PDA

View Full Version : Why the hatred for Hatteberg



nc redsfan
03-28-2006, 03:57 PM
I know everyone was in love with Casey, I for one hated to see him go, but what is all the hatred for Hatteberg? If someone can tell me he has committed error after error this spring, and his batting average is somewhere below 250 then I'll understand it. I believe the new owners didn't want the Casey trade to happen, but it was out of their control at that time. I also believe that is why we got Hatteberg, he sounds like an average 1st baseman as far as defense goes, and he is going to hit for average, not so much for homeruns. In my opininon our 1st baseman doesn't need to hit the ball over the fence, we've got Griffey,Dunn,and Kearns for that. I just think the owners knew we couldn't get Casey back, so they went for the closest thing to him. If someone could tell me what his spring batting average is I would appreciate it. I just fell he's a new guy here, and hopefully his teammates are giving him more of a shot then the fans of Cincinnati are.

JinAZ
03-28-2006, 04:20 PM
I know everyone was in love with Casey, I for one hated to see him go, but what is all the hatred for Hatteberg? If someone can tell me he has committed error after error this spring, and his batting average is somewhere below 250 then I'll understand it. I believe the new owners didn't want the Casey trade to happen, but it was out of their control at that time. I also believe that is why we got Hatteberg, he sounds like an average 1st baseman as far as defense goes, and he is going to hit for average, not so much for homeruns. In my opininon our 1st baseman doesn't need to hit the ball over the fence, we've got Griffey,Dunn,and Kearns for that. I just think the owners knew we couldn't get Casey back, so they went for the closest thing to him. If someone could tell me what his spring batting average is I would appreciate it. I just fell he's a new guy here, and hopefully his teammates are giving him more of a shot then the fans of Cincinnati are.

I like Hatteberg, just not as a starter. He's a good contact guy with excellent patience. But he's also 36 years old, and is a known commodity. He had a poor year this year, but potentially could produce an OBA-heavy .780's or so OPS. I think he was a terrific signing as a reserve.

But as a starter, especially given that the Reds aren't going to be in contention this year, I'd rather have a guy with some potential moving forward. So yeah, I would have liked the Reds to grab Choi. And I'd be up for signing Pena to a cheap salary and seeing if he can develop this year. Neither is going to get us back into contention without pitching, but both have good patience and potentially good power. They could could be a part of a good Reds team in the future. They might flop, but... if they do, so what? They both could be had for cheap (moot point with Choi now, but still).
-j in az

Heath
03-28-2006, 04:24 PM
I have no qualms with Scott Hatteburg. None.

I have reservations about him being a full-time first sacker. He knew he was coming in as a reserve. He understands his role. Starting everyday and twice on Sunday is not his role.

Unlike Aurilia & Womack, Hatteburg is fresh air.

MartyFan
03-28-2006, 04:27 PM
Hatteberg = no worries...as long as he is not our starting 1B

Hopefully there is a deal in the works to bring in Pena....

Guacarock
03-28-2006, 04:49 PM
I agree with these Redszoners. I bear no hatred whatsoever toward Hatteberg but question why we would want to cede 1B on a fulltime basis to an aging (36-year-old) player who doesn't hit for power, who doesn't hit for a high average (.256 last year) and whose defensive skills are eroding.

Hatteberg belongs on the bench. He's an acceptable sub (at least a B-), but probably no better than a C- or D+ regular, and that's not up to snuff in my book.

nc redsfan
03-28-2006, 04:56 PM
I for one didn't realize he was 36 years old, and I do thank you for the feedback. That being the case why not try and trade Valetine to the Nationals for Nick Johnson, I believe the Nationals have only one catcher to speak of, and Johnson and Valentine are about equal in pay. Plus Johnson seems to have some pop in his bat, and is still pretty young. Any feedback?

RedsManRick
03-28-2006, 04:58 PM
It's an issue of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Casey was traded such that we could get all 3 OF room to play. The return was less than stellar. And now we've gone and traded Pena as well, largely because the Casey trade did not accomplish what it could have (acquiring a reliable starter). This leaves us with one of the worst hitting everyday 1B and we're basically not counting on Dave Wiliams for anything.

Puffy
03-28-2006, 05:06 PM
I for one didn't realize he was 36 years old, and I do thank you for the feedback. That being the case why not try and trade Valetine to the Nationals for Nick Johnson, I believe the Nationals have only one catcher to speak of, and Johnson and Valentine are about equal in pay. Plus Johnson seems to have some pop in his bat, and is still pretty young. Any feedback?

Well, the Nationals would never, never, never, never - did I say never - go for that. Nick Johnson is a hitting machine and he is just coming into his prime years. His problem has always been staying healthy - but the Nationals are a much better team with him in the lineup and there is no way they trade him.

Good thinking though.

Pena would be a great pickup for the Reds - but they won't do it. For some reason they are happy (it seems) with Hatteburg getting the lionshare of the starts at first. Ugh.

Kc61
03-28-2006, 05:08 PM
Very few teams have stars at every position. The Reds have decided to go with cheaper veterans at a couple of positions and try to use its resources to bolster pitching. This is a good concept, if the pitching choices work out.

Neither Dave Williams nor Bronson Arroyo is a flamethrower. But they have had major league success. Williams seems well suited for GAB (Arroyo less so).

And let's not go overboard on the offense we gave up. The Reds kept its most potent offensive guys, Griffey, when healthy, and Dunn (signed for three years). It kept Kearns, Lopez, EE, Larue, Freel. The team can survive, offensively, with Hatteberg, Womack, and Aurillia.

Who knows, maybe the Reds staff can come in below 5.00 this year.

Aronchis
03-28-2006, 05:09 PM
It's an issue of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Casey was traded such that we could get all 3 OF room to play. The return was less than stellar. And now we've gone and traded Pena as well, largely because the Casey trade did not accomplish what it could have (acquiring a reliable starter). This leaves us with one of the worst hitting everyday 1B and we're basically not counting on Dave Wiliams for anything.

The Casey trade was made by the former GM and incoming ownership who wanted Casey gone IMO. Maybe the deal was to play all 'four' outfielders from DanO's view, but that died when Krivsky came into power, who didn't find WMP overly good.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. There are other options at least to Platoon with Hatte, if Krivsky doesn't fix it, that is just a slip up.

Johnny Footstool
03-28-2006, 05:44 PM
Very few teams have stars at every position. The Reds have decided to go with cheaper veterans at a couple of positions and try to use its resources to bolster pitching. This is a good concept, if the pitching choices work out.

Neither Dave Williams nor Bronson Arroyo is a flamethrower. But they have had major league success. Williams seems well suited for GAB (Arroyo less so).

And let's not go overboard on the offense we gave up. The Reds kept its most potent offensive guys, Griffey, when healthy, and Dunn (signed for three years). It kept Kearns, Lopez, EE, Larue, Freel. The team can survive, offensively, with Hatteberg, Womack, and Aurillia.

Who knows, maybe the Reds staff can come in below 5.00 this year.

The thing is, Hatteberg and Womack mean wasted ABs and no playing time for Ryan Freel, a major offensive weapon. Their defense isn't good enough to offset the loss of run production.

VI_RedsFan
03-28-2006, 05:49 PM
I don't mind Hatteberg at 1B. Of course I'd definately prefer Shealy, C Pena, or Broussard instead, but I'm cool with Scott there as long as Aurilia gets time there too. I know everyone here hates Rich, and I do too, but he does bring a better bat than Hattey, not to mention Womack as well.

redsmetz
03-28-2006, 05:58 PM
I don't know if anyone put it forward, but Hatteberg's batting .392 in ST with 2 HR's. I suspect that we're going to see a lot of Rich Aurilia at first too and maybe Javy Valentin some too (and an occasionally Dunner too).

I will be the first to say we got too little for Casey, even Dave Williams said he was surprised it was him straight up. I don't disagree with trading Pena because I believe we had depth at the OF positions. I see Hatteberg as a stopgap for this year, not long term - heck he's about ready for Social Security! If we can get a decent year, sharing the position with others, I think we do okay there.

I just tire of all the dissing of Hatteberg and Womack. They're the cards we've been dealt, let's do the best we can. If there going to be here, I want them to succeed, not fail.

Cyclone792
03-28-2006, 06:13 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with Scott Hatteberg himself, but moreso the situation given to us by Krivsky and Narron that we may be stuck with this season.

Scott Hatteberg is a guy that I have absolutely no problem with being on our roster. In fact, I actually like it that he's on our roster, and I thought his signing was a good one. That said, his value to the team on the field is coming off the bench and pinch hitting, and from the quotes I've seen from Hatteberg this spring, I think he realizes that also. Hatteberg signed basically just wanting to help the team in any way possible. If it meant coming off the bench, then that's what he wanted to do, and his attitude is a polar opposite of the one Rich Aurilia gave us last season. Hatteberg isn't to blame for the situation we've got at first base; Krivsky and Narron are to blame.

Interestingly, Hatteberg is also probably one of the most intelligent hitters in the game. He knows the strike zone very well, knows opposing pitchers very well, takes a ton of pitches and watches an incredible amount of game tape to try to pick up any advantage he can get. He's actually one of those hitters that has probably gotten every bit of talent out of his body as possible, due in large part to his intelligence and the way he approaches each plate appearance. The chapter on him in Moneyball is very interesting, IMO, and even if you've never read the book and despise the book, I'd recommend picking it up off the shelf and reading the Hatteberg chapter the next time you're in a book store or a library.

One type of reaching-far-for-justification theory I have for Krivsky wanting to start Hatteberg this season is the hope that his approach to hitting is passed down to the young sluggers, guys like Dunn, Kearns, Lopez and Encarnacion. If Krivsky realizes correctly that the team will not compete this season without quite a bit of luck, he could be dipping into the well of trying to use Hatteberg as a quasi-hitting coach this season to try to further develop our young bashers.

Is that theory a stretch? Most likely, though I have to say I'm not at all opposed to our young hitters being exposed to the means of how Hatteberg studies the game, studies the strike zone and studies opposing pitchers. The best case scenario would be if Hatteberg could manage to do that while only actually appearing at the plate ~200 times this season. But since he may actually get closer to 400 plate appearances, it's just the fault of upper management, not Hatteberg's.

redsmetz
03-28-2006, 11:42 PM
One type of reaching-far-for-justification theory I have for Krivsky wanting to start Hatteberg this season is the hope that his approach to hitting is passed down to the young sluggers, guys like Dunn, Kearns, Lopez and Encarnacion. If Krivsky realizes correctly that the team will not compete this season without quite a bit of luck, he could be dipping into the well of trying to use Hatteberg as a quasi-hitting coach this season to try to further develop our young bashers.

Is that theory a stretch? Most likely, though I have to say I'm not at all opposed to our young hitters being exposed to the means of how Hatteberg studies the game, studies the strike zone and studies opposing pitchers. The best case scenario would be if Hatteberg could manage to do that while only actually appearing at the plate ~200 times this season. But since he may actually get closer to 400 plate appearances, it's just the fault of upper management, not Hatteberg's.

This is one of the most cogent things I've read about Hatteberg on this board. I'm guessing he'll be somewhere in the 200-400 AB's range. I hope he does well.

I think the same idea may be true in the bullpen this year too. I think guys like Hammond and Mercker can serve somewhat in that role too.

Krusty
03-29-2006, 02:10 AM
Unlike some free swingers on this team, Hatteberg makes contact and rarely strikes out.

And I'll go out on a limb and say Hatteberg will post better numbers than Sean Casey this season.

savafan
03-29-2006, 02:17 AM
Scott Hatteberg makes old ladies cry. That's what I have against him.

KronoRed
03-29-2006, 03:19 AM
Unlike some free swingers on this team, Hatteberg makes contact and rarely strikes out.

And I'll go out on a limb and say Hatteberg will post better numbers than Sean Casey this season.
Way out there Krusty ;)

Contact was Casey's middle name and it sure didn't help.

Ron Madden
03-29-2006, 04:16 AM
Scott Hatteberg makes old ladies cry. That's what I have against him.

Well then call me an old lady. ;)

I am and always will be a fan of Sean Casey.

That said. Trading Casey for a starting pitcher and moving Dunn to 1B, opening playing time for Kearns and Pena was a wise move.The main problem was it was O'Brien that made the trade. :eek:

The future of this club now rest in the hands of Krivisy and Narron. If that dosen't scare you.. well you aint afraid of nothin'. :evil:

smith288
03-29-2006, 01:55 PM
Hatteberg eats kittens...I hate people who eat kittens.

Falls City Beer
03-29-2006, 01:57 PM
Hatteberg eats kittens...I hate people who eat kittens.

I really hate kittens who eat people. You really have to look out for those.

TRF
03-29-2006, 02:03 PM
Hatteberg eats kittens...I hate people who eat kittens.

kitten eater hater.

smith288
03-29-2006, 02:07 PM
kitten eater hater.
Kitten eater hater hater.

KronoRed
03-29-2006, 03:29 PM
Caveman.