PDA

View Full Version : Time for Heisey to be the everyday CF



Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2010, 11:55 PM
If Stubbs was a former 17th rounder and Heisey was a former first rounder, guess who would be the everyday CF right now. I think there's no question it would be Heisey. This is ridiculous. Why does Stubbs continue to get a free pass when there is a guy that has clearly outplayed him (albeit in a cameo role thus far) all season? Plus, you look at their minor league #'s last year and it's really a no-brainer for me.

However, Stubbs is a former first rounder, so he gets more than the benefit of the doubt from the Reds' brass. At least that is my take on it. If you are interested in minor details like "performance on the field" I think Heisey is clearly the man. Or at least deserves a week or two to show what he can do. What am I missing here?

alloverjr
06-30-2010, 12:07 AM
IMO I don't think where each was drafted has anything to do with who is playing more right now. Walt wasn't here to draft either and hence none are HIS guy. If he were I might tend to buy your argument. Frankly I see the Reds and Dusty ranking Stubbs higher defensively and potentially equal offensively and, speaking subjectively only, would bet that if each were given equal opportunity Stubbs would outplay Heisey easily as a defensive CF. I'm in no way enamored with Stubbs and think that they should have an eye out for an alternative for the position, but I don't think that kid is Chris.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 12:09 AM
Oh, I think Stubbs would out-play Heisey defensively (although Stubbs is overrated defensively IMO, he is still better than Heisey). However, Heisey is a MUCH better hitter than Stubbs IMO. That's what would make it an easy call for me.

dougdirt
06-30-2010, 12:15 AM
Oh, I think Stubbs would out-play Heisey defensively (although Stubbs is overrated defensively IMO, he is still better than Heisey). However, Heisey is a MUCH better hitter than Stubbs IMO. That's what would make it an easy call for me.

I am really curious as to what makes Heisey a MUCH better hitter than Stubbs? Is it his season at AA when he was 24? Or his cherry picked at bats in the majors against pitchers he could have success against when Stubbs has been facing everyone day in and day out?

Stubbs has been outhit by Heisey in the majors right now, but he also had 6 times as many plate appearances and has been playing every day. That is a little different than what Heisey has been doing.

reds44
06-30-2010, 12:17 AM
I am really curious as to what makes Heisey a MUCH better hitter than Stubbs? Is it his season at AA when he was 24? Or his cherry picked at bats in the majors against pitchers he could have success against when Stubbs has been facing everyone day in and day out?

Stubbs has been outhit by Heisey in the majors right now, but he also had 6 times as many plate appearances and has been playing every day. That is a little different than what Heisey has been doing.
Then start increasing Heisey's ABs until his numbers begin to drop.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 12:19 AM
I am really curious as to what makes Heisey a MUCH better hitter than Stubbs? Is it his season at AA when he was 24? Or his cherry picked at bats in the majors against pitchers he could have success against when Stubbs has been facing everyone day in and day out?

Stubbs has been outhit by Heisey in the majors right now, but he also had 6 times as many plate appearances and has been playing every day. That is a little different than what Heisey has been doing.

I agree it's a very small sample size and I would be saying the exact same thing if I was arguing the case for Stubbs. However, once again, would anyone have a problem with Heisey being given two full weeks to show what can do as the everyday CF? If so, why? I would personally love to see him get more ABs and then it would be clear that he's a much better hitter than Stubbs IMO.

And that one good minor league season is one more than Drew Stubbs ever had in the bushes.

dougdirt
06-30-2010, 12:21 AM
Then start increasing Heisey's ABs until his numbers begin to drop.

At what expense? Stubbs? Gomes? Bruce? Clearly the Reds believe that Heisey can't get it done better than the either of those three guys (though I would argue him over Gomes).

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 12:23 AM
At what expense? Stubbs? Gomes? Bruce? Clearly the Reds believe that Heisey can't get it done better than the either of those three guys (though I would argue him over Gomes).

Stubbs.

dougdirt
06-30-2010, 12:29 AM
I agree it's a very small sample size and I would be saying the exact same thing if I was arguing the case for Stubbs. However, once again, would anyone have a problem with Heisey being given two full weeks to show what can do as the everyday CF? If so, why? I would personally love to see him get more ABs and then it would be clear that he's a much better hitter than Stubbs IMO.

And that one good minor league season is one more than Drew Stubbs ever had in the bushes.

Because you don't sit a guy who isn't a problem for two weeks?

As for Heisey's AA season.... it was outstanding. But it means nothing in the scheme of things. His skillset and talent are what they are. I want to see Heisey get more playing time, but I don't think you bench someone who isn't hurting the team for a guy like Heisey who didn't beat the door down and push things. He has a really nice 60 plate appearances spread out over 2 months.

Spring~Fields
06-30-2010, 12:29 AM
I agree it's a very small sample size and I would be saying the exact same thing if I was arguing the case for Stubbs. However, once again, would anyone have a problem with Heisey being given two full weeks to show what can do as the everyday CF? If so, why? I would personally love to see him get more ABs and then it would be clear that he's a much better hitter than Stubbs IMO.

And that one good minor league season is one more than Drew Stubbs ever had in the bushes.

I know that the Reds have those three all time greats playing in the outfield for them, but, it is a little hard to grasp and accept that Heisey can’t get a reasonable amount of playing time. Would that much be lost if they got a day off here and there and Heisey picked up two or three extra playing days?

Sometimes it looks like someone is scared to let Heisey have a solid shot.

I know it gets really hot and humid at the GABP, maybe they need Stubbs bat to circulate the air. :) So Cabrera won't wilt as much.

Where have we seen fast centerfielders before that can't get on base?



Drew Stubbs TPA 285 .235 .313 .390 .704
Chris Heisey TPA 59 .280 .373 .600 .973

kbrake
06-30-2010, 12:43 AM
Yeah let's compare Stubbs to Taveras and Patterson that makes tons of sense. I'm supporting Stubbs now way more than I was at the beginning of the season. I can see making the case for more Heisey playing time over Gomes but I just don't get why everyone is down on Stubbs so much.

He dropped a ball he should have held onto but let's stop acting like it was an easy play. Rhodes got rocked plain and simple every ball hit off of him was a shot. I know though everyone loves to over react here. The season wasn't over after Atlanta and Stubbs isn't a bad CF because of tonight.

Spring~Fields
06-30-2010, 12:45 AM
Yeah let's compare Stubbs to Taveras and Patterson that makes tons of sense.

Are you making a comparison of Stubbs to them? I agree that stand alone statement makes no sense if you are. Because you would be the only one in the thread to be doing that.

Personally I can't see why anyone would be so infatuated with him. Might that be caused by a bit of SLG percentage and the love for the occasional HR

pedro
06-30-2010, 01:28 AM
I'd stick with Stubbs for now.

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 02:54 AM
Ahh, he'll break out of his slump again and then we'll want to change the title of this thread, just like the "Uncle" thread.

He's a rookie he's going to go through some tough periods at the plate, just like Bruce did. And if you think Heisey wouldn't then you're kidding yourself.

mth123
06-30-2010, 03:06 AM
I wouldn't bench Stubbs for Heiesey at this point, but I'd shed no tears if Stubbs was the centerpiece to a deal for a TOR arm and Heisey installed as his replacement. FWIW, I think Stubbs needs to improve. His defense is outstanding in spite of a couple ugly plays near the wall, but he needs to hit better IMO. I don't buy that his defense makes up for an OPS hovering in the high .600's to low .700's. League average in CF is up near or over .750 and I think it should be the standard for judging Stubbs as a success despite his defense.

As for Heisey, I'm kind of on the page that he'd be exposed if he played every day and would probably struggle himself with less defene than Stubbs. If Dickerson was healthy I'd think a Heisey/Dickerson combo (not a straight platoon, Heisey would play against some RH pitching) would be a decent situation. With Sappelt and Perez possibly coming in 2012 or so and Yorman maybe only a year or two behind, I think dealing Stubbs for the arm they need and letting Heisey/Dickerson hold the spot until some one takes it away makes a better team overall. If they could get the same arm for Heisey, I'd deal him and keep Stubbs, but the team should be open to sitting Stubbs a little more when Dickerson is healthy.

Boss-Hog
06-30-2010, 07:08 AM
Are you making a comparison of Stubbs to them? I agree that stand alone statement makes no sense if you are. Because you would be the only one in the thread to be doing that.
No, it was you only 15 minutes earlier:


Where have we seen fast centerfielders before that can't get on base?

RedEye
06-30-2010, 07:43 AM
Time for Heisey to be the everyday LF, I would say. Heisey-Stubbs-Bruce 2010!

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 07:48 AM
Time for Heisey to be the everyday LF, I would say. Heisey-Stubbs-Bruce 2010!

I would think that would be near the top of the league in outfield defense.

lollipopcurve
06-30-2010, 07:53 AM
There were whispers that Stubbs was tentative on balls around the wall. I think I've seen enough now to say that the whispers were true. In general, I think his defense is solid, but not elite.

hebroncougar
06-30-2010, 07:56 AM
I'd like some of what some of you are smoking. I'd play Heisey a couple times a week, but no way would I make him an every day player. For a guy that can't get on base at a clip more than .320 in AAA, and doesn't hold a candle to Stubbs defensively? Seriously? Relax people, there are growing pains with young players. Stubbs may never be all star caliber, but geeze, he's an elite defender who has a chance to put up Mike Cameron type numbers offensively IMO.

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 07:58 AM
There were whispers that Stubbs was tentative on balls around the wall. I think I've seen enough now to say that the whispers were true. In general, I think his defense is solid, but not elite.

Well there's a delicate technique to playing around the wall. It's between where Stubbs currently is and the way Ryan Freel played it. He can learn to play the wall, but his speed and instincts can't really be taught. I'd say that his defense is easily above "solid", maybe not elite yet, but close.

lollipopcurve
06-30-2010, 08:09 AM
He can learn to play the wall, but his speed and instincts can't really be taught.

Disagree. He may be able to improve around the wall, and he may not. It is an instinct, not a skill, and it is informed by fear. The problem is that those plays are "high leverage," with multiple bases at stake. He does have an advantage on balls hit very high that he can get to the wall and wait on, due to his height. BUt if he has to be moving toward the wall, he's shaky.

I think there's a little bit of denial going on re: Stubbs' defense. This is not the first time I've suggested his D is overrated here. He's great on a ceretain class of play -- a ball he can run down in the gap, with no risk of collision with the wall or the corner OF. Other than that, I see a CF who does not really stand out beyond the points he'd get for style.

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 08:15 AM
Disagree. He may be able to improve around the wall, and he may not. It is an instinct, not a skill, and it is informed by fear. The problem is that those plays are "high leverage," with multiple bases at stake. He does have an advantage on balls hit very high that he can get to the wall and wait on, due to his height. BUt if he has to be moving toward the wall, he's shaky.

I think there's a little bit of denial going on re: Stubbs' defense. This is not the first time I've suggested his D is overrated here. He's great on a ceretain class of play -- a ball he can run down in the gap, with no risk of collision with the wall or the corner OF. Other than that, I see a CF who does not really stand out beyond the points he'd get for style.

I think playing the wall is more comfort than anything else, knowing where you are. Some of that is instinctual, but it can be overcome with practice. I want him being careful around the wall, I really don't want to see him crashing into walls and going to the DL.

In terms of that ball last night. It was smoked. I think most CFers are playing the hop off of the wall.

Roy Tucker
06-30-2010, 08:24 AM
They let Bruce work it out last year and they'll let Stubbs work it out this year. I chafed at the bit last year while Bruce flailed around but it looks like patience was the best approach.

Heisey will just have to wait for an opportunity to present itself. Sometimes that's just how it goes.

flyer85
06-30-2010, 08:52 AM
Heisey needs to play more in both LF and CF. BTW, I read an article that discussed BABIP on groundballs. Gomes was near the top and the analyst believed that unlike Upton (last season had a high BABIP on GBs), Gomes and some others (Morneau for one) could not sustain it.

IMO Stubbs has value but Heisey needs to play more.

BTW, Stubbs has a UZR 150 of -11 this year after +22 last year. I know some love defensive metrics (especially UZR) but I have never read any good explanations what defensive metrics tend to bounce around so much. I don't believe Stubbs has lost ability as a CF, instead it causes me to question the validity of the metric.

flyer85
06-30-2010, 08:52 AM
They let Bruce work it out last year and they'll let Stubbs work it out this year.the difference is that Stubbs did not have the minor league pedigree of Bruce.

nate
06-30-2010, 09:01 AM
I know some love defensive metrics (especially UZR) but I have never read any good explanations what defensive metrics tend to bounce around so much. I don't believe Stubbs has lost ability as a CF, instead it causes me to question the validity of the metric.

It's explained here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/). Especially the "Sample Size and Reliability" and "Consistency from Year to Year" sections. Although, given that he doesn't even have a full season's worth of defensive innings and three defensive seasons are typically equal to one season's worth of offensive chances, I'd say it makes as much sense as a batting average that fluctuates from .000 to .400 over the course of two months.

Scrap Irony
06-30-2010, 09:05 AM
I wouldn't bench Stubbs for Heiesey at this point, but I'd shed no tears if Stubbs was the centerpiece to a deal for a TOR arm and Heisey installed as his replacement.

This. And, IMO, if Jocketty wants to make a splash, Stubbs is among his better trading chips.

Mario-Rijo
06-30-2010, 09:17 AM
Heisey needs to play more in both LF and CF. BTW, I read an article that discussed BABIP on groundballs. Gomes was near the top and the analyst believed that unlike Upton (last season had a high BABIP on GBs), Gomes and some others (Morneau for one) could not sustain it.

IMO Stubbs has value but Heisey needs to play more.

BTW, Stubbs has a UZR 150 of -11 this year after +22 last year. I know some love defensive metrics (especially UZR) but I have never read any good explanations what defensive metrics tend to bounce around so much. I don't believe Stubbs has lost ability as a CF, instead it causes me to question the validity of the metric.

I don't question the metric much Stubbs has had a good handful of misplayed balls this season. He sometimes has a tough time reading the ball off the bat, mostly on LD's right at him (I know who doesn't). I also agree with him being a bit tentative around the wall, just watch the video of last nights debacle he had it until he saw that wall.

MLB Link from Phillies broadcast (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2010_06_29_phimlb_cinmlb_1&mode=wrap)

Wait for the replay, camera from behind Drews left shoulder. Thats what they call alligator arms in football. But I'd still keep him in CF full time.

However after Ibanez's HR last night haven't they learned not to throw him hanging sliders? Tough break for Arthur but again don't hang the slider.

flyer85
06-30-2010, 09:23 AM
It's explained here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/). Especially the "Sample Size and Reliability" and "Consistency from Year to Year" sections. Although, given that he doesn't even have a full season's worth of defensive innings and three defensive seasons are typically equal to one season's worth of offensive chances, I'd say it makes as much sense as a batting average that fluctuates from .000 to .400 over the course of two months.seems unlikely that he will end up at +22. It seems to me that if it takes 3 years to come up with meaningful defensive numbers it makes individual defensive event run equivalents somewhat meaningless except for compiling them over a long period of time to get a general impression of defensive ability.


It is human nature to look at Player A, who has a UZR of -11, +14, and -3 over the last 3 years, and be confused and unsure of that player’s true defensive skills. At the same time, we see Player B, who is +1, 0, and -1, and we feel confident that he is an average defender. Don’t be fooled by these illusions. There is virtually no difference between the two players’ stats. The fact of the matter is that both players have a 3-year UZR average (albeit non-weighted) of zero, and therefore both players are likely around average defenders.

which is what I have said about defensive metrics all along, its real value is is making a general statement about fielding ability not in coming up with run equivalents. the folks at fangraphs are even admitting that but a lot of folks want to use those run equivalents as accurate numbers on a yearly basis. If they were accurate you would likely see a lot more consistency in the yearly numbers.

Spring~Fields
06-30-2010, 10:52 AM
No, it was you only 15 minutes earlier:

No, that is your erroneous interpretation. I know what I wrote, I know what I intended. You do not, and neither did he, clarified by the responses. Do what you what you believe is right. Young man.

nate
06-30-2010, 11:18 AM
seems unlikely that he will end up at +22. It seems to me that if it takes 3 years to come up with meaningful defensive numbers it makes individual defensive event run equivalents somewhat meaningless except for compiling them over a long period of time to get a general impression of defensive ability.

Which is kind of what it's for.


which is what I have said about defensive metrics all along, its real value is is making a general statement about fielding ability not in coming up with run equivalents.

I think it can do both within an acceptable degree of accuracy.


the folks at fangraphs are even admitting that but a lot of folks want to use those run equivalents as accurate numbers on a yearly basis.

I'm sure there are some who don't understand what it measures nor what the measurement means, yes.


If they were accurate you would likely see a lot more consistency in the yearly numbers.

I don't think this is correct.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't think this is correct.

Why?

Or, maybe:

Couldn't this limit these metrics' relative usefulness to a GM having to make yes/no, buy/sell decisions? If not, why not?

flyer85
06-30-2010, 11:32 AM
I don't think this is correct.why not, seems to me there should be less randomness in defensive performance (however, from a metric standpoint there are certainly a lot more variables and unknowns on the defensive side which make it much harder to analyze statiscally).

nate
06-30-2010, 11:45 AM
why not, seems to me there should be less randomness in defensive performance (however, from a metric standpoint there are certainly a lot more variables and unknowns on the defensive side which make it much harder to analyze statiscally).

Because in addition to random variation, there could be variation that isn't random. If an "OK" sample is three season, it makes sense to me that each season could yield very different results. Certainly, we see wide swings in offense during thirds of a season. To me, it seems entirely possible that similar swings exist on defense.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 11:46 AM
No, that is your erroneous interpretation. I know what I wrote, I know what I intended. You do not, and neither did he, clarified by the responses. Do what you what you believe is right. Young man.

Yeah and then I'm gonna reference a big LF who gets on base a lot and strikes out a bunch...then I'll chide RZers when they assume I'm talking about Adam Dunn. :rolleyes:

OnBaseMachine
06-30-2010, 11:47 AM
Sure, I'd give Heisey some more starts in center field but why not left field too? It's not like Jonny Gomes is tearing it up in left field.

westofyou
06-30-2010, 11:48 AM
Yeah and then I'm gonna reference a big LF who gets on base a lot and strikes out a bunch...then I'll chide RZers when they assume I'm talking about Adam Dunn. :rolleyes:

But will you write your posts like the Riddler from Batman would?

bucksfan2
06-30-2010, 12:09 PM
Chris Heisey as a starter
.184/.279/.289 OPS .569

Chris Heisey coming off the bench
.500/.579/1.357 OPS 1.936

Screams small sample size, but when given the chance to start Heisey hasn't made to most of those opportunities.

RedsManRick
06-30-2010, 01:27 PM
If they were accurate you would likely see a lot more consistency in the yearly numbers.

While this is possible, it could also just be the nature of the best. Some things just have a lot of natural variance. But I don't think the size of the changes is what throws people.

I think what really throws people is the switch from positive to negative and the proportional scaling differences. Offensive players go from +30 runs to +50 runs all of the time and nobody bats an eye. But if a defender goes for -10 to +10, we all cry foul. In part, this is because it's much easier for a great hitter to make up for poor defense than it is for a great defender to make up for poor offense. So we don't see too many negative run producing hitters, but we do see many negative run producing defenders. It's just so much easier to find a capable defensive player, so there are more opportunities to be worse than replacement. And of course this is exacerbated by the way the baseline is handled.

Everybody gets the same chances offensively. A PA is a PA and the results are purely additive. There is a floor of producing zero runs if you strikeout every single time. Production goes up from there. We can then set a replacement level baseline based on what we observe and go from there. Everything could be a positive, we just draw a higher baseline so it's clear when a guy could be easily replaced.

With defense, it's not so easy. There is no zero point floor of what happens if you never made a defensive play -- that would result in an infinite amount of runs allowed. You can't use infinity as a baseline. So instead we use observed performance. Players being moved from one position to another tells us where the baseline should be set.

Because there are simply more opportunities for an individual position player to contribute on offense than on defense, offense is far and away the barrier to making the major leagues. If you can hit, they'll find a place for you. There's even a spot for guys who can hit but can't play defense. Meanwhile, there are elite defensive players stuck in the minors or who flamed out because they couldn't hit enough. There's no place for a great defender who cant' hit to avoid having to bat while playing every inning.

But because defensive positions are different in the nature of their opportunities (only guys who play that position have the chance to make that play -- we don't get to see 1B try and play CF, but we do get to see CF face the same pitchers as 1B) we have to use different replacement level baselines. And because we know how players are moved to different defensive positions based on their ability (and have observed how they play after being moved), we can approximate how a guy at one position would play at another. An average defensive 1B, relative to other 1B, would be a horrible CF, relative to other CF.

UZR, as is typically reported, doesn't include the positional adjustment. I wonder if we should do both, using average 1B defense as the baseline. That way, like offense, everybody would be operating on the same scale. So that CF doesn't go from +10 to -10 in a bad season, rather he goes from +25 to +5. SO what if we started everybody off as a DH (the zero assumption) and compared them from there. So if we had a guy who was a 0 defender at SS in the current system, we'd just call him a +25 defender. A guy who was below 0, like offense, wouldn't belong on the field. And we'd see that -5 CF (+15) compared to the +5 1B (10) and realize the CF is still the better defender.

kbrake
06-30-2010, 01:31 PM
No, that is your erroneous interpretation. I know what I wrote, I know what I intended. You do not, and neither did he, clarified by the responses. Do what you what you believe is right. Young man.

Well then please share with us what you intended. Clearly I was not alone in not understanding your intention.

nate
06-30-2010, 01:44 PM
Nice post, Rick. I honestly never thought of it that way.

Brutus
06-30-2010, 01:59 PM
While this is possible, it could also just be the nature of the best. Some things just have a lot of natural variance. But I don't think the size of the changes is what throws people.

I think what really throws people is the switch from positive to negative and the proportional scaling differences. Offensive players go from +30 runs to +50 runs all of the time and nobody bats an eye. But if a defender goes for -10 to +10, we all cry foul.

The thing I'd point out, though, is that a full season of offense is three times the sample of opportunities (i.e. plate appearances to defensive plays fielded) so if we're comparing 20-run differences, defensively I can see the argument that it's a much wilder fluctuation given a smaller sample.

I'm still big on UZR as I think it's the best method we have available - and I do believe it gets us in the ballpark. I think the actual run numbers are still open to a fair amount of criticism. I saw Nate say in this thread that they're "pretty accurate." But hypothetically if one player is off by 10 runs over whatever the reality of their defensive production is (i.e. Stubbs is really producing on average this year instead of -10 runs), that is a pretty big discrepancy.

On the team level, WAR correlates to actual wins by roughly .80 (according to FanGraphs for the 2009 season). Since we know offensive run estimators correlate over .97, that means there's a big chunk missing for run prevention. I think it's believed that while the pitching/fielding dynamic has not been fully parsed, pitching run estimators are relatively sound. If that's the case, there's a lot to be desired on the defensive end of the run correlation

I do still support UZR as a terrific ballpark metric. I think it's much better than anything we have. I think, generally, it places us where we want to be. I'd like to see the correlation from the overall run prevention side of WAR to come up a bit, however.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 02:11 PM
Stubbs strikes out at the same rate as Adam Dunn. However, you don't exactly get the 40 HRs with Stubbs or an high OPS (in fact, Stubbs has a very poor OPS). You'll get roughly 1/3 of the HRs.

The guy just has a terrible approach at the plate, is overrated defensively and continues to get a free pass IMO (from some fans and clearly from Dusty/the front office). Say what you will, but I stand by my statement that if Stubbs wasn't a former first-round pick, there is no way anyone would be putting up with this BS. It's all about "potential" with him and always will be.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 02:14 PM
Stubbs strikes out at the same rate as Adam Dunn. However, you don't exactly get the 40 HRs with Stubbs or an high OPS (in fact, Stubbs has a very poor OPS). You'll get roughly 1/3 of the HRs.

The guy just has a terrible approach at the plate, is overrated defensively and continues to get a free pass IMO (from some fans and clearly from Dusty/the front office). Say what you will, but I stand by my statement that if Stubbs wasn't a former first-round pick, there is no way anyone would be putting up with this BS. It's all about "potential" with him and always will be.

I agree with you completely. Baseball, like everything, has a political element. Players are sometimes given preference based on a number of esoteric and meaningless merits.

LoganBuck
06-30-2010, 02:14 PM
In terms of that ball last night. It was smoked. I think most CFers are playing the hop off of the wall.

This. I have the game on DVR yet. Stubbs was shading to left field, just to the left of second base. He ran the ball down in the right field gap at the wall. You want to talk about range? I would guess that he is the only centerfielder in the game who even gets a glove on that ball. Yeah maybe he could have caught it, but wow he went a long way for that ball.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 02:17 PM
This. I have the game on DVR yet. Stubbs was shading to left field, just to the left of second base. He ran the ball down in the right field gap at the wall. You want to talk about range? I would guess that he is the only centerfielder in the game who even gets a glove on that ball. Yeah maybe he could have caught it, but wow he went a long way for that ball.

Do you really believe that Drew Stubbs is the only CF in MLB that would have gotten a glove on that ball? I would submit that players like Gutierrez would not only have gotten there in time, but would have made the catch and not been afraid of a padded wall that really wasn't close to them.

Then you add in Stubbs' atrocious offense and I don't understand why he continues to get a free pass.

LoganBuck
06-30-2010, 02:20 PM
Do you really believe that Drew Stubbs is the only CF in MLB that would have gotten a glove on that ball? I would submit that players like Gutierrez would not only have gotten there in time, but would have made the catch and not been afraid of a padded wall that really wasn't close to them.


Yes, watch the play again. He is to the left of second at mid range depth, and runs the ball down at the wall, in the right field gap. That is a lot of ground to cover, and I believe that Stubbs is faster than Gutierrez. That was not an easy play.

pedro
06-30-2010, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure the former 1st round pick theory holds much water since that was two GM's and 1 owner ago. I don't doubt that that type of stuff plays into it when it's the same regime, but in this case I'm not entirely convinced. Maybe though.

Regardless, he's a guy in his first full year who has had a fairly decent season so far. Most guys just don't walk into league and become instant super stars.

LoganBuck
06-30-2010, 02:22 PM
Yes, watch the play again. He is to the left of second at mid range depth, and runs the ball down at the wall, in the right field gap. That is a lot of ground to cover, and I believe that Stubbs is faster than Gutierrez. That was not an easy play.

He just ran another one down, that maybe a handful of guys get. Don't be fooled, centerfielders with his speed don't grow on trees.

nate
06-30-2010, 02:24 PM
Yes, watch the play again. He is to the left of second at mid range depth, and runs the ball down at the wall, in the right field gap. That is a lot of ground to cover, and I believe that Stubbs is faster than Gutierrez. That was not an easy play.

Word. So the ending wasn't graceful, a lot of guys just end up playing the ball off the wall.

nate
06-30-2010, 02:24 PM
I'm not sure the former 1st round pick theory holds much water since that was two GM's and 1 owner ago. I don't doubt that that type of stuff plays into it when it's the same regime, but in this case I'm not entirely convinced. Maybe though.

Regardless, he's a guy in his first full year who has had a fairly decent season so far. Most guys just don't walk into league and become instant super stars.

Yep.

reds44
06-30-2010, 02:27 PM
That play Stubbs just made will go overlooked, but most CFers don't get to that ball.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 02:46 PM
I'm not sure the former 1st round pick theory holds much water since that was two GM's and 1 owner ago. I don't doubt that that type of stuff plays into it when it's the same regime, but in this case I'm not entirely convinced. Maybe though.

Regardless, he's a guy in his first full year who has had a fairly decent season so far. Most guys just don't walk into league and become instant super stars.

Stubbs was the last GM's draft (not two GMs ago). Politics matter. Look no further than Homer Bailey--promoted too soon, kept around too long; why? I think we all know why.

Or Wily Taveras: he makes 2.5 mill, by golly, he's our CF (until it was too painful to keep up the charade). We can't act like decisions aren't guided by absurd logic at times.

Brutus
06-30-2010, 02:49 PM
Stubbs was the last GM's draft (not two GMs ago). Politics matter. Look no further than Homer Bailey--promoted too soon, kept around too long; why? I think we all know why.

I don't think it's politics.

It's interest. It's attendance. It's needing an infusion of talent. And lastly, it's the rules of baseball. They're all factors. There's nothing political about it. It's a fine line general managers walk.

hebroncougar
06-30-2010, 02:50 PM
Heisey K'd today too, you sure you want him to play?

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 02:53 PM
I don't think it's politics.

It's interest. It's attendance. It's needing an infusion of talent. And lastly, it's the rules of baseball. They're all factors. There's nothing political about it. It's a fine line general managers walk.

Politics in the most general sense--not the Senate rules, et al. And it's money--of course: "we spent a ton of cash to draft and develop this kid, we're going to get our money's 'worth'."

Life's first rule: don't ever assume transcendental thought processes in those making more money than you. People are driven by irrationality (and that's not always a bad thing).

Brutus
06-30-2010, 02:59 PM
Politics in the most general sense--not the Senate rules, et al. And it's money--of course: "we spent a ton of cash to draft and develop this kid, we're going to get our money's 'worth'."

Life's first rule: don't ever assume transcendental thought processes in those making more money than you. People are driven by irrationality (and that's not always a bad thing).

It doesn't have anything to do with getting money's worth. It's a matter of not having better options to help the team in the interim while they develop. If the Reds had a rotation that had anyone of ability a few years ago, Bailey wouldn't have been rushed. If the Reds had a proven, stable centerfielder (and not Wily T) last year, Stubbs would have been held a little longer.

The Reds don't need to get their money's worth. They can take as long as the system will allow before those players ultimately need to be productive players.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 03:03 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with getting money's worth. It's a matter of not having better options to help the team in the interim while they develop. If the Reds had a rotation that had anyone of ability a few years ago, Bailey wouldn't have been rushed. If the Reds had a proven, stable centerfielder (and not Wily T) last year, Stubbs would have been held a little longer.

The Reds don't need to get their money's worth. They can take as long as the system will allow before those players ultimately need to be productive players.

Why would Stubbs have been held? He turns 26 this year. I think if they're being honest, they'd probably entertain the notion that Stubbs isn't going to develop a MLB bat. They love his defense and are crossing their fingers on the offense (that's a reality, but it's not a plan). That's fine, but what could it hurt to give Heisey a shot at this point? The dropoff in defense will be negligible as to be unnoticeable.

Chip R
06-30-2010, 03:05 PM
He just ran another one down, that maybe a handful of guys get. Don't be fooled, centerfielders with his speed don't grow on trees.

Actually, they do.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 03:13 PM
Actually, they do.

Huh? If you are talking speed...how many starting CF are faster than Stubbs?

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 03:19 PM
That's it, Heisey K'd today in his only AB, I want nothing to do with him now. ;-)

Just want to see the guy given a chance to be an everyday starter for at least a week. I'm convinced he would produce more than Stubbs overall. (We'd lose some D but would add a lot more O. And Heisey isn't a poor defensive CF by any means. On the other hand, Stubbs IS a poor offensive player.)

Chip R
06-30-2010, 03:23 PM
Huh? If you are talking speed...how many starting CF are faster than Stubbs?

I don't know about faster but there are plenty of CFers that have speed close to Stubbs. We had one here last season. Bourne in HOU is another. That's why these guys play CF. Because they have the wheels. If being fast makes you a good CF, Willy T would have been an All Star every year.

Stubbs is virtually a rookie and he has a lot to learn in the field and at the plate. Speed is the first thing that goes and right now, that is the only thing keeping him in the league. What happens if he sprains an ankle or tweaks a hammy? I hope he's learning how to play guys so he doesn't have to use that speed all the time.

kbrake
06-30-2010, 03:23 PM
That's it, Heisey K'd today in his only AB, I want nothing to do with him now. ;-)

Just want to see the guy given a chance to be an everyday starter for at least a week. I'm convinced he would produce more than Stubbs overall. (We'd lose some D but would add a lot more O. And Heisey isn't a poor defensive CF by any means. On the other hand, Stubbs IS a poor offensive player.)

I'm fine with giving Heisey some playing time but I'd rather give him a week or two in LF and see what he does. I know he had two hits today but Gomes has been struggling.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm fine with giving Heisey some playing time but I'd rather give him a week or two in LF and see what he does. I know he had two hits today but Gomes has been struggling.

Can't take Gomes out the way he's been producing this entire season just because he had a rough week or two. Gomes has been rock-solid all year, on pace for over 100 RBIs, etc.

Gomes is a big part of our lineup. Stubbs is a black hole in it. And O-Cab has pretty much been the same way which surprises me. I thought he would at least be decent offensively.

Cedric
06-30-2010, 03:27 PM
Can't take Gomes out the way he's been producing this entire season just because he had a rough week or two. Gomes has been rock-solid all year, on pace for over 100 RBIs, etc.

Gomes is a big part of our lineup. Stubbs is a black hole in it. And O-Cab has pretty much been the same way which surprises me. I thought he would at least be decent offensively.

Baseball is a 162 game season. There were some plays today that Stubbs made easy that would have been trouble for a ton of other players. Baseball isn't like football where you can look at one single misplay at the wall and throw out all the good.

Stubbs is fine and I'm glad Dusty knows it.

westofyou
06-30-2010, 03:29 PM
Baseball is a 162 game season. There were some plays today that Stubbs made easy that would have been trouble for a ton of other players. Baseball isn't like football where you can look at one single misplay at the wall and throw out all the good.

Stubbs is fine and I'm glad Dusty knows it.

Agreed, this is a big season for his growth and despite being a "Black Hole" (much like Gomes April) the team still is a leading offensive force.

The game has 2 sides to it, it's not all batting order and offense.

Homer Bailey
06-30-2010, 03:41 PM
Truth:

Drew Stubbs has a career OPS of .726 in 482 PA's.
OPS+ of 92 in 482 PA's.

Let's stop acting like he's some kind of offensive black hole every time he goes into some time of slump.

Chris Heisey has exactly one season over .825 OPS in his minor league career, and that was as a 24 year old in AA. He never OPS'd above .800 in AAA. He had a sub .800 career OPS vs. righties in the minors. Add in that Stubbs is clearly the better defender, and I would say there is no physical evidence that would suggest Heisey is more valuable than Stubbs. Could he end up more valuable? Sure. But I'm just not seeing the evidence yet.

Heisey is valuable as he is: a bench guy that can spell any of the 3 outfield spots. I know that the backup is always the most popular player on RZ, but when you look at what Stubbs has done overall in his MLB career, I would argue that we should all be pretty satisfied so far. Hopefully he can eventually be a 100 OPS+, and I'm confident that he can.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 03:44 PM
Baseball is a 162 game season. There were some plays today that Stubbs made easy that would have been trouble for a ton of other players. Baseball isn't like football where you can look at one single misplay at the wall and throw out all the good.

Stubbs is fine and I'm glad Dusty knows it.

That's an obvious statement. There is not a single knowledgeable baseball fan that would base their opinion of a player on one play. With Stubbs, it's been an accumulation of events. Sorry if I didn't make that crystal clear. It certainly wasn't about one dropped ball on a play that definitely wasn't an easy one to make. It's the entire package. He's extremely bad offensively and a bit overrated defensively IMO. Just don't see how it would hurt to give Heisey a week or so to see if he would be an improvement. Even if he was just a temporary improvement, wouldn't we want that? Or are we so worried about Stubbs' psychie that we would never do that? (Like benching him for a week would have long-lasting affects on his confidence or something.) It just doesn't make sense. They are the same age, one produced a lot more than the other in the minors and the same guy is producing better (albeit in many less ABs, very small sample size) in the majors this year. I'm not saying let's throw Drew Stubbs off a boat and make Chris Heisey the starting CF for the next 4 years no questions asked. Just saying it's gotten to the point with Stubbs that I would at least give Heisey a week to show what he could do.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 03:49 PM
Truth:

Drew Stubbs has a career OPS of .726 in 482 PA's.
OPS+ of 92 in 482 PA's.

Let's stop acting like he's some kind of offensive black hole every time he goes into some time of slump.

Chris Heisey has exactly one season over .825 OPS in his minor league career, and that was as a 24 year old in AA. He never OPS'd above .800 in AAA. He had a sub .800 career OPS vs. righties in the minors. Add in that Stubbs is clearly the better defender, and I would say there is no physical evidence that would suggest Heisey is more valuable than Stubbs. Could he end up more valuable? Sure. But I'm just not seeing the evidence yet.

Heisey is valuable as he is: a bench guy that can spell any of the 3 outfield spots. I know that the backup is always the most popular player on RZ, but when you look at what Stubbs has done overall in his MLB career, I would argue that we should all be pretty satisfied so far. Hopefully he can eventually be a 100 OPS+, and I'm confident that he can.

I see what you're saying, but those "career" numbers are boosted by what I would call a "lucky" stretch for Stubbs when he was called up late last year. He hit better in his brief stretch in the majors than he ever did in the minors. Just didn't add up for me. And looking at just this year, his OPS has taken a hit and he's back to his minor league standards.

pedro
06-30-2010, 04:02 PM
Stubbs was the last GM's draft (not two GMs ago). Politics matter. Look no further than Homer Bailey--promoted too soon, kept around too long; why? I think we all know why.

Or Wily Taveras: he makes 2.5 mill, by golly, he's our CF (until it was too painful to keep up the charade). We can't act like decisions aren't guided by absurd logic at times.

I don't disagree that politics matter. Fan base interest is driven in large part by perception. Regardless, I don't believe the argument that Stubbs is only playing because he was a #1 pick. I think he's playing because the Reds feel he is the best bet to fill the job adequately over the next several years.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 04:04 PM
That's an obvious statement. There is not a single knowledgeable baseball fan that would base their opinion of a player on one play. With Stubbs, it's been an accumulation of events. Sorry if I didn't make that crystal clear. It certainly wasn't about one dropped ball on a play that definitely wasn't an easy one to make. It's the entire package. He's extremely bad offensively and a bit overrated defensively IMO. Just don't see how it would hurt to give Heisey a week or so to see if he would be an improvement. Even if he was just a temporary improvement, wouldn't we want that? Or are we so worried about Stubbs' psychie that we would never do that? (Like benching him for a week would have long-lasting affects on his confidence or something.) It just doesn't make sense. They are the same age, one produced a lot more than the other in the minors and the same guy is producing better (albeit in many less ABs, very small sample size) in the majors this year. I'm not saying let's throw Drew Stubbs off a boat and make Chris Heisey the starting CF for the next 4 years no questions asked. Just saying it's gotten to the point with Stubbs that I would at least give Heisey a week to show what he could do.

But what will a week of Heisey truly show us. If we are going to go with Heisey I'd give him a month to settle in. I don't know the right answer here.

Homer Bailey
06-30-2010, 04:05 PM
I see what you're saying, but those "career" numbers are boosted by what I would call a "lucky" stretch for Stubbs when he was called up late last year. He hit better in his brief stretch in the majors than he ever did in the minors. Just didn't add up for me. And looking at just this year, his OPS has taken a hit and he's back to his minor league standards.

Of course you would call it that, because it fits your argument. Except there's nothing within his stats that would make anyone logically think he was "lucky". His OPS has taken a hit over the last month because he is cold right now. Your argument could not be made a month ago, but now all of a sudden it can be?

Homer Bailey
06-30-2010, 04:06 PM
I'm not saying let's throw Drew Stubbs off a boat and make Chris Heisey the starting CF for the next 4 years no questions asked. Just saying it's gotten to the point with Stubbs that I would at least give Heisey a week to show what he could do.

So are you already backing off the thread title?

Hoosier Red
06-30-2010, 04:14 PM
I see what you're saying, but those "career" numbers are boosted by what I would call a "lucky" stretch for Stubbs when he was called up late last year. He hit better in his brief stretch in the majors than he ever did in the minors. Just didn't add up for me. And looking at just this year, his OPS has taken a hit and he's back to his minor league standards.

If his career numbers are boosted by "a lucky start" are his season to date numbers dragged down by a bad stretch of games?

As of June 15th, Stubbs had an OPS of .738.

Why is it more representative now after two bad weeks?

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 06:07 PM
Truth:

Drew Stubbs has a career OPS of .726 in 482 PA's.
OPS+ of 92 in 482 PA's.

Let's stop acting like he's some kind of offensive black hole every time he goes into some time of slump.

Chris Heisey has exactly one season over .825 OPS in his minor league career, and that was as a 24 year old in AA. He never OPS'd above .800 in AAA. He had a sub .800 career OPS vs. righties in the minors. Add in that Stubbs is clearly the better defender, and I would say there is no physical evidence that would suggest Heisey is more valuable than Stubbs. Could he end up more valuable? Sure. But I'm just not seeing the evidence yet.

Heisey is valuable as he is: a bench guy that can spell any of the 3 outfield spots. I know that the backup is always the most popular player on RZ, but when you look at what Stubbs has done overall in his MLB career, I would argue that we should all be pretty satisfied so far. Hopefully he can eventually be a 100 OPS+, and I'm confident that he can.

Heisey's OPS in 2009 AA/AAA combined was .900; his career minor league OPS is .825. That's legitimate production. Not middle of the order production, but translatable to well above average for a CF.

For the record, I have no problem saying Stubbs is an excellent defender in CF. A few gaffes doesn't change my mind. But Heisey's the superior hitter, and would represent an imperceptible dropoff defensively.

Scrap Irony
06-30-2010, 06:12 PM
I agree with you, FCB. Heisey would be my choice as CF, flanked by Gomes and Bruce. Stubbs could either play two or three days a week as a fourth OF/ defensive replacement or be dealt for starter or bullpen depth. (Combine Stubbs, two AAA relievers, and a starting candidate and you've got a pretty attractive package for a TOR starter or a shutdown reliever. Or, even better, a SS with a future?)

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 06:13 PM
Heisey's OPS in 2009 AA/AAA combined was .900; his career minor league OPS is .825. That's legitimate production. Not middle of the order production, but translatable to well above average for a CF.

For the record, I have no problem saying Stubbs is an excellent defender in CF. A few gaffes doesn't change my mind. But Heisey's the superior hitter, and would represent an imperceptible dropoff defensively.

To be honest, I think Heisey would be best served by spending some time in CF and some time in LF (replacing Gomes). The problem is, Dusty doesn't start him enough. And there is little that can be said that would convince me that starting Nix over Heisey makes sense. Even if a RHP is on the mound.

KoryMac5
06-30-2010, 06:16 PM
To be honest, I think Heisey would be best served by spending some time in CF and some time in LF (replacing Gomes). The problem is, Dusty doesn't start him enough. And there is little that can be said that would convince me that starting Nix over Heisey makes sense. Even if a RHP is on the mound.

Never understood bringing the kid up from AAA to have him sit. Thought for sure he would siphon Ab's from Gomes and Stubbs. Heisey needs more Ab's to allow him to develop, an occasional spot start or PH appearence isn't helping him right now.

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 06:18 PM
Never understood bringing the kid up from AAA to have him sit. Thought for sure he would siphon Ab's from Gomes and Stubbs. Heisey needs more Ab's to allow him to develop, an occasional spot start or PH appearence isn't helping him right now.

i don't disagree with this one bit. Either play him regularly (or semi-regularly) or send him down to AAA to get regular ABs.

pedro
06-30-2010, 06:26 PM
i don't disagree with this one bit. Either play him regularly (or semi-regularly) or send him down to AAA to get regular ABs.

The problem is that they don't have a good replacement for him and if they just replaced him with a vet like Gary Matthews most everyone around here would lose they ever loving minds.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 06:30 PM
The problem is that they don't have a good replacement for him.

Stubbs.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 06:32 PM
Start Bruce 90% of the time.
Start Gomes 70% of the time.
Start Heisey 70% of the time.
Start Stubbs 70% of the time.

Does that work?

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 06:33 PM
The problem is that they don't have a good replacement for him and if they just replaced him with a vet like Gary Matthews most everyone around here would lose they ever loving minds.

I think you could easily make a case for bringing up Dorn.

pedro
06-30-2010, 06:35 PM
Stubbs.

But doesn't that then do the same thing to Stubbs?

pedro
06-30-2010, 06:36 PM
I think you could easily make a case for bringing up Dorn.

And sit him? What about his "development" ?

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 06:56 PM
And sit him? What about his "development" ?

Dorn is about to turn 26. Based on his splits, he looks like a legitimate platoon player. I think Heisey has a chance to be an everyday player. It's a matter of opinion, I realize.

pedro
06-30-2010, 07:23 PM
Dorn is about to turn 26. Based on his splits, he looks like a legitimate platoon player. I think Heisey has a chance to be an everyday player. It's a matter of opinion, I realize.

Fair enough. The problem I guess I have with that is it leaves Nix as the BU CF which I don't particularly care for.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 07:42 PM
Of course you would call it that, because it fits your argument. Except there's nothing within his stats that would make anyone logically think he was "lucky". His OPS has taken a hit over the last month because he is cold right now. Your argument could not be made a month ago, but now all of a sudden it can be?

So, you are telling me that Drew Stubbs' performance at the end of last year in his cameo role with the Reds was a better indicator of his offensive skills than his career minor league numbers? I didn't just call it "lucky" to fit my argument, I really feel that way and the facts appear to back it up. Stubbs was not a good hitter throughout his minor league career, then had a pretty good stretch when he got his chance in The Show at the tail end of the season for a month or so. This season, with the pressure of being the everyday CF and with the pressure of games that actually matter, he's come back to where I expected. Not because I am some soothsayer, but because I can read his minor league stats and they aren't pretty.

Not sure why someone would think Stubbs would magically be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors. It doesn't quite work that way. Yes, pitchers are more around the zone in the bigs, but they are a hell of a lot better too. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's harder to hit minor league pitching because the pitchers are more wild. Yes, they are more wild, but give me an AB against some "wild" AA or AAA pitcher any day than facing some of the stud pitchers in MLB. It's not even close. So, for anyone to expect Stubbs to be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors is foolish IMO.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 07:45 PM
So, you are telling me that Drew Stubbs' performance at the end of last year in his cameo role with the Reds was a better indicator of his offensive skills than his career minor league numbers? I didn't just call it "lucky" to fit my argument, I really feel that way and the facts appear to back it up. Stubbs was not a good hitter throughout his minor league career, then had a pretty good stretch when he got his chance in The Show. Now he's come back to where I expected this year. Not because I am some soothsayer, but because I can read his minor league stats and they aren't pretty. Not sure why someone would think Stubbs would magically be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors. It doesn't quite work that way. Yes, pitchers are more around the zone in the bigs, but they are a hell of a lot better too. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's harder to hit minor league pitching because the pitchers are more wild. Yes, they are more wild, but give me an AB against some "wild" AA or AAA pitcher any day than facing some of the stud pitchers in MLB. It's not even close. So, for anyone to expect Stubbs to be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors is foolish IMO.

I think all that is asked is that you don't dismiss his numbers from last year. Lump them in with all of his other numbers and treat them equally/accorrdingly. Fair?

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 07:52 PM
So, you are telling me that Drew Stubbs' performance at the end of last year in his cameo role with the Reds was a better indicator of his offensive skills than his career minor league numbers? I didn't just call it "lucky" to fit my argument, I really feel that way and the facts appear to back it up. Stubbs was not a good hitter throughout his minor league career, then had a pretty good stretch when he got his chance in The Show at the tail end of the season for a month or so. This season, with the pressure of being the everyday CF and with the pressure of games that actually matter, he's come back to where I expected. Not because I am some soothsayer, but because I can read his minor league stats and they aren't pretty.

Not sure why someone would think Stubbs would magically be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors. It doesn't quite work that way. Yes, pitchers are more around the zone in the bigs, but they are a hell of a lot better too. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's harder to hit minor league pitching because the pitchers are more wild. Yes, they are more wild, but give me an AB against some "wild" AA or AAA pitcher any day than facing some of the stud pitchers in MLB. It's not even close. So, for anyone to expect Stubbs to be a better hitter in the majors than he was in the minors is foolish IMO.

What about the 34 game stretch this year where he OPS'd .901? He's a rookie, he's going to go through his peaks and valleys and if we're going to find out what he really is we're going to have to give him the chance to go through them, just like with Bruce. Do I think he's a .901 OPSing MLer? No, but I also don't think that he's a sub .700 OPSer at the ML level. I think given time we'll find he's somewhere between there.

He's going to get really hot again this year and look like a star and then he'll probably go into another slump. Seems that's what happens to most young hitters.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 07:56 PM
I think all that is asked is that you don't dismiss his numbers from last year. Lump them in with all of his other numbers and treat them equally/accorrdingly. Fair?

I think that is completely fair. I just can't get over his career minor league numbers. I mean, let's count all his professional numbers and throw them together (minor league and majors combined). It wouldn't look good and I just don't see it magically changing.

And if he were truly an elite defensive CF like some fans seem to think, I could live with his offensive struggles. But you can't call yourself "elite" and have big holes in your defensive game like "not being comfortable near the wall." Last time I checked, that's a pretty important part of the job description if you want to be an elite defensive CF. I hope he gets there one day. Right now, he's not. Then you add in his offense and I hope you can see why I'm frustrated. I think this NL Central race is going to come down to a game or two and I think now is the time to give Heisey a chance.

And to answer another post, no I'm not backing off my thread title. I would like to see Heisey as the everyday CF for the rest of the season. He would produce more than Stubbs overall, there is no doubt in my mind. However, at the very least, I would like to see him get a week to show what he could do as a starter.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 07:59 PM
What about the 34 game stretch this year where he OPS'd .901? He's a rookie, he's going to go through his peaks and valleys and if we're going to find out what he really is we're going to have to give him the chance to go through them, just like with Bruce. Do I think he's a .901 OPSing MLer? No, but I also don't think that he's a sub .700 OPSer at the ML level. I think given time we'll find he's somewhere between there.

He's going to get really hot again this year and look like a star and then he'll probably go into another slump. Seems that's what happens to most young hitters.

But again, I can't stress this enough, my opinion is based mostly on his minor league numbers (huge sample size), not his MLB numbers (small sample size). I agree that all rookies will go through ups and downs hitting at the MLB level. And if Stubbs had put up good numbers in the minors, I wouldn't be worried about it. But how do we expect his numbers to magically change now that he's facing much-better pitching? It just doesn't add up. That's why I think it's a "potential" thing. "He has potential, he's a former top 10 overall pick, etc." However, looking at it right now, Heisey is the better overall ballplayer IMO. I want to win this year and Heisey gives the Reds a better chance IMO. And they are the same age! It's not like one guy is 37 and holding on to his career and the other guy is a youngster with a bunch of potential. They are both young and have potential. It's just that Heisey is able to harness his better right now.

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 08:17 PM
Fair enough. The problem I guess I have with that is it leaves Nix as the BU CF which I don't particularly care for.

That is true...however...reports are that Dickerson is almost ready to come back...so if that's true, then there's your backup CF and Nix could be DFA. I also like the idea of Bruce playing backup CF, but many don't.

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 08:28 PM
But again, I can't stress this enough, my opinion is based mostly on his minor league numbers (huge sample size), not his MLB numbers (small sample size). I agree that all rookies will go through ups and downs hitting at the MLB level. And if Stubbs had put up good numbers in the minors, I wouldn't be worried about it. But how do we expect his numbers to magically change now that he's facing much-better pitching? It just doesn't add up. That's why I think it's a "potential" thing. "He has potential, he's a former top 10 overall pick, etc." However, looking at it right now, Heisey is the better overall ballplayer IMO. I want to win this year and Heisey gives the Reds a better chance IMO. And they are the same age! It's not like one guy is 37 and holding on to his career and the other guy is a youngster with a bunch of potential. They are both young and have potential. It's just that Heisey is able to harness his better right now.

I have no idea how a week of Heisey tells us anything one way or another. Drew Stubbs had a week last year in which he OPS'd 1.105.

Heisey might be a little better hitter than Stubbs, but I don't think he's near as good of a defender. Not just in terms of speed, but I've seen him make some very weak throws this season. Maybe those were just aberrations, but I haven't been impressed with his arm thus far.

Also, I do think that Heisey should be taking starts from Gomes. During the same stretch that Stubbs has slumped Gomes has looked pretty bad at the plate as well. A sub .500 OPS in his last 15, problem is he is an awful defender on top of it. I think Gomes should start almost every game against lefties but Heisey should start against most righties and get some starts in center to spell Stubbs.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 08:32 PM
I have no idea how a week of Heisey tells us anything one way or another. Drew Stubbs had a week last year in which he OPS'd 1.105.

Heisey might be a little better hitter than Stubbs, but I don't think he's near as good of a defender. Not just in terms of speed, but I've seen him make some very weak throws this season. Maybe those were just aberrations, but I haven't been impressed with his arm thus far.

See, I would go the other way. I think Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs (not a little better) and I don't think Heisey is a poor defensive CF at all. He's not as good as Stubbs, but he's not going to hurt you defensively. Stubbs is hurting the Reds offensively.

You are saying Heisey is barely a better hitter than Stubbs, but Stubbs is a much-better defender.

I am saying Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs, and Stubbs is clearly better than Heisey defensively, but it's not as big of a gap as there is between Heisey-Stubbs offensively.

Razor Shines
06-30-2010, 08:33 PM
See, I would go the other way. I think Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs (not a little better) and I don't think Heisey is a poor defensive CF at all. He's not as good as Stubbs, but he's not going to hurt you defensively. Stubbs is hurting the Reds offensively.

You are saying Heisey is barely a better hitter than Stubbs, but Stubbs is a much-better defender.

I am saying Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs, and Stubbs is clearly better than Heisey defensively, but it's not as big of a gap as there is between Heisey-Stubbs offensively.

Well I hope he is a much better hitter than Stubbs and I think he should get some starts in LF so we can find out.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2010, 08:36 PM
Well I hope he is a much better hitter than Stubbs and I think he should get some starts in LF so we can find out.

I'm not down with sitting Gomes since he's been such a huge part of the lineup this season. I mean, sitting him occasionally is cool (not for Laynce Nix though please) but I think Gomes is a big part of the lineup due to his production. Gomes hit all last season when given a chance and he's backing it up with an even bigger year this season. Not sure why anyone would want him out of the lineup except occasionally just to give him a rest.

Gomes/Heisey/Bruce would be my starting OF, with Stubbs as the No. 4 OF and getting spot starts in CF (Heisey would have the day off, Heisey could move to LF and give Gomes a day off, etc).

pedro
06-30-2010, 08:49 PM
I'm not down with sitting Gomes since he's been such a huge part of the lineup this season. I mean, sitting him occasionally is cool (not for Laynce Nix though please) but I think Gomes is a big part of the lineup due to his production. Gomes hit all last season when given a chance and he's backing it up with an even bigger year this season. Not sure why anyone would want him out of the lineup except occasionally just to give him a rest.

Gomes/Heisey/Bruce would be my starting OF, with Stubbs as the No. 4 OF and getting spot starts in CF (Heisey would have the day off, Heisey could move to LF and give Gomes a day off, etc).

Who's the real Gomes?


By Day/Month AVG OBP SLG OPS
April .217 .254 .367 .621
May .364 .420 .636 1.056
June .235 .301 .383 .684
Last 7 Days .200 .227 .250 .477

PuffyPig
06-30-2010, 09:14 PM
Heisey should perhaps be the starting LF, but not the CF,

Stubbs is quite a bit better fielder than Heisey in CF, and his hitting has been quite acceptable since a very slow start.

Falls City Beer
06-30-2010, 09:59 PM
But doesn't that then do the same thing to Stubbs?

I don't care about Stubbs. I think he's likely a defense one-trick pony.

pedro
06-30-2010, 10:01 PM
I don't care about Stubbs. I think he's likely a defense one-trick pony.

Fair enough.

westofyou
06-30-2010, 10:05 PM
I don't care about Stubbs. I think he's likely a defense one-trick pony.

Harry Craft eh?

Even he's a Reds legend

fearofpopvol1
06-30-2010, 11:00 PM
I don't care about Stubbs. I think he's likely a defense one-trick pony.

Up until this point in Stubbs' career, he's been around average offensively amongst CFs...and he hasn't even had a full season quite yet.

It's not that sexy, but it's hardly a one-trick pony.

REDREAD
07-01-2010, 09:43 AM
The problem is that they don't have a good replacement for him and if they just replaced him with a vet like Gary Matthews most everyone around here would lose they ever loving minds.

How True. I don't think the board would support Matthews coming up and Heisey going down :)

REDREAD
07-01-2010, 09:48 AM
See, I would go the other way. I think Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs (not a little better) and I don't think Heisey is a poor defensive CF at all. He's not as good as Stubbs, but he's not going to hurt you defensively. Stubbs is hurting the Reds offensively.

You are saying Heisey is barely a better hitter than Stubbs, but Stubbs is a much-better defender.

I am saying Heisey is a much better hitter than Stubbs, and Stubbs is clearly better than Heisey defensively, but it's not as big of a gap as there is between Heisey-Stubbs offensively.

You raise a good point, but Walt's entire philosphy seems to be to field the best defensive team possible. There's been several moves to support this.
Given that the team has been among the league leaders in runs scored, it's kind of hard to argue the choices so far. IMO, it's a lot easier to be patient with a rookie like Stubbs who plays outstanding defense than a rookie that is a mediocre defender.

If the Reds think Heisey is a potential starting player, it's time to give him some more ABs in LF, IMO.

hebroncougar
09-28-2010, 11:19 PM
Stubbs wasn't afraid of the wall tonight boys! :thumbup:

Homer Bailey
10-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Stubbs wasn't afraid of the wall tonight boys! :thumbup:

This is a fun thread.