PDA

View Full Version : Dickerson's Comments on CF Thread



membengal
02-26-2010, 06:55 AM
Trying to keep the updates thread for mostly just updates and observations per OBM's efforts and the mod's requests, a conversation is trying to evolve there that would clutter that up, so I am offering this thread as a place to continue that conversation if people so wish.

The article as posted by OBM and written by C. Trent:


Dickerson wants a shot in CF
By C. Trent Rosecrans, CNATI.com Posted February 25, 2010 6:22 PM ET

GOODYEAR, Ariz. - Chris Dickerson knows this isn't going to sound right.

He doesn't want it coming of as whiny or unhappy - but he is frustrated. Dickerson's a competitor, he's always competed and prevailed. He wants to be the best and works hard to be the best. He's proud of what he did last season as a rookie and that's why it's hard for him to understand why nobody is mentioning him as a contender for the starting job in centerfield.

"I don't understand why that is. Why, maybe it's just because, I don't know. I have no clue," Dickerson said. "I can understand that I struggled some last year, but it's funny because people forget that before I got hurt I was hitting, I hitting close to .350 over the last month-and-a-half. My on-base percentage was close to .389."

Dickerson started off the 2009 season slowly, dipping below .200 in May and was at .234 as late as June 14. But he rebounded, hitting .318 in the next 43 games to raise his batting average to .277, and ended the season at .275. He also played well n centerfield and was the team's best leadoff hitter, hitting .298 with a .365 OB in 29 games in the leadoff spot.

"If you want me in the leadoff position, that's what I did. I got on base last year," Dickerson said. "I did everything I was supposed to do."

Except the one thing he can't control - staying healthy.

Since being called up in August of 2008, Dickerson has been on the disabled list three times, twice last season and once in 2008. He also spent time on Class AAA Louisville's disabled list in 2008.

"Dickerson has as much ability as anybody, it's just a matter of him staying healthy, the same thing I said last year," Baker said. "People want to know why he didn't play every day, and that's because I wanted to keep him healthy with his history of injuries."

But that's still frustrating to Dickerson - who understands his rant can come off wrong, and doesn't want to sound unhappy or like a jerk.

"It's kind of angry and it's frustration and I know it's going to come out that way, I know," Dickerson said.

Drew Stubbs is the favorite to be in centerfield on Opening Day.

Stubbs impressed in his short time in Cincinnati last season, hitting eight home runs in 180 at-bats, while hitting .267 and playing outstanding defense.

What strikes Dickerson is that his numbers weren't that different when he came up in 2008. Dickerson also came up in the middle of August and he hit six home runs in 102 at-bats, while batting .304. Like his 2009, it was cut short by a trip to the disable list.

Instead of giving him a chance to win the centerfield spot last spring, the Reds signed Willy Taveras. No further explanation is needed to remind Reds fans how that turned out.

With Taveras playing more than he wasn't, Dickerson played all three outfield positions, starting 27 games in left, 19 in center and 13 in right. He produced, too, finishing sixth among National League rookies in batting average (.275), fourth in stolen bases (11), third in on-base percentage (.379), sixth in walks (39) and tied for third in outfield assists (5).

"I'm not trying to make this as a stab at the general audience, I don't understand how I get written off," Dickerson said. "Drew's a great player, but you know, when I was in center, I don't remember a whole lot of balls falling out there. Everyone's wanting to put me in left, that's OK with me, I'm comfortable in all three positions."

Centerfield is like shortstop, the players that play there are usually a little defensive about their turf - it's the most important position of the outfield defensively, it sets a tone and it takes a certain attitude to want to be in the most crucial position. Dickerson says he's fine playing any of the other positions, but he's a centerfielder. According to Ultimate Zone Rating, it's also his best. His UZR/150, which measures how many runs above or under average a player is over the course of 150 games, was 45.5, while he was minus-21.5 in right and 21.8 in left. Small sample sizes can make advanced fielding stats notoriously unreliable and variable from year-to-year, but needless to say, it means he played a mean centerfield (Stubbs' UZR/150 in CF was 28.5)

"I've played that my entire career since I've been with the Reds," Dickerson said. "Now I've been slated as left field and even then it's not maybe he'll take over center, nope, no, he's battling for left. I don't understand it. You can ask anyone I've played with what my best position is and they'll give you a clear-cut answer. It's not even a question for them, it's centerfield."

Stubbs, for his part, says he isn't taking anything for granted. He's certainly got a claim to the centerfield spot, too. He's consistently be healthy since he was the first-round pick of the Reds in 2006 and led the Reds in home runs (5) and stolen bases (7) in September. In 40 starts, he had 15 multi-hit games.

"I'm looking at this spring as, obviously I had a time up and was up there, I still feel like I have a lot to prove," Stubbs said. "I haven't had a full season yet. I'm looking at this as if I have as much to prove as anyone else."

It's Dickerson, though, who is feeling the pressure. And he knows the antidote is simple. "I guess I'll just have to go out and hit .450 this spring," he said.

http://cnati.com/spring-training-201...-in-cf-001356/

membengal
02-26-2010, 06:56 AM
mth in that thread wrote this:


MTH said:

Dickerson AAA in 2008: OPS .862, wOBA .387, ISO .192
Dickerson Majors 2008: OPS 1.021, wOBA .432, ISO .304
Dickerson 2009: OPS .743, wOBA .339, ISO .098

Stubbs AAA in 2009: OPS .713, wOBA .344, ISO ..092
Stubbs Majors in 2009: OPS .762, wOBA .335. ISO .172

Dickerson hits lefty and is good against RHP which is a team need.
Stubbs hits righty and is better vs. LHP like most of the rest of the team.

Dickerson with his 2008 season couldn't win the job and the team went out and signed Willy T in response.

Stubbs with his 2009 season seemingly has everyone's endorsement and management rid themselves of Willy in response.

Dickerson's wOBA in his disappointing 2009 is higher than Stubbs wOBA when he supposedly slammed the door on the job.

I see why Dickerson is confused. I'm confused too.

membengal
02-26-2010, 06:57 AM
Nasty Boy wrote this:


NASTY BOY said:

I totally agree... This was yet another reason I was so ticked off about the Willy signing last year. There was nothing to indicate that he would outproduce the in-house options. It was a poor judge of talent and a big waste of prescious resources. Dickersons perfromance in 08 should have been more than enough to go into spring training with him as their CF.

membengal
02-26-2010, 06:58 AM
And this was my response before thinking we need to strip this conversation out and set it on its own:


membengal wrote:

mth, I was right there on the Dickerson bandwagon and pushing him for a position a year ago, leading the charge, as I recall. But when given the opportunity, albeit in LF, or to step to it in CF when Taveras inevitably gagged, he really was not able to answer the bell. And that's why he is behind Stubbs, at least at this point.

Stubbs stumbles, as so many on here seem to expect/hope, Dickerson will be up again in CF. Heck, he may be up in LF if he goes out and does something this spring. But he sure hasn't earned default starter, either. And Stubbs' glove in CF, for all the protestations to the contrary from a lot of really good posters on this board whom I respect, makes him a good first choice, even if he OPS around .725.

LoganBuck
02-26-2010, 07:25 AM
I know a group of people like to bag on Stubbs, but I am sorry the difference between the two is night in day defensively. It isn't close. Stubbs is an elite defender. He is so good that you don't realize how good he is. Dickerson is another fine defensive player, but he isn't in Stubbs league so lets not pretend that he is.

Dickerson can sort the clubhouse recyclables better from the bench anyway. Plus, I can't stand watching that guy run the bases, and he got hurt last year because of it.

thatcoolguy_22
02-26-2010, 07:33 AM
So a gain of .100 OPS while losing defense is acceptable at SS but at CF its not? Seems the defensive spectrum has been skewed somewhat.

The .370 plus OBP of Dickerson would look great at the top of the line-up for about 500 PA...

lollipopcurve
02-26-2010, 07:44 AM
The goal is having a team that can be competitive for a span of several years. Because Stubbs is younger (cheaper), with a high ceiling and a better track record health-wise, he's the better choice as the full-time CF right now. Give his bat a chance -- if he shows signs of improvement/aptitude, stick with him. If he fails, then maybe Dickerson steps in down the road... But I'd get Stubbs at least 500 ABs this year.

I think Dickerson should be able to see that and focus his efforts on improving in areas the team would like to see him improve in for 2010 (like playing LF).

MikeS21
02-26-2010, 07:46 AM
Dickerson certainly has a legitimate point about Tavares being brought in. That was a dumb move. However, Dickerson's main problem is that when he was in the minors, he never put up the kind of offensive numbers that made folks see him as an elite prospect. Stubbs was a first round draft choice, as was Bruce (who was drafted as a CF). Those were the guys the organization moved ahead of Dickerson on the depth chart several seasons ago. Of course they are going to get first dibs on CF. And Dickerson's track record of staying healthy doesn't help, either.

The reality of the situation is that on 80% of the other teams in the major leagues, Dickerson would probably be the 4th OF - the guy who will only start three out of ten games in order to rest the starters.

If Dickerson wants a legitimate shot at starting, then he needs to stay healthy, cut down on K's, and increase his BB's and OPS.

thatcoolguy_22
02-26-2010, 07:48 AM
The goal is having a team that can be competitive for a span of several years. Because Stubbs is younger (cheaper), with a high ceiling and a better track record health-wise, he's the better choice as the full-time CF right now. Give his bat a chance -- if he shows signs of improvement/aptitude, stick with him. If he fails, then maybe Dickerson steps in down the road... But I'd get Stubbs at least 500 ABs this year.

I think Dickerson should be able to see that and focus his efforts on improving in areas the team would like to see him improve in for 2010 (like playing LF).

Why would you not allow Dickerson (a plus CF in his own right) a chance to improve? His bat is not enough for LF and is much better than Stubbs. Stubbs might save 10 more runs in CF than Dickerson, but Dickerson's bat is probably 20 runs better than Stubbs at this point. IMO

reds1869
02-26-2010, 08:18 AM
Why would you not allow Dickerson (a plus CF in his own right) a chance to improve? His bat is not enough for LF and is much better than Stubbs. Stubbs might save 10 more runs in CF than Dickerson, but Dickerson's bat is probably 20 runs better than Stubbs at this point. IMO

Stubbs has a much higher ceiling. The upside is so much greater that it is worth an entire season to sink or swim. I have no problem with playing Dickerson in LF, though. I don't buy the whole "his bat doesn't play there" argument. This isn't fantasy baseball. If he gives you the best chance to win now and in the future, you start him. If Gomes/Heisey/Francsico/insert one of 900 other players in our system here gives you a better chance, you play them.

redsmetz
02-26-2010, 08:28 AM
Dragged over from the ST thread too:


Originally Posted by Ron Madden:
I like 'em all but I can understand Chris Dickerson's Frustration.

I honestly believe Dickerson plays CF just as good as Drew Stubbs and that Dickerson is the better offensive player.

But that' a discussion for another thread.

Someone said it earlier, it's a good problem to have. And Dusty said some time over the off-season, that he likes players to have a chip on their shoulder driving them. Dickerson said it himself, he'll just need to go out and prove himself and force the issue. And Stubbs is saying the same thing. Everyone of those guys hungry (and this would include Balentien) can only be a good thing. Even with some grousing.

lollipopcurve
02-26-2010, 08:42 AM
Why would you not allow Dickerson (a plus CF in his own right) a chance to improve? His bat is not enough for LF and is much better than Stubbs. Stubbs might save 10 more runs in CF than Dickerson, but Dickerson's bat is probably 20 runs better than Stubbs at this point. IMO

I would allow it -- in LF, in a platoon. If you put him in CF, you're sitting Stubbs (who as a RH bat would get few ABs in a platoon), and that makes little sense.

I'd like to see both guys out there most of the time, with Stubbs in CF.

edabbs44
02-26-2010, 08:46 AM
Why would you not allow Dickerson (a plus CF in his own right) a chance to improve? His bat is not enough for LF and is much better than Stubbs. Stubbs might save 10 more runs in CF than Dickerson, but Dickerson's bat is probably 20 runs better than Stubbs at this point. IMO

On what basis are you making your offensive assumption?

TRF
02-26-2010, 08:53 AM
I know a group of people like to bag on Stubbs, but I am sorry the difference between the two is night in day defensively. It isn't close. Stubbs is an elite defender. He is so good that you don't realize how good he is. Dickerson is another fine defensive player, but he isn't in Stubbs league so lets not pretend that he is.

Dickerson can sort the clubhouse recyclables better from the bench anyway. Plus, I can't stand watching that guy run the bases, and he got hurt last year because of it.

horsehockey. Dickerson is likely as fast as Stubbs, and has always been considered an elite defender. Offensively, while their lifetime minor league numbers are similar, Dickerson actually had the chance to improve his bat in the minors, and did so at AA/AAA where Stubbs was rushed and hasn't had the chance to develop. His AAA numbers suggest he actually has regressed a bit.

edabbs44
02-26-2010, 09:03 AM
horsehockey. Dickerson is likely as fast as Stubbs, and has always been considered an elite defender. Offensively, while their lifetime minor league numbers are similar, Dickerson actually had the chance to improve his bat in the minors, and did so at AA/AAA where Stubbs was rushed and hasn't had the chance to develop. His AAA numbers suggest he actually has regressed a bit.

I have trouble with the elite defender tag that gets thrown around a bit on this guy. He made a few unbelievably bad plays in the OF last season, misjudging flyballs and such. I don't care if he is used to CF or not, but anyone who is elite doesn't misplay fly balls like that.

puca
02-26-2010, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure where Dickerson is coming from or who he is addressing. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there only two legitimate CFs in camp? Hasn't Dusty said that Stubbs is not guaranteed the starting spot? How is Dickerson being counted out and by whom? Have the Reds told him he is not good enough defensively in CF?


While the Taveras move was a mistake, I'm not sure anyone was comfortable with Dickerson as the only CF option going into last year. If Dickerson had stayed healthy and produced he, and not Drew Stubbs, would have unseated Wily and been the incumbent going into 2010.

Sea Ray
02-26-2010, 09:28 AM
Puca makes excellent points. I think Dickerson will get a lot of ABs this year and I see no problem with his attitude that he wants the fulltime CF job but I also don't see problems with how Dusty is handling them. Basically Stubbs is being given the inside track because:

1) his defense is better
2) he's younger
3) he doesn't have to be pulled when a LHP is brought in
4) Dickerson has not proven that he can stay healthy. CF is not the place to play injury prone guys. This fact is why Eric Davis was only a part time CF after he reached Dickerson's age

Blitz Dorsey
02-26-2010, 10:18 AM
Don't worry, Chris ... not everyone is writing you off for the starting CF job (or at least a platoon). I certainly think Dickerson will at least platoon with Stubbs. Dickerson will also get spot starts in LF (Dickerson and Stubbs in the lineup together) so I don't think he needs to concern himself too much about playing time. Go out there and have a solid spring and you're going to play a lot against RHers.

Homer Bailey
02-26-2010, 10:22 AM
So a gain of .100 OPS while losing defense is acceptable at SS but at CF its not? Seems the defensive spectrum has been skewed somewhat.

There's a huge difference here. Stubbs is an all-world defender by any account that I've seen or read. Janish is what I would call an above average SS, but far from elite. Combine that with the fact that he has one of the worst bats in all of the major leagues. Stubbs can absolutely hold his own on the offensive end, and has the potential to be an above average major league hitter. Couple that with the fact that Janish would have probably hit in the 2 hole with you-know-who managing the team, and you have a huge problem.

Also, it's no lock that Dickerson will out-OPS Stubbs by .100.

TRF
02-26-2010, 10:37 AM
There's a huge difference here. Stubbs is an all-world defender by any account that I've seen or read. Janish is what I would call an above average SS, but far from elite. Combine that with the fact that he has one of the worst bats in all of the major leagues. Stubbs can absolutely hold his own on the offensive end, and has the potential to be an above average major league hitter. Couple that with the fact that Janish would have probably hit in the 2 hole with you-know-who managing the team, and you have a huge problem.

Also, it's no lock that Dickerson will out-OPS Stubbs by .100.

Janish has more MLB service time than Stubbs and in that time his numbers showed him as elite at SS. Can that hold up over a full season? Who knows. But if the Stubbs that played in AAA shows up at the plate in 2010, and Dusty keeps running him out there, then there is a problem.

He did show power that he has never shown in his professional career though at the MLB level. If he can continue that, he can keep pitchers honest. But it isn't like Stubbs is a younger prospect. He's 25, and entering his first full season. By comparison, Votto is only a year older and entering his 3rd season. And Stubbs still has to win the job. I still really doubt his bat, and think the difference in his defense and Dickerson's is negligible. The difference in their bats at this point is not. Dickerson is the more advanced bat. Better eye at the plate, better OBP, and CD displayed some power in his initial callup too. Both have some K issues, but that doesn't matter too much if offset with a decent OBP. So far, Dickerson's is MUCH better, but Stubbs sample is a lot smaller.

Ultimately, Stubbs may have a higher ceiling, but i don't think it is significantly higher. Had he not been a 1st round pick, he might have had more time to develop in AA/AAA, and likely would have had a very similar path to the majors.

Chip R
02-26-2010, 10:44 AM
Dickerson has a point. Most everyone is handing the CF job to Stubbs based on a litttle over a month's worth of games from last season. But Dickerson put up some really good numbers in his 2008 Reds campaign and then Walt goes out and signs Willy T which most of the folks on here felt was a mistake.

lollipopcurve
02-26-2010, 10:48 AM
Dickerson has a point. Most everyone is handing the CF job to Stubbs based on a litttle over a month's worth of games from last season. But Dickerson put up some really good numbers in his 2008 Reds campaign and then Walt goes out and signs Willy T which most of the folks on here felt was a mistake.

He does have a point. And it sounds like he's being careful not to be perceived as grousing, which is good. But now that he's vented, he should put it behind him. Taveras is gone, and Stubbs is his teammate.

Nasty_Boy
02-26-2010, 10:51 AM
While the Taveras move was a mistake, I'm not sure anyone was comfortable with Dickerson as the only CF option going into last year.

I wasn't saying CD should have been the only option, but Willy clearly shouldn't have been an option... especially at his price. And even though Stubbs wasn't ready at the beginning of last season, I felt that a platoon of him and Dickerson was a better option than Mr. Taveras. I was a Sun-Deck member then and I was raked over the coals for that one. :D

edabbs44
02-26-2010, 10:53 AM
Dickerson has a point. Most everyone is handing the CF job to Stubbs based on a litttle over a month's worth of games from last season. But Dickerson put up some really good numbers in his 2008 Reds campaign and then Walt goes out and signs Willy T which most of the folks on here felt was a mistake.

I think it is also based on his pedigree. The guy was a top 10 pick and has been in the minors for parts of 4 seasons after a much ballyhooed college career at a major 4 year school.

I'd rather see him get a shot at living up to his potential rather than a guy who we know will be very average at the plate and above avg in the field. We know Stubbs can at least match him in the field and he has the potential to exceed him at the dish.

membengal
02-26-2010, 10:54 AM
Dickerson has a point. Most everyone is handing the CF job to Stubbs based on a litttle over a month's worth of games from last season. But Dickerson put up some really good numbers in his 2008 Reds campaign and then Walt goes out and signs Willy T which most of the folks on here felt was a mistake.

Certainly I am not saying that Dickerson didn't get massively hosed last year with the Willy T thing. We all called that, except for, I think, the one poster. And, sadly, the general manager of the Reds. But that said, I don't see why Dickerson's getting shafted to start last season means he defaults into the starter's slot this year in CF. Again, and I was one of his biggest proponents last year, he didn't seize playing time by the throat when given the chance last season. And that was kind of disappointing. And Stubbs rather did.

So I am glad Walt learned from his 2009 mistake and didn't bring in a veteran presence to hold Stubbs back from taking the job to start this season. If Stubbs doesn't throw up on himself this spring, he's the upside play. But Dickerson will still play a ton, especially if he produces in the spring.

Chip R
02-26-2010, 11:09 AM
I wasn't saying CD should have been the only option, but Willy clearly shouldn't have been an option... especially at his price. And even though Stubbs wasn't ready at the beginning of last season, I felt that a platoon of him and Dickerson was a better option than Mr. Taveras. I was a Sun-Deck member then and I was raked over the coals for that one. :D


I think that, if RZ were given the choice in winter 2008-09 between Dickerson and Willy T., Dickerson would have had overwhelming support.


But that said, I don't see why Dickerson's getting shafted to start last season means he defaults into the starter's slot this year in CF. Again, and I was one of his biggest proponents last year, he didn't seize playing time by the throat when given the chance last season. And that was kind of disappointing. And Stubbs rather did.


Oh, I don't think he should be the leader in the clubhouse for the CF gig. Stubbs earned it last season like Dickerson should have earned it the year before. But I'm just saying that we shouldn't be surprised if Stubbs can't put up the numbers he did when he was called up once the season starts just like Dickerson didn't.

Kc61
02-26-2010, 11:12 AM
I think it is also based on his pedigree. The guy was a top 10 pick and has been in the minors for parts of 4 seasons after a much ballyhooed college career at a major 4 year school.

I'd rather see him get a shot at living up to his potential rather than a guy who we know will be very average at the plate and above avg in the field. We know Stubbs can at least match him in the field and he has the potential to exceed him at the dish.

This is correct IMO. The Reds simply prefer Stubbs as the future centerfielder. I'm sure that Dickerson is frustrated, but it's not unfair. It's just the team's view based on scouting these players over the years and following their performance.

Dickerson was a long-time minor leaguer with a mixture of good seasons and not-so-good seasons. He's made the Reds, which is great for him, and he will play. The Reds just seem to think Stubbs will be a better centerfielder and are giving him the first shot out there.

puca
02-26-2010, 11:17 AM
Dickerson has a point. Most everyone is handing the CF job to Stubbs based on a litttle over a month's worth of games from last season. But Dickerson put up some really good numbers in his 2008 Reds campaign and then Walt goes out and signs Willy T which most of the folks on here felt was a mistake.

But Dickerson is in infinitely better position than last year. Once Tarveras was signed it was pretty much guaranteed that Wily would be the starter and remain the starter for the bulk of the season. As far as I know no one that matters has even conceeded that Stubbs is going north with the club. Maybe sportswriters and some fans are handing the CF job to Drew but I don't get the impression that Dusty or Walt have. Stubbs will have to have a solid spring to make the club. Although if both Dickerson and Stubbs flounder I don't know what the Reds will do.

Certainly Stubbs has the inside track right now. But he was the starter to end the season (by merit) and no one has been brought in from outside the organization to unseat him.

While I do think Chris should have been given a shot to win the CF job last season, I don't get his comments this spring at all. I have to imagine that if Dickerson wasn't in the equation for CF then the Reds would have brought in someone else in case Stubbs struggles.

puca
02-26-2010, 11:21 AM
I think that, if RZ were given the choice in winter 2008-09 between Dickerson and Willy T., Dickerson would have had overwhelming support.




Oh, I don't think he should be the leader in the clubhouse for the CF gig. Stubbs earned it last season like Dickerson should have earned it the year before. But I'm just saying that we shouldn't be surprised if Stubbs can't put up the numbers he did when he was called up once the season starts just like Dickerson didn't.

Anyone that is expecting Stubbs to 'find it' at the major league level is setting themselves for a letdown. I like Stubbs and think there is a chance he will develop into a solid enough offensive player in time, but I highly doubt it will be without some serious short term struggles.

If Drew manages to hit well enough to remain in the majors all season I will be surprised.

membengal
02-26-2010, 11:27 AM
I think that Nate's projections experiment had most people on here guessing Stubbs for an OPS between .675 and around .750 or so. I would say expectations are rather reasonable at that point, and that some fans are comfortable if Stubbs can get to those levels with some pop he will be just fine because of the glove he is carrying to CF everyday. I think the Reds for sure are comfortable with that, hence his current position on the depth chart.

The problem will be if Stubbs craters to a .600 OPS type offensive player, something that is not out of the realm of possibility. But that's where Dickerson comes in as insurance while hopefully playing plenty in LF in the meantime. I still would rather the Reds give Stubbs a chance to make it fulltime, and if he finally busts as so many have predicted, so be it. At least they will know.

RedlegJake
02-26-2010, 11:43 AM
First, CD is a human being, and in his mid twenties still a young man. His comments seem mostly about a bit of frustration to me. Pretty fair, too, with the Taveras situation. So he unloads it, then he can get on with business. Sometimes a guy just has to get it off his mind by saying it out loud, then he can get on past any negativity. I know I'm like that. He also emphasized more than once he didn't want it to be perceived as complaining.

I like it actually. I don't want a guy who is okay with being second pick for his position. I want him to work harder and stay focused on winning the starter's job even if he ultimately falls short. I don't see this as bad in any way because Dusty's strong suit is managing the players' personalities.

To me, this is a non-issue all the way. CD just needs to learn to vent to a close teammate and keep the media out of it. This is one of those things that veterans have usually learned not to speak to media about unless you are trying to make a big issue of it.

nate
02-26-2010, 12:37 PM
I think that Nate's projections experiment had most people on here guessing Stubbs for an OPS between .675 and around .750 or so.

Currently, it averages out to around .741 OPS and a .359 wOBA. I think both are a bit high (especially the wOBA) but I'll take 'em!

TheNext44
02-26-2010, 12:39 PM
I really like Dickerson, and wanted him to be the CF last year. I think he could be a solid everyday CF, both offensively and defensively. And he has every right to be upset about how CF was handled last year.

But I think the Reds are handling him and CF perfectly this year.

CF should be Stubbs' to lose. He was the starting CF the last month of the season, and did very well, easily well enough to make him number one on the Reds CF depth chart for 2010.

If Stubbs falters in spring training, or at any time during the season, Dickerson is right there to take over, and should. But I don't think that Dickerson has earned the right to move past or even equal with Stubbs on the current depth chart.

Dickerson only has around 400 PA's, over two seasons. It's not like he's established himself as bona fide starting CF. Remember, he was the starting LF for the Reds at the beginning of 2009, and lost that job due to poor performance. To his credit, he fought hard to get it back, and if not for injury, he probably would have ended the season as the LH part of the LF platoon. It is more likely that his career will resemble his 2009 numbers than it will his 2008 numbers or even his career numbers to date, which are skewed by his 2008 numbers.

And his minor league numbers are not that amazing either. Take out his second year at Louisville, and his minor league numbers aren't any better than Stubbs' minor league numbers.

Considering their difference in defense (and yes Stubbs is a whole level better than Dickerson defensively in CF), and the fact that Stubbs is younger and has more potential, I think Stubbs easily moves ahead of Dickerson on the depth chart. Should Stubbs be handed the CF job, clearly no. But it should be his to lose, in my opinion.

Chip R
02-26-2010, 12:50 PM
I think, if Stubbs proves himself that Dickerson will be traded. Just a guess.

Caveat Emperor
02-26-2010, 01:02 PM
If Dickerson can stay healthy and continue to post an OBP that creeps close to .400, he'll be the clubs everyday LF with Gomes reduced to spot-starting against certain LHPs. And, with power coming from 1B, 2B, 3B and RF -- I'm completely cool with adding speed, defense and excellent OBP from LF.

Playing time isn't going to be an issue for Chris Dickerson -- it just might not be at the spot he likes.

edabbs44
02-26-2010, 01:40 PM
If Dickerson can stay healthy and continue to post an OBP that creeps close to .400, he'll be the clubs everyday LF with Gomes reduced to spot-starting against certain LHPs. And, with power coming from 1B, 2B, 3B and RF -- I'm completely cool with adding speed, defense and excellent OBP from LF.

Playing time isn't going to be an issue for Chris Dickerson -- it just might not be at the spot he likes.

Assuming an OBP that "creeps" close to .400 might be a stretch. I think .350-.360 is what we'd be able to optimistically hope for. And we can't assume Rolen to be a power source. This team does need power over what Dickerson brings.

edabbs44
02-26-2010, 01:42 PM
I think, if Stubbs proves himself that Dickerson will be traded. Just a guess.

He'd be worth more to the team as a number 4 than what he'd bring in a trade.

BRM
02-26-2010, 01:43 PM
Assuming an OBP that "creeps" close to .400 might be a stretch. I think .350-.360 is what we'd be able to optimistically hope for. And we can't assume Rolen to be a power source. This team does need power over what Dickerson brings.

It was .370 last year even after a very poor start. I can see him improving upon that number this year with regular playing time. Agreed on Rolen though. I don't see him as a big power source.

Chip R
02-26-2010, 01:53 PM
He'd be worth more to the team as a number 4 than what he'd bring in a trade.


You're probably right but I just have a feeling that the Reds were/are never really high on him to begin with. This article probably didn't do him any favors with the Reds either. Maybe he doesn't think he's going to get a lot of playing time here with the re-signing of Gomes and the ascension of Stubbs and Heisey and he's hoping to be traded somewhere where he can start every day.

Caveat Emperor
02-26-2010, 01:57 PM
Assuming an OBP that "creeps" close to .400 might be a stretch. I think .350-.360 is what we'd be able to optimistically hope for. And we can't assume Rolen to be a power source. This team does need power over what Dickerson brings.

It was in the high .300s last season -- .370 for the year -- and in his albeit brief big league career he sports a very respectable .383 OBP. While I generally agree that Dickerson isn't to that level, you have to leave open the possibility that what we've seen from Dickerson thus far is what we'll continue to see: a hitter that finds first base with good regularity and who is capable of extra-base power.

With Rolen, he'll benefit from a return to NL pitching. While I don't think he's a 25 HR guy at this point in his career, I do see him as still having the ability to hit 15-20 HRs / 40+ 2Bs -- which would be decent power production.

OnBaseMachine
02-26-2010, 03:42 PM
I agree somewhat with Dickerson. I thought it was ignorant to bring in Willy Taveras last year when Chris Dickerson was a much better option. But this year I actually like how they are handling center field. Drew Stubbs was very impressive in his major league stint last season, and deserves to be the Opening Day CFer until he proves he can't handle it. If he can keep his OPS above .700 while continuing to play elite defense then he deserves to be out there. If he struggles with the bat, then that's when you start platooning Dickerson/Stubbs in CF. For now, I think Stubbs should be in CF with Dickerson getting the starts in LF vs RHP unless someone like Balentien or Heisey wins the job.

TRF
02-26-2010, 04:46 PM
a .323 OBP isn't "very impressive" regardless of sample. The power was, but he's never shown that ability before, and projected over a full season, he seems unlikely to keep that HR rate up.

I think Dickerson in LF is a waste of his talents as he's better suited to CF. LF IMO should be Balentien and Gomes. Let Stubbs start in CF if there is a tough LH on the mound.

LoganBuck
02-26-2010, 04:49 PM
horsehockey. Dickerson is likely as fast as Stubbs, and has always been considered an elite defender. Offensively, while their lifetime minor league numbers are similar, Dickerson actually had the chance to improve his bat in the minors, and did so at AA/AAA where Stubbs was rushed and hasn't had the chance to develop. His AAA numbers suggest he actually has regressed a bit.

That is your definition. You have an anti-Stubbs bias.

Drew Stubbs is a better defensive CF and it isn't even close. Your application of the word elite to Dickerson, demeans the word. Stubbs has been considered to be the top defensive outfielder in the minors for years. No one has ever heaped those kind of superlatives on Chris Dickerson. He is an above average defensive CF. He is not in Stubbs category, the last six weeks of the season should have at least shown you that.

Stubbs is faster than Dickerson as well. He is a threat to actually steal a base.

11larkin11
02-26-2010, 04:49 PM
So his OBP being 40 points lower than his MiLB average is likely to be kept up, but his power which all scouts says he had just hadn't showed yet, isn't?

Highly unlikely.

OnBaseMachine
02-26-2010, 05:18 PM
a .323 OBP isn't "very impressive" regardless of sample. The power was, but he's never shown that ability before, and projected over a full season, he seems unlikely to keep that HR rate up.


A .762 OPS with elite defense by a center fielder is impressive to me.

osuceltic
02-26-2010, 05:53 PM
Stop whining. There is no fair or unfair in professional sports. What happened last year with Taveras pushing Dickerson off of CF may have been the wrong decision (although Dickerson bombed to start the season -- both offensively and defensively he looked lost), but that has no bearing whatsoever on this season. The Reds' only goal this season is to put the best team they can on the field. They believe Stubbs in CF is part of that team. Get over it and worry about doing your job in LF.

My take on the two is this: Stubbs is legitimately gold glove caliber in CF. Those guys are rare. Dickerson is solid in CF. Nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty worse and plenty better. Stubbs is worlds better defensively. Offensively? Dickerson probably will have slightly better numbers. Stubbs clearly is the better baserunner. Dickerson almost certainly miss more time due to injury.

I'd say the Reds are looking at it like this: Neither guy is Babe Ruth with the bat in his hands. Stubbs gives you two things that never slump -- defense and speed (in the field and on the bases) -- and he's durable. Dickerson is a solid defender, but had some serious issues at times last season. He's not a great baserunner, despite being a pretty fast guy. History says he'll be hurt. Will he hit a little better when he's in there? Maybe, but I doubt the gap is all that significant. Is that enough to hand him the starting CF job over Stubbs? No way.

I hate it when guys get their chance, blow it, then complain. Dickerson had a golden opportunity last season and blew it. He boosted his numbers because Dusty spotted him beautifully the second half of the season. That doesn't mean his failure to start the season and tendency to turn every ball at the wall into an adventure didn't happen.

camisadelgolf
02-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Just because what he's saying is correct doesn't mean it's correct for him to say it. He makes a good argument (that I happen to agree with), but I don't think I see why it would be his place to say these things.

IslandRed
02-26-2010, 06:42 PM
It was in the high .300s last season -- .370 for the year -- and in his albeit brief big league career he sports a very respectable .383 OBP. While I generally agree that Dickerson isn't to that level, you have to leave open the possibility that what we've seen from Dickerson thus far is what we'll continue to see: a hitter that finds first base with good regularity and who is capable of extra-base power.

His extra-base power evaporated to a good degree last year. I hope that can be pinned on the injuries, because if the pop doesn't come back, the OBP is probably going down. Frankly, he and Stubbs both have something to prove at the plate in my opinion.

Mario-Rijo
02-26-2010, 07:19 PM
I like that he is wound up about it, that usually leads to improvement. I like that he is sticking up for himself and I think he done it fairly respectful which makes all the difference. I'm sure he will learn after this that the media isn't the best place to do it for his own reputation. And I too think like most that the Reds bungled this issue last season and are handling more appropriately this season. However both seasons they have pigeon holed Dickerson due mainly to perception and some degree of bias. It's pretty evident the kid can play CF more than adequately offensively and defensively when healthy. But I don't believe he should fret too much, it doesn't set up too well for Drew IMO. I hope Drews struggles are behind him and he locks up the position for a good long time but I have a sneakin' suspicion they are not.

TRF
02-26-2010, 08:00 PM
That is your definition. You have an anti-Stubbs bias.

Drew Stubbs is a better defensive CF and it isn't even close. Your application of the word elite to Dickerson, demeans the word. Stubbs has been considered to be the top defensive outfielder in the minors for years. No one has ever heaped those kind of superlatives on Chris Dickerson. He is an above average defensive CF. He is not in Stubbs category, the last six weeks of the season should have at least shown you that.

Stubbs is faster than Dickerson as well. He is a threat to actually steal a base.

I know Stubbs defense is great, but all the Reds people have pretty much listed them as a wash defensively. Doug lists him as elite. I've seen both of them, albeit on tv, and I think its a wash.

And Stubbs has the bigger frame, one that as he ages could cost him some speed. I say could.

traderumor
02-26-2010, 08:17 PM
I know Stubbs defense is great, but all the Reds people have pretty much listed them as a wash defensively. Doug lists him as elite. I've seen both of them, albeit on tv, and I think its a wash.

And Stubbs has the bigger frame, one that as he ages could cost him some speed. I say could.Stubbs catches balls in his hip pocket that Dickerson is diving just to get close. And I was watching the same TV coverage that you were.

marcshoe
02-26-2010, 08:57 PM
Stubbs catches balls in his hip pocket that Dickerson is diving just to get close.

And because of that, I want to see Stubbs given every chance to win the position. Even if his power doesn't hold up in the long run, and I'm not convinced it won't be at least a bit better than originally projected, his defense strikes me as being special, and that's enough to mean that even if he turns out to be an average hitter, he adds value to the lineup. The WAR people could probably say whether this is true or not, but at the moment, I'm excited about the idea of seeing Stubbs roaming centerfield.

As for Dickerson, yeah, I see him as a fourth outfielder who still gets a decent number of at bats. I think his best value will be off the bench, especially if this team can pull it together and make a run at the postseason. Or at least I want to see one or more of the outfielders play well enough to push him to the bench. I like Dickerson and think he'd be a decent everyday guy, but I want to see someone more valuable emerge.

TRF
02-26-2010, 09:24 PM
And because of that, I want to see Stubbs given every chance to win the position. Even if his power doesn't hold up in the long run, and I'm not convinced it won't be at least a bit better than originally projected, his defense strikes me as being special, and that's enough to mean that even if he turns out to be an average hitter, he adds value to the lineup. The WAR people could probably say whether this is true or not, but at the moment, I'm excited about the idea of seeing Stubbs roaming centerfield.

As for Dickerson, yeah, I see him as a fourth outfielder who still gets a decent number of at bats. I think his best value will be off the bench, especially if this team can pull it together and make a run at the postseason. Or at least I want to see one or more of the outfielders play well enough to push him to the bench. I like Dickerson and think he'd be a decent everyday guy, but I want to see someone more valuable emerge.

His name might be Heisey.

mth123
02-26-2010, 10:02 PM
Assuming an OBP that "creeps" close to .400 might be a stretch. I think .350-.360 is what we'd be able to optimistically hope for. And we can't assume Rolen to be a power source. This team does need power over what Dickerson brings.

That's really the issue. This team can't afford a line-up with both Stubbs and Dickerson in it. The team should probably maximize its production by platooning the two in CF and opting for more of a power source in LF.

What I find most interesting is that last season Dickerson supposedly flopped while Stubbs won the job. Yet Dickerson actually posted a higher wOBA. I agree that Stubbs is an elite defender but its not like Dickerson is the 2005 version of Griffey out there.

I don't think that Dickerson should be automatic for the job, but if he was a disappointment last year (and I kind of agree that he was), then Stubbs can't have actually won the job either.

Spring~Fields
02-26-2010, 11:18 PM
What I find most interesting is that last season Dickerson supposedly flopped while Stubbs won the job. Yet Dickerson actually posted a higher wOBA. I agree that Stubbs is an elite defender but its not like Dickerson is the 2005 version of Griffey out there.

I don't think that Dickerson should be automatic for the job, but if he was a disappointment last year (and I kind of agree that he was), then Stubbs can't have actually won the job either.

How many plate appearances and at bats do either Dickerson or Stubbs have at the major league level?

I don’t think either of them have had enough consistent playing time to find out what either is, other than fast and very good defensive centerfielders. If I was Dickerson, I would have kept quiet, worked hard and worked smart. Especially since the Reds and Baker picked the last two starting centerfielders, we all know how well that worked out.

If Dickerson is making a play to get traded to a team where he might hope to get more playing time, then trade him, of course the Reds and fans of Stubbs will want to keep a Dickerson around in case Stubbs finds major league pitching to be a bit over his head, they are not real patient with struggling sticks in the leadoff spot. They will be wanting Ole Dickerson to be coming to the rescue, if his ankle, knee, or leg is still functional by the time Baker gives up on another of his speed no on base percentage leadoff batters.

All tripe aside, I would try to talk with both, try to salvage both of them and while getting both of them plenty of playing time with a hope that they both become a major asset. After building them both up. I would tell Dickerson to deal with his issues in another fashion, not the media. Another words keep your mouth shut Chris to the media, talk to your manager, coaches, agent, wife, if you have something to say like that again.


Major League
2009 AB TPA 2008 AB TPA
Dickerson 255 299 Dickerson 102 122
Stubbs 180 196 Stubbs 000 000

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2009&seasonType=2&split=0&cat=avg&order=true&type=exp

Not much in the way of AB or TPA for either of these guys, I don’t think I want to get too passionate about either of them until they get some extended playing time.

In the meantime I will be hoping that they both do exceptionally well, and stay healthy.

Though, Major league pitching might have us all eating crow, if we lean heavy toward one or the other right now. Of course Dickerson does show some OBP. Home run lovers still don't seem to see why OBP matters.

Leave that crow for Dusty, he is the expert on picking speedy centerfielders. :rolleyes:

Besides he will probably platoon some of those guys so much that they lose their stroke and confidence from being part-time part-timers. Most of them know that they do better with regular playing time, why wouldn’t they complain if they see the writing on the wall leading to their looking bad. Gomes had his comments last year too about playing time. He will this year too.

Ron Madden
02-27-2010, 02:23 AM
Stubbs catches balls in his hip pocket that Dickerson is diving just to get close. And I was watching the same TV coverage that you were.

That's not true.

How many balls have you seen Dickerson have to go into a dive to catch while playing CF? One, and it was in deep right center near the wall and it was a great play.

Ron Madden
02-27-2010, 02:53 AM
Dragged over from the ST thread too:



Someone said it earlier, it's a good problem to have. And Dusty said some time over the off-season, that he likes players to have a chip on their shoulder driving them. Dickerson said it himself, he'll just need to go out and prove himself and force the issue. And Stubbs is saying the same thing. Everyone of those guys hungry (and this would include Balentien) can only be a good thing. Even with some grousing.

All I'm sayining is, I can understand Dickerson's frustration and I can't blame him.

The way I see it Stubbs and Dickerson seem to be evenly blessed in talent.

The biggest difference between them (in my opinion) is the slot in which they were drafted. As far as the small sample size for both of them in the majors?

It would be tough to pick the better defensive CFer but I'd have go with Dickerson on offense because of his ability to get on base.

Matt700wlw
02-27-2010, 03:08 AM
His argument is valid.

Take it to Dusty. Take it to Walt. Taking it to the media could create a mess that this team doesn't need.

Stay healthy and prove yourself.

Stubbs is a first round pick, and in this day and age, he's going to be given every opportunity. There's money involved.

traderumor
02-27-2010, 07:10 AM
That's not true.

How many balls have you seen Dickerson have to go into a dive to catch while playing CF? One, and it was in deep right center near the wall and it was a great play.You're kidding, right? All season, playing CF, he only dove for one ball? I recall in a two game span several diving catches at one point in the season, which was actually the memory that drove the comment. Dickerson is a good CFer, Eddie Milneresque. Stubbs is a natural, graceful, Geronimo/Davis/Cameron like CFer.

LoganBuck
02-27-2010, 07:22 AM
That's not true.

How many balls have you seen Dickerson have to go into a dive to catch while playing CF? One, and it was in deep right center near the wall and it was a great play.

Dickerson is diving all over the place. He can't hit the cutoff man either. It was amazing when Stubbs took over the number of runners held from scoring just on accurate throws.

Dickerson is a fine player, but he really struggles with the little stuff. He isn't a good baserunner, he can't bunt, and struggles with the finer points in the outfield.

membengal
02-27-2010, 07:23 AM
On the eyeball test, it's not even close, and that is no slam on Dickerson's skills in CF, but rather an acknowledgement of how good Stubbs is. Absolutely effortless, he gets to balls in an easy stride that others have to really work for.

It is the glove difference that makes me lean Stubbs for full-time duty in CF. I still love Dickerson, or the idea of him, and want him to seize LF. In fact, that opportunity is there for him again this year, like it was last year. He gagged last year. I can't come around that fact. He could have seized it, and he didn't. Far from it.

So, all things being equal, go out and make it happen would be my advice to Dickerson, who is one of my favorite players on this squad.

mth123
02-27-2010, 08:33 AM
On the eyeball test, it's not even close, and that is no slam on Dickerson's skills in CF, but rather an acknowledgement of how good Stubbs is. Absolutely effortless, he gets to balls in an easy stride that others have to really work for.

It is the glove difference that makes me lean Stubbs for full-time duty in CF. I still love Dickerson, or the idea of him, and want him to seize LF. In fact, that opportunity is there for him again this year, like it was last year. He gagged last year. I can't come around that fact. He could have seized it, and he didn't. Far from it.

So, all things being equal, go out and make it happen would be my advice to Dickerson, who is one of my favorite players on this squad.

If Dickerson is all he can be offensively, he's still not a good LF for this team IMO. His bat vs. RHP plays well in CF and his defense is plenty good enough. In LF his bat is just too light. I get that his defense could be special there, but it precludes the Reds from addressing the middle of the order and its clearly a huge hole on this team. If Scott Rolen was still the 30 HR power threat that he was in his St. Louis days, then I'd be all for Dickerson in LF and Stubbs in CF, but Rolen is no lock to even slug .425 and the team is a bat short in the middle of the order. One of those OF spots needs to be manned by some one who can fill that role and having both Dickerson and Stubbs in the line-up together just won't cut it.

Agree on Stubbs defense and he'd be a huge upgrade over the Griffey types out there, but I'm not sold that his style points (and that is a lot of what the effortless stride is) really translate to a lot more wins versus a another good but not great defensive CF. I also am a real skeptic on Stubbs ability to hit. I think he'll struggle mightily (and still be .100 OPS points or so better than Willy).

nate
02-27-2010, 08:40 AM
His argument is valid.

Take it to Dusty. Take it to Walt. Taking it to the media could create a mess that this team doesn't need.

Stay healthy and prove yourself.

Stubbs is a first round pick, and in this day and age, he's going to be given every opportunity. There's money involved.

I say, take it to the field and show 'em.

jojo
02-27-2010, 09:12 AM
horsehockey. Dickerson is likely as fast as Stubbs, and has always been considered an elite defender. Offensively, while their lifetime minor league numbers are similar, Dickerson actually had the chance to improve his bat in the minors, and did so at AA/AAA where Stubbs was rushed and hasn't had the chance to develop. His AAA numbers suggest he actually has regressed a bit.

I'm in the camp that thinks Stubbs is a considerably better defender than Dickerson.

MikeS21
02-27-2010, 10:58 AM
I think it boils down the the fact that last year, when it finally dawned on the Reds higher-ups what most of us knew already, that Tavares was not the answer in CF, Dickerson did not play at a level that made it unnecessary to promote Stubbs.

Stubbs came up, and like it or not, he exceeded expectations.

OnBaseMachine
02-27-2010, 10:58 AM
From C. Trent:

Dusty on Dickerson: 'You can be disappointed all you want to, but he allowed Stubbs to get his foot in the door.'

http://twitter.com/ctrent

More Dusty on Dickerson: 'Stubbs hit 8 home runs in probably 1/2 the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, 2? Reality’s reality.'

http://twitter.com/cnatist10

Tommyjohn25
02-27-2010, 11:08 AM
From C. Trent:

Dusty on Dickerson: 'You can be disappointed all you want to, but he allowed Stubbs to get his foot in the door.'

http://twitter.com/ctrent

More Dusty on Dickerson: 'Stubbs hit 8 home runs in probably 1/2 the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, 2? Reality’s reality.'

http://twitter.com/cnatist10

Wow. Go get 'em Dusty. I think Dickerson was WAY out of line bringing it to the media. IMO, the best players on their respective teams don't even need to be doing that, much less a fringe 4th outfielder. Keep your mouth shut and play where your employer tells you to play. If you want it, earn it.

membengal
02-27-2010, 11:09 AM
I am still puzzled by how Dickerson handled this. LF is WIDE open. At the least, a chance to platoon can be had there, or maybe even in CF if Stubbs is what a lot of people on here fear with the stick over 450 PA. Just no reason to stir the pot, even if Dickerson thought he was stirring it gently. Play hard, show what you showed end of 2008, stake a claim. I am guessing that is what is annoying Dusty and leading to Dusty's statements.

Tommyjohn25
02-27-2010, 11:11 AM
I am guessing that is what is annoying Dusty and leading to Dusty's statements.

As it should, IMO. As a side note, for all of Dustys flaws, it's nice to have a manager who reminds players that they do not run the team.

membengal
02-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Agreed, tommy.

OnBaseMachine
02-27-2010, 11:24 AM
From C. Trent:

* Baker was also asked about Chris Dickerson's comments to me the other day about feeling like he's not getting an opportuntity in centerfield.

"He had the job before Stubbs. He's in the running, he's going to play. But you can't take away what Stubbs did at the end of the year last year. You can be disappointed all you want to, but he allowed Stubbs to get his foot in the door.

"The performance and injuries. It happens. Sometimes you've got to wait for your next opportunity. What did Stubbs do, hit eight home runs in probably half the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, two? Reality's reality.

"He was disappointed he didn't play against left-handers last year. I have a guy who hits left-handers pretty good in Jonny Gomes. ... Jonny hit 20 home runs and in our ballpark we need some sock. Everyone plays, but you can't play everybody at the same time, but everyone's going to play. Nixy did a good job too. What he hit, 14? They all bring something different to the table on a given day for what we're going to need. I told Dick last year, the reason was to keep you healthy and still didn't work.

"Nobody said he wasn't in the running. Maybe he feels that...

"You can't discount what Stubbs did that last month, but you don't know if he's going to do it again, but you can't discount what he's already done. Dick, I mean, he was there before Stubbs even got to the organization, wasn't he?

"We've got to see what adjustments they make to Stubbs, just like what adjustments they made to Jay Bruce."

http://cnati.com/blogs/ctrent/

MikeS21
02-27-2010, 11:24 AM
I believe the issue goes back to minor league development. I go back to the fact that Dickerson was drafted in 2003. The Reds were high on Dickerson, but he still had a LOT of holes in his offense that caused them to go another direction.

They drafted Jay Bruce as a CF in 2005. The very next year, in 2006, they drafted Drew Stubbs as a CF.

It would seem to me that Dickerson should have seen the handwriting on the wall that he was not going to play CF.

HokieRed
02-27-2010, 12:32 PM
How long till the trade?

membengal
02-27-2010, 12:41 PM
Per Fay, Dickerson's response to Dusty:


Dickerson’s response:

“We discussed it last year. It’s not a new subject. He knows I’m fortunate to have played all three positions. It’s a challenge. (Baker) said he was always a center fielder. He got moved to left and making that adjustment was really tough. He ended up being a Gold Glover in left.

“He knows I can play center field and center field is my best position. I started playing left a few years ago. I don’t think Drew has had that experience. He’s played nothing but center field since he’s come up. He’s played a couple of spring training games in left.”

“It’s also a benefit being able to play the three positions. It’s gives you more versatility.”

“Yeah, absolutely, I don’t feel there’s any reason I shouldn’t be able to play center field. I did a great job in center field. That’s where I played until I came up. I was one of the top defensive outfielders. Stubbs was best defensive outfielder in the system, as I was the three or four previous years. I think I can play center field and be a good one at that.”

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/02/27/dickerson-v-baker/

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 12:59 PM
From C. Trent:

* Baker was also asked about Chris Dickerson's comments to me the other day about feeling like he's not getting an opportuntity in centerfield.

"He had the job before Stubbs. He's in the running, he's going to play. But you can't take away what Stubbs did at the end of the year last year. You can be disappointed all you want to, but he allowed Stubbs to get his foot in the door.
"The performance and injuries. It happens. Sometimes you've got to wait for your next opportunity. What did Stubbs do, hit eight home runs in probably half the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, two? Reality's reality.

"He was disappointed he didn't play against left-handers last year. I have a guy who hits left-handers pretty good in Jonny Gomes. ... Jonny hit 20 home runs and in our ballpark we need some sock. Everyone plays, but you can't play everybody at the same time, but everyone's going to play. Nixy did a good job too. What he hit, 14? They all bring something different to the table on a given day for what we're going to need. I told Dick last year, the reason was to keep you healthy and still didn't work.

"Nobody said he wasn't in the running. Maybe he feels that...

"You can't discount what Stubbs did that last month, but you don't know if he's going to do it again, but you can't discount what he's already done. Dick, I mean, he was there before Stubbs even got to the organization, wasn't he?

"We've got to see what adjustments they make to Stubbs, just like what adjustments they made to Jay Bruce."
http://cnati.com/blogs/ctrent/

:explode::explode::explode:


Willy Taveras
2009 Cin 102 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 18 58 25 6 .240 .275 .285 .560
2008 Col 133 479 64 120 15 2 1 26 36 79 68 7 .251 .308 .296 .604

Corey Patterson
2008 Cin 135 366 46 75 17 2 10 34 16 57 14 9 .205 .238 .344 .582
2007 Bal 132 461 65 124 26 2 8 45 21 65 37 9 .269 .304 .386 .690

“He had the job before Stubbs” “Reality's reality”
So what was Tevaras, McDonald, Nix and Hairston, Dusty, and Patterson before them, a figment of everyone’s imagination? Let’s see you suggest that you played Tevaras, McDonald, Nix and Hairston to keep Dickerson from getting injured?

“But you can't take away what Stubbs did at the end of the year last year.”
So Dusty, isn’t that exactly what you did with Dickerson’s last month or so at the end of 2008? What was Tevaras again? What was McDonald, Hairston and Nix? To keep Dickerson from injuries? You don’t say! Really?

“I have a guy who hits left-handers pretty good in Jonny Gomes.”
You have a guy that hits left-handers pretty good in Johnny Gomes? But do you have a guy or guys that hit right-handers “pretty good”? Who might that be Dusty? Let’s look at the reality, so we can see reality.


Tevaras .285 OBP against RH in 2009 Tevaras .303 OBP 2008
Votto .419 OBP against RH in 2009 Votto .370 OBP 2008
Dickerson .378 OBP against RH in 2009 Dickerson .411 OBP 2008
Bruce .299 OBP against RH in 2009 Bruce .340 OBP 2008
Phillips .324 OBP against RH in 2009 Phillips .293 OBP 2008

Shouldn’t the guys that hit right handed pitching “pretty good” for you Dusty be getting the most games played, plate appearance, and at bats if your implications of hitting against left handed pitching is true, then would that not apply to those that hit right handed pitching “pretty good” also, Dusty? But that wasn’t the case Dusty, why is that? Why are your words, and supposed reason for your decision fraught with selective inconsistencies?

“I told Dick last year, the reason was to keep you healthy and still didn't work.”


Willy Taveras
2008 Col 133 479 64 120 15 2 1 26 36 79 68 7 .251 .308 .296 .604
2009 Cin 102 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 18 58 25 6 .240 .275 .285 .560
404 AB 102 games 1 HR and .240 .275 .285 .560


“What did Stubbs do, hit eight home runs in probably half the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, two? Reality's reality.”

What Dickerson do “in probably half the at-bats” as Patterson and Tevaras, Dusty?


Chris Dickerson
2008 Cin 31 102 20 31 9 2 6 15 17 35 5 3 .304 .413 .608 1.021
102 AB 31 games 6 HR and .304 .413 .608 1.021
Drew Stubbs
2009 Cin 42 180 27 48 5 1 8 17 15 49 10 4 .267 .323 .439 .762
180 AB 42 games 8 HR and .267 .323 .439 .762

“You can't discount what Stubbs did that last month, but you don't know if he's going to do it again, but you can't discount what he's already done.”

Oh Dusty, I think we know who got the opportunity last year, regardless of the year that they had before. Strange how none of what you say in support of Stubbs, did not seem to apply to the last month or so that Dickerson had in 2008. Just what was Tevaras, even though his previous seasons showed the “reality for reality”? What was McDonald and Nix and Hairston for that matter? I just can’t wrap my head around where Dickerson might get this wild idea of about being passed over and playing time.

Let’s see you can’t discount what Stubbs did in his last month, but you could Dickerson’s. Let’s see you suggest that you played Tevaras, McDonald, Nix and Hairston to keep Dickerson from getting injured? While you ended up making excuses for Tevaras, saying, that he did not hit like he usually does, and suggest an excuse that Willy had an injury last year.


Willy Taveras
2008 Col 133 479 64 120 15 2 1 26 36 79 68 7 .251 .308 .296 .604
2009 Cin 102 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 18 58 25 6 .240 .275 .285 .560
404 AB 102 games 1 HR and .240 .275 .285 .560

Drew Stubbs
2009 Cin 42 180 27 48 5 1 8 17 15 49 10 4 .267 .323 .439 .762
180 AB 42 games 8 HR and .267 .323 .439 .762

Chris Dickerson
2008 Cin 31 102 20 31 9 2 6 15 17 35 5 3 .304 .413 .608 1.021
102 AB 31 games 6 HR and .304 .413 .608 1.021
2009 Cin 97 255 31 70 13 3 2 15 39 66 11 3 .275 .370 .373 .743
255 AB 97 games 2 HR and .275 .370 .373 .743

"We've got to see what adjustments they make to Stubbs, just like what adjustments they made to Jay Bruce."

So you took longer to see what adjustments that they made with Tevaras and Patterson Dusty?


Willy Taveras
2009 Cin 102 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 18 58 25 6 .240 .275 .285 .560
2008 Col 133 479 64 120 15 2 1 26 36 79 68 7 .251 .308 .296 .604

Corey Patterson
2008 Cin 135 366 46 75 17 2 10 34 16 57 14 9 .205 .238 .344 .582
2007 Bal 132 461 65 124 26 2 8 45 21 65 37 9 .269 .304 .386 .690


Dusty, no wonder why Dickerson is running his mouth and frustrated, you Dusty talk which ever way the wind is blowing and out both sides of your mouth. Your selective reasoning's to support your decisions is inconsistent, and not really very true. That would make most people frustrated.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 01:14 PM
How long till the trade?

Shouldn’t be long. ;)

Why keep a cancer like this disgruntled Dickerson when Baker has such highly qualified players to replace Dickerson, as Nix, Anderson, Burke. McDonald or Patterson might be had for the right price too. :rolleyes:

The Reds don’t need anyone that can hit right handed pitching, we all know that on base percentage against right handed pitching is a priority of Bakers. ;)

Make the call Dusty, get Walt on the phone and get rid of this Dickerson, do you what you have always done Dusty, we all know how those choices and decisions worked out, I look forward to seeing more of the same. :thumbup:

We can’t discount that one month of Stubbs, surely Stubbs will be able to handle it all in stride in 2010. What do they want or need a Dickerson for? ;)

mth123
02-27-2010, 01:37 PM
I think these comments are way overblown. No cancer going on here. Dickerson is a CF and he's simply saying that he's not going to move w/o a fight, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Barry Larkin said basically the same thing in the 80s when conventional wisdom was Larkin should move to 2B with Stillwell at SS.

The basic message was - I'm a SS, let somebody else move. Seems like Dickerson is just saying something similar.

membengal
02-27-2010, 01:49 PM
I do agree that this is likely being overblown.

At the least, picked up 700wlw last night driving around Baltimore and wished I hadn't. McAlister leaped on this like a lunatic lemur and was fanning away at it. Started down the Reds-don't-need-this-kind-of-dissension road, and it was so over-the-top stupid, it was laughable. Until I remembered that too many people listen to that kind of nonsense and believe it in that town. See under Dunn, Adam.

At any rate, now that Dickerson has made it clear he wants to play, here's hoping he knocks some doors down and claims, at the least, LF for his own.

Raisor
02-27-2010, 02:00 PM
Dickerson played 176 innings in CF last year, about 19 games worth. He hit .307/.361/.480/.841 in 84 PA's.

Not sure where Dusty thinks Dickerson lost the CF job.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 02:13 PM
I think these comments are way overblown. No cancer going on here. Dickerson is a CF and he's simply saying that he's not going to move w/o a fight, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Barry Larkin said basically the same thing in the 80s when conventional wisdom was Larkin should move to 2B with Stillwell at SS.

The basic message was - I'm a SS, let somebody else move. Seems like Dickerson is just saying something similar.

I think that I agree with you and just about everyone on Dickerson that has posted on the subject. There is something that makes a lot consistent sense in what each of you have posted.

Though I don't feel the same about reading or listening to Bakers comments from year to year.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 02:16 PM
Dickerson played 176 innings in CF last year, about 19 games worth. He hit .307/.361/.480/.841 in 84 PA's.

Not sure where Dusty thinks Dickerson lost the CF job.

I am not sure where Dusty thinks that Dickerson ever had the opportunity over a Patterson, Tevaras and a revolving door cast of other characters, let alone lost his job, that he never was given.

By the way, while we are on the subject, did Griffey, or has Rolen or Ramon Hernandez had any injury problems? Jerry Hairston Jr. ? Alex Gonzalez? Dr. Baker seems to prescribe differently per his need to defend his choices.

Anyone remember Jay Bruce getting defensive about Baker's alleged perceptions of his history of injuries when Baker was playing that card the year Patterson played center and Bruce did not make the team, in that spring training?

dougdirt
02-27-2010, 02:22 PM
I am not sure where Dusty thinks that Dickerson ever had the opportunity over a Patterson, Tevaras and a revolving door cast of other characters, let alone lost his job, that he never was given.

By the way, while we are on the subject, did Griffey, or has Rolen or Ramon Hernandez had any injury problems? Jerry Hairston Jr. ? Alex Gonzalez? Dr. Baker seems to prescribe differently per his need to defend his choices.

There is a difference between guys with long track records in the majors having injury problems later in their careers versus a guy with less than 400 MLB at bats in his 20's having a track record of injuries.

Mario-Rijo
02-27-2010, 02:35 PM
Dickerson played 176 innings in CF last year, about 19 games worth. He hit .307/.361/.480/.841 in 84 PA's.

Not sure where Dusty thinks Dickerson lost the CF job.

Ya gotta look at the HR numbers Dickerson just didn't hit enough what only 2? :rolleyes:

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 02:43 PM
There is a difference between guys with long track records in the majors having injury problems later in their careers versus a guy with less than 400 MLB at bats in his 20's having a track record of injuries.

Doug, I don't think my sarcastic point was really about the various players and injuries as much as my point was about the selective inconsistencies, and inconsistent supporting reasoning that Baker gives per his choices and decisions.

But you do make an interesting point about the small samples of Dickerson who has 357 AB and Stubbs has 180. I am going to have to ask some stats guys what those small samples prove, and where Baker draws his conclusions from, based on what proven facts?

dougdirt
02-27-2010, 03:03 PM
Doug, I don't think my sarcastic point was really about the various players and injuries as much as my point was about the selective inconsistencies, and inconsistent supporting reasoning that Baker gives per his choices and decisions.

But you do make an interesting point about the small samples of Dickerson who has 357 AB and Stubbs has 180. I am going to have to ask some stats guys what those small samples prove, and where Baker draws his conclusions from, based on what proven facts?

They essentially prove nothing. You don't need to ask any 'stats guys'. I am pretty stat friendly in my own right. Neither sample is large enough to tell us much about the player.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 03:04 PM
They essentially prove nothing. You don't need to ask any 'stats guys'. I am pretty stat friendly in my own right. Neither sample is large enough to tell us much about the player.

That's right, you are correct sir! :) What about Dusty Baker though ? Do we have a large enough sample on his words, actions, choices and decisions? ;)

Notes: Bruce, Baker discuss injury
Top prospect clears up confusion over injured quad
SARASOTA, Fla. -- Jay Bruce and Dusty Baker are back on the same page about the outfielder's history of leg injuries -- or the lack thereof.

"It's no different," Bruce said of Patterson's addition. "There's already competition in camp. It'll add to it a little bit. Like I've said before, no matter who's here, I'm trying to make the team, regardless of who is vying for a spot. It's my job, and everybody else's job. It'll play itself out."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080304&content_id=2404336&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

dougdirt
02-27-2010, 03:23 PM
Do we have a large enough sample on his words, actions, choices and decisions? ;)

I know I have enough on him to know how I feel isn't going to change anytime soon.

MikeS21
02-27-2010, 03:28 PM
Dickerson played 176 innings in CF last year, about 19 games worth. He hit .307/.361/.480/.841 in 84 PA's.

Not sure where Dusty thinks Dickerson lost the CF job.
That decision was made before Dusty ever was named manager. Dickerson lost the CF job in 2005 when the Reds drafted Jay Bruce and turned around and drafted Drew Stubbs in 2006. Add to that the fact that first round money was thrown at Yorman Rodriguez in 2008, that's THREE CF's ahead of Dickerson on the depth chart.

I think its pretty certain when you're the "best CF in the system" and they immediately draft a CF as their first round picks in two consecutive drafts, and sign a third "first-rounder" CF a year later, that your future is not in CF.

camisadelgolf
02-27-2010, 04:34 PM
Dusty has said on multiple occasions that had Dickerson stayed healthy, he would have been given more opportunity. Early in 2009, Dickerson was given the chance to play a lot in left field, but he was outperformed by Laynce Nix. We all quickly forget, but Willy Taveras started the year hot, too. Jay Bruce was a fixture in right field, so there was no place for Dickerson to play.

In the middle of the year, Nix was the everyday left fielder, Taveras struggled, and Bruce became injured. This opened up a spot for Gomes, who outperformed Dickerson, to play everyday. Unfortunately, Taveras put together a couple streaks that looked like he might be regressing to the mean, so he continued to get all the playing time in center. After a while--granted, the move should've happened sooner--Dickerson was getting his chance to play center field, but that's when he was injured. Hence, Drew Stubbs was called up and impressed Dusty.

Dickerson was given a chance, but my main criticism is that Dusty waited too long to pull Taveras. Had Dickerson stayed healthy and continued to produce, we'd probably be talking about Dickerson and Stubbs being more of a strict platoon. Either that, or Gomes might never have been re-signed because we'd see an outfield of Dickerson/Stubbs/Bruce.

Regardless, what Dickerson said isn't something he should've said to the media, no matter how correct he is. It's not his job. What do you think would happen if any of you went to the media with criticisms of how your boss performs?[/rhetorical question]

Hoosier Red
02-27-2010, 05:55 PM
Spring-Fields, I don't know why you don't ignore everything Dusty says. Trying to divine his logic from it is useless. He is correct though, for whatever reason in 2009, Stubbs had an opportunity and took advantage of it. Just because Dickerson was screwed over in 2009 doesn't mean that it makes sense to screw over a higher thought of prospect.

Hoosier Red
02-27-2010, 06:08 PM
Also I think to be fair a reporter(C Trent) went on a fishing expedition with Dickerson and hauled in a big one. That's not a knock on C Trent, it's his job to find stories and aside from Chapman this has clearly been the story of early Spring Training.

But I don't think Dickerson went looking for a way to spew venom out towards Drew Stubbs. That said now he needs to know and recite the following quote,
"Obviously I'm in a position where I have to prove myself. I look forward to doing that this spring and we'll let the best person win the job. If Drew wins, I'll be the first one cheering on his incredible defense and I'll find other ways to help the team."

westofyou
02-27-2010, 06:40 PM
Guys move off of SS and CF every year in this game, my advice to CD is make the team and the position will find you, complain and don't perform and they will remember you complaining.

HokieRed
02-27-2010, 07:33 PM
The macro problem remains that this team has a developing logjam in the outfield. Who knows how it will turn out? Chris Heisey could yet make this whole thread seem off the point. Seems to me there is going to be a deal of one or more outfielders not too far out in the future. Dickerson's probably made himself the top candidate to be moved, if he wasn't already.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 07:58 PM
Spring-Fields, I don't know why you don't ignore everything Dusty says. Trying to divine his logic from it is useless. He is correct though, for whatever reason in 2009, Stubbs had an opportunity and took advantage of it. Just because Dickerson was screwed over in 2009 doesn't mean that it makes sense to screw over a higher thought of prospect.

I do ignore his words and listen to his actions. I just occasionally post his words so that you or others can know, what actions I have listened to. Actually futile though, most know he says one thing, and is doing another, the rest is misdirection to cover. Though he is the one that is accountable for his words and actions, not I for him.

Baker is just a walking rationalization and self justification for his erroneous perceptions, personal biases, and superstitions. Another words he is just a recurring pattern. :) Example, CF bats first, ss second, with an exaggeration of the importance of speed, regardless of a players ability to get on base to accomplish his secondary goals, and primary goal to score more runs than the other team. Doesn't have an extension yet does he.

The biggest reason is, that I don’t consider him honest.

We can't completely ignore what the GM, manager, and pitching coach says. Their input and feedback often explains that which we might not know or understand. Castellini we can ignore, we know what his words mean, and what they have been worth.

Spring~Fields
02-27-2010, 08:14 PM
I know I have enough on him to know how I feel isn't going to change anytime soon.

I think we agree. Though I don't think that we are the inflexible ones, I am sure we would be happy to change our minds if results would mandate that.

mth123
02-27-2010, 08:37 PM
The macro problem remains that this team has a developing logjam in the outfield. Who knows how it will turn out? Chris Heisey could yet make this whole thread seem off the point. Seems to me there is going to be a deal of one or more outfielders not too far out in the future. Dickerson's probably made himself the top candidate to be moved, if he wasn't already.

Problem is that its a logjam of mediocrity. A bunch of players who are flawed in one way or another and won't ever be star caliber. Guys with limited tools (Heisey and Frazier), poor plate discipline (Francisco), severe platoon splits (Dickerson, Nix), failed prospects (Balentien) or guys who just haven't proven anything in the minors and look to be pretty light where offense is concerned (Stubbs). The team needs to mix and match to maxmize production. Its the reason that neither guy should be handed the job nor should either be excluded from competing.

Kc61
02-27-2010, 08:52 PM
I like Dickerson. I think he can contribute to the Reds. But during his minor league career, Dickerson struck out 31 percent of his official at bats. At the same time, Dickerson never hit as many as 20 homers in a season. In 357 major league at bats, Dickerson has fanned 101 times (28 percent) and has hit eight homers.

Very high strikeout totals for a singles and doubles hitter are a bad sign.

Dickerson did very well when he came up in September of 2008, until he got hurt. Then his slugging percentage last year dropped to .373, quite low for a high strikeout hitter.

As entertaining as these articles are, and the debate about them, I'd much rather hear that Dickerson was trying to make more contact, strike out less, and hit the ball with authority for extra base hits.

Chris' best chance to play more is to hit better.

mth123
02-27-2010, 09:00 PM
During his minor league career, Dickerson struck out 31 percent of his official at bats. At the same time, Dickerson never hit as many as 20 homers in a season. In 357 major league at bats, Dickerson has fanned 101 times (28 percent) and has hit eight homers.

Very high strikeout totals for a singles and doubles hitter are a bad sign.

Dickerson did very well when he came up in September of 2008. But his slugging percentage last year was .373, quite low for a high strikeout hitter.

As entertaining as these articles are, and the debate about them, I'd much rather hear that Dickerson was trying to make more contact, strike out less, and hit the ball with authority for extra base hits.

Exactly why the line-up can't survive with both Dickerson and Stubbs filling two of the OF spots. The team can only afford one role playing, offensively limited, on base CF guy who can't really hit for much power and is prone to periods of not making contact. They need to play the guy who has the best chance of success on a given day. From where I sit, it looks like Dickerson vs. RHP and Stubbs vs. LHP.

HokieRed
02-27-2010, 09:11 PM
Here's my overall take:
1. Never believe anything from Dusty. We just take that for granted.
2. I like Stubbs but think it's premature to consider him the heir apparent in CF. With mth123, I think our best option is a Stubbs/Dickerson platoon in CF unless or until Heisey can perhaps claim the spot himself or Stubbs claims it completely for himself. I don't think Dickerson will ever cut his strike outs adequately or stay healthy enough to be the everyday CFer and I don't like him as an alternative in LF at all.
3. I don't think the logjam is all mediocrity, but the current major leaguers are more mediocre than what we have coming. I still see our OF as Votto, Stubbs or Heisey, Bruce relatively soon. Alonso will make this seem inevitable.
4. For now, we have Gomes/Balentien in LF (Balentien's platoon difference being next to nothing), Dickerson/Stubbs in CF, Bruce in right.

Kc61
02-27-2010, 09:14 PM
Exactly why the line-up can't survive with both Dickerson and Stubbs filling two of the OF spots. The team can only afford one role playing, offensively limited, on base CF guy who can't really hit for much power and is prone to periods of not making contact. They need to play the guy who has the best chance of success on a given day. From where I sit, it looks like Dickerson vs. RHP and Stubbs vs. LHP.

I would agree with you, except I think Stubbs can hit for power. When drafted, good power was one of his attributes.

Stubbs seems to have cut down on his power stroke in the minor leagues to help him make contact.

Last year, with the Reds, the power stroke was back and he hit 8 homers in 180 at bats.

I think Stubbs can be a 20 to 25 homer guy, hit about .270, with a higher than average K total. Playing great defense.

My concern about Dickerson is that he'll have the high K total without the long ball. Hope he proves me wrong, he's a talented young player.

mth123
02-27-2010, 09:47 PM
Here's my overall take:
1. Never believe anything from Dusty. We just take that for granted.
2. I like Stubbs but think it's premature to consider him the heir apparent in CF. With mth123, I think our best option is a Stubbs/Dickerson platoon in CF unless or until Heisey can perhaps claim the spot himself or Stubbs claims it completely for himself. I don't think Dickerson will ever cut his strike outs adequately or stay healthy enough to be the everyday CFer and I don't like him as an alternative in LF at all.
3. I don't think the logjam is all mediocrity, but the current major leaguers are more mediocre than what we have coming. I still see our OF as Votto, Stubbs or Heisey, Bruce relatively soon. Alonso will make this seem inevitable.
4. For now, we have Gomes/Balentien in LF (Balentien's platoon difference being next to nothing), Dickerson/Stubbs in CF, Bruce in right.

I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever see Votto and Alonso playing together. If I thought that could happen or the OF alignment would exclude Stubbs and Dickerson playing at the same time, I'd be more optimistic.

thatcoolguy_22
02-28-2010, 09:44 AM
I will shout from the roof tops that Stubbs is better in CF than Dickerson with the glove, but the bat is another story. I would like to quote Spring Fields again about how Dusty completely overlooked a better version of what stubbs did in '09 (Dickerson in '08), but his quote is massive. :) Baker has not and will never be one of my favorite managers. He has certain things he looks for and those players who have it become his favorites. I like Stubbs starting this year (I really do) but for him to be given the starting gig based on a .762 OPS over 196 PA is asinine.

If I didn't know any better I would say Stubbs is actually a jedi. While waving hand in front of Baker's face, "Pay no heed to my career minor league numbers, I am fast and play CF."

CesarGeronimo
02-28-2010, 11:16 AM
I will shout from the roof tops that Stubbs is better in CF than Dickerson with the glove, but the bat is another story. I would like to quote Spring Fields again about how Dusty completely overlooked a better version of what stubbs did in '09 (Dickerson in '08), but his quote is massive. :) Baker has not and will never be one of my favorite managers. He has certain things he looks for and those players who have it become his favorites. I like Stubbs starting this year (I really do) but for him to be given the starting gig based on a .762 OPS over 196 PA is asinine. If I didn't know any better I would say Stubbs is actually a jedi. While waving hand in front of Baker's face, "Pay no heed to my career minor league numbers, I am fast and play CF."

What Dusty doesn't look for is players with a high on-base percentage. So because that's Dickerson's forte, he will continue to be undervalued and frustrated. And players with a low on-base percentage but an acceptable batting average will continue to be overvalued and the Reds will continue to be susceptible to having hitters who are bad at getting on base at the top of their order.

Roy Tucker
02-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Guys move off of SS and CF every year in this game, my advice to CD is make the team and the position will find you, complain and don't perform and they will remember you complaining.

Yep. Nobody is owed anything. Go out there, work hard, work extra, succeed at whatever role they give you, and good things will follow. Its a long season and if you are worth your salt, you'll get your opportunities.

But just shut up about all this. You have little to gain and a lot to lose by complaining. Let your play on the field be your voice.

Having said that, the media loves this kind of stuff and will play it up and continue to ask questions. It probably was some off the cuff comments by CD (he seems a good guy) but some needs to tell him to cease and desist this kind of talk.

kpresidente
02-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Problem is that its a logjam of mediocrity. A bunch of players who are flawed in one way or another and won't ever be star caliber. Guys with limited tools (Heisey and Frazier), poor plate discipline (Francisco), severe platoon splits (Dickerson, Nix), failed prospects (Balentien) or guys who just haven't proven anything in the minors and look to be pretty light where offense is concerned (Stubbs). The team needs to mix and match to maxmize production. Its the reason that neither guy should be handed the job nor should either be excluded from competing.

Well said. That's why they should have planned on the Francisco/Frazier and Dickerson/Heisey platoons, sent Stubbs packing, and found themselves a real SS rather than a vet 3B. When you have decent but not star caliber players with big splits it should seen as the natural way to maximize production. Why it never is, I have no idea.

Hoosier Red
02-28-2010, 12:25 PM
Yep. Nobody is owed anything. Go out there, work hard, work extra, succeed at whatever role they give you, and good things will follow. Its a long season and if you are worth your salt, you'll get your opportunities.

But just shut up about all this. You have little to gain and a lot to lose by complaining. Let your play on the field be your voice.

Having said that, the media loves this kind of stuff and will play it up and continue to ask questions. It probably was some off the cuff comments by CD (he seems a good guy) but some needs to tell him to cease and desist this kind of talk.

I actually think the first set of quotes as honest but not complaining. Just saying, hey don't forget about me:) but now anything he says is just adding fuel to the fire.

dougdirt
02-28-2010, 01:50 PM
Problem is that its a logjam of mediocrity. A bunch of players who are flawed in one way or another and won't ever be star caliber. Guys with limited tools (Heisey and Frazier), poor plate discipline (Francisco), severe platoon splits (Dickerson, Nix), failed prospects (Balentien) or guys who just haven't proven anything in the minors and look to be pretty light where offense is concerned (Stubbs). The team needs to mix and match to maxmize production. Its the reason that neither guy should be handed the job nor should either be excluded from competing.

MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

jojo
02-28-2010, 02:11 PM
MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

I agree. I guess the issue is how good can a Heisey or Dickerson be with their bats or how bad will Gomes be with his glove... With the in-house options, there's room for left to be a black hole but also a roadmap for it to potentially be a plus...

What they don't have in the outfield is "proven pencil production in"...

Always Red
02-28-2010, 02:16 PM
If Dickerson can stay healthy and continue to post an OBP that creeps close to .400, he'll be the clubs everyday LF with Gomes reduced to spot-starting against certain LHPs. And, with power coming from 1B, 2B, 3B and RF -- I'm completely cool with adding speed, defense and excellent OBP from LF.

Playing time isn't going to be an issue for Chris Dickerson -- it just might not be at the spot he likes.

^

Totally agree with this.

CD needs to zip it up and start hitting and running, because nothing else really matters. I would love to see Stubbs in CF and CD in LF, assuming both are playing well.

nate
02-28-2010, 02:33 PM
MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

Co-sign.

HokieRed
02-28-2010, 03:04 PM
I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever see Votto and Alonso playing together. If I thought that could happen or the OF alignment would exclude Stubbs and Dickerson playing at the same time, I'd be more optimistic.


I still think this will happen because I think Alonso is going to be a great hitter. It's all up to him. He will, IMO, force the issue.

edabbs44
02-28-2010, 05:29 PM
MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

Will you be as valuable if your team only has one .875 OPS bat when you are sacrificing offense in that spot?

mth123
02-28-2010, 05:50 PM
MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

Mediocre players = Mediocre teams. Give me a positional league average player at each position with decent defense and I'll have no problem finishing third. Good teams that actually make the play-offs do better than that.

dougdirt
02-28-2010, 06:01 PM
Will you be as valuable if your team only has one .875 OPS bat when you are sacrificing offense in that spot?

Value is value. It doesn't matter how you get it as long as you wind up at the same value. Nyjer Morgan and his .757 OPS was more valuable than Ryan Braun and his .937 OPS last year. They went about getting their value in a very different way, but were extremely similar in terms of value.

dougdirt
02-28-2010, 06:02 PM
Mediocre players = Mediocre teams. Give me a positional league average player at each position with decent defense and I'll have no problem finishing third. Good teams that actually make the play-offs do better than that.

Sure, if every player is league average. But that isn't likely to be the case. Brandon Phillips, Joey Votto and Scott Rolen are incredibly likely to be above average players and have been several (or more) years running now. Other guys could be as well (Bruce, Stubbs, several pitchers).

mth123
02-28-2010, 06:13 PM
Sure, if every player is league average. But that isn't likely to be the case. Brandon Phillips, Joey Votto and Scott Rolen are incredibly likely to be above average players and have been several (or more) years running now. Other guys could be as well (Bruce, Stubbs, several pitchers).

Except Phillips averages out to better than league average, but on most days (when a RHP is on the mound) he struggles to be league average and doesn't make it there. Rolen maybe, but I'm not so certain, especially against RHP. Votto sure. Its not enough because Catcher, probably SS and I'm guessing CF will be below average. Assuming Bruce comes along, the team still needs a guy who is significantly above average in LF to offset the holes elsewehere.

RedsManRick
02-28-2010, 06:17 PM
Will you be as valuable if your team only has one .875 OPS bat when you are sacrificing offense in that spot?

Runs are runs. Scored or prevented, they're worth the same. Your teammates skills and abilities don't affect the value of your's.

dougdirt
02-28-2010, 06:27 PM
Except Phillips averages out to better than league average, but on most days (when a RHP is on the mound) he struggles to be league average and doesn't make it there. Rolen maybe, but I'm not so certain, especially against RHP. Votto sure. Its not enough because Catcher, probably SS and I'm guessing CF will be below average. Assuming Bruce comes along, the team still needs a guy who is significantly above average in LF to offset the holes elsewehere.

And Bronson Arroyo sucks for 10 starts a year too. But the times when he is real good count just as much as the times he doesn't. Just like Phillips. Phillips total production makes him a very good player and over the entire season that adds up. Catcher is likely to be average. I am not sure where you are coming from on the below average part with our guys. Offensively they project to be an average catcher. Defensively they probably project to be a little above average because Hanigan is arguably the best in the league. Shortstop, maybe. It depends if last years defense was a data anomoly because of the turf in Minnesota and the fun field that is Oakland. Offensively though, I would be surprised if Cabrera is below average. So I guess that is our difference, I only see SS as the spot where we may see a legit below average player. You see it at several other spots.

mth123
02-28-2010, 06:40 PM
And Bronson Arroyo sucks for 10 starts a year too. But the times when he is real good count just as much as the times he doesn't. Just like Phillips. Phillips total production makes him a very good player and over the entire season that adds up. Catcher is likely to be average. I am not sure where you are coming from on the below average part with our guys. Offensively they project to be an average catcher. Defensively they probably project to be a little above average because Hanigan is arguably the best in the league. Shortstop, maybe. It depends if last years defense was a data anomoly because of the turf in Minnesota and the fun field that is Oakland. Offensively though, I would be surprised if Cabrera is below average. So I guess that is our difference, I only see SS as the spot where we may see a legit below average player. You see it at several other spots.

Games are won and lost on individual days. The days when Phillips plays against a RHP, that position is not better than league average. In CF, I just don't see a guy with a .715 OPS in AAA putting up anything above .700 when exposed to major league pitching every day.

I think Hernandez is awful and Hanigan won't play enough to offset it and his production will drop if he does.

While I agree with most of the general assessments concerning defense (Stubb great, Dickerson pretty darn good, Gomes below average, Phillips top notch, Hanigan pretty good). I don't buy into the run, win and dollar values attributed to them. I think things are way overstated on both the high end and low end of the scale. I don't think Gold Glove defense makes up for a below .700 OPS any more than I think an .800 OPS is worth putting up with recent versions of Griffey in CF or Keppinger at SS.

dougdirt
02-28-2010, 06:56 PM
Games are won and lost on individual days. The days when Phillips plays against a RHP, that position is not better than league average. In CF, I just don't see a guy with a .715 OPS in AAA putting up anything above .700 when exposed to major league pitching every day.

I think Hernandez is awful and Hanigan won't play enough to offset it and his production will drop if he does.

While I agree with most of the general assessments concerning defense (Stubb great, Dickerson pretty darn good, Gomes below average, Phillips top notch, Hanigan pretty good). I don't buy into the run, win and dollar values attributed to them. I think things are way overstated on both the high end and low end of the scale. I don't think Gold Glove defense makes up for a below .700 OPS any more than I think an .800 OPS is worth putting up with recent versions of Griffey in CF or Keppinger at SS.

Games are lost/won on individual days, but we also know that we can take the players seasonal values on a team, add them up, and get the teams wins. That shows us that it all matters at the end of the season. Brandon Phillips may be below average against RHP's, but the guy is basically Albert Pujols vs lefties. It evens out.

mth123
02-28-2010, 07:35 PM
Games are lost/won on individual days, but we also know that we can take the players seasonal values on a team, add them up, and get the teams wins. That shows us that it all matters at the end of the season. Brandon Phillips may be below average against RHP's, but the guy is basically Albert Pujols vs lefties. It evens out.

Oversimplified interpretation of stats IMO. Results don't adhere to a normal distribution which makes applying the overall average a slippery slope. We can pretend that a guy with extreme splits like Phillips normally performs as the overall average would indicate, but on the field the guy is an MVP caliber player vs. LHP and barely average or possibly below when a RHP is on the mound. No player is distributed perfectly, but extreme splits in guys like Phillips and Dickerson suggest that its like two totally different guys out there depending on who is pitching and the one playing 2B against RHP is not above average. Since the team plays against RHP about 70% of the time, I don't agree that "it evens out" in his case.

edabbs44
02-28-2010, 07:41 PM
Runs are runs. Scored or prevented, they're worth the same. Your teammates skills and abilities don't affect the value of your's.


Value is value. It doesn't matter how you get it as long as you wind up at the same value. Nyjer Morgan and his .757 OPS was more valuable than Ryan Braun and his .937 OPS last year. They went about getting their value in a very different way, but were extremely similar in terms of value.

So if someone gave you a choice between obtaining 2009 Nyjer Morgan and 2009 Ryan Braun for zero cost for this year's Cincy team, you'd take Morgan?

There is no way that the 2010 Reds would be better with Morgan than Braun.

TheNext44
02-28-2010, 08:12 PM
So if someone gave you a choice between obtaining 2009 Nyjer Morgan and 2009 Ryan Braun for zero cost for this year's Cincy team, you'd take Morgan?

There is no way that the 2009 Reds would be better with Morgan than Braun.

First, Morgan had a great year last year. He it .307/.369/388 with 42 steals at a 71% rate, in just 120 games. That's solid .340 wOBA production offensively. But he was outstanding with the glove, putting up a 27.8 UZR for a 35.8 UZR/150. That's beyond impressive, it's almost too good to believe.

But I think the key to who would help the Reds better is who would they replace? If getting Braun meant keeping Taveras and he replaces Gomes/Dickerson in LF, I'd rather have Morgan replace Taveras and keep Gomes/Dickerson. But if getting Braun meant moving Dickerson to CF and replacing Taveras, I'd rather have Braun over Morgan, since the Reds needed a power threat in the lineup more than a leadoff guy.

But either way, Morgan had a great year last year, so great, it's highly doubtful he'll come close to repeating it.

pahster
02-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Oversimplified interpretation of stats IMO. Results don't adhere to a normal distribution which makes applying the overall average a slippery slope. We can pretend that a guy with extreme splits like Phillips normally performs as the overall average would indicate, but on the field the guy is an MVP caliber player vs. LHP and barely average or possibly below when a RHP is on the mound. No player is distributed perfectly, but extreme splits in guys like Phillips and Dickerson suggest that its like two totally different guys out there depending on who is pitching and the one playing 2B against RHP is not above average. Since the team plays against RHP about 70% of the time, I don't agree that "it evens out" in his case.

Statistics don't have to be distributed normally for averages to be meaningful. If they did, averages would never tell us anything since nothing has a real normal distribution.

mth123
02-28-2010, 08:44 PM
Statistics don't have to be distributed normally for averages to be meaningful. If they did, averages would never tell us anything since nothing has a real normal distribution.

Agree its never normal. But it isn't normally as extreme as some one like Phillips or Dickerson. Phillips isn't a .775 to .800 OPS bat when a RHP is on the mound. He's significantly worse. He's also a lot better when a LHP is on the mound. 70% of the time he's not as good as his overall numbers suggest.

jojo
02-28-2010, 09:41 PM
Agree its never normal. But it isn't normally as extreme as some one like Phillips or Dickerson. Phillips isn't a .775 to .800 OPS bat when a RHP is on the mound. He's significantly worse. He's also a lot better when a LHP is on the mound. 70% of the time he's not as good as his overall numbers suggest.

70% of the time, Phillips is a slightly below average player.... 30% of the time he's a borderline elite player.....

mth123
02-28-2010, 09:50 PM
70% of the time, Phillips is a slightly below average player.... 30% of the time he's a borderline elite player.....

Agree. That has been my point all along.

Spring~Fields
02-28-2010, 11:13 PM
Oversimplified interpretation of stats IMO. Results don't adhere to a normal distribution which makes applying the overall average a slippery slope. We can pretend that a guy with extreme splits like Phillips normally performs as the overall average would indicate, but on the field the guy is an MVP caliber player vs. LHP and barely average or possibly below when a RHP is on the mound. No player is distributed perfectly, but extreme splits in guys like Phillips and Dickerson suggest that its like two totally different guys out there depending on who is pitching and the one playing 2B against RHP is not above average. Since the team plays against RHP about 70% of the time, I don't agree that "it evens out" in his case.

:thumbup:

TheNext44
03-01-2010, 01:54 AM
Agree its never normal. But it isn't normally as extreme as some one like Phillips or Dickerson. Phillips isn't a .775 to .800 OPS bat when a RHP is on the mound. He's significantly worse. He's also a lot better when a LHP is on the mound. 70% of the time he's not as good as his overall numbers suggest.

The only reason why one should worry about a player with extreme splits, is if his "bad" splits are so bad that he is hurting the teams chances of winning in individual games in those games. But that is nearly impossible, since the game a team sport, where on individual batter rarely decides a game one way or the other.

Or to put it another way, in those 45 of games in which he is near elite, if he were to put up his "bad" numbers, and all other players would stay the same, the team would probably only lose 1 more game. And if he were to put up his elite numbers in 105 games where his has put up his "bad" numbers, and everyone else stayed the same, the team would only win probably 2 more games.

This is because one batter only accounts for around 2.7% of a team's chance to win. So when Phillips plays against a RHP, that 35 points of OPS that he is losing from his season average, has very little effect on the team's ability to win that game. The only way to measure the effect it has on the team's ability to win, is to average it out over all games against a RHP. And if you do that, then you have to average out the effect his ability to hit LHP has on the team's ability to win when they play against them. Or to be more accurate, average out the effect his play has on all the games, which is what we do.

And one other way to look at it, is to notice that he rarely bats the entire game against RHP, when a RHP starts, and the same for a LHP. So the difference between his ability to hit RHP vs LHP is almost impossible to measure on a game by game basis.

Spring~Fields
03-01-2010, 04:38 AM
This is because one batter only accounts for around 2.7% of a team's chance to win. So when Phillips plays against a RHP, that 35 points of OPS that he is losing from his season average, has very little effect on the team's ability to win that game. The only way to measure the effect it has on the team's ability to win, is to average it out over all games against a RHP. And if you do that, then you have to average out the effect his ability to hit LHP has on the team's ability to win when they play against them. Or to be more accurate, average out the effect his play has on all the games, which is what we do.

And one other way to look at it, is to notice that he rarely bats the entire game against RHP, when a RHP starts, and the same for a LHP. So the difference between his ability to hit RHP vs LHP is almost impossible to measure on a game by game basis.

Since by a wide margin the majority of AB or PA is against right handed pitching. How are we or how are you to respond to the following? Just arbitrarily dismiss it?

How much does it effect a teams chances to score runs against right handed pitching if several of the players have reduced performances against that right handed pitching, compounded by giving the lower OBP players the most PA and AB in the one and two slots in front of those players who are suppose to be able to drive in those that get on base perhaps fewer times than some of the other players might?

What happens when 3 of the first four are poor against right handed pitching and 3 of those four get more AB/PA X 162 games?

09 Phillips had 438 AB against right handed pitching, and 146 AB against left handed pitching. Assuming that happens in the 1, 2 and 4 slot throughout 162 games. Now what is the lost opportunity, and or lost scoring chances?

How many one or two run games does that lose on the season? 3 ? 4 ? 5 ? 6 ? 8 ? 10?
2009 Cincinnati 78 wins 84 losses .481 win pct. Runs scored 673 Runs allowed 723


Cincinnati Reds Splits - 2009
GP AB H BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
vs. Left 119 1346 350 121 296 .260 .324 .398 .722
vs. Right 162 4116 999 410 833 .243 .316 .393 .708


2,770 more AB against RH than against LH



D. Stubbs vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 138 .261 .320 .420 .740 42 .286 .333 .500 .833
AB Total 138 42

Cabrera vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 457 .289 .311 .400 .711 199 .271 .327 .362 .689
2008 496 .284 .327 .361 .688 165 .273 .354 .400 .754
2007 505 .299 .339 .376 .715 133 .308 .369 .474 .843

J. Votto vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 326 .319 .419 .583 1.002 143 .329 .400 .531 .931
2008 355 .299 .370 .510 .880 171 .292 .365 .497 .862
2007 58 .345 .387 .638 1.025 26 .269 .296 .346 .642
AB Total 739 340

B. Phillips vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 438 .267 .324 .416 .740 146 .301 .342 .541 .883
2008 397 .247 .293 .383 .676 162 .296 .358 .586 .944
2007 442 .262 .310 .428 .738 208 .341 .378 .606 .984
2006 399 .268 .315 .429 .744 137 .299 .351 .423 .774
AB Total 1676 653

S. Rolen vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 360 .283 .338 .411 .749 115 .374 .459 .591 1.050
2008 308 .266 .342 .445 .787 100 .250 .370 .390 .760
2007 289 .287 .341 .429 .770 103 .204 .306 .311 .617
2006 378 .310 .381 .540 .921 143 .259 .335 .462 .797
AB Total 1335 461

J. Bruce vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 245 .229 .299 .527 .826 100 .210 .313 .330 .643
2008 276 .286 .340 .529 .869 137 .190 .263 .299 .562
AB Total 521 237

J. Gomes vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 180 .244 .320 .539 .859 101 .307 .369 .545 .914
2008 55 .182 .286 .309 .595 99 .182 .281 .424 .705
2007 252 .218 .302 .429 .731 96 .313 .376 .542 .918
2006 284 .187 .282 .366 .648 101 .297 .438 .614 1.052
AB Total 771 397

R. Hernandez vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 207 .246 .332 .348 .680 80 .288 .348 .400 .748
2008 318 .245 .305 .421 .726 145 .283 .316 .372 .688
2007 268 .261 .334 .366 .700 96 .250 .327 .427 .754
2006 374 .270 .324 .444 .768 127 .291 .393 .583 .976
AB Total 1167 448

Alternatives
R. Hanigan vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 196 .255 .355 .321 .676 55 .291 .381 .364 .745
2008 47 .298 .421 .383 .804 38 .237 .293 .342 .635
AB Total 243 93

C. Dickerson vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 218 .280 .378 .385 .763 37 .243 .326 .297 .623
2008 81 .309 .411 .654 1.065 21 .286 .423 .429 .852
AB Total 299 58

W. Balentien vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 186 .263 .333 .425 .758 79 .218 .274 .346 .620
2008 165 .194 .239 .339 .578 78 .194 .239 .339 .578
AB Total 351 157

L. Nix vs. Right vs. Left
AB AVG OBP SLG OPS AB AVG OBP SLG OPS
2009 277 .249 .300 .502 .802 32 .156 .206 .250 .456
AB Total 277 32


Yet a certain manager is concerned with what might happen if he put a couple left handed bats back to back in late innings, while he is apparently void of any concern about what his poor hitting right handed bats will do against right handed pitching from the start of the game until the end. And an unproven rookie at leadoff?

How do you reconcile such as that? Since it is about scoring chances and opportunities, how many one or two run games might that cost the Reds on the season?

Plug in your stats against right handed pitching in that simulator, and adjust accordingly for the large AB differences, then see how many runs the Reds score on the season by it, Bakermetrics. Tell us how much it matters then. :) In those games that are won by only one or two runs over the entire season.

mth123
03-01-2010, 06:12 AM
The only reason why one should worry about a player with extreme splits, is if his "bad" splits are so bad that he is hurting the teams chances of winning in individual games in those games. But that is nearly impossible, since the game a team sport, where on individual batter rarely decides a game one way or the other.

Or to put it another way, in those 45 of games in which he is near elite, if he were to put up his "bad" numbers, and all other players would stay the same, the team would probably only lose 1 more game. And if he were to put up his elite numbers in 105 games where his has put up his "bad" numbers, and everyone else stayed the same, the team would only win probably 2 more games.

This is because one batter only accounts for around 2.7% of a team's chance to win. So when Phillips plays against a RHP, that 35 points of OPS that he is losing from his season average, has very little effect on the team's ability to win that game. The only way to measure the effect it has on the team's ability to win, is to average it out over all games against a RHP. And if you do that, then you have to average out the effect his ability to hit LHP has on the team's ability to win when they play against them. Or to be more accurate, average out the effect his play has on all the games, which is what we do.

And one other way to look at it, is to notice that he rarely bats the entire game against RHP, when a RHP starts, and the same for a LHP. So the difference between his ability to hit RHP vs LHP is almost impossible to measure on a game by game basis.

Disagree. While its true that all 25 guys contribute, its the team's main men who drive the team to winning, losing or mediocrity. Phillips, with Votto, Rolen and Bruce, is one of the main men on this team as far as position players go. These guys account for a lot more than 2.7% each on what this team ends up doing. These are the guys who need to make-up for the weaknesses of the players in the other spots. When he becomes below average himself, it becomes very difficult to offset the weaknesses that the team has in the OF, SS and C.

CesarGeronimo
03-01-2010, 01:56 PM
From C. Trent:

* Baker was also asked about Chris Dickerson's comments to me the other day about feeling like he's not getting an opportuntity in centerfield.

"He had the job before Stubbs. He's in the running, he's going to play. But you can't take away what Stubbs did at the end of the year last year. You can be disappointed all you want to, but he allowed Stubbs to get his foot in the door.

"The performance and injuries. It happens. Sometimes you've got to wait for your next opportunity. What did Stubbs do, hit eight home runs in probably half the at-bats Dickerson had, what did Dickerson have, two? Reality's reality.

"He was disappointed he didn't play against left-handers last year. I have a guy who hits left-handers pretty good in Jonny Gomes. ... Jonny hit 20 home runs and in our ballpark we need some sock. Everyone plays, but you can't play everybody at the same time, but everyone's going to play. Nixy did a good job too. What he hit, 14? They all bring something different to the table on a given day for what we're going to need. I told Dick last year, the reason was to keep you healthy and still didn't work.

"Nobody said he wasn't in the running. Maybe he feels that...

"You can't discount what Stubbs did that last month, but you don't know if he's going to do it again, but you can't discount what he's already done. Dick, I mean, he was there before Stubbs even got to the organization, wasn't he?

"We've got to see what adjustments they make to Stubbs, just like what adjustments they made to Jay Bruce."

http://cnati.com/blogs/ctrent/

This is good stuff. I want to see more nicknames like this and I definitely want to see both of these guys playing in CF. As much as I enjoyed Corey Patterson and Willy Taveras the past two seasons, I can hardly wait for a Stub-Dick platoon.

Mario-Rijo
03-01-2010, 10:15 PM
70% of the time, Phillips is a slightly below average player.... 30% of the time he's a borderline elite player.....

I wouldn't characterize a .700 OPS and elite defense as below average at all be it slightly or else, but I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why you think this. Not to mention I think he runs the bases better than most do, although he does tend to take some unecc. risks now and then.

BTW for Mth BP does contribute offensively against RHP, it's not as if he is OPSing .000 against them. And with his defense you can't take him off the field although I would agree to move him down in the order.

mth123
03-02-2010, 03:03 AM
I wouldn't characterize a .700 OPS and elite defense as below average at all be it slightly or else, but I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why you think this. Not to mention I think he runs the bases better than most do, although he does tend to take some unecc. risks now and then.

BTW for Mth BP does contribute offensively against RHP, it's not as if he is OPSing .000 against them. And with his defense you can't take him off the field although I would agree to move him down in the order.

I wouldn't take him out either. But he's not a guy that can carry an offense and against RHP puts the team farther in a hole offensively. With the catchers likely to be poor offensive players, mediocrity at best at SS (probably below average as well), and probably around average at 3B, the case is pretty compelling for going with some offense in the OF. Stubbs is likely to be a poor offensive player vs RHP. The team doesn't have enough bats to carry him. Against RHP, where the team needs it most, Dickerson could be a decent top of the order tablesetter and it would open LF for a bigger bat. If you want to go with the defensive duo of Dickerson in LF and Stubbs in CF, then the team needs more offense from other positions and Phillips splits are a big reason why they don't have it vs. RHP.

kpresidente
03-02-2010, 07:32 AM
There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.

Agreed. I think a lot of people mix up the idea that almost anybody can play LF adequately, with the idea that LF is not important. It may not take any special skills, but a lot of balls get hit out there, which means there's a lot of opportunity to make/lose outs.

jojo
03-02-2010, 10:25 AM
I wouldn't characterize a .700 OPS and elite defense as below average at all be it slightly or else, but I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why you think this. Not to mention I think he runs the bases better than most do, although he does tend to take some unecc. risks now and then.

BTW for Mth BP does contribute offensively against RHP, it's not as if he is OPSing .000 against them. And with his defense you can't take him off the field although I would agree to move him down in the order.

It's derived from his splits. He has a career wOBA of .305 versus righties (over 2070 PAs)..

That performance over a full season (600 PAs) equates to a bat worth -13 runs (versus an average bat). He's roughly a +7 defender and he'd get +20 for the difference between average and replacement and +2.5 for playing second so he'd be something like a 1.7 Win player if only facing righties assuming his career splits capture his true talent level. A 1.5 Win player over a full season is basically a marginal starter while a 2 Win player is basically average....

reds44
03-03-2010, 05:01 AM
MLB left fielders had an average OPS of .785 last season. With average defense. If Heisey or Dickerson can OPS .780 and have above average defense, they are more than mediocre in left field. If Frazier can OPS .800 in left field he is very likely more than mediocre in left field.

The Reds don't have a problem with mediocrity in left field. Mediocrity is never a problem anyways. Its bad that is a problem and I can't find a single spot on the field that looks like its going to be bad for the Reds. Not left, not center, not catcher and not shortstop.

There is some false idea floating around that all left fielders mash the ball and that you can only be a good left fielder if you OPS .900. Carl Crawford and Nyjer Morgan were the 2nd and 3rd most valuable left fielders in baseball last season. They had an .817 and 757 OPS last season. If you can play defense, then you can be extremely valuable in left field without an .875 OPS bat.
And this is where measuring the value of defense gets lost with me. There is no way somebody is going to convince me that Nyjer Morgan was one of the best left fielders in baseball last year. There are people out there who know a lot more about baseball than I do, and doug you are one of them, but I just refuse to believe believe that's true.



First, Morgan had a great year last year. He it .307/.369/388 with 42 steals at a 71% rate, in just 120 games. That's solid .340 wOBA production offensively. But he was outstanding with the glove, putting up a 27.8 UZR for a 35.8 UZR/150. That's beyond impressive, it's almost too good to believe.

But I think the key to who would help the Reds better is who would they replace? If getting Braun meant keeping Taveras and he replaces Gomes/Dickerson in LF, I'd rather have Morgan replace Taveras and keep Gomes/Dickerson. But if getting Braun meant moving Dickerson to CF and replacing Taveras, I'd rather have Braun over Morgan, since the Reds needed a power threat in the lineup more than a leadoff guy.

But either way, Morgan had a great year last year, so great, it's highly doubtful he'll come close to repeating it.

Same goes for this point. At no point, will anybody ever convince me that the Reds should have Nyjer Morgan over Ryan Braun, ever. This, IMO, is where combining "the eye test" and stats has to meet somewhere in the middle.

camisadelgolf
03-03-2010, 08:47 AM
And this is where measuring the value of defense gets lost with me. There is no way somebody is going to convince me that Nyjer Morgan was one of the best left fielders in baseball last year. There are people out there who know a lot more about baseball than I do, and doug you are one of them, but I just refuse to believe believe that's true.


Same goes for this point. At no point, will anybody ever convince me that the Reds should have Nyjer Morgan over Ryan Braun, ever. This, IMO, is where combining "the eye test" and stats has to meet somewhere in the middle.
Even though I don't think anyone is saying they'd rather have Nyjer Morgan over Ryan Bruan, I agree with your point, so I thought I'd add my two cents.

A.) Morgan played only center field while in Washington. In left field, Morgan started only 61 games, which is way too small of a sample size to accurately judge his defense with the best metrics out there.

B.) For most of Morgan's games in left field, Nate McLouth was the center fielder. McLouth isn't exactly the speediest center fielder, and I think he would've caught a lot of the balls Nyjer Morgan ended up getting to, which hurt McLouth's supposed range and helped Morgan's supposed range.

C.) Morgan's OPS as a left fielder was barely more than .700. He was also only 18 of 28 in his steal attempts. If he had had a .757 OPS in left field, I might buy that he was nearly as valuable as Braun in left field, but I don't see any possible way that his defense was good enough to make up for the .220 difference in OPS.

Defensively, Bruan isn't even half as bad as Adam Dunn in left field, and people want to tell me that the league's hit leader was equally as good as Nyjer Morgan in left field? Come on.

bucksfan2
03-03-2010, 10:19 AM
And this is where measuring the value of defense gets lost with me. There is no way somebody is going to convince me that Nyjer Morgan was one of the best left fielders in baseball last year. There are people out there who know a lot more about baseball than I do, and doug you are one of them, but I just refuse to believe believe that's true.

Same goes for this point. At no point, will anybody ever convince me that the Reds should have Nyjer Morgan over Ryan Braun, ever. This, IMO, is where combining "the eye test" and stats has to meet somewhere in the middle.

I think defense has become more over rated recently. And I think this highlights some of the flaws in the valuation of defensive ratings. I agree with you that no matter how good Morgan's defense is, there is no way I would want him over Ryan Braun.

I get the whole one run saved is the same thing as one run scored. I also saw the new moneyball is defense (haven't read the SI article yet). But I think that the difference between good and bad defensive players isn't as great as the difference between good and bad offensive players. I think even more so when you consider non premium defensive positions.

edabbs44
03-03-2010, 10:38 AM
I think defense has become more over rated recently. And I think this highlights some of the flaws in the valuation of defensive ratings. I agree with you that no matter how good Morgan's defense is, there is no way I would want him over Ryan Braun.

I get the whole one run saved is the same thing as one run scored. I also saw the new moneyball is defense (haven't read the SI article yet). But I think that the difference between good and bad defensive players isn't as great as the difference between good and bad offensive players. I think even more so when you consider non premium defensive positions.

I also think everyone is in such a rush to get every part of this game quantified that they don't care if it makes sense or not. Some entity puts together a metric for defense and, BAM!, it's the gold standard.

I'm sure that even if Theo and Beane conceived the most "brilliant" offspring in the world and that hybrid genius was given a choice, they would take Braun in a nanosecond.

nate
03-03-2010, 10:59 AM
I think defense has become more over rated recently. And I think this highlights some of the flaws in the valuation of defensive ratings. I agree with you that no matter how good Morgan's defense is, there is no way I would want him over Ryan Braun.

I think clubs are starting to value defense much more.


I get the whole one run saved is the same thing as one run scored. I also saw the new moneyball is defense (haven't read the SI article yet). But I think that the difference between good and bad defensive players isn't as great as the difference between good and bad offensive players. I think even more so when you consider non premium defensive positions.

Some say the run saved is worth more than the run scored.

jojo
03-03-2010, 11:09 AM
There is a difference between a player's true skill level (i.e. the reasonable level of production to expect from a player going forward) and the level of production they put up in a certain narrow time frame. We also know that the error bars associated with a single season of defensive data can make using just that data set as an estimate of value less accurate (i.e. the gap between Morgan's and Braun's true defensive skill level may not have been accurately captured by looking solely at 2009----though I buy that Morgan has a pretty large advantage in this respect with the difference possibly being as high as 15 to 20 runs).

The argument seems to be that Morgan and Braun were similarly valuable during the 2009 season. I don't think many people are arguing that Morgan is a good bet to be consistently more valuable than Braun going forward.

All of that said, Morgan can be an above average player as a leftfielder. Like Randy Winn, he's a nice player and one that will likely tend to be undervalued.

gonelong
03-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Some say the run saved is worth more than the run scored.

If we are talking SS, sure. If we are talking LF alone, not so much. I think it depends on the balance of the team in question, but I could subscribe to this notion if it is a high volume defensive position(s).

Runs saved lead to fewer pitches, fewer pitching changes, etc. This has a longer-term cumulative effect on your rotation and bull-pen IMO that a run scored does not (IMHO). The extra run scored on the opposing team affects their pitching staff, but your team probably doesn't get to capitalize on it in a short series ... somebody else does down the line.

It could be argued that a run scored can help keep your pitcher in the game, but I think there is a cap in place to that affect with pitch counts and the use of setup men and closers.

GL

nate
03-03-2010, 12:33 PM
If we are talking SS, sure. If we are talking LF alone, not so much. I think it depends on the balance of the team in question, but I could subscribe to this notion if it is a high volume defensive position(s).

It's one theory.

I don't believe that runs saved at one position are more valuable than those saved at other positions. I think they're equally valuable.


Runs saved lead to fewer pitches, fewer pitching changes, etc. This has a longer-term cumulative effect on your rotation and bull-pen IMO that a run scored does not (IMHO). The extra run scored on the opposing team affects their pitching staff, but your team probably doesn't get to capitalize on it in a short series ... somebody else does down the line.

It could be argued that a run scored can help keep your pitcher in the game, but I think there is a cap in place to that affect with pitch counts and the use of setup men and closers.

GL

I don't remember the exact study saying prevented runs are worth more than scored runs, nor am I saying I believe in it. I'm just saying that it seems MLB clubs are placing higher value on defense these days.

edabbs44
03-03-2010, 12:35 PM
I don't remember the exact study saying prevented runs are worth more than scored runs, nor am I saying I believe in it. I'm just saying that it seems MLB clubs are placing higher value on defense these days.

That's a given, but I think the main point is that these metrics are maybe putting a little too much emphasis on defense or that the metric itself is flawed.

bucksfan2
03-03-2010, 01:50 PM
That's a given, but I think the main point is that these metrics are maybe putting a little too much emphasis on defense or that the metric itself is flawed.

Yep. I can't buy any method that places Ryan Braun and Nyger Morgan as equally productive.

I understand that defense is an important facet of the game that the Reds have largely ignored until the past few years. But I also think defensive value has been taken to a new high. I don't discount defense, I just think its much easier to find no hit good glove defenders anywhere in the minors. At the same time it is much more difficult to find great hitters.

RedsManRick
03-03-2010, 01:56 PM
And this is where measuring the value of defense gets lost with me. There is no way somebody is going to convince me that Nyjer Morgan was one of the best left fielders in baseball last year. There are people out there who know a lot more about baseball than I do, and doug you are one of them, but I just refuse to believe believe that's true.

Same goes for this point. At no point, will anybody ever convince me that the Reds should have Nyjer Morgan over Ryan Braun, ever. This, IMO, is where combining "the eye test" and stats has to meet somewhere in the middle.

Define "best". I think this is where the sides are divided. The sabermetric approach converts everything in to runs, adds it all up, and viola, there's your assessment.

The intuitive approach does something similar but without the numbers. And because our intuition tells us that offense should matter more than defense and that the differences between players offensively is much bigger than the difference between them defensively, we find it nearly impossible to swallow the idea that Morgan could be more productive than Braun.

And it probably comes largely down to defense: those who aren't keen on these types of comparisons probably refuse to believe that Morgan (or anybody else) could possibly 30 runs better than Braun defensively. If you deny this possibility, then the aforementioned conclusion is impossible to reach.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:07 PM
People who rag on the variability in defensive numbers forget that there is a large thing at play too. Luck. Just like on offense, sometimes you just hit it where they are or where they are not. However do we say that a guy didn't really hit .300/.365/.500 because he had a .385 BABIP and isn't likely to repeat it? Of course not, the guy did do it. It may not mean he is going to do it again next year, but for that season, he did it and it was his value. As jojo noted above, the defensive difference between Morgan and Braun may not be as large going forward for different reasons, but last year, that is what it was.

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:09 PM
Define "best". I think this is where the sides are divided. The sabermetric approach converts everything in to runs, adds it all up, and viola, there's your assessment.

The intuitive approach does something similar but without the numbers. And because our intuition tells us that offense should matter more than defense and that the differences between players offensively is much bigger than the difference between them defensively, we find it nearly impossible to swallow the idea that Morgan could be more productive than Braun.

And it probably comes largely down to defense: those who aren't keen on these types of comparisons probably refuse to believe that Morgan (or anybody else) could possibly 30 runs better than Braun defensively. If you deny this possibility, then the aforementioned conclusion is impossible to reach.

The reason people find it "impossible to swallow" is because it is not true or even close to accurate. Nyjer Morgan is not a more productive LF than Ryan Braun. The defensive metrics are fine when comparing defense to defense but when you are using run differential from the defensive metrics and comparing them to the offensive metrics then the defense is overstated. No winning GM in their right mind would rather have Morgan than Braun in LF, even at their current salaries. It's just mythical.

I thought this thread was about Dickerson anyway? Who knew it was about defensive metrics....again...:rolleyes:

Bum

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:18 PM
The defensive metrics are fine when comparing defense to defense but when you are using run differential from the defensive metrics and comparing them to the offensive metrics then the defense is overstated.

Bum
Care to explain how you come to this conclusion?

Basically you are suggesting that a single that a player hits can be valued, but a single that a player takes away can't be. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

jojo
03-03-2010, 02:21 PM
The reason people find it "impossible to swallow" is because it is not true or even close to accurate.

Except over the course of last year it was....

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Care to explain how you come to this conclusion?

Basically you are suggesting that a single that a player hits can be valued, but a single that a player takes away can't be. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Where did I say that? I said the taking away of a hit now and then is being overvalued when compared to offensive production.

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Except over the course of last year it was....

It may happen over short periods, like a week or two, but not for a full season, not Morgan vs. Braun anyway.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:31 PM
Where did I say that? I said the taking away of a hit now and then is being overvalued when compared to offensive production.
Well defensive values are based the same way that offensive values are, by the value of hits and outs. If we can put a value on hits and outs for hitters, then shouldn't we also be able to do so on fielders using the same values? If so, then defensive values aren't being overvalued when compared to offensive production because they are based on the same values.

jojo
03-03-2010, 02:31 PM
Where did I say that? I said the taking away of a hit now and then is being overvalued when compared to offensive production.

Or is it that offensive production is devalued by taking away a hit?

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:36 PM
Well defensive values are based the same way that offensive values are, by the value of hits and outs. If we can put a value on hits and outs for hitters, then shouldn't we also be able to do so on fielders using the same values? If so, then defensive values aren't being overvalued when compared to offensive production because they are based on the same values.

I agree that one should be able to do it. I don't believe that they have refined a way that makes comparing runs saved vs runs produced an accurate comparison. But if I was a GM, I would certainly trade you the Nyjer Morgan from last year for the Ryan Braun from last year.

How about creating a special forum where y'all can discuss defensive metrics all day instead of changing every topic to a discussion of defensive metrics?????

Bum

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:40 PM
I agree that one should be able to do it. I don't believe that they have refined a way that makes comparing runs saved vs runs produced an accurate comparison. But if I was a GM, I would certainly trade you the Nyjer Morgan from last year for the Ryan Braun from last year.

How about creating a special forum where y'all can discuss defensive metrics all day instead of changing every topic to a discussion of defensive metrics?????

Bum

Probably because if we get into a discussion about the value of a player we need to discuss that value and its derived from his offensive and defensive production? Well that and 'we' don't have the power to create a forum.

And like noted, simply because someone is more valuable in a 1 year stretch doesn't mean they will be moving forward. I would trade Morgan for Braun as well, but that doesn't mean he had the better season last year, just that I think he will going forward.

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Probably because if we get into a discussion about the value of a player we need to discuss that value and its derived from his offensive and defensive production? Well that and 'we' don't have the power to create a forum.

And yet I don't see any discussion of Dickerson in the last few pages...

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:46 PM
And yet I don't see any discussion of Dickerson in the last few pages...

The Nyjer Morgan comment actually stemmed from Dickerson discussion as certain posters were suggesting some players, like Dickerson, can't hit enough to justify playing them in left field. I used Morgan as an example that indeed he could be justified playing in left field with a sub .825 OPS bat as long as he played above average defense.

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 02:49 PM
The Nyjer Morgan comment actually stemmed from Dickerson discussion as certain posters were suggesting some players, like Dickerson, can't hit enough to justify playing them in left field. I used Morgan as an example that indeed he could be justified playing in left field with a sub .825 OPS bat as long as he played above average defense.

I agree that Dickerson is a good option for LF.

As for defensive metrics: like Lemmings going over the cliff every year IMHO. :D
The new fad in baseball statistics...still not buying it the way it is being sold.

bucksfan2
03-03-2010, 02:50 PM
Well defensive values are based the same way that offensive values are, by the value of hits and outs. If we can put a value on hits and outs for hitters, then shouldn't we also be able to do so on fielders using the same values? If so, then defensive values aren't being overvalued when compared to offensive production because they are based on the same values.

The basis premises behind offensive stats are black and white. A hit is a hit, an out is an out, the only gray area comes about from errors.

When you take a look at defensive metrics they become increasingly subjective. Even as they get better they are subjective. Should a defender have gotten that or not? Was that in his zone or not? Too much is derived from subjectivity for me and then when that gets weighted equally to offense I lose faith in that measure.

Another point for me is I think its much easier to find good defensive players. You can probably look in the Reds minor league organization and find a handful of plus left field defenders. Heck I would venture to say that you could put a Yorman Rodriguez defensively in LF tomorrow and he would be above average. (granted his bat isn't anywhere near ready but that isn't the point). Guys who are good hitters are much rarer and harder to find. You won't find too many minor league players who have major league ready bats.

I have a feeling that defensive stats will become the new "in metric". And IMO right now defensive stats are flawed and in this case over valued.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:54 PM
It is much easier to find good defensive players, but can they be good enough to justify a terrible bat? Just because you can put a center fielder in left doesn't mean they can hit good enough to justify the move.

westofyou
03-03-2010, 02:56 PM
Shake a tree and 20 gloves fall out and only 2 bats

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:02 PM
Shake a tree and 20 gloves fall out and only 2 bats

You always say this, but it avoids how bad the 20 glove guys hit (or how good) and how bad (or good) the 2 hit guys field (or even where they play on the diamond).

TheNext44
03-03-2010, 03:08 PM
In understanding the new defensive stats, it's important to remember that one season's worth of data is worth about 1/3 of a full season of offensive data, and probably less than that for LF. This is because a LF gets around 1/3 as any defensive chances in a season as he does PA's.

So, we get anomalies, like Morgan posting a 35.8 UZR/150 in 2009. That basically is like a guy putting up a 1.250 OPS all season. It's hard to believe that it can be done, but not so hard to believe that it can be done over a 50 game stretch.

So, Morgan's production in 2009 is pumped up because he had a great defensive streak in 2009, that most likely will get evened out over the next few years. But it doesn't mean that that production didn't happen, just like it doesn't mean that a hitters hot 50 game streak didn't happen.

Bumstead
03-03-2010, 03:15 PM
In understanding the new defensive stats, it's important to remember that one season's worth of data is worth about 1/3 of a full season of offensive data, and probably less than that for LF. This is because a LF gets around 1/3 as any defensive chances in a season as he does PA's.

So, we get anomalies, like Morgan posting a 35.8 UZR/150 in 2009. That basically is like a guy putting up a 1.250 OPS all season. It's hard to believe that it can be done, but not so hard to believe that it can be done over a 50 game stretch.

So, Morgan's production in 2009 is pumped up because he had a great defensive streak in 2009, that most likely will get evened out over the next few years. But it doesn't mean that that production didn't happen, just like it doesn't mean that a hitters hot 50 game streak didn't happen.

I guess we have changed the subject of this thread by creating a thread within a thread...but, alas, I will ask the question anyway: so, you would rather have Morgan for those 50 games than Braun for the same 50 games?

The Reds need to find GM's that want guys like Morgan over guys like Braun and make trades with these teams. Like selling swampland in Florida...I doubt that even the most sabermetric attached GM's would buy these "facts."

jojo
03-03-2010, 03:15 PM
You always say this, but it avoids how bad the 20 glove guys hit (or how good) and how bad (or good) the 2 hit guys field (or even where they play on the diamond).

Right..."shaking a tree" is called replacement level by "statheads".

westofyou
03-03-2010, 03:19 PM
You always say this, but it avoids how bad the 20 glove guys hit (or how good) and how bad (or good) the 2 hit guys field (or even where they play on the diamond).

Correct, it's not a full look at the subject, but it calls out the obvious (as does any perusal through the Baseball Encyclopedia) that hitting the ball is a harder skillset to find in MLB than a glove man.

Ron Madden
03-04-2010, 04:54 AM
Correct, it's not a full look at the subject, but it calls out the obvious (as does any perusal through the Baseball Encyclopedia) that hitting the ball is a harder skillset to find in MLB than a glove man.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The minor leagues are full of good defensive players. If they could hit they'd be in the major leagues.

reds44
03-04-2010, 05:27 AM
People who rag on the variability in defensive numbers forget that there is a large thing at play too. Luck. Just like on offense, sometimes you just hit it where they are or where they are not. However do we say that a guy didn't really hit .300/.365/.500 because he had a .385 BABIP and isn't likely to repeat it? Of course not, the guy did do it. It may not mean he is going to do it again next year, but for that season, he did it and it was his value. As jojo noted above, the defensive difference between Morgan and Braun may not be as large going forward for different reasons, but last year, that is what it was.
No, I just refuse to believe this, and it's something nobody will ever convince me out of. You can explain it all you want, but if you were to tell me they were going to post the same offensive and defensive numbers as they did last year, I'm still taking Braun 100 times out of 100.

Am I ignorant in saying this? Some may see at that way, but I just don't trust defensive metrics as much as others do.

He's the better player. He was last year, he'll be it again this year.

jojo
03-04-2010, 05:44 AM
Am I ignorant in saying this?

As long as a person has an open mind its virtually impossible to be ignorant.