the tone as incredibly condescending and I actually cracked up when I read it. Please feel free to post both your PM and my response if you'd like, with my blessings.

In fact, I can't think of anything I've ever said to anyone on any thread or any PM or any chat session that I would object to you posting, if you're so inclined.

And congratulations. This thread will no doubt be closed soon, as it's become a sad little pissing match.

Boss-Hog
06-01-2004, 10:43 PM
Let's put it back on topic and take the personal stuff private, guys.

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 11:04 PM
I don't believe I've ever, in the entire time I've posted here, indicted anyone as "gutless" for not following my methodology, nor did I use the term "balance" anywhere in this thread. Those were your debating techniques to cloud the issue. But since you brought it up, my belief that Casey is back is based on both his numbers, but more importantly what I'm observing, which is the heart of every post I've ever made referencing balance.

Balance?

Not only have you never demonstrated a balance between observation and statistical analysis, your current rant doesn't claim to need it. Using your method, any player who posts Sean Casey numbers for 40-odd games doesn't need any more evaluation- statistical or observation. They're just "that player".

Inconsistent to say the least. What you're, in fact, doing is driving your analysis almost completely using the observation path- not the subjective.

Sean Casey is obvsiously back and anyone who doesn't profess it is right now is "gutless". That's as "unbalanced" as one can get. It's absolutely obvious because you've done this before. You did it when he started out exceptionally hot and you regressed when his OPS was @.750 for the first half of May.

You know what statheads like MWM and myself did? If you want to bring chat into it, here's the conversation:

MWM: "Has anyone noticed that Casey's OPS is .750 for May thusfar?"

SteelSD: "Yeah, but let's just hope that it's a glitch and Casey gets hot again quick."

Now, you can question MWM via PM all you want, but that's that conversation. Not "God, I hope Casey sucks." Not "Casey can't possibly keep it up." But "God, I hope he gets hot again."

Yeah, I'm a hater there, RFS. Go for it.


As far as I know, I've only once responded to a PM from you where you offered to educate me on sabermetrics so I could better understand the game. Much of the pm was nice, but I took the tone as incredibly condescending and I actually cracked up when I read it. Please feel free to post both your PM and my response if you'd like, with my blessings.

Wow. I attempted to help you out, and you laughed. Seriously. You laughed. It's patently obvious that you don't have a handle on the statistical side of "balance" but you "laughed" at my attempt to help you out??

Did you also "laugh" at the other folks I've helped out? Do you laugh right now at the posters on this board who've asked me questions? How many people are you laughing at right now? And you dare to call my "tone" condescending?

I certainly hope that you aren't laughing now, because the posters who've asked me for information and assistence aren't laughing. I think they were actually grateful. Not that my ego is driven from that, but you need to stop hiding behind your inability to produce relevant numbers to back up your positions.

I could claim to play the clarinet. But unless I actually grabbed the instrument and began playing off page music provided for me, I couldn't prove that I could play that instrument. You claim to be able to play it in concert, but can't bring a single thing to back it up.


In fact, I can't think of anything I've ever said to anyone on any thread or any PM or any chat session that I would object to you posting, if you're so inclined.

And congratulations. This thread will no doubt be closed soon, as it's become a sad little pissing match.

Between whom? You and I? No. You degenerated this into a sad pissing match quite a long time ago. The problem is that you refuse to play fair. You refuse to say what you mean and mean what you say. It's not I that's perpetuating this. It's you.

Name names. Be a man and say what you mean. If you're calling out folks, then by all means, CALL THEM OUT.

Otherwise, move along.

RFS62
06-01-2004, 11:10 PM
The guy who runs the board asked us to take it private, and you respond with that last post.

I'll gladly take your advice, Steel. I'll move along. You're not worth getting upset over. For all your knowledge, I feel quite sure that the board knows just who and what you are, and I don't even have to say it.

Good luck.

SteelSD
06-01-2004, 11:24 PM
The guy who runs the board asked us to take it private, and you respond with that last post.

I'll gladly take your advice, Steel. I'll move along. You're not worth getting upset over. For all your knowledge, I feel quite sure that the board knows just who and what you are, and I don't even have to say it.

Good luck.


Yep. And after Boss' post, not a single PM from you- although we both know my response wasn't written after Boss posted that. Not lying in the true sense, but you're not being exceptionally honest, are you?

You want to take this to PM? I'm waiting. And I assume that I'll continue to wait considering you history of evasion.

As for what the board knows? Well, they know I'm a guy who'll take someone on head first. You? Well, you'll take someone on. I guess. But it really depends on how fast you run after someone's determined exactly how inexact and untruthful you'll be.

Run RFS! Run!!

letsgojunior
06-01-2004, 11:39 PM
But it really depends on how fast you run after someone's determined exactly how inexact and untruthful you'll be.



I think anyone who has read this board for a prolonged period knows that RFS is the antithesis of those characteristics.

I agree with his premise that the Casey bashing got out of hand. It was the same with the Griffey bashing. Sure, maybe that money could be spent elsewhere. But I know there were quite a few threads I cringed at with both players involved.

I know it's human nature to plug "your" players, but I honestly wish we could stop some of this in your face business. It's a safe bet to say that Casey isn't going to hit .390+ the rest of the season, so I'm sure there's going to be a time when he has a crappy month, maybe at the same time Bender has a good month. Someone in another thread mentioned that they wanted to talk to Gallagher now that Jr is doing better. Frankly, to me that is simply stooping to Gallagher's level. I would much rather quietly be happy with Casey's and Jr's successes than rub it in the face of anyone who wasn't wishing for that very thing.

I also agree with what MWM said: I think there was a fair portion of people who actively rooted for Casey, but felt that his money could be spent in a better way. I think there were a number who were disappointed with his slugging percentage and various other statistical barometers, but wished that he could pick it up.

So I think everyone was right in a sense in this thread: there were a number of attacks on Sean that were uncalled for, and there were also a number of people who didn't attack him personally but were disappointed with his performance. I wish, however, that we could stop this "I'm right, haha" thing we are doing, from both sides.

Bill
06-02-2004, 12:03 AM
Did you really think that the Reds were going to sit Casey and bring up Broussard at the first slump Casey went through? This isn't fantasy baseball where moves are made in a vacuum.

Uhhm, my point was that the Broussard supporters called for Ben to take over the role of 1B and moving Casey at the point he became too expensive. If this path had been taken, Casey would never have been offered the long term deal. He would have been dealt (which would have been doable without the LTC). The money saved would be plenty to buy the much needed starting pitcher.

Of course that did not happen and the Reds were stuck paying Casey richly for below average 1B production. At that point, the hope was the Reds find a trading partner but, as we know, they could not find any takers when he was shopped. None of us ever said BB should start OVER Casey, but rather REPLACE Casey on the roster given he could be moved. Of course we liked him as a left-handed bat off the bench in the least.

See Rem's post if I am not making myself clear.

CougarQuest
06-02-2004, 12:16 AM
Let's stop the personal stuff. Back to moaning about Casey/Bender or moaning about no money.

gonelong
06-02-2004, 12:20 AM
I am sure I would be lumped into the Casey bashing bin ...

If the archives would go back far enough you would see that I classified trading Casey as a risky proposition, but one that I supported. I felt that between Dunn/Broussard one of them could man 1B and we could find another productive outfielder (Guillen?) at a lower net cost. This would allow the Reds to upgrade their pitching.

Is Casey "earning" his salary this year so far? Sure, but I am not convinced he is somebody that I would want manning 1B given his salary and the Reds MLB payroll. I'd take my chances putting more money into pitching. Where would we be without Casey this year? Maybe we would be even better off with Dunn at 1B, another OF (
Guillen? other?) and a few extra million in the pitching staff. Who knows?

That said, I have rooted for Casey from day one, and will continue to do so.

GL

MWM
06-02-2004, 12:52 AM
I wish, however, that we could stop this "I'm right, haha" thing we are doing, from both sides.
Exactly, lgj. That's the only point I was trying to make. I never imagined it would turn in to this, with two of my favorite 'Zoners going at each other. Please stop guys, you are both better than this.

oregonred
06-02-2004, 02:25 AM
Steel -- RFS62's credentials are unquestioned. To question his integrity and call him out is inexcusable. He was around here a long time before we were blessed with your seemingly 24/7 presence.

This board isn't about oneupmanship, we're talking about a game and a team we all have a special place and history with over the past 10,20,30 (or more duration in some cases).

All -- Enjoy the 31-21 start and a little jabbing. Sorry to see the thread degenerate. :thumbdn:

Cedric
06-02-2004, 02:51 AM
You guys are both great baseball minds, let's relax and enjoy the Reds great summer run.

oregonred
06-02-2004, 02:55 AM
You guys are both great baseball minds, let's relax and enjoy the Reds great summer run.

Well said :thumbup:

RosieRed
06-02-2004, 05:04 AM
Wow. I had no idea what I was getting into when I opened this thread! :eek:

At the risk of sounding incredibly ridiculous, I just want to say: It is okay to like and support a player for any reason, or for no particular reason at all. We all know that, right?

So then, it can sting when a player one favors is personally attacked, be it on here or in the media or during conversation with friends. And maybe we can just keep that in mind in the future? Friendly jabs most certainly have their place -- wouldn't be much fun without them! But it seems to me, after reading this thread, that it wouldn't hurt to try to minimize the unfriendly jabs.

My example: One of the players I have an unreasonable attachment to -- Todd Walker -- has been bashed on here a number of times, both during his time with the Reds and in the time soon following his trade. I know he has/had other supporters on here besides me, but it was rough going (for me) for a while to constantly read reasons why he's not that good. Like I shouldn't like him just because he's "average at best," or whatever was said about him.

LGJ, I think your post was right on. You bring up a good point with the Griffey bashing threads -- some of those were excruciating. And I'm not a fan of the "I'm right, haha" school either. (Though, in all honesty, I didn't see think that was the original intent of this thread ... but I can understand if others read it that way.)

RANDY IN INDY
06-02-2004, 06:24 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.

Raisor
06-02-2004, 06:56 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.

So it's only the "statheads" behaving badly? :( There's plenty of goofiness on both sides.

Gonelong nailed it exactly. For whatever the reason, Casey was well below average for a major league firstbasemen from 2001 thru 2003 (352/413, approx 1700 TPA's).

Casey is having an MVP type season so far this year, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't very good for three years compared to the other 1Bs in the league.

MWM
06-02-2004, 08:38 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.
Actually I was thinking the exact opposite. And believe me Randy, "staheads" as you refer to us, are not the only ones with a "bad name." And I just re-read this entire thread and I must have missed the part where this became a debate about stats.

Spring~Fields
06-02-2004, 08:47 AM
Y'know, I've attempted to type a response to this three times now and I honestly don't know how to respond.

Oh, I think that most of us already knew that and that has been crystal clear to the majority of us for some time.

"Hey Neil bring me my beer"

Spring~Fields
06-02-2004, 08:49 AM
Well put, 62. You're not the only one who noticed the criticism of Casey that unfortunately at times extended to a personal level over the past few years.

Stop and think about what you have written here, have you not been enabling in contrast to your own rules? There was a time boss that you would not have hesitated to call me to task for the caustic behavior and dribble that a certain poster gets away with on your website chronically and with many.

Spring~Fields
06-02-2004, 08:51 AM
Gesh Steel, I would have never, ever gotten RFS calling you out from any of his posts. In fact I think RFS is man enough if he wanted to call you out, he would come right out and do it.

But your reaction to his posts makes me think he must be hitting a little too close to home for you.

Clearly you are correct, well said Creek.

Spring~Fields
06-02-2004, 08:51 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.

Should be singular

Spring~Fields
06-02-2004, 08:53 AM
Steel -- RFS62's credentials are unquestioned. To question his integrity and call him out is inexcusable. He was around here a long time before we were blessed with your seemingly 24/7 presence.

This board isn't about oneupmanship, we're talking about a game and a team we all have a special place and history with over the past 10,20,30 (or more duration in some cases).



Absolutely, RF62 has always been a class act and valuable read on this forum in contrast to the other attention seeking character. :thumbup:

I wonder where GAC is, surely he has something to add ? ;)

MWM
06-02-2004, 08:57 AM
I just re-read this entire thread and the thought that keeps coming to mind is "what constitutes a personal attack on a player?" I think what happens is fans getting attached to certain players. I know I certainly do. So when someone comes along and is critical of that player, we take it personally.

I don't think there's any question that Ken Griffey, Jr. was attacked personally on this board almost from the day he arrived. His work ethic, his integrity, his desire, and just about everything else was called into question. I think the same can be said for Barry larkin. He's been called a primadonna, money hungry, the works.

But I think that aside from a few non-regular, usually younger posters, most of the criticism of players stays primarily performance related. Rosie, I remember the talk of Walker and I was actually one of his supporters. I liked Todd and thought we should have kept him. But I seriously can't recall anything personal being thrown in his direction. It's possible i just don't remember.

I kept wondering what exactly is the disagreement within this thread. And I keep coming back to "what is a personal attack." Some seem to think it got personal with Casey, while others who were criticial of Casey want to defend themselves because they knew they kept it about performance. I'd still like someone to give me an example of these incessant personal attacks on Casey. I'm not suggesting they aren't there and I'm not trying to be difficult. It just seems that if these personal attacks were so rampant, it shouldn't be difficult to find a few examples. And if Casey leading the lead in hugs is the worst thing that was said, I'm not sure how that is so offensive. Does that cross the line into personal, probably. But are comments like that worthy of some of the accusations in this thread, I don't think so.

zombie-a-go-go
06-02-2004, 09:02 AM
If Casey were here, he'd give you both a hug. :D

And yeah, he'll hit .390 all season. Maybe even .400. I think.

RANDY IN INDY
06-02-2004, 10:45 AM
Should be singular

Hit the nail on the head. Adios.

GAC
06-02-2004, 10:46 AM
Here was my take. I wrote off the second half of 2001 because of the shoulder injury. Actually, I think most probably did. Even 2002 I assumed was related to being less than a year removed from the shoulder surgery. Many, including myself predicted big comeback years in 2002 and 2003 for Casey. When it didn't happen clear into 2003, what were we supposed to think? It seemed like enough time had passed for the shoulder not to be blamed. It appeared to me the guy had just lost bat speed and his approach to hitting had completely changed. I commented several times last year that he almost never took the ball to the opposite field anymore and that was the source of his problems. I didn't see how that was injury related, but it's possible it could have been.

And yet when I said the very same things last year that you just stated above Mike, I was laughed at and told it just didn't seem feasible. ;)

I was also rebuked for even suggesting that though the 2002 season was considered an injury year for Casey (that's when he had the surgery, and it basically shot that season down the tubes), and that Casey most likely had hurt the shoulder in the last 1/2 of the previous 2001 season. Yet it was the Drs who originally suggested that after they had opened the shoulder up and saw the extent of the damage. It wasn't you; but I was nailed pretty good for that by a few posters on here. Not in a mean-spirited fashion mind you. but I was nailed/ribbed for it.

Sure Casey didn't produce at the levels we expected over the last 2 1/2 seasons. But why? His detractors always threw out his OPS and other various stats to give weight to their argument. But what they always seemed to conveniently omit that the possible reason for that drop in production was due to INJURY, and the subsequent recovery time needed.

They threw out every other bit of reasoning BUT that one.... slow bat speed, not being able to go the other way anymore, drop in extra base hits, and finally, some stated he was just over-rated or in decline.

I'm sorry Mike, but I feel you're doing that now with this statement... "After three years and several failed predictions of a comeback, what were we supposed to think?"

What several failed predictions of a comeback? If he was hurt the entire 2002 season, and the 2003 season was a recovery season, which most of us Casey "supporters" saw it as.... then THIS YEAR would be his comeback year IMO. You can't have a comeback until you are healed or deemed healthy? So the earliest a comeback could even be attempted would be last year at the earliest. And I still maintain that it takes some players a year to fully recover from that type of surgery (every player is different). And I have always stated that. I even told SD awhile back, when we were having this same discussion, that this had to be the year for Casey, and that there could be no more excuses. And Casey is living up to it IMO.

I'm not saying that Casey will necessarily continue all season at this torrid pace. And I don't think anyone says that. But now that the guy is healthy, everyone can give an honest and fair evaluation of the guy can't they? ;)

I consider the '99 season Casey's first full season with the Reds. Look at his stats from '99 through 2001...

1999 - .332 B/A .399 OB% + .539 SLG% = .938 OPS
2000 - .315 B/A .385 OB% + .517 SLG% = .902 OPS
2001 - .310 B/A .369 OB% + .458 SLG% = .827 OPS

Now those are the stats from a healthy Sean Casey. He was producing at those same levels during the first half of the '01 season, and then his production really fell off in the 2nd half of the season to give him an OPS for the year of .827. That is still not terrible. But since he ended up having major shoulder surgery in the early stages of the '02 season, then why is it suspect to assume (especially when even the Drs suggested it) that his shoulder injury/degeneration went back into the '01 season? I do not think that is being far-fetched at all. I don't see that as making excuses, but trying to be realistic in my approach/assessment.

And what bothered me was when I saw some continually quoting his stats from the two previous years (02-03), and yes, using them against Sean, in an attempt to give validity to their argument that Casey has somehow peeked and was now in decline, while giving little consideration that he was injured, and that contributed to his declining stats. All they saw were the stats, and what that told them. That's all that mattered.

I never stated on here, during the whole Casey debate, that I thought any of his "detractors" WANTED Casey to fail.

I just don't think they were being fair and objective in their assessment AT THAT TIME.

As I stated above.... he's healthy now, and there can be no more excuses for Casey. IMO, everyone can now be objective in their assessment. And so far, IMO, Casey is proving some wrong.

But even this year I have heard a few state that they are simplying waiting for the Casey of old to re-appear at some point, and that it will be inevitable. And what are they basing their assessment on?

GAC
06-02-2004, 11:01 AM
Oh yeah! And lets don't forget the Calvin Pickering comparisons to Sean Casey. Calvin tore up the Mexican League (along with the seat of many a pairs of pants!) :mhcky21:

I wish Ben Broussard all the best. And since I live in central Ohio I still follow him as an Indian. But that trade didn't bother me one iota. There was no room for Broussard on this team with Casey and Dunn. Branyan didn't work out for us. Maybe Broussard won't work out for the Indians. I know the Indians are "experimenting" with Hafner and others at 1B. ;)

westofyou
06-02-2004, 11:10 AM
Oh yeah! And lets don't forget the Calvin Pickering comparisons to Sean Casey. Calvin tore up the Mexican League (along with the seat of many a pairs of pants!) :mhcky21:


Currently in Omaha

.292 .430 .733, 16 HR's, 39 rbis (and an Ernie Lombardi amount of 2b (3) and 1 magic 3b)

Holy Joe Bauman!!

MWM
06-02-2004, 11:43 AM
You make some good points, GAC, but I don't necessarily agree entirely with your assessment. You make it look like it was obvious that injuries were the ONLY reason for Casey's drop in production. Like I said, I thought the second half of '01 he was clearly suffering from injury. Most were even willing to admit that '02 was a result of being less than a year removed from the surgery. It wasn't until '03 that many, including myself, began to wonder if Sean Casey just wasn't the player we thought he was going to be. It was a legitimate question that came from trying to be objective.

You make it sound lke that was somehow "unobjective" or "unfair." It was different opinion, that's all. I don't think you can blame 2003 on a surgery he had in 2001. Other players have had similar surgery and had gone back to normal production in much less time. Why was it taking Sean so long to recover completely? He did have 14 HRs in 2003. Now if he had other injuries last year, then that's another story. But I think it was a perfectly legitimate opinion to think Sean Casey's production from last year could not be blamed on his shoulder and that just maybe he was a player who peaked early and was on the decline. I don't think anyone hoped for this, but after last year I think it was definitely something that could have LEGITIMATELY been considered. It's not that uncommon for players to come up and put up Casey-like numbers for a year or two and then go into an unexplained decline. Ben Grieve comes to mind.

But I take a little umbrage with guys who now come in and say "we knew all along". No you didn't. You hoped and it looks like you might be right. I'll gladly admit that I didn't think Sean Casey would do what he's doing. It wasn't until last year that I began to think this way. Like I said, I predicted a big comeback for him in 2002 and 2003, because I thought the injury was why his production had passed. But after it didn't happen two full seasons after his surgery, you have to begin to question. In my opinion, that's EXACTLY what someone being objective would do. How could someone being objective not consider that asa possibility. You say there were people who considered everything BUT injury. I think there were also who never considered anything BUT injury. Why do you think there was no interest in Casey in the trade market? Afterall, the Reds FO would have gladly given him away to anyone willing to take his contract. Maybe it was that the other 29 teams, who were being objective, didn't think his drop in production was entirely injury related.

It's entirely possible that Sean Casey realized that this was a make or break year for him and worked in the off-season to return to the hitting approach he employed in his successful years. It's possible that it was all about adjustments and hard work as opposed to nothing more than health. I don't think anyone knows entirely. All we can do is hope that it's permanent.

BTW, please stop calling yourself Casey "supporters" and referring to others as "detractors."

SteelSD
06-02-2004, 11:48 AM
I even told SD awhile back, when we were having this same discussion, that this had to be the year for Casey, and that there could be no more excuses.

Absolutely you did. And absolutely, I responded with something akin to "Ok. I'll back off and give Casey the 2004 season before drawing a final conclusion as to his value and the actual effect of his injury."

Heck, the majority of objective folks have even bought into the theory that the shoulder injury impacted Casey's performance over the past two seasons. They just haven't agreed that the injury was severe enough to completely excuse the previous 2.5 seasons. Considering Griffey's shoulder surgery, his performance while injured, and his current numbers, I'm not sure you and I will ever agree about that impact to Casey's performance. But that's ok.

The issue we have here is that 49 games isn't the 2004 season. It seems that 49 games are enough to trigger bottled-up ranting from folks, but it's not enough for the "objective analysis" you're looking for considering the previous performance history.

As MWM has already very plainly stated, no one is rubbing a "Sean Casey Sucks" lucky rabbits foot while desperately wanting Casey's production to tail off. Nor did anyone show up with an "I told you so!" thread after Casey posted a sub-.750 OPS for the first three weeks of May.

It's awfully telling that some folks were sitting back waiting for Casey to be right after his early May performance mirrored his 2003 numbers while other folks were gnashing their teeth- waiting to pounce on other posters for being "wrong".

Seriously, think about that for a second. It's not about liking Casey or liking Casey. It's about people not liking people who they think don't like Casey. It's about biding time, waiting for the appropriate moment, and pouncing.

And y'know what? There's no one posted an Adam Dunn "I told you so!" thread. If we want to generalize, the "stat crowd" has been the staunchest support group for him. Kid's got a .988 OPS right now. He's actually played more games than Casey- allowing for more data if one wanted to misguidedly attempt the kind of "victory speech" we've seen on this thread.

So why is there no one proclaiming "victory" while snidely calling out the "Dunn bashers"?

Because it's childish and it'd would be too early to do so even if it weren't childish.

MWM
06-02-2004, 11:51 AM
And yet when I said the very same things last year that you just stated above Mike, I was laughed at and told it just didn't seem feasible. ;)

OK, I've just got to ask. Were you really laughed at, or did folks just disagree with you? Seriously. Show me an example of when you were laughed for offering such an opinion on Casey.

Chip R
06-02-2004, 12:05 PM
OK, I've just got to ask. Were you really laughed at, or did folks just disagree with you? Seriously. Show me an example of when you were laughed for offering such an opinion on Casey.
MWM, you know GAC. People laugh at him all the time. And there really doesn't have to be a reason. ;)

GIK
06-02-2004, 12:06 PM
I'm closing this thread for now until Boss and I have a chance to fully review it. I'm at work and a bit busy so it may be awhile. Thanks for understanding.