PDA

View Full Version : Janish for shortstop?



Kc61
08-26-2009, 01:56 AM
He has to hit eighth in the order, the Reds would have to make some other offensive upgrades. Maybe a catcher to go with Hanigan and hit seventh. And a LF. And use the correct players in CF to maximize offense there.

But there's something to be said for keeping Janish as the main shortstop. Perhaps until Cozart is ready. Cozart seems like a similar fielder who may hit more.

With Phillips, Janish, and Rolen, the infield defense is much, much improved. I thought Janish was a bit shaky last year but in 2009 he's been excellent at short IMO. Pretty good range, very surehanded, throws are true.

One way to go is to keep Janish at short and to spend whatever money is available on the outfield. And maybe a pitcher or two to shore up the staff.

WMR
08-26-2009, 02:16 AM
Who's going to be the manager that bats him 8th?

I'm assuming someone other than Dusty.

WVRedsFan
08-26-2009, 02:17 AM
He has to hit eighth in the order, the Reds would have to make some other offensive upgrades. Maybe a catcher to go with Hanigan and hit seventh. And a LF. And use the correct players in CF to maximize offense there.

But there's something to be said for keeping Janish as the main shortstop. Perhaps until Cozart is ready. Cozart seems like a similar fielder who may hit more.

With Phillips, Janish, and Rolen, the infield defense is much, much improved. I thought Janish was a bit shaky last year but in 2009 he's been excellent at short IMO. Pretty good range, very surehanded, throws are true.

One way to go is to keep Janish at short and to spend whatever money is available on the outfield. And maybe a pitcher or two to shore up the staff.I would agree if not for one problem. The rest of the lineup has to be highly upgraded. Otherwise, we'll have 6 light hitters in the lineup. We've seen what that does to a team: over-burdoned pitching that tries to be too fine because no run support is expected.

VR
08-26-2009, 02:17 AM
The way you lay it out KC, it's an option. But his stick is flat out one of the weakest in recent Reds history. He just looks defeated up there as he swings the bat, rarely getting a good cut.

I know he hit the weights hard last offseason....but he'd need to really get after it this next year to be anywhere near legitimate as a major leaguer.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 02:36 AM
He has to hit eighth in the order, the Reds would have to make some other offensive upgrades. Maybe a catcher to go with Hanigan and hit seventh. And a LF. And use the correct players in CF to maximize offense there.

But there's something to be said for keeping Janish as the main shortstop. Perhaps until Cozart is ready. Cozart seems like a similar fielder who may hit more.

With Phillips, Janish, and Rolen, the infield defense is much, much improved. I thought Janish was a bit shaky last year but in 2009 he's been excellent at short IMO. Pretty good range, very surehanded, throws are true.

One way to go is to keep Janish at short and to spend whatever money is available on the outfield. And maybe a pitcher or two to shore up the staff.

I like it exactly as you have written it up. The steps you are speaking to, and Janish ss, if he continues to get consistent playing time, he might even hit better with more AB/PA, I mean adequately.

cincinnati chili
08-26-2009, 07:47 AM
I want the Reds to aim higher than Paul Janish.

Ltlabner
08-26-2009, 08:20 AM
The problem is they aren't going to get any other significant offensive upgrades and the manager won't bat him 8th.

Nice kid. Wouldn't mind having him around. But as CC pointed out I'd rather they aim higher. Going with Janish, without even trying Phillips or looking at other outside options would be a "deckchairs" sort of move.

Razor Shines
08-26-2009, 08:26 AM
The problem is they aren't going to get any other significant offensive upgrades and the manager won't bat him 8th.

Nice kid. Wouldn't mind having him around. But as CC pointed out I'd rather they aim higher. Going with Janish, without even trying Phillips or looking at other outside options would be a "deckchairs" sort of move.

It's not even that. It's a "screw it, we're sinking anyway" sort of move.

lollipopcurve
08-26-2009, 08:26 AM
Need to see more.

If there's one position you go light on offense in order to play a plus defender, it's SS (oh, catcher too).

Last night was a real good night for him, offensively and defensively. A few more games like that and I may feel like he's a legit option for 2010.

membengal
08-26-2009, 08:29 AM
He would have to bat 8th (or even 9th?) and there would have to be a significant upgrade offensively in LF. I am less than clear that either of those things is going to happen.

Falls City Beer
08-26-2009, 09:02 AM
He's Juan Castro if Castro could actually field. That has a place in the NL. But only as a backup.

PuffyPig
08-26-2009, 09:23 AM
He would have to bat 8th (or even 9th?) and significantly upgrade offensively in LF. I am less than clear that either of those things is going to happen.


Nix and Gomes have combined for an .804 OPS this year, along with 27 HR's. That's based on 465 AB's so far, about what a regular would have.

To significantly upgrade that production would require quite an investment.

lollipopcurve
08-26-2009, 09:36 AM
Nix and Gomes have combined for an .804 OPS this year, along with 27 HR's. That's based on 465 AB's so far, about what a regular would have.

To significantly upgrade that production would require quite an investment.

Agreed -- it's an mportant consideration. If they can muster a strong, affordable platoon in the LF corner, they may be able to find more offense at SS and C. But so much will depend on Bruce improving. To me, that's the biggest question heading into 2010, and there's no way of gauging what he'll do.

membengal
08-26-2009, 10:06 AM
Nix and Gomes have combined for an .804 OPS this year, along with 27 HR's. That's based on 465 AB's so far, about what a regular would have.

To significantly upgrade that production would require quite an investment.


yes. it would. That's why I said was less than confident the required upgrade in LF to carry a Janish would happen.

Bumstead
08-26-2009, 10:27 AM
Janish is a utility infielder at best. If the Reds start any season with him starting at any position, then they have already given up on the season. The Reds have to come up with a better plan than that (Brignac, Wood, somebody that can actually make some contact).

Bum

Razor Shines
08-26-2009, 10:42 AM
Nix and Gomes have combined for an .804 OPS this year, along with 27 HR's. That's based on 465 AB's so far, about what a regular would have.

To significantly upgrade that production would require quite an investment.


Maybe we could trade for the best hitting outfielder in all of baseball.

flyer85
08-26-2009, 11:03 AM
Reds need an upgrade at all three OF spots to be able to play Janish at SS

TRF
08-26-2009, 11:30 AM
Janish is a utility infielder at best. If the Reds start any season with him starting at any position, then they have already given up on the season. The Reds have to come up with a better plan than that (Brignac, Wood, somebody that can actually make some contact).

Bum


Reds need an upgrade at all three OF spots to be able to play Janish at SS

I kind of agree with flyer, Bum not so much.

The problem is, Jocketty and Baker have done a poor job assembling this team, injuries have taken a toll, and some players were out of position. Janish COULD be successful as the fulltime SS, but NOT with Taveras in CF, and Hanigan/Hernandez behind the plate. Hanigan either has been exposed for the backup he is, or he needs to make a serious adjustment. This is Dickerson's 3rd ML DL trip in a year (he had one last year iirc). That doesn't bode well for his chances at the CF job. Stubbs hasn't exactly lit the world on fire with his callup, and Taveras is... Taveras. nuff said there.

But...

2010 will see Bruce in RF, and hopefully he's been paying attention on the bench watching. I truly believe the Reds are going to sign one of Gomes/Nix, probably Gomes and install him as the LF. Nix is even a possibility in CF. Here is where I agree with Flyer. That isn't enough.

But...

I think Jocketty or Baker WILL think it is enough. Nix is a 4th OF at best. Gomes is a starter on probably half the teams in baseball. He's legit, but he's Dunn-lite: about 2/3 the power, 10% of the BB's and the same defensively. And since Dunn is now a 1B, likely for the rest of his career, he has far more value than a guy like Gomes who cannot make that transition on this Reds team. Bruce is the wildcard. He needs to be that 950+ OPS beast we all want him to be.

But...

That won't be enough. Because WJ won't DFA Taveras. Because Baker won't play Dickerson over WT even when healthy. Because the C position is not as solidified as we thought. And because Todd Frazier won't be ready until mid season at the earliest, and he's a man that has been trained for no position.

But...

IF Jocketty actually upgraded the OF, maybe take a risk and hope a change of scenery is all an Elija Dukes or Delmon Young needs. Gets a real CF that WON't kill you at the plate. If he can find 2010's version of the 2006 Ross at C, then Janish defense can help the club as the starter at SS.

But..

I'd rather just see Phillips there and Valaika at 2B. That at least would be interesting.

Patrick Bateman
08-26-2009, 11:58 AM
I don't really think the rest of the bats in the line-up has an effect on whether Janish should be a starter.

Based on his total offensive and defensive abilities, he either should or shouldn't be a starter. The rest of the players don't have an affect nor are they affected by that.

Needless to say, I don't think any player in baseball is good enough defensively to be a reasonable starter with Janish's bat. It's just that bad. True, if the Reds had better players, they could compete with Janish as the starter, but that has nothing to do with him. Much like the Astros and Rockies ability to succeed had nothing to do with having Willy Taveras as the leadoff man.

No matter the situation, the Reds should always be willing to upgrade over Janish no matter who the other players on the rest of the diamond are. As far as back-ups go, he's not bad to have around considering that he does offer real defensive value which makes him a good late inning type of guy, and the ability to spell the starter without leaving you with nothing from the position. That's what I see him as long term.

GADawg
08-26-2009, 12:55 PM
Janish for some reason reminds me of Mark DeRosa when he first came up with the braves(never capitalize "braves"so as to show due disrespect). DeRosa didn't have alot of pop and looked overmatched at the plate most nights but probably wasn't as good defensively as Janish. I'm not a big Janish fan and have zero patience so I'm in no way backing a "Janish for SS" campaign but it'll be interesting to see if he ever develops offensively.

also someone mentioned Gomes and his defense(or lack thereof)but I've been pretty impressed by the guy actually. He looks awkward at times and even a little clumsy and his throwing motion should be stricken from all available video so as not to be seen by anyone under the age of 13 BUT damn if he doesn't get the job done...even with that arm. I'm pretty comfortable with him roaming(lumbering)around out there for next season and actually interested to see what he would do over a full season of ab's. As for the Nix/Gomes platoon....I hate platoons. Gimme 8 guys and run 'em out there everyday all old school like(the DL notwithstanding)and I'll be a happy man. The Nix's and Willie T's of the world can get their shot a day a week and off the bench.

As for Hanigan, I'm not ready to write off his first half. He's obviously been nursing that neck thing the last while and it's really hurt his numbers but I'm guessing his numbers over a full healthy season would be somewhere between the first half and second half numbers with great D.

hebroncougar
08-26-2009, 01:02 PM
He'd better be Ozzie Smith like with the glove, he didn't even slug .400 in the minors for his career. I understand the Reds have a limited budget, but he's going to be a huge liability offensively.

nate
08-26-2009, 01:08 PM
He'd better be Ozzie Smith like with the glove, he didn't even slug .400 in the minors for his career. I understand the Reds have a limited budget, but he's going to be a huge liability offensively.

At least he'll have company.

TheNext44
08-26-2009, 01:14 PM
I am actually for the Reds not spending any major resources this off season, so Janish as SS is fine with me, He holds a place for a year until the Reds can learn more about what Cozart can do.

The Rolen trade proved that in order for the Reds to upgrade anywhere, they have to create a hole somewhere else, either at the major league level, prospects depth chart or payflex. They have somewhere between $5-10M to use on upgrading the team, and then they will have close to zero for any improvements during the season. That $5-10M will not make the Reds contenders, at best it could make them a solid .500 team, with no way to improve at the trading deadline.

So let Janish play SS, he will help the pitching staff, and give the Reds another years to see if Cozart is the SS of the future, or to find one if he is not.

I am still in favor of seeing if Phillips can play SS in the offseason, but if that doesn't work, I have no problem with Janish as SS, no matter how bad his bat is.

HokieRed
08-26-2009, 01:19 PM
Janish will not, IMHO, ever hit enough to be a regular shortstop. It's important not to let a few decent games get in the way of clear judgment. It doesn't bother me that we have to give up good players to get good ones; that's how everybody approaches trading except for the weakest organizations, who are always looking somehow to make a killing in a trade--primarily because they consider themselves to have so few resources that they've got to somehow steal excellence from elsewhere. That said, I don't see us having enough cash to do all the improvements we need for next year, so I'd like to see us get a starting pitcher and a bat who can be slotted into the overall configuration: could be at SS, 2b, C, Of, even 1b with the Votto to left experiment starting now.

traderumor
08-26-2009, 01:21 PM
Janish has looked serviceable this year when he has gotten regular playing time. As a bench player, he is a liability. His D is very good, and I disagree he has to play HOF caliber SS to make room for his stick. The Reds could be a good team with him as the everyday SS, and there is certainly some merit to looking for upgrades at C, LF and in the rotation as higher priorities than finding a SS with a better stick and above average D.

Patrick Bateman
08-26-2009, 01:27 PM
Janish, over his first few hundred major league plate appearances has a lower SLG than Taveras this season.

Yes, he's a newb of sorts and blah blah blah, but I think that speaks pretty big volumes as to what we can expect out of the guy as a hitter. At least Janish provides some real defensive value, but he's not not so good that he's on a different planet than Willy. As of now, he's shown nowhere near the ability to be anything close to being even a slightly below average starting calibre player.

Bumstead
08-26-2009, 01:33 PM
Surely y'all are kidding...Janish over a full year would be as bad or worse than Taveras this season and y'all are OK with that. We shouldn't attempt to find a young SS that is blocked in another organization?? We shouldn't sign someone cheap for a year to possibly get us to Cozart or some other option. And Gomes playing everyday....nevermind, this thread is about SS...with these types of ideas, the Reds will suck for another decade at a minimum.

Bum

RedsManRick
08-26-2009, 01:49 PM
Janish is an acceptable stopgap, that's it. But just because he's a young Juan Castro type doesn't change the fact that he's still a Juan Castro. He's a 1 win player who will probably help you a little bit more on the field than he'll hurt you at the plate -- but who might not even do that.

When we focus on all of these possible trade-offs, we miss the point. Assuming you can relatively accurately evaluate/project a player's overall contributions (and I'm not convinced the Reds actually do this...), your focus should be on building a team of those guys who give you team the most combined production on both sides of the ball.

This inane focus on trying to build a particular "type" of team is myopic. You win baseball games by scoring more runs than you allow. Don't focus on a player's contributions to one side of that equation or the other -- focus on his contribution to your run differential, period. Trying build a particular type of team leads you making decisions based on misplaced priorities -- signing a replacement level CF who can't find 1B to save his life to a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal because he's fast and plays a decent CF.

Going through this calculus of saying we can afford Janish in the lineup if he bats 8th, etc. is the GM version of trying to get Dunn to hit for a higher batting average at the expense of his OBP and/or power. It's like giving up an out to advance a guy a base in the first inning because you like to manufacture runs rather than "wait" for the 3 run homer -- even if the latter approach produces more runs over time.

At the end of the day what matters is outscoring our opponents by at least 100 runs. Trying to do that by designing a team built outscore them 750-650 instead of 850-750 is simply going to restrict us from considering opportunities which might improve the team but which don't fit in to the neat little box of how we've decided we'd like to win.

Stop rearranging the deck chairs and spend your energy on acquiring more net production however you can get it. There's no such thing as hiding a guy in the lineup. Plate appearances are plate appearances -- outs are outs. If Janish is our best option at SS, fine. But the composition of his limited production has no real bearing on his value or whether or not we should accept a guy who is barely over replacement. He's a 1 win player at best and no more or less valuable than a SS who played poor defense and could hit well and who also ~10 runs better than replacement.

HokieRed
08-26-2009, 01:53 PM
Janish is an acceptable stopgap that's it. But just because he's a young Juan Castro type doesn't change the fact that he's still a Juan Castro. He's a 1 win player who will probably help you a little bit more on the field than he'll hurt you at the plate.

But when we focus on all of these possible tradeoffs we miss the point. Assuming you can properly and relatively accurately evaluate a player's overall contributions, focus on those guys who give your team the most production combined on both sides of the ball. This inane focus on trying to build a particular "type" of team is myopic. You win baseball games by scoring more runs than you allow. Don't focus on a player's contributions to one side of that equation or the other -- focus on his contribution to your run differential, period. Trying build a particular type of team leads you making decisions based on misplaced priorities -- signing a replacement level CF who can't find 1B to save his life to a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal because he's fast and plays a decent CF.

Going through this calculus of saying we can afford Janish in the lineup if he bats 8th, etc. is the GM version of trying to get Dunn to hit for a higher batting average at the expense of his OBP and/or power. It's like giving up an out to advance a guy a base in the first inning because you like to manufacture runs rather than "wait" for the 3 run homer -- even if the latter approach produces more runs over time.

At the end of the day what matters is outscoring our opponents by at least 100 runs. Trying to do that by designing a team built outscore them 750-650 instead of 850-750 is simply going to restrict us from considering opportunities which might improve the team but which don't fit in to the neat little box of how we've decided we'd like to win.

Stop rearranging the deck chairs and spend your energy on acquiring more net production however you can get it. There's no such thing as hiding a guy in the lineup. Plate appearances are plate appearances -- outs are outs. If Janish is our best option at SS, fine. But the composition of his limited production has no real bearing on his value or whether or not we should accept a guy who is barely over replacement. He's a 1 win player at best and no more or less valuable than a SS who played poor defense and could hit well and who also ~10 runs better than replacement.

Agree completely. Let's start by getting another SP and a stick.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 02:31 PM
Janish is an acceptable stopgap, that's it. But just because he's a young Juan Castro type doesn't change the fact that he's still a Juan Castro. He's a 1 win player who will probably help you a little bit more on the field than he'll hurt you at the plate -- but who might not even do that.

When we focus on all of these possible trade-offs, we miss the point. Assuming you can relatively accurately evaluate/project a player's overall contributions (and I'm not convinced the Reds actually do this...), your focus should be on building a team of those guys who give you team the most combined production on both sides of the ball.

This inane focus on trying to build a particular "type" of team is myopic. You win baseball games by scoring more runs than you allow. Don't focus on a player's contributions to one side of that equation or the other -- focus on his contribution to your run differential, period. Trying build a particular type of team leads you making decisions based on misplaced priorities -- signing a replacement level CF who can't find 1B to save his life to a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal because he's fast and plays a decent CF.

Going through this calculus of saying we can afford Janish in the lineup if he bats 8th, etc. is the GM version of trying to get Dunn to hit for a higher batting average at the expense of his OBP and/or power. It's like giving up an out to advance a guy a base in the first inning because you like to manufacture runs rather than "wait" for the 3 run homer -- even if the latter approach produces more runs over time.

At the end of the day what matters is outscoring our opponents by at least 100 runs. Trying to do that by designing a team built outscore them 750-650 instead of 850-750 is simply going to restrict us from considering opportunities which might improve the team but which don't fit in to the neat little box of how we've decided we'd like to win.

Stop rearranging the deck chairs and spend your energy on acquiring more net production however you can get it. There's no such thing as hiding a guy in the lineup. Plate appearances are plate appearances -- outs are outs. If Janish is our best option at SS, fine. But the composition of his limited production has no real bearing on his value or whether or not we should accept a guy who is barely over replacement. He's a 1 win player at best and no more or less valuable than a SS who played poor defense and could hit well and who also ~10 runs better than replacement.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I don’t see how I can draw conclusions with a certainty about the players and their offensive abilities with them receiving limited spot play, and a very few at bats or plate appearances. While in addition I have a very limited major league history for several of these players or career stats to review and to draw conclusions. Even Tevaras is having a career worst year after coming to the Reds. Many of the other players can have some good days in the field and at the plate and then won’t be back in the lineup. Isn’t there something to be said for consistent playing time and its effect on the ability to perform at a higher level if one has the skills and talent?

We have all seen a Dickerson and a Gomes have good days at the plate, and then not play. We have seen a Balentien show some good offensive output in limited play, then these players are riding the bench. How do we know what they can or cannot do? How then can we tell if a Janish might put up Gonzalez numbers, better or worse?



GP AB PA OBP SLG OPS
B. Phillips 115 432 483 .320 .442 .762
Willy Taveras 98 395 428 .273 .284 .557
Joey Votto 94 338 385 .392 .538 .931
J. Hairston Jr. 86 307 340 .305 .397 .703
Jay Bruce 83 299 333 .283 .441 .725
R. Hernandez 77 273 316 .330 .355 .685
Laynce Nix 104 277 301 .302 .480 .782
C. Dickerson 96 253 297 .373 .375 .748
Alex Gonzalez 68 243 270 .258 .296 .554
Ryan Hanigan 74 224 259 .362 .330 .692
Adam Rosales 71 206 236 .286 .316 .602
Jonny Gomes 70 188 214 .360 .569 .929
E. Encarnacion 43 139 165 .333 .374 .707
Paul Janish 52 125 141 .295 .264 .559
W. Balentien 18 44 50 .360 .364 .724
D. McDonald 25 43 47 .255 .233 .488
Drew Sutton 23 43 46 .217 .279 .496
Craig Tatum 15 38 44 .227 .132 .359


When it comes to AB and PA, Janish are Tevaras are not a good comparison.


Tevaras Game Log Link
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=5895

Janish Game Log Link
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=29130

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 02:36 PM
Reds need an upgrade at all three OF spots to be able to play Janish at SS

Some with greater speed ? :)

REDREAD
08-26-2009, 02:53 PM
I don't really think the rest of the bats in the line-up has an effect on whether Janish should be a starter.

Based on his total offensive and defensive abilities, he either should or shouldn't be a starter. The rest of the players don't have an affect nor are they affected by that.
.

I agree with this line of thought. Janish is not a legitimate starting SS. Even if the other 7 starting players were all stars, a smart team would be looking to upgrade SS.

Also agree with FCB's Castro analogy.

MikeS21
08-26-2009, 03:17 PM
IMO, there are actually two issues at play here, and both issues are tied to one another.

The first issue is Zach Cozart: is he going to be your future SS or not? If not, then Jocketty needs to do something now about SS.

If Cozart is your guy, then how are you going to handle the interim until he is ready? This leads me to the second issue: Is Janish is your stopgap?

The trap the Reds must avoid is anointing Cozart as the SS of the future and then bringing in a stopgap SS from the outside who winds up blocking Cozart for two years. The problem with a FA coming in is that a guy who is willing to settle for a one year deal probably isn't going to be a much better option than Janish. And the guy who will be an impact player at both defense and at the plate isn't going to sign anything less than a 3-4 year deal - at which point Cozart is effectively blocked.

Of course, you could always trade Cozart in a year or so, but then you are faced with the same "lack of a SS" problem three years from now and nothing is settled.

RED VAN HOT
08-26-2009, 03:21 PM
I think the discussion is premature. He ought to have about 100 more AB's by the end of the season. At the end of that time, the terms of upgrading will become clearer...how much upgrade can we get and at what cost/commitment. I don't hear much concern about his defense, so the issue comes down to evaluating his offensive ceiling.

One thing I like about Janish is that he tends to see more pitches than other Reds. I don't know how to measure the impact, but it stands to reason that there is value in making the pitcher work harder. He has a decent BB/K rate and can hit to right field. Thus, I am not giving up on his ability to hit second. There's some beauty in making the pitcher work for an out right before the heart of the order comes up.

HokieRed
08-26-2009, 03:26 PM
I actually don't think you need to see any more AB's to tell that Janish is going to be a backup, not a regular. And I like that he sees a lot of pitches. But he just doesn't hit the ball hard enough.

nate
08-26-2009, 03:34 PM
If Janish hit as well as we'd like him to, we wouldn't be able to afford him.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 03:38 PM
I actually don't think you need to see any more AB's to tell that Janish is going to be a backup, not a regular. And I like that he sees a lot of pitches. But he just doesn't hit the ball hard enough.

Where do they find that solution and at what cost?

BRM
08-26-2009, 03:40 PM
Where do they find that solution and at what cost?

That's going to be Walt's challenge. Especially since it appears the BP to SS experiment will never happen. My gut tells me Janish will be the regular SS next season whether we like it or not.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 03:48 PM
That's going to be Walt's challenge. Especially since it appears the BP to SS experiment will never happen. My gut tells me Janish will be the regular SS next season whether we like it or not.

I don’t trust that GM’s being lenient with his manager and coaches and their ability to judge, asses talent/skills and then to utilize it in a position where they might perform best or have the best chances to succeed. Unless the GM can just go out and buy the obvious. Too many McDonald, Patterson, Tevaras, Hairston types for me.

HokieRed
08-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Where do they find that solution and at what cost?

If no other outside solutions can be found, I'd prefer to go Frazier to 2b, Phillips to SS--not underestimating, however, as I think a lot of RZers do, how difficult that position switch will be (meaning it may not work and we have to switch Phillips back.) And, as I posted earlier, maybe we have to play Janish every day for a while but I don't want us to get confused about his being an everyday player. It depends on how many of the team's needs can be addressed. I'd approach it as our trying every day to get better and that would mean especially our getting another SP and then a bat--at C, SS, OF, 2b, even 1b.

Ltlabner
08-26-2009, 07:33 PM
Janish at SS in 2010 would accurately portray the complete lack of imagination and fear of risk that grips this organization.

Highlifeman21
08-26-2009, 07:34 PM
Janish at SS in 2010 would accurately portray the complete lack of imagination and fear of risk that grips this organization.

Aka, par for the course, or standard operating procedure.

TheNext44
08-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Janish is an acceptable stopgap, that's it. But just because he's a young Juan Castro type doesn't change the fact that he's still a Juan Castro. He's a 1 win player who will probably help you a little bit more on the field than he'll hurt you at the plate -- but who might not even do that.

When we focus on all of these possible trade-offs, we miss the point. Assuming you can relatively accurately evaluate/project a player's overall contributions (and I'm not convinced the Reds actually do this...), your focus should be on building a team of those guys who give you team the most combined production on both sides of the ball.

This inane focus on trying to build a particular "type" of team is myopic. You win baseball games by scoring more runs than you allow. Don't focus on a player's contributions to one side of that equation or the other -- focus on his contribution to your run differential, period. Trying build a particular type of team leads you making decisions based on misplaced priorities -- signing a replacement level CF who can't find 1B to save his life to a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal because he's fast and plays a decent CF.

Going through this calculus of saying we can afford Janish in the lineup if he bats 8th, etc. is the GM version of trying to get Dunn to hit for a higher batting average at the expense of his OBP and/or power. It's like giving up an out to advance a guy a base in the first inning because you like to manufacture runs rather than "wait" for the 3 run homer -- even if the latter approach produces more runs over time.

At the end of the day what matters is outscoring our opponents by at least 100 runs. Trying to do that by designing a team built outscore them 750-650 instead of 850-750 is simply going to restrict us from considering opportunities which might improve the team but which don't fit in to the neat little box of how we've decided we'd like to win.

Stop rearranging the deck chairs and spend your energy on acquiring more net production however you can get it. There's no such thing as hiding a guy in the lineup. Plate appearances are plate appearances -- outs are outs. If Janish is our best option at SS, fine. But the composition of his limited production has no real bearing on his value or whether or not we should accept a guy who is barely over replacement. He's a 1 win player at best and no more or less valuable than a SS who played poor defense and could hit well and who also ~10 runs better than replacement.

Great post, as usual.

I agree with everything, but just one fine point about a player's overall run production.

I think that there is a point, especially for SS, where a player's defense is so bad, that his offense can not make up for it, no matter how great.

Let's say Pujols played SS. His offense is worth around 60 runs above replacement. If his defense was -50 UZR/150, I think that could be so bad, that it would make it impossible for the team to compete, even though his overall production would be + 10 runs, or one win.

A shortstop that bad defensively would cost the team more than 5 wins on defense, as it would deflate the entire team's confidence, especially the pitchers. There has to be a certain level of professional play for a team to win on a regular basis. When a team is constantly making errors, it leads to them almost giving up, thinking that they don't deserve to win. And has a devastating effect on pitchers.

I do think that this would show up in the numbers, just not in a players personal numbers. It would show up in team's run difference, most likely the overall runs given up, so it's not an "intangible" factor, just a hard to find one.

I think it is similar to my personal feelings about beautiful women and how long I want to hear them talk about something I could care less about.

The more beautiful they are, the longer I will listen, regardless of the topic. But there are certain topics that are so boring to me, (her ex, how "human" her cat is, her favorite "Sex and The City" episode...) that no matter how beautiful she is, I just want her to shut up.

There are some SS, that no matter how much offense they bring, they can't make up for their defense.

RedEye
08-26-2009, 08:32 PM
Why do I have the feeling David Eckstein is going to be in Cincinnati next year?

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 08:34 PM
Janish at SS in 2010 would accurately portray the complete lack of imagination and fear of risk that grips this organization.

Last year they ended the season with a centerfielder in Dickerson, then they got creative, went out and got what they believe is an upgrade to play center. I think they will follow their same patterns and go out and get a shortstop during the off-season.

RedEye
08-26-2009, 08:35 PM
Last year they ended the season with a centerfielder in Dickerson, then they got creative, went out and got what they believe is an upgrade to play center. I think they will follow their same patterns and go out and get a shortstop during the off-season.

I still can't believe people were paid to make that decision.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 08:35 PM
Why do I have the feeling David Eckstein is going to be in Cincinnati next year?

:dunno: Why would you think such things? Care to expound :devil:

TheNext44
08-26-2009, 08:36 PM
Last year they ended the season with a centerfielder in Dickerson, then they got creative, went out and got what they believe is an upgrade to play center. I think they will follow their same patterns and go out and get a shortstop during the off-season.

Ever the optimist. ;)

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 08:38 PM
I still can't believe people were paid to make that decision.

It is shocking isn't it. Some people have to work for a living, other's get paid for peformance, then there is the Reds management team.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 08:39 PM
Ever the optimist. ;)

Well "creative" implies positivity doesn't it. ;)

Can I help it if I am results oriented, and was taught to follow the money trail.

GAC
08-26-2009, 08:49 PM
I think we all agree that we need improvement at SS.

The problem is availability. It's really easy to say we need one; but quite another finding one in the market.

I think we can also put to rest and discussion of BP to SS too. According to Baker, it just isn't going to happen. It's beating a dead horse. OK, what are the options?

Ya got Janish who, IMO, is a sound defensive SS. The kid can pick it. His bat is Bleech!

In 5 minor leagues seasons he averaged.....

.261 BA .351 OB% .382 SLG% .733 OPS

Now if he could post those numbers at the ML level, and with his glove, would I take that? Heck yeah! But that is the problem. What's the probability of him doing that? He didn't get many ABs this year thanks to Baker. When AGon was out so much this year, who did Baker play at SS? His pal Hairston, and not Janish. Now both AGon and JHJ are gone, so I guess we'll find out about Janish at SS.

I'm certainly not a big proponent of Hardy. Made 4.6M in '09, and just got demoted. IMO, not the route I'd want to take. And the SS FA list ain't too promising either.

If this FO would make serious efforts to upgrade in other positions, we could handle a Janish at SS till other options present themselves.

RedsManRick
08-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Last year they ended the season with a centerfielder in Dickerson, then they got creative, went out and got what they believe is an upgrade to play center. I think they will follow their same patterns and go out and get a shortstop during the off-season.

Signing a "proven" guy to displace a surprisingly productive rookie was not a move born out of creativity. Rather it was just the opposite; instead of being creative and relying on the young guy, they went the safe route and went out and got somebody "proven" who fit their preferred archetype.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 09:01 PM
I think we all agree that we need improvement at SS.

The problem is availability. It's really easy to say we need one; but quite another finding one in the market.

I think we can also put to rest and discussion of BP to SS too. According to Baker, it just isn't going to happen. It's beating a dead horse. OK, what are the options?

Ya got Janish who, IMO, is a sound defensive SS. The kid can pick it. His bat is Bleech!

In 5 minor leagues seasons he averaged.....

.261 BA .351 OB% .382 SLG% .733 OPS

Now if he could post those numbers at the ML level, and with his glove, would I take that? Heck yeah! But that is the problem. What's the probability of him doing that? He didn't get many ABs this year thanks to Baker. When AGon was out so much this year, who did Baker play at SS? His pal Hairston, and not Janish. Now both AGon and JHJ are gone, so I guess we'll find out about Janish at SS.
I'm certainly not a big proponent of Hardy. Made 4.6M in '09, and just got demoted. IMO, not the route I'd want to take. And the SS FA list ain't too promising either.

If this FO would make serious efforts to upgrade in other positions, we could handle a Janish at SS till other options present themselves.

I had forgotten that Janish was trapped behind those two combined.
Seems pretty reasonable to me what you have written here. Perhaps Janish will step up the rest of the way and show that he belongs, if that makes any difference.

SMcGavin
08-26-2009, 09:02 PM
I don't really think the rest of the bats in the line-up has an effect on whether Janish should be a starter.

Based on his total offensive and defensive abilities, he either should or shouldn't be a starter. The rest of the players don't have an affect nor are they affected by that.

Needless to say, I don't think any player in baseball is good enough defensively to be a reasonable starter with Janish's bat. It's just that bad. True, if the Reds had better players, they could compete with Janish as the starter, but that has nothing to do with him. Much like the Astros and Rockies ability to succeed had nothing to do with having Willy Taveras as the leadoff man.

No matter the situation, the Reds should always be willing to upgrade over Janish no matter who the other players on the rest of the diamond are. As far as back-ups go, he's not bad to have around considering that he does offer real defensive value which makes him a good late inning type of guy, and the ability to spell the starter without leaving you with nothing from the position. That's what I see him as long term.

This is a great post. I added the bold to highlight what I think is the heart of the issue.

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 09:05 PM
Signing a "proven" guy to displace a surprisingly productive rookie was not a move born out of creativity. Rather it was just the opposite; instead of being creative and relying on the young guy, they went the safe route and went out and got somebody "proven" who fit their preferred archetype.

I am not trying to be cute or witty here but, do you think there is any chance that they could bring Hairston Jr. or Gonzalez back to fill in at short?

Spring~Fields
08-26-2009, 09:42 PM
Late spring for Janish
Posted by JohnFay at 8/26/2009 7:54 PM EDT on Cincinnati.com

When the Reds traded Alex Gonzalez, Paul Janish obviously was going to get his big chance.

He struggled at first. That's understandable. Janish has played so little before the trade he made two starts in the 36 games immediately before the trade that he wasnt very comfortable at the plate.

The first week or so after Gonzo got traded kind of felt like mini-spring training, getting back into it, seeing pitches, seeing breaking pitches Janish said. Now, I actually feel pretty comfortable. Im seeing the ball better, swinging at better pitches. Im getting some hits, hitting the ball hard.

Janish goes into tonight's 6-for-his-last-21 and coming off two straight two-hit games.

It came back as quick as I could hope, Janish said. Im optimistic about playing the rest of the year and playing well, finishing up strong, leaving a good impression.

Dusty Baker was non-committal when asked about Janish.

Its too early to assess where he is, Baker said. Hes studying quite a bit. Hes a smart young man, plus hes receptive to instruction. That helps.

Hes getting the opportunity. Its up to him. Its hard for me to say where hes going to be. All you can ask for in this game is opportunity. Its to you seize that opportunity.

GAC
08-26-2009, 10:15 PM
I had forgotten that Janish was trapped behind those two combined.

The "trap" that mattered was in Baker's mind.


Seems pretty reasonable to me what you have written here. Perhaps Janish will step up the rest of the way and show that he belongs, if that makes any difference.

I guess we'll find out. But IMO, this FO is not going to do anything drastic or make a bold and daring move in the off-season when it comes to the SS position. Not only are they going to hide behind payroll restrictions, there is really nothing in the market that stands out.

So you'll see Janish in 2010, while they hope a Valaika or Cozart turns it up a notch. Not promising huh?

Maybe they'll resign AGon for less money to backup Janish? ;)

traderumor
08-26-2009, 11:29 PM
I don't really think the rest of the bats in the line-up has an effect on whether Janish should be a starter.

Based on his total offensive and defensive abilities, he either should or shouldn't be a starter. The rest of the players don't have an affect nor are they affected by that.

Needless to say, I don't think any player in baseball is good enough defensively to be a reasonable starter with Janish's bat. It's just that bad. True, if the Reds had better players, they could compete with Janish as the starter, but that has nothing to do with him. Much like the Astros and Rockies ability to succeed had nothing to do with having Willy Taveras as the leadoff man.

No matter the situation, the Reds should always be willing to upgrade over Janish no matter who the other players on the rest of the diamond are. As far as back-ups go, he's not bad to have around considering that he does offer real defensive value which makes him a good late inning type of guy, and the ability to spell the starter without leaving you with nothing from the position. That's what I see him as long term.Willing and able are two different things. There is a presupposition of limited resources driving the conversation here, so you assess priorities, and that is what can drive a decision of how and where to improve. Because Janish plays great SS D at the most important D position on the field, it might make sense to use limited resources to address other positions to strengthen the overall lineup. Add to that what is available at positions that are weak, and you have the real baseball world. The world you are talking about would certainly make roster building less complicated, but would require no restrictions on resources or availability.

Mario-Rijo
08-27-2009, 05:08 AM
Trade for Macier Izturis he'll be in his final year of arb. can be a decent offensive option and defensive option. From every possible angle he makes all the sense in the world. He's not spectacular but a decent upgrade that doesn't cost alot and fits into the short/long term vision anyway you want him to.

Ron Madden
08-27-2009, 05:32 AM
Why do I have the feeling David Eckstein is going to be in Cincinnati next year?


God I hope not. Seems like something the Reds would do though.

reds44
08-27-2009, 05:38 AM
If you're writing an article talking about how a guy is 6-21, that's not good. I mean 6 for your last 21 is good and all, but it shouldn't really be getting pub.

reds44
08-27-2009, 05:38 AM
God I hope not. Seems like something the Reds would do though.
Luckily he just signed an extension.

icehole3
08-27-2009, 05:43 AM
the more I see of Janish the more I like, I think he deserves a chance and Im willing to not pass judgement on him until the end of the season because he's a hard worker.

Raisor
08-27-2009, 08:00 AM
the more I see of Janish the more I like, I think he deserves a chance and Im willing to not pass judgement on him until the end of the season because he's a hard worker.

like you were willing to not pass judgement on Willy in the offseason? ;)


Janish will be a leading indicator if the Reds will really be trying to contend in 2010. Of course they'll give lip service about contending next year, but if Janish is the starting SS they won't really mean it.

Ltlabner
08-27-2009, 08:16 AM
"Hey, Janish made a couple of nice plays the last two nights. I'd like to see him get the job next year"

lollipopcurve
08-27-2009, 09:41 AM
Janish will be a leading indicator if the Reds will really be trying to contend in 2010. Of course they'll give lip service about contending next year, but if Janish is the starting SS they won't really mean it.

I'd wait to see the totality of the moves before making this kind of pronouncement re: 1 position. If they goose the offense significantly at other spots, and you factor in major gains from Bruce, then going defense first at SS is no deal breaker.

gonelong
08-27-2009, 10:32 AM
If Janish is the Reds starting shortstop next season, they are going to have one heck of a time trying to get this guy to open his wallet.

GL

lollipopcurve
08-27-2009, 10:34 AM
If Janish is the Reds starting shortstop next season, they are going to have one heck of a time trying to get this guy to open his wallet.

GL

He plays very solid defense, which is fun to watch out of SS, no?

traderumor
08-27-2009, 10:35 AM
"Hey, Janish made a couple of nice plays the last two nights. I'd like to see him get the job next year"Of course, no one is saying that, not even Dusty :rolleyes: Listening to WLW again?

Bumstead
08-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Defensive 'Gems' are fun to watch but the inability of this team to score runs is why they are losing. Defense isn't the problem. Janish starting more than 20 games in a season is a sign that the season is over or 1/2 the team is on the DL...

gonelong
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
He plays very solid defense, which is fun to watch out of SS, no?

That'll get me to tune in to Sportscenter, but not down to the ballpark.

GL

icehole3
08-27-2009, 06:42 PM
like you were willing to not pass judgement on Willy in the offseason? ;)


Janish will be a leading indicator if the Reds will really be trying to contend in 2010. Of course they'll give lip service about contending next year, but if Janish is the starting SS they won't really mean it.

I was willing to give the guy a chance because doing something is better than doing nothing, so there :p:

Kc61
08-27-2009, 06:47 PM
From the games I've seen recently, Janish has been playing outstanding ball. He should have a role next year, either as a starter or as the first infielder off the bench. Depending on the options obtainable from outside the organization.

For a guy who didn't even make the Reds' top prospects lists, Janish has turned out to be a very pleasant suprise. And a home grown prospect too.

BRM
08-27-2009, 06:49 PM
I don't think you'd get many arguments from people if Janish were on the squad as a reserve infielder next year. As the starting SS batting 2nd though? Look out.

BRM
08-27-2009, 06:52 PM
For a guy who didn't even make the Reds' top prospects lists, Janish has turned out to be a very pleasant suprise. And a home grown prospect too.

I'd say he's looking a lot like the guy most expected he would be. A judy-hitting, very good defensive infielder. A nice player to have on your bench.

TheNext44
08-27-2009, 08:03 PM
If you're writing an article talking about how a guy is 6-21, that's not good. I mean 6 for your last 21 is good and all, but it shouldn't really be getting pub.

I remember reading on the scoreboard at a Dodger game awhile back that Devon White had hit safely in 4 of his last 7 games. That's when you're really digging deep to find something positive to say about a player.

VR
08-27-2009, 08:37 PM
One thing to ruminate on.

Are we looking at the steroid era shortstops as the comparison....or do we imagine the 80's style SS coming back en vogue?

If steroids are a thing of the past....I'd imagine the hitting standard for shortstops will be dropping profusely.

Brutus
08-27-2009, 10:59 PM
I remember reading on the scoreboard at a Dodger game awhile back that Devon White had hit safely in 4 of his last 7 games. That's when you're really digging deep to find something positive to say about a player.

My favorite California Angel never-was

TheNext44
08-27-2009, 11:04 PM
My favorite California Angel never-was

I owned a hundred of 1987 Topps Rookie Cards. Thought he was going to be something special. Oops.

BCubb2003
08-27-2009, 11:08 PM
The Red Sox brought in shortstop Nick Green tonight to pitch the eighth and ninth down 9-2 to the White Sox. He pitched two scoreless innings, and the Red Sox scored two runs in the meantime.

Ron Madden
08-28-2009, 03:35 AM
I was willing to give the guy a chance because doing something is better than doing nothing, so there :p:

I would argue that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Especially if doing something means signing Taveras to a two year deal.

Many of us saw the signing of Taveras as a huge mistake because we had better in house options.

Others said "wait and see, at least they're doing something". ;)

icehole3
08-28-2009, 05:41 AM
I would argue that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Especially if doing something means signing Taveras to a two year deal.

Many of us saw the signing of Taveras as a huge mistake because we had better in house options.

Others said "wait and see, at least they're doing something". ;)

I am willing to admit I was wrong, I accepted I was wrong long ago, I had my reasons for giving a guy a chance and it was I felt they needed to give Stubbs more time in the minors. Some guys dont want to see it that way I did, its cool though, Stubbs is here and there are some other interesting OFs in the minors about to reach the majors, so the Tavares move I've put behind me as a lesson learned

GAC
08-28-2009, 08:01 AM
I agree with you to a degree icehole. The reason we have a farm system is not only to develop and monitor a prospect's progress, but, as you say, at some point, give them a chance. Are they ready?

And I think we have some prospects that should be given that serious look-see. Whether it's Janish, Stubbs, Sutton, or Frazier. It's low-risk to a larger degree.

My gawd! I'd take a chance on Stubbs over Taveras. What's the downside here?

IMO, the problem is Baker. The guy says he has no problem with working to develop youth, and that prior, he never really had the opportunity. But he shows no patience with the youth. He is not the guy for the job.

He has had opportunities during this season, because of injuries, to play various youth, and he refused to do it.

The only reason Janish is playing SS full time right now is because Baker has to do it. He really has no other options. And it's sad that you have to have a situation like that to basically force Baker to do something he wouldn't otherwise do.

He went into this season with a bur up his butt about Chris Dickerson, who, IMO, didn't get a fair shake from Baker. And who was he putting in the OF? Good ol "reliable" vets in Hairston and McDonald.

Right now is an opportune time to be seeing some of these kids. They should be playing and getting ABs as much as possible.

RedEye
08-28-2009, 10:12 AM
My favorite California Angel never-was

Not to hijack the thread with a completely different topic, but I was under the impression that Devon White had a solid-if-unremarkable major league career. Anyway, not the type of player I would label a "never-was" even if he did fail to meet his initial hype.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2009, 01:27 PM
I agree with you to a degree icehole. The reason we have a farm system is not only to develop and monitor a prospect's progress, but, as you say, at some point, give them a chance. Are they ready?

And I think we have some prospects that should be given that serious look-see. Whether it's Janish, Stubbs, Sutton, or Frazier. It's low-risk to a larger degree.

My gawd! I'd take a chance on Stubbs over Taveras. What's the downside here?

IMO, the problem is Baker. The guy says he has no problem with working to develop youth, and that prior, he never really had the opportunity. But he shows no patience with the youth. He is not the guy for the job.

He has had opportunities during this season, because of injuries, to play various youth, and he refused to do it.

The only reason Janish is playing SS full time right now is because Baker has to do it. He really has no other options. And it's sad that you have to have a situation like that to basically force Baker to do something he wouldn't otherwise do.

He went into this season with a bur up his butt about Chris Dickerson, who, IMO, didn't get a fair shake from Baker. And who was he putting in the OF? Good ol "reliable" vets in Hairston and McDonald.

Right now is an opportune time to be seeing some of these kids. They should be playing and getting ABs as much as possible.

I think we have to agree with you on most of what you have written because that is what occured in our sight.

One exception, and I really really don't disagree with giving the player a chance. Though when the injuries are healed I think that Stubbs will go back down.


My gawd! I'd take a chance on Stubbs over Taveras. What's the downside here?
The possibility of more of the same that was evident with Tevaras and Patterson. Speed with a low on base percentage obtaining the most PA/AB hindering the chances/opportunities to score., repeated lost opportunity.

Patterson
.238 .344 .582
Tevaras
.273 .284 .557
Stubbs
Yet to be seen.


A perception that Stubbs is not ready for the majors, or that Dickerson is too injury prone can promote the Reds managements idea that Tevaras is their best answer for next season, which can repeat the same.

“That goes a long way toward getting results. When you string good at-bats together, it puts a lot of pressure on the defense and the pitcher.” ~Scott Rolen, Cincinnati Enquirer~

Mario-Rijo
08-28-2009, 02:44 PM
The possibility of more of the same that was evident with Tevaras and Patterson. Speed with a low on base percentage obtaining the most PA/AB hindering the chances/opportunities to score., repeated lost opportunity.

Patterson
.238 .344 .582
Tevaras
.273 .284 .557
Stubbs
Yet to be seen.


A perception that Stubbs is not ready for the majors, or that Dickerson is too injury prone can promote the Reds managements idea that Tevaras is their best answer for next season, which can repeat the same.


True, quite true about Drew's potential for being an ineffective bat. However a couple of things here. Patterson and Wily have one similiar trait that Drew doesn't have that bodes well for the club to some lesser extent. They both made/make quite a bit of contact, unfortunately they both swing at stuff they really shouldn't and this is why they end up making a ton of outs, that and the fact they both refuse to take a walk. Drew does take walks which is a bonus but more importantly Dusty sees a guy who K's too much, which means he'll likely find himself down in the order eventually unlike the previous 2 CF's. Drew down in the 7 or 8 hole isn't nearly as harmful to the club. That and he plays defense better than Wily, not to get into baserunnning/stealing.

Walt's job is to get a SS who is reasonably effective in the #2 hole be that M. Izturis or Yunel Escobar or whomever. So that one of those 2 spots in the lineup has some on base ability then if you platoon Heisey and Dickerson in LF you always have 2 guys who get on base at a reasonable clip. Now that's not neccessarily ideal (that would be Carl Crawford in LF or CF and Escobar at SS and hitting 1,2) but it's better than what we have currently/this season by leaps and bounds.

2009 BA/OBP/SLG
Poor and Overpriced
1 - .238/.273/.284 - Taveras
2 - .254/.305/.397 - Hairston

Solid and Cheap
1 - .277/.373/.375 - Dickerson
2 - .295/.357/.425 - Izturis

Expensive but Dynamic
1 - .316/.372/.466 - Crawford
2 - .305/.371/.450 - Escobar

We don't want package #1 the Reds probably won't do package #3 so we can settle in the middle for a decent package #2.

Ron Madden
08-29-2009, 04:14 AM
I am willing to admit I was wrong, I accepted I was wrong long ago, I had my reasons for giving a guy a chance and it was I felt they needed to give Stubbs more time in the minors. Some guys dont want to see it that way I did, its cool though, Stubbs is here and there are some other interesting OFs in the minors about to reach the majors, so the Tavares move I've put behind me as a lesson learned


I understand your point of view but I was thinking more about Dickerson being the first in house option in CF.

I thought Stubbs needed more time in AAA as well.

The depressing thing is someone in this organization thought it was a good move giving Willie Taveras a two year deal and the fact others in the front office agreed. :(

Ron Madden
08-29-2009, 10:03 PM
Paul Janish hasn't been hitting like Paul Janish lately. Has he?

VR
08-29-2009, 10:31 PM
Paul Janish hasn't been hitting like Paul Janish lately. Has he?

A .310 average over his last 6 games off 2nd rate pitching. I'm happy for him, but not shutting down the ss search juuuuust yet. ;)

Ron Madden
08-29-2009, 10:34 PM
I'm happy for him, but not shutting down the ss search juuuuust yet. ;)

Me either. :)

dsmith421
08-29-2009, 11:04 PM
Not to hijack the thread with a completely different topic, but I was under the impression that Devon White had a solid-if-unremarkable major league career. Anyway, not the type of player I would label a "never-was" even if he did fail to meet his initial hype.

I'm sure he consoles himself by juggling his three World Series rings.

westofyou
08-30-2009, 12:12 AM
I'm sure he consoles himself by juggling his three World Series rings.

Or watching that incredible catch he made in the WS over and over.

M2
08-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Not to hijack the thread with a completely different topic, but I was under the impression that Devon White had a solid-if-unremarkable major league career. Anyway, not the type of player I would label a "never-was" even if he did fail to meet his initial hype.

Every never-was should play 17 seasons and almost 2,000 games. Not to mention that White's on the short list of best defensive CFs ever.

As for the main topic in the thread, Janish at SS, Stubbs in CF, Hanigan/Tatum behind the plate. Who needs scoring?

BRM
08-31-2009, 12:48 PM
As for the main topic in the thread, Janish at SS, Stubbs in CF, Hanigan/Tatum behind the plate. Who needs scoring?

You better have the best pitching staff in the league.

WebScorpion
09-01-2009, 12:36 AM
You better have the best pitching staff in the league.
If we get Harang, Volquez, Bailey, Cueto, and Arroyo all at the top of their games, that would be arguably the best staff of 5 in the NL...and our bullpen is not too shabby either. The problem is that all the starters are up and down...you never know who's going to throw the next stinker.

I say we put the vote to the pitching staff...let them choose the SS. I'd bet they'd pick Janish.

I'd also add to M2's statement that Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, and Votto are very good defensive players too. All we need now is a guy who can rake and not handicap our defense in LF. That and some good health could get us into the playoffs, IMO. :cool:

Brutus
09-01-2009, 12:43 AM
Every never-was should play 17 seasons and almost 2,000 games. Not to mention that White's on the short list of best defensive CFs ever.

As for the main topic in the thread, Janish at SS, Stubbs in CF, Hanigan/Tatum behind the plate. Who needs scoring?

While the comment (made more in jest than anything), might have been an exaggeration, the truth is that he was much hyped as a potential perennial all-star with the bat and that most certainly did not materialize (as evidenced by his career .263 average, .319 OBP and .739 OPS). Never-was might have been strong, but his bat certainly never did live up to the hype.

WVRedsFan
09-01-2009, 01:47 AM
If we get Harang, Volquez, Bailey, Cueto, and Arroyo all at the top of their games, that would be arguably the best staff of 5 in the NL...and our bullpen is not too shabby either. The problem is that all the starters are up and down...you never know who's going to throw the next stinker.

I say we put the vote to the pitching staff...let them choose the SS. I'd bet they'd pick Janish.

I'd also add to M2's statement that Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, and Votto are very good defensive players too. All we need now is a guy who can rake and not handicap our defense in LF. That and some good health could get us into the playoffs, IMO. :cool:
I don't think that Janish is the problem as much as his position in the batting order (I know, I know, it doesn't matter--Good Grief). Put him in the 8th position and I could live with him. Bat him second and I'll pull my hair out. Thus, this is why you need a good hitting SS as long as Dusty is manager.

Ron Madden
09-01-2009, 05:05 AM
I've had my doubts about the offensive value of Paul Janish and always liked the defense he provides. I'd rather have Janish at SS than someone like Rich Aurillia, Alex Gonzales or Jeff Keppenger. Something tells me those are the type of guys the Reds will go after... They always do.

I'd love to acquire someone better than Janish but I just don't see it happening now.

Like WVRF said if Janish doesn't hit bat him 8th.

Brutus
09-01-2009, 06:19 AM
I've had my doubts about the offensive value of Paul Janish and always liked the defense he provides. I'd rather have Janish at SS than someone like Rich Aurillia, Alex Gonzales or Jeff Keppenger. Something tells me those are the type of guys the Reds will go after... They always do.

I'd love to acquire someone better than Janish but I just don't see it happening now.

Like WVRF said if Janish doesn't hit bat him 8th.

J.J. Hardy should be available this offseason, I imagine. The Brewers have no place for him with Alcides Escobar now the incumbent. So since the 'Crew has shined him up and given him a second year before free agency, I imagine he's there as a pretty valuable addition to the team(s) willing to give something up for him.

GAC
09-01-2009, 06:59 AM
J.J. Hardy should be available this offseason, I imagine. The Brewers have no place for him with Alcides Escobar now the incumbent.

Hardy played himself out of the Brewers lineup on both sides of the ball. He avoided arbitration going into '09 and signed a 1 yr deal for 4.65M.

According to ESPN.... The Brewers do not intend on bringing Hardy back to Milwaukee prior to September 1st, which will cause his first year of free agency to be pushed back one season. This is an interesting move because it means Hardy won't be a free agent until after the 2010 season. It will add value to Hardy, who will likely be traded during the off-season.

So, if I am interpreting it right, you have one more season of arb for Hardy before he is eligible for FA after next season.

He's had a miserable '09. Can he bounce back? Anything is possible; but what will the Brewers be asking for him in return? And will they be keen on trading the guy within the division?

Brutus
09-01-2009, 07:14 AM
Hardy played himself out of the Brewers lineup on both sides of the ball. He avoided arbitration going into '09 and signed a 1 yr deal for 4.65M.

According to ESPN.... The Brewers do not intend on bringing Hardy back to Milwaukee prior to September 1st, which will cause his first year of free agency to be pushed back one season. This is an interesting move because it means Hardy won't be a free agent until after the 2010 season. It will add value to Hardy, who will likely be traded during the off-season.

So, if I am interpreting it right, you have one more season of arb for Hardy before he is eligible for FA after next season.

He's had a miserable '09. Can he bounce back? Anything is possible; but what will the Brewers be asking for him in return? And will they be keen on trading the guy within the division?

You are correct. Since he was only under contract one season, but is still not a free agent, he is once again eligible for Arbitration. The Brewers can either trade him and let someone else go through the Arbitration process, let him file for Arbitration (and then probably trade him anyway) or simply Non-Tender him - which means he would become a free agent.

They'll probably try to trade him before the Tender deadline (December 12).

mth123
09-01-2009, 07:15 AM
Hardy played himself out of the Brewers lineup on both sides of the ball. He avoided arbitration going into '09 and signed a 1 yr deal for 4.65M.

According to ESPN.... The Brewers do not intend on bringing Hardy back to Milwaukee prior to September 1st, which will cause his first year of free agency to be pushed back one season. This is an interesting move because it means Hardy won't be a free agent until after the 2010 season. It will add value to Hardy, who will likely be traded during the off-season.

So, if I am interpreting it right, you have one more season of arb for Hardy before he is eligible for FA after next season.

He's had a miserable '09. Can he bounce back? Anything is possible; but what will the Brewers be asking for him in return? And will they be keen on trading the guy within the division?


2 more years before Hardy can go for free agency. He'll be arb eligible in 2010 and 2011.

M2
09-01-2009, 11:18 AM
I'd also add to M2's statement that Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, and Votto are very good defensive players too. All we need now is a guy who can rake and not handicap our defense in LF. That and some good health could get us into the playoffs, IMO. :cool:

I was being sarcastic. The Reds can't play Janish, Stubbs and Hanigan/Tatum and expect to go anywhere. Those are the lungs of a pathetic offense.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Agree. At a minimum, we've got to get either a C or an SS who can hit--or move BP and get a 2b. I'm hoping Stubbs can manage CF but I think it's a whole lot more realistic to go CD/DS there. If it's Stubbs only, then we've got to add to LF or also do the other of C/SS.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 12:30 PM
I was being sarcastic. The Reds can't play Janish, Stubbs and Hanigan/Tatum and expect to go anywhere. Those are the lungs of a pathetic offense.

They certainly guarantee plenty of outs a game, that's for sure.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 12:49 PM
I was being sarcastic. The Reds can't play Janish, Stubbs and Hanigan/Tatum and expect to go anywhere. Those are the lungs of a pathetic offense.

I think it's much too early to call those players busts at the plate. I don't know much about Tatum, so I'll leave him out of the equation. But Janish has shown some solid ability at the plate since he's been plugged in as the starter. After his early struggles, Stubbs is also looking much more comfortable. As for Hanigan, while he stuggled late, I think that was due to fatigue & being dinged up so much. When healthy & fresh, he's looked VERY solid at the plate.

No, none of these guys have much power (although I think Stubbs has the potential to develop some modest power), but they do all bring something to the table in terms of offensive ablities. So as long as they're "average" players at the plate...I'm fine with them. Because all 3 are supurb defenders.

But if something better DOES come along, I'm fine with upgrading. But I certainly don't see much available at those 3 positions that would be much of an upgrade on both sides of the ball.

M2
09-01-2009, 01:00 PM
I think it's much too early to call those players busts at the plate. I don't know much about Tatum, so I'll leave him out of the equation. But Janish has shown some solid ability at the plate since he's been plugged in as the starter. After his early struggles, Stubbs is also looking much more comfortable. As for Hanigan, while he stuggled late, I think that was due to fatigue & being dinged up so much. When healthy & fresh, he's looked VERY solid at the plate.

No, none of these guys have much power (although I think Stubbs has the potential to develop some modest power), but they do all bring something to the table in terms of offensive ablities. So as long as they're "average" players at the plate...I'm fine with them. Because all 3 are supurb defenders.

But if something better DOES come along, I'm fine with upgrading. But I certainly don't see much available at those 3 positions that would be much of an upgrade on both sides of the ball.

.401, .382, .372 - those are the career minor league SLGs for Stubbs, Janish and Hanigan. That's over roughly 2,000 plate appearances for each one. They are the makings of a popgun offense. They may have uses as bench players because they have defensive skills, but when you expose players like that to daily work they get chewed up. They won't be average players at the plate if you demand a full season out of them.

They've established what they can do on the way up the ladder. It's not good enough. If the Reds want to conduct their business like a serious ballclub, they need to upgrade all three positions.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 01:06 PM
They've established what they can do on the way up the ladder. It's not good enough.

Way too early to make this judgment re: Stubbs. With the other skills he brings, I don't see how you can dismiss him as a bench player only at this point -- age 24.

Minor league numbers are not 100% predictive of major league performance.

nate
09-01-2009, 01:06 PM
But if something better DOES come along, I'm fine with upgrading. But I certainly don't see much available at those 3 positions that would be much of an upgrade on both sides of the ball.

A few points:

1. Although I like these three players defensively, there's not really a single player, alive or dead, who could make the Reds offense acceptable with them in the lineup every day.

In the slight chance that there is such a player, the Reds cannot afford him.

2. Being available is simply a matter of being a good GM. Every player is available for the right price. Can Walt be the master wheeler/dealer required to make a net improvement to the team?

3. If I had to choose one of these guys to play full-time, it'd be Janish. I think his D is top notch. I'd be more than happy to have Stubbs be a late inning defensive replacement/pinch runner. I'd also be happy to have Hannigan be my backup catcher.

11larkin11
09-01-2009, 01:09 PM
.401, .382, .372 - those are the career minor league SLGs for Stubbs, Janish and Hanigan. That's over roughly 2,000 plate appearances for each one. They are the makings of a popgun offense. They may have uses as bench players because they have defensive skills, but when you expose players like that to daily work they get chewed up. They won't be average players at the plate if you demand a full season out of them.

They've established what they can do on the way up the ladder. It's not good enough. If the Reds want to conduct their business like a serious ballclub, they need to upgrade all three positions.

Maybe, but Votto has 30 HR potential, Bruce has 40 HR potential, Phillips has 30 HR potential, Gomes has 30 HR potential, Rolen has 20 HR potential. Not everyone in your lineup has to have power. And even Stubbs has show he has it. Maybe it won't continue, but its obviously there. I really don't care if the 3 most important defensive positions on the team have power at the plate.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 01:27 PM
Way too early to make this judgment re: Stubbs. With the other skills he brings, I don't see how you can dismiss him as a bench player only at this point -- age 24.

Minor league numbers are not 100% predictive of major league performance.

If Stubbs is going to be an everyday player, he'll have to do something he's never done, aka get on base at or above a .385 clip (and I'm very dismissive of his .400 OBP in 26 G @ AA).

The reason he'll have to do so, is that if he doesn't while pretending to be an everyday player, he'll get exposed for the 1st round bust that he is, while being surrounded by other non-everyday players (but of course they're everyday players b/c they play for the Reds).

So, it's a combination of we'll need Stubbs to do things he most likely cannot, while being surround by other offensive deficiencies/black holes.

If we upgrade the other 7 positions, then sure, Drew Stubbs can be an everyday player.

Chances are we won't, however.

M2
09-01-2009, 02:40 PM
Way too early to make this judgment re: Stubbs. With the other skills he brings, I don't see how you can dismiss him as a bench player only at this point -- age 24.

Minor league numbers are not 100% predictive of major league performance.

He's shown you what he is. It's not going to change appreciably. Every season people do this with various Reds players, expecting them to become something they clearly are not. We actually had posters here stating Willy Taveras was going to be good. Yet the Reds have demonstrated that delusion takes you nowhere.

They need better than Stubbs. You can't take a kid with a .713 OPS in AAA and make him an OF in a lousy offense. Well, you can, but it's only going to reinforce the problem. If the Reds don't plan to be better than Stubbs, then they deserve all the antipathy and derision people can heap upon them.

gonelong
09-01-2009, 02:41 PM
A few years back if you had a bat, nobody needed to know if you had a glove. Now if you have a glove, nobody needs to know if you have a bat. Our pendulum, it has swung.

GL

M2
09-01-2009, 02:44 PM
Maybe, but Votto has 30 HR potential, Bruce has 40 HR potential, Phillips has 30 HR potential, Gomes has 30 HR potential, Rolen has 20 HR potential. Not everyone in your lineup has to have power. And even Stubbs has show he has it. Maybe it won't continue, but its obviously there. I really don't care if the 3 most important defensive positions on the team have power at the plate.

Maybe we're talking about different Reds teams here. I'm talking about the one that currently ranks 15th in the NL in BA, OB, SLG and scoring. As Highlifeman21 correctly noted, this Reds team can't afford to have such little production from an OF slot, especially when SS and C are providing so little.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 02:54 PM
Maybe, but Votto has 30 HR potential, Bruce has 40 HR potential, Phillips has 30 HR potential, Gomes has 30 HR potential, Rolen has 20 HR potential. Not everyone in your lineup has to have power. And even Stubbs has show he has it. Maybe it won't continue, but its obviously there. I really don't care if the 3 most important defensive positions on the team have power at the plate.

So we're gonna play with potential players, rather than actual players?

Votto we have a good idea what we have. Phillips we have a good idea what we have. Rolen we have a good idea what we have, but for how long?

Bruce and Gomes we have no idea what they can do. Bruce has gone Jekyl and Hyde in consecutive years, and Gomes has shown he's not an everyday player (but rather a platoon player).

So, we have 2.5 known entities, and then 5.5 unknown entities.

Less potential, more actual please.

jojo
09-01-2009, 03:11 PM
If Stubbs can post an OPS of .765 (his minor league total) while playing plus defense in center, he'll be a very valuable player.

IMHO, with Stubbs, the issue isn't whether he'll slug (SLG=.401 could be enough) but whether he can get on base.

He posted a wOBA=.349 over his minor league career. If he could do that at the major league level while simply being a +5 defender in center, that would make him a 3.5 to 4 win player over 150 games (+10 bat, +5 glove, +20 for difference between average and replacement level, +2.5 for playing CF). That's borderline all-star territory.

That said, "3 BB/20k" is the road block preventing him from being the above player.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 03:24 PM
.401, .382, .372 - those are the career minor league SLGs for Stubbs, Janish and Hanigan. That's over roughly 2,000 plate appearances for each one. They are the makings of a popgun offense. They may have uses as bench players because they have defensive skills, but when you expose players like that to daily work they get chewed up. They won't be average players at the plate if you demand a full season out of them.

They've established what they can do on the way up the ladder. It's not good enough. If the Reds want to conduct their business like a serious ballclub, they need to upgrade all three positions.


I'm not arguing what they've done in the past. That's been established. I'm saying that it's not written in stone that Stubbs won't hit for power. He's shown flashes of that ability in the past and he's looking like he's doing it again. Will it continue? Who knows. But as long as he's getting on base, using his speed as an asset and playing supurb D, he's not a burden on the club.

As for Janish, he's never hit for power in the past. Very true. But he's also never worked on adding muscle before either. He did that in this past off season. Considering his extremely limited playing time for most of this year, it's too early to call the results on that yet. And same with Stubbs, as long as he's getting on base...his defense is worthy of some playing time right now (especially considering our other options).

Basically, these are 3 positions that IMO it's okay to have limited power numbers. But yes, this means that the OTHER positions will have to be solid hitters and our pitching will have to be well above average. Certainly possible (although Volquez being out hurts that mightily).

M2
09-01-2009, 03:28 PM
IMHO, with Stubbs, the issue isn't whether he'll slug (SLG=.401 could be enough) but whether he can get on base.

I agree in theory, but in the majors a player generally needs power and/or a high batting average in order to maintain a good OB. Stubbs is a .260ish hitter with minimal power. You can't take free passes if pitchers won't give them to you and, over time, I don't see where Stubbs does enough with the bat.

M2
09-01-2009, 03:34 PM
I'm not arguing what they've done in the past. That's been established. I'm saying that it's not written in stone that Stubbs won't hit for power. He's shown flashes of that ability in the past and he's looking like he's doing it again. Will it continue? Who knows. But as long as he's getting on base, using his speed as an asset and playing supurb D, he's not a burden on the club.

What power? He's got a .401 minor league SLG. He's established what sort of power he has, not much. Part of it is, and always has been, his swing, but he's not going to be rebuilding that sucker in the majors.


As for Janish, he's never hit for power in the past. Very true. But he's also never worked on adding muscle before either. He did that in this past off season. Considering his extremely limited playing time for most of this year, it's too early to call the results on that yet. And same with Stubbs, as long as he's getting on base...his defense is worthy of some playing time right now (especially considering our other options).

These guys didn't start playing baseball yesterday. They've been doing it for years. They're not suddenly going to hulk up. The Reds need to go find better options.


Basically, these are 3 positions that IMO it's okay to have limited power numbers. But yes, this means that the OTHER positions will have to be solid hitters and our pitching will have to be well above average. Certainly possible (although Volquez being out hurts that mightily).

When you attach three anchors to a leaky boat, you're not going to sail very far. What could happen in different situations is not going to work for this Reds team.

jojo
09-01-2009, 03:41 PM
I agree in theory, but in the majors a player generally needs power and/or a high batting average in order to maintain a good OB. Stubbs is a .260ish hitter with minimal power. You can't take free passes if pitchers won't give them to you and, over time, I don't see where Stubbs does enough with the bat.

I'm not a big Stubbs guy but I can see a road map for where he could be a pretty valuable player for the Reds. That said, I think his most likely ceiling is Franklin Gutierrez lite.

His floor is, as you point out, somewhat less appealing.

nate
09-01-2009, 03:46 PM
I'm not arguing what they've done in the past. That's been established. I'm saying that it's not written in stone that Stubbs won't hit for power. He's shown flashes of that ability in the past and he's looking like he's doing it again.

At some point, nearly every player shows "flashes." Sure, we should see him through a few hundred ABs to see "for sure" but he needs to show a lot more "flame" sooner rather than later.


Basically, these are 3 positions that IMO it's okay to have limited power numbers. But yes, this means that the OTHER positions will have to be solid hitters and our pitching will have to be well above average. Certainly possible (although Volquez being out hurts that mightily).

Unless the Reds trade for Albert Pujols, it really isn't OK.

The Cardinals are the only division leader to have three sub .700 OPS in their lineup.

Although, even that would be an improvement for the Reds as they have two sub .600 OPS getting two of the top nine number of ABs.

Mind.

Boggling.

M2
09-01-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm not a big Stubbs guy but I can see a road map for where he could be a pretty valuable player for the Reds. That said, I think his most likely ceiling is Franklin Gutierrez lite.

His floor is, as you point out, somewhat less appealing.

I tend to agree with your assessment. FWIW, I think good 4th and 5th (and even 6th) OFs are a great thing to have on your 25-man roster. And there are players who are better suited to that type of usage. It allows them to fly under the radar a bit, study up for specific pitchers and not put the flaws in their game on constant display.

If the Reds were planning to use Dickerson, Stubbs and Gomes off the bench, I'd say that was a heck of a good plan. I absolutely see Stubbs' value in that scenario. Playing him everyday, probably at the top of the lineup - that's liable to get ugly.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 04:03 PM
If the Reds were planning to use Dickerson, Stubbs and Gomes off the bench, I'd say that was a heck of a good plan

Teams don't carry 3 OFs on the bench. Maybe you mean a couple of these guys are in a platoon (splits for Dickerson and Gomes suggest they'd be the pair).

M2
09-01-2009, 04:08 PM
Teams don't carry 3 OFs on the bench.

They should, but that's another matter.

TRF
09-01-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm not arguing what they've done in the past. That's been established. I'm saying that it's not written in stone that Stubbs won't hit for power. He's shown flashes of that ability in the past and he's looking like he's doing it again. Will it continue? Who knows. But as long as he's getting on base, using his speed as an asset and playing supurb D, he's not a burden on the club.

I once saw Juan Castro hit a HR too.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 04:15 PM
I once saw Juan Castro hit a HR too.

So, you think Stubbs' 3 HRs so far are big time flukes, just like Castro's HR?

Have you seen the balls Stubbs hit? Not little liners into the first row...

M2
09-01-2009, 05:10 PM
So, you think Stubbs' 3 HRs so far are big time flukes, just like Castro's HR?

Have you seen the balls Stubbs hit? Not little liners into the first row...

Juan Castro has hit a HR in 1.3% of his major league plate appearances. Drew Stubbs has hit homers in 1.5% on his minor league plate appearances.

Even if you allow for Stubbs developing more power as he matures, power isn't his game.

TRF
09-01-2009, 05:14 PM
So, you think Stubbs' 3 HRs so far are big time flukes, just like Castro's HR?

Have you seen the balls Stubbs hit? Not little liners into the first row...

How many HR's has Stubbs hit this year? 6. 3 at AAA i believe.

That's three HR's at AAA.

No, he does not have anything resembling a power swing. Maybe he'll develop one, but he hasn't had double digit HR's since he was at Dayton. I keep waiting for this SLG surge i was promised once he left Sarasota. Seems its invisible.

bucksfan2
09-01-2009, 05:14 PM
Juan Castro has hit a HR in 1.3% of his major league plate appearances. Drew Stubbs has hit homers in 1.5% on his minor league plate appearances.

Even if you allow for Stubbs developing more power as he matures, power isn't his game.

Stubbs had hit a HR in 4.68% of his major league plate appearances.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 05:20 PM
Juan Castro has hit a HR in 1.3% of his major league plate appearances. Drew Stubbs has hit homers in 1.5% on his minor league plate appearances.

Even if you allow for Stubbs developing more power as he matures, power isn't his game.

I don't know what "his game" means, but anybody who has watched him in the major leagues so far would have a hard time saying it's not part of his game. There's been a lot of debate about whether Stubbs has usable power -- power that translates to game speed -- based on what he's shown in the minors vs. the scouting reports. We do not know what he was being encouraged to develop in the minors -- the Reds may have been preaching contact in an effort to get him to reduce Ks and use his speed. Maybe they're taking a slightly different tack now and encouraging him to try to drive some balls. For any number of reasons (coaching, better lighting conditions, smaller zone and more consistent pitching, to name some) the transition from the minors to the majors may actually allow Stubbs' natural power -- which undeniably exists -- to come more to the fore. Doesn't mean he's a 30 HR guy, but a see no reason to think he can't hit them in the teens.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 05:23 PM
No, he does not have anything resembling a power swing

What does this mean? Again, did you see the balls he hit? Plenty of extension in the swing, plenty of distance on the HR. You don't hit balls like that without putting a good swing on it. He may not make that swing every time he swings, nor should we expect him to. I'm not saying he's going to hit a ton of HRs, but the contention that he really has no power is absurd at this point.

M2
09-01-2009, 05:27 PM
Stubbs had hit a HR in 4.68% of his major league plate appearances.

Surely you know better than to think that's going to continue. Drew Stubbs' mom probably doesn't even think that's going to continue.

bucksfan2
09-01-2009, 05:33 PM
Surely you know better than to think that's going to continue. Drew Stubbs' mom probably doesn't even think that's going to continue.

You got her number? Lets give her a call. FWIW I think Stubbs can be a 20 HR guy playing half his games at GABP.

Bumstead
09-01-2009, 05:41 PM
My only thought on Stubbs, is that I think it is too early to pigeon-hole him as he can only be a certain type of player. Obviously, he hasn't developed as fast as some players do and maybe he will never develop into a full-time player. However, he is a better prospect than Reggie Taylor ever was and with the Reds other option being Willy T, some patience can be afforded Stubbs to see what he can do. He may surprise a lot of people down the line. Ever see Hanley Ramirez' minor league stats? 1536 AB's, 27 HR's, 99 Steals, .783 OPS. Stubbs stats: 1588 AB's, 28 HR's, 121 Steals, .765 OPS...He can still develop into a solid everyday CF for the Reds. He has the tools to develop, it's just whether he can put it all together or not. Nobody has any idea how he will turn out as a MLB player; the Reds aren't contenders, so why not just let it play out. He has earned that much anyway.

Bum

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 05:41 PM
Surely you know better than to think that's going to continue. Drew Stubbs' mom probably doesn't even think that's going to continue.

Well of course not because at that rate Drew would be a 30+ HR guy. What I do think is being said is that he can be a 10-20 HR guy in the future. And how did Drew Stubbs get into a Paul Janish thread? Is Stubbs the new Dunn, in which every thread turns into a debate about him?

Bumstead
09-01-2009, 05:44 PM
Well of course not because at that rate Drew would be a 30+ HR guy. What I do think is being said is that he can be a 10-20 HR guy in the future. And how did Drew Stubbs get into a Paul Janish thread? Is Stubbs the new Dunn, in which every thread turns into a debate about him?

funny! I was wondering how it happened myself...I responded thinking I was in the Stubb's thread....:D

M2
09-01-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm not saying he's going to hit a ton of HRs, but the contention that he really has no power is absurd at this point.

Technically Duane Kuiper had power too. He did hit a home run once.

Stubbs has pretty well defined the power he has in a large sample size. That was him at the plate all those years in the minors. The knock on his swing has always been that the rip he needs to take to jack the ball will cost him too much BA and that the shortened swing he uses to keep himself on the right side of .260 won't generate enough power. Occasionally he's going to tear into one (he is a big boy after all), but if he swings like that on a consistent basis, it will tank his BA/OB.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 06:00 PM
The problem you define, though, M2, is by no means unique to Stubbs. Learning to hit is going to be learning which of those swings to take against which pitchers.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Technically Duane Kuiper had power too. He did hit a home run once.

Stubbs has pretty well defined the power he has in a large sample size. That was him at the plate all those years in the minors. The knock on his swing has always been that the rip he needs to take to jack the ball will cost him too much BA and that the shortened swing he uses to keep himself on the right side of .260 won't generate enough power. Occasionally he's going to tear into one (he is a big boy after all), but if he swings like that on a consistent basis, it will tank his BA/OB.

I don't think it's impossible for Stubbs to develop 10 to 20 homer power by age 27 or 28, but I will say this, right now his minor league numbers are much more meaningful than 60+ PAs as a Red. In fact, i'd suggest that his time as a Red doesn't add much if anything to the discussion at this point.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 06:30 PM
What power? He's got a .401 minor league SLG. He's established what sort of power he has, not much. Part of it is, and always has been, his swing, but he's not going to be rebuilding that sucker in the majors.



These guys didn't start playing baseball yesterday. They've been doing it for years. They're not suddenly going to hulk up. The Reds need to go find better options.



When you attach three anchors to a leaky boat, you're not going to sail very far. What could happen in different situations is not going to work for this Reds team.

I get it. You want the Reds to fairly dramatically upgrade at most positions. Well, that's simply not going to happen. You say the Reds need to go find better options. Who's saying they're not trying to do that? But here's the catch...those 3 positions are the 3 positions with the fewest true "upgrades" available. Where are these great defensive catchers who also have solid plate skills? Few and far between, that's where. Where are the rangy, sure-handed shortstops with a cannon for an arm that hit like Larkin? Well, if they exist...they're locked up long-term.

People here obviously long for the days of the BRM, but those days are long gone. With the steroid-era coming to a close rapidly, so are the days of power-hitting CF'ers & SS's. These things go in cycles and right now we're swinging the pendulum back towards the small-ball/defensive side of the swing.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 06:34 PM
i'd suggest that his time as a Red doesn't add much if anything to the discussion at this point.

Disagree. In the context of the central debate concerning Stubbs -- whether he could hit for power -- there are significant early returns suggesting he can. You can attribute it to luck -- but I'd counter by saying all 3 HRs were legit, and he's hit them to 3 different regions -- down the LF line, to Left/left-center and to right-center, indicating that he's not just running into them with his best leveraged swing. In my book, that's a bit of intriguing evidence that his power tool is alive and well, not MIA somewhere between Dayton and Louisville.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Disagree. In the context of the central debate concerning Stubbs -- whether he could hit for power -- there are significant early returns suggesting he can. You can attribute it to luck -- but I'd counter by saying all 3 HRs were legit, and he's hit them to 3 different regions -- down the LF line, to Left/left-center and to right-center, indicating that he's not just running into them with his best leveraged swing. In my book, that's a bit of intriguing evidence that his power tool is alive and well, not MIA somewhere between Dayton and Louisville.

In my book it's a sample with way too much noise for anything that can be labeled as "significant".

M2
09-01-2009, 06:56 PM
I get it. You want the Reds to fairly dramatically upgrade at most positions. Well, that's simply not going to happen. You say the Reds need to go find better options. Who's saying they're not trying to do that? But here's the catch...those 3 positions are the 3 positions with the fewest true "upgrades" available. Where are these great defensive catchers who also have solid plate skills? Few and far between, that's where. Where are the rangy, sure-handed shortstops with a cannon for an arm that hit like Larkin? Well, if they exist...they're locked up long-term.


If the Reds don't get a serious offensive upgrade (and by that I mean a legitimately good offensive talent) at CF, SS or C, then you can close the book on 2010. I don't care if it's not easy, the team isn't going anywhere but back down the drain without such a player. Personally, I'd be aiming for CF because it's the easiest spot to upgrade of those three. They need a big bat in LF too, but this is in addition to that.

Janish at SS means the team has to make big moves somewhere else in order to fix the pathetic offense.

M2
09-01-2009, 06:57 PM
I don't think it's impossible for Stubbs to develop 10 to 20 homer power by age 27 or 28, but I will say this, right now his minor league numbers are much more meaningful than 60+ PAs as a Red. In fact, i'd suggest that his time as a Red doesn't add much if anything to the discussion at this point.

Totally agreed.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 07:42 PM
If the Reds don't get a serious offensive upgrade (and by that I mean a legitimately good offensive talent) at CF, SS or C, then you can close the book on 2010. I don't care if it's not easy, the team isn't going anywhere but back down the drain without such a player. Personally, I'd be aiming for CF because it's the easiest spot to upgrade of those three. They need a big bat in LF too, but this is in addition to that.

Janish at SS means the team has to make big moves somewhere else in order to fix the pathetic offense.

Well, I think it's a case of agree to disagree. Because I think that by simply being healthy and not having a abysmally horrific season from Bruce next year that this team will score runs. Replacing Taveras with Stubbs/Dickerson platoon will vastly improve our team as well IMO. Same for taking Gonzo off. Addition by subtraction as it were. And while I'm not a big fan of the Rolen deal, his play is VASTLY superior to EE's. I'm sure that you (and many others) won't agree with me, but I seriously think that some SMALL changes gets this team to the playoffs next season (this hinges on a starter stepping up and somewhat replacing Edinson's absence).

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for improving any and all positions...but I'm not in favor of mortgaging the farm system to do it, because there simply is NO SURE THING...regardless of how much money you throw at a problem.

Brutus
09-01-2009, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure I understand or agree with the premise the Reds need to upgrade at catcher. Ryan Hanigan has been one of the absolute finest defensive catchers in all of baseball. Bar none. And to boot, he has sported a .362 OBP. That's good enough to run out there about every day for a catcher. For that position, Hanigan's value is better than probably 70-75% of the catchers in baseball.

People wanted defense for so long. People want guys getting on base. Here, you have a cheap catcher who excels at both and he's not good enough? Wanting to upgrade SS is absolutely logical. Not being ready to count on Stubbs is also understandable. But at this juncture, Hanigan is better than a whole lot of options.

M2
09-01-2009, 08:31 PM
Addition by subtraction as it were.

The Reds have been doing that going on nine years now. How's it working?


And while I'm not a big fan of the Rolen deal, his play is VASTLY superior to EE's.

Just one man's opinion, but I'd try to be a bigger fan of VAST improvements.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 08:46 PM
Agree with M2 that being competitive next year demands, absolutely, at least one major offensive upgrade at C, SS, or CF. (Hopefully we'll get more than one.) Hanigan has, by the way, seen his OPS continually slide as he's played more. He doesn't, IMO, have the SLG to start and be north of .700. (I'd be surprised if he makes .650 with 120 starts.) That's not to say I don't like him. We need at least another one like him to take half the time (that, however, should not be considered the offensive upgrade.)

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 09:30 PM
The Reds have been doing that going on nine years now. How's it working?

It's pretty unfair to group the past 9 years together due to the changes in GM's and such. I prefer to look at it by GM's tenure. That being said, I'm not thrilled with the job Jocketty's done so far.


Just one man's opinion, but I'd try to be a bigger fan of VAST improvements.

But at what cost? Vast improvements that are only for the short term during a period where it really doesn't help us win...versus...dealing away 2 very potent arms that could help this team win for SEVERAL years. I had no problem dealing EE, but losing Roenicke and Stewart hurt. I've got no problem with getting Rolen, but IMO Jocketty severely overpaid. And the timing reaked of desperation/panic. It made no sense to make that move when it was made. ZERO.

TheNext44
09-01-2009, 11:53 PM
In my book it's a sample with way too much noise for anything that can be labeled as "significant".

When you consider the opposing pitchers, ballpark, weather... Stubbs could easily have zero homers right now, with him swinging the bat exactly the same way.

That's not to say that he won't hit 10-20 homers as a major league starter if given the chance, but I haven't seen it from his current AB's as a Red, the obvious results not withstanding.

cincrazy
09-01-2009, 11:59 PM
Drew Stubbs is an upgrade over Willy Taveras.

Drew Stubbs is still probably not an upgrade over most other starting CF'ers in the game of baseball.

He's a low cost option on a crappy team. No team with plans on contention runs the Drew Stubbs of the world out there.

The Reds do, consistently. And that's why they've been horrible for a decade and counting.

Highlifeman21
09-02-2009, 12:03 AM
Drew Stubbs is an upgrade over Willy Taveras.

Drew Stubbs is still probably not an upgrade over most other starting CF'ers in the game of baseball.

He's a low cost option on a crappy team. No team with plans on contention runs the Drew Stubbs of the world out there.

The Reds do, consistently. And that's why they've been horrible for a decade and counting.

:clap:

Well said.

We need to raise the bar as to the players with whom we fill our 25 man roster and give significant playing time.

Caveat Emperor
09-02-2009, 12:03 AM
Drew Stubbs is an upgrade over Willy Taveras.

If that's not damning with faint praise... ;)

TheNext44
09-02-2009, 12:19 AM
Drew Stubbs is an upgrade over Willy Taveras.

Drew Stubbs is still probably not an upgrade over most other starting CF'ers in the game of baseball.

He's a low cost option on a crappy team. No team with plans on contention runs the Drew Stubbs of the world out there.

The Reds do, consistently. And that's why they've been horrible for a decade and counting.

Right now, based on the very small sample size, Stubbs' OPS and wOBA would rank 20th among starting CF. His defense UZR/150 ranks him #1, just barely ahead of Guttierez.

Now those are not very meaningful stats, but the point is that he probably will get better on offense, and his defense will probably even out to something a little less, but still in the top 10, maybe 5.

Even if he can do exactly what he is doing right now, which seems to be not very much, he would be around league average, maybe a hair above it, depending on his defense.

Brutus
09-02-2009, 12:26 AM
Right now, based on the very small sample size, Stubbs' OPS and wOBA would rank 20th among starting CF. His defense UZR/150 ranks him #1, just barely ahead of Guttierez.

Now those are not very meaningful stats, but the point is that he probably will get better on offense, and his defense will probably even out to something a little less, but still in the top 10, maybe 5.

Even if he can do exactly what he is doing right now, which seems to be not very much, he would be around league average, maybe a hair above it, depending on his defense.

Of all players in the majors with +200 innings, Janish leads all shortstops in UZR/150 as well. He's at +23 :eek:

To add to your point, we know Stubbs probably won't go down much defensively in that department. He is what he is (in a good way). But his offense has a lot more room for potential improvement than does his defense for regression.

I think he'll be able to justify being a starter in the majors. The question is whether he is just a player that hangs on because of drawing a few walks, and being speedy and a good defender or whether he matures into a 5-tool star.

M2
09-02-2009, 12:31 AM
It's pretty unfair to group the past 9 years together due to the changes in GM's and such. I prefer to look at it by GM's tenure. That being said, I'm not thrilled with the job Jocketty's done so far.

So it's okay to do the same things and expect different results if it's different people doing it? Sorry, but I've been hearing about addition by subtraction for almost a decade. It doesn't work.


But at what cost? Vast improvements that are only for the short term during a period where it really doesn't help us win...versus...dealing away 2 very potent arms that could help this team win for SEVERAL years. I had no problem dealing EE, but losing Roenicke and Stewart hurt. I've got no problem with getting Rolen, but IMO Jocketty severely overpaid. And the timing reaked of desperation/panic. It made no sense to make that move when it was made. ZERO.

It only makes sense if you think the point is to put a good major league product on the field and want to make VAST improvements to it.

M2
09-02-2009, 12:38 AM
The question is whether he is just a player that hangs on because of drawing a few walks, and being speedy and a good defender or whether he matures into a 5-tool star.

In what universe is Paul Janish speedy? He's yet to even attempt a stolen base in the majors.

Will M
09-02-2009, 12:42 AM
Of all players in the majors with +200 innings, Janish leads all shortstops in UZR/150 as well. He's at +23 :eek:



i keep hearing that Janish is ok or slightly above ok with the glove. I don't see that. I see a very very good defensive SS. nice to see the numbers back me up so far.

M2
09-02-2009, 12:54 AM
i keep hearing that Janish is ok or slightly above ok with the glove. I don't see that. I see a very very good defensive SS. nice to see the numbers back me up so far.

Here's the thing, say you're right and Janish is a stud SS. How many big glove, no stick guys can the Reds carry in the lineup? You know, for the nights when Chris Bootcheck doesn't relieve Charlie Morton?

My take is they can carry one. They just aren't that good anywhere else to carry multiple guys like that. So if it's Janish, who's the CF and C? Scoring runs is half the battle.

Will M
09-02-2009, 01:00 AM
Here's the thing, say you're right and Janish is a stud SS. How many big glove, no stick guys can the Reds carry in the lineup? You know, for the nights when Chris Bootcheck doesn't relieve Charlie Morton?

My take is they can carry one. They just aren't that good anywhere else to carry multiple guys like that. So if it's Janish, who's the CF and C? Scoring runs is half the battle.

i agree with you. i just wanted to say my piece about his glove.

IMO the 2010 offseason shopping list should be:
1. SP who can put up an ERA+ of 100 or better
2. 2nd catcher
3. SS unless Janish just hits the snot out of the ball this month

M2
09-02-2009, 01:03 AM
i agree with you. i just wanted to say my piece about his glove.

IMO the 2010 offseason shopping list should be:
1. SP who can put up an ERA+ of 100 or better
2. 2nd catcher
3. SS unless Janish just hits the snot out of the ball this month

They need a lot more stick than you're shopping for there.

Brutus
09-02-2009, 01:05 AM
In what universe is Paul Janish speedy? He's yet to even attempt a stolen base in the majors.

I'm talking about Stubbs, not Janish.

M2
09-02-2009, 01:10 AM
I'm talking about Stubbs, not Janish.

My bad. I fogged on the transition from Janish to Stubbs there.

Will M
09-02-2009, 01:17 AM
They need a lot more stick than you're shopping for there.

Rolen >>> 2009 versions of EE/Rosales
2010 Bruce > 2009 Bruce
2010 CF sans WT (:pray:)> 2009 CF

add a SS and a 2nd catcher to the above and the 2010 offense is much better than this years.

westofyou
09-02-2009, 01:18 AM
Here's the thing, say you're right and Janish is a stud SS. How many big glove, no stick guys can the Reds carry in the lineup? You know, for the nights when Chris Bootcheck doesn't relieve Charlie Morton?

My take is they can carry one. They just aren't that good anywhere else to carry multiple guys like that. So if it's Janish, who's the CF and C? Scoring runs is half the battle.

If I carry a glove in the GAB it's a SS, small gaps and prime gloves at 3rd and SS, carry a glove at SS and you have the best defensive IF of the decade.

Carry it in CF and you have less of an impact.

M2
09-02-2009, 01:37 AM
Rolen >>> 2009 versions of EE/Rosales
2010 Bruce > 2009 Bruce
2010 CF sans WT (:pray:)> 2009 CF

add a SS and a 2nd catcher to the above and the 2010 offense is much better than this years.

So the team scores 700 runs? Maybe 725? That would be much better and still not nearly good enough.

My take is aim high and then if everything goes well you're not good, you're great.

M2
09-02-2009, 01:38 AM
If I carry a glove in the GAB it's a SS, small gaps and prime gloves at 3rd and SS, carry a glove at SS and you have the best defensive IF of the decade.

Carry it in CF and you have less of an impact.

Agreed 100%. Mind you, a groundball pitcher or two would also be in order.

Highlifeman21
09-02-2009, 01:42 AM
Agreed 100%. Mind you, a groundball pitcher or two would also be in order.

I hear Jason Jennings is looking for work, no?

Ron Madden
09-02-2009, 04:37 AM
I get it. You want the Reds to fairly dramatically upgrade at most positions. Well, that's simply not going to happen. You say the Reds need to go find better options. Who's saying they're not trying to do that? But here's the catch...those 3 positions are the 3 positions with the fewest true "upgrades" available. Where are these great defensive catchers who also have solid plate skills? Few and far between, that's where. Where are the rangy, sure-handed shortstops with a cannon for an arm that hit like Larkin? Well, if they exist...they're locked up long-term.

If I were Big Bob those are the questions I'd be asking of the talent evaluators of this organization.

If the Scouts and Minor League Staffs of some other Clubs can find and develope young talent at P, C, SS and CF. Why can't the Reds?

The Reds have lost some very good talent evaluators the last few years. :(

jojo
09-02-2009, 09:36 AM
Guys, 200-300 defensive innings aren't enough to say anything definitively about a guy's defense so extrapolating to 150G is just increasing the size of the error bars.

At best with a guy like Janish one can say, "by the eyes, he looks like he's an above average defender. While we don't have enough data yet to evaluate him with metrics, what data we have isn't indicating that the eyes are dramatically wrong".

Other than that, it's way to early to estimate how much defensive value he really has.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2009, 10:05 AM
Guys, 200-300 defensive innings aren't enough to say anything definitively about a guy's defense

What's considered the appropriate sample size?

osuceltic
09-02-2009, 10:30 AM
I've been impressed. I wasn't sold on his defensive reputation early on, but as he has settled in, I like what I see of Janish defensively. I still don't think he's going to hit, but he's a legit defender. I want to see more of him to see how he handles things other than ground balls (DPs, cutoffs, etc.), but so far so good.

jojo
09-02-2009, 10:40 AM
What's considered the appropriate sample size?

Usually two to three seasons (2000-3000 defensive innings) is a good idea in order to make meaningful comparisons/accurate valuation in most cases but obviously, the more the better.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2009, 10:49 AM
Usually two to three seasons (2000-3000 defensive innings) is a good idea in order to make meaningful comparisons/accurate valuation in most cases but obviously, the more the better.

Does not seem practical to me. Teams do not have the luxury of playing a guy for 2-3 seasons in order to gain that kind of understanding. Realistically speaking, a minor league career plus a late season audition, such as Janish is getting now, is what teams have to work with. Personally, I think that's plenty to know whether you've got a guy who's substandard, average or good. My guess is that it's OK at this point to say Janish is going to give you plus defense. If no nice opportunity to upgrade at the position comes along in the offseason, maybe they go with him into 2010 to learn more, especially about the bat.

TRF
09-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Paul Janish over the last seven days...

.313 .405 .563 .968

Won't last but it is fun to watch.

jojo
09-02-2009, 11:05 AM
Does not seem practical to me. Teams do not have the luxury of playing a guy for 2-3 seasons in order to gain that kind of understanding. Realistically speaking, a minor league career plus a late season audition, such as Janish is getting now, is what teams have to work with. Personally, I think that's plenty to know whether you've got a guy who's substandard, average or good. My guess is that it's OK at this point to say Janish is going to give you plus defense. If no nice opportunity to upgrade at the position comes along in the offseason, maybe they go with him into 2010 to learn more, especially about the bat.

We're talking about what's required to credibly say a guy's defense is worth X amount of runs and therefore should be valued at Y dollars. In other words, what does it take for a metric to add numbers to a scout's eyes? With defense, it takes a pretty large sample size largely because there can be a lot of variability in the quality of chances between several players.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2009, 11:23 AM
We're talking about what's required to credibly say a guy's defense is worth X amount of runs and therefore should be valued at Y dollars. In other words, what does it take for a metric to add numbers to a scout's eyes? With defense, it takes a pretty large sample size largely because there can be a lot of variability in the quality of chances between several players.

I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't practical in terms of helping teams make decisions about young players. Yet, those decisions must be made.

flyer85
09-02-2009, 11:49 AM
Paul Janish over the last seven days...

.313 .405 .563 .968

Won't last but it is fun to watch.he has been transformed by the presence of Rolen.

lollipopcurve
09-02-2009, 12:08 PM
Paul Janish over the last seven days...

.313 .405 .563 .968

Won't last but it is fun to watch.

Agreed. Just as fun is the defense, especially the arm, which is elite.

_Sir_Charles_
09-02-2009, 12:17 PM
i agree with you. i just wanted to say my piece about his glove.

IMO the 2010 offseason shopping list should be:
1. SP who can put up an ERA+ of 100 or better
2. 2nd catcher
3. SS unless Janish just hits the snot out of the ball this month

Are we sure that the Reds won't resign Hernandez? I thought he looked very good this year. Sure, he struggled at the outset, but he handled the staff well, played well defensively and even showed versatility in being able to handle firstbase too. I know his contract was pretty big, but couldn't we re-work it? I'm not sure of the details of his contract, so I've got no clue there.

bucksfan2
09-02-2009, 12:52 PM
Agreed. Just as fun is the defense, especially the arm, which is elite.

His fastball is too straight and doesn't have enough movement. ;)

jojo
09-02-2009, 01:48 PM
I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't practical in terms of helping teams make decisions about young players. Yet, those decisions must be made.

That's why scouts will never be replaced. (never, ever, ever)

But defense can be valuated in terms of production value within fairly narrow ranges for established players. In essence such data could be used as a standard for "guesstimating" what kind of actual value a younger player's defense might be worth.

For instance, if your best scouting efforts suggest that Janish's defense profiles like an Adam Everett or Omar Vizquel, one might then estimate Janish's glove to be worth +10 to +15 runs over the course of a full season because generally that's what their (Everett/Vizquel) gloves were worth in their primes.

Since we're much better at projecting offensive value, minor league batting data and projection systems coupled with scouts eyes could reasonably peg Janish's likely offensive production. Then it's a matter of looking at the guy's likely total value by weighing his likely offensive value against his likely defensive value.

In this case once, if Janish might be expected to be a +10 to +15 defender over 150 games, then he'd need to be able to post a wOBA in the .300 to .310ish range over 600 PAs in order to be a roughly average major leaguer (the threshold for being a solution as an everyday player). So the decision about whether Janish is the answer at short could hinge upon whether one thinks he can post that wOBA (translates to roughly an OPS of .680-.690) in the majors (with the caveat that he is indeed the uber defender suggested by the hypothetical +10 to +15). Given the uncertainty in the defensive estimate, one might raise the offensive bar for him as insurance-i.e. assume he'd need to have a wOBA of .320 to be an everyday player.

While not a perfect crystal ball obviously, it's possible for a competent FO to make decisions about a young guy's likely worth with a reasonable degree of confidence through melding scouts and metrics-even if their primary value is going to be from their glove.

Obviously this doesn't foretell destiny but such an approach is actually a fairly huge step toward better decision making. Defensive metrics aren't perfect (they aren't!) but they are allowing the resolution to be increased when deciding player worth.

Brutus
09-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Guys, 200-300 defensive innings aren't enough to say anything definitively about a guy's defense so extrapolating to 150G is just increasing the size of the error bars.

At best with a guy like Janish one can say, "by the eyes, he looks like he's an above average defender. While we don't have enough data yet to evaluate him with metrics, what data we have isn't indicating that the eyes are dramatically wrong".

Other than that, it's way to early to estimate how much defensive value he really has.

While I most certainly agree with you 200-300 innings is not enough to stamp a number on it, I don't think 2-3 seasons is necessarily the time needed to do so for middle infielders. They see enough chances at their positions that I think after about 500 innings or so, you can start to get a real good idea. It might fluctuate a little upwards to 2-3 seasons, but I think you can still get a pretty good grasp. Outfielders I would definitely say take longer to pin a number on, because of the amount of chances in a game they get on average.