Jonah Keri ranks the Reds #1

[RedEye]

"In a hypothetical world in which both players got 500 plate appearances this year, projecting both to be about two-win players wouldn't be all that far-fetched."


Oh if we only lived in a hypothetical world.

Seriously, this isn't that far-fetched of a claim. All Heisey would have to do is play regularly for one full season to get 500 AB. But again, I don't think Keri is saying he is the best thing since sliced bread. He's just saying that he's not as much of a step down from Ludwick as conventional wisdom might suggest. And that the Reds, therefore, have enviable depth.

I understand you want to paint Keri as a cocky "national media type" who knows nothing about Reds baseball. But if you read his writing, he's really nothing of the sort. At least not in this article.

[Mutaman]

Seriously, this isn't that far-fetched of a claim. All Heisey would have to do is play regularly for one full season to get 500 AB.

Of course no way we will ever see if this is accurate, because Heisey will never play a full season. Nobody has that kind of patience. So Heisey will continue to play part time, strike out a lot, hit a pinch hit HR once in awhile, suffer brain lock and get picked off first every now and then, and there will be those who, looking at his stat sheet will say "Oh if Heisey ever played full time, in a hypothetical world, he'd be a competent replacement for Ludwick".

Not in the real world.

[Mutaman]

History not proving kind to Mr Keri and his supporters here re claim that Heisy can replace Ludwick.

[RedEye]

History not proving kind to Mr Keri and his supporters here re claim that Heisy can replace Ludwick.

Keri's point was not that Heisey would replace all aspects of Ludwick -- just that he is a more competent replacement than many think. You are basically just willfully misreading the article at this point.

[757690]

Keri's point was not that Heisey would replace all aspects of Ludwick -- just that he is a more competent replacement than many think. You are basically just willfully misreading the article at this point.

Keri said they both are around a two win player, if they play everyday for a whole season.

It's early, but history so far is proving Keri wrong on that claim.

[RedEye]

Keri said they both are around a two win player, if they play everyday for a whole season.

It's early, but history so far is proving Keri wrong on that claim.

Actually, no he didn't. He said this:

In Heisey, the Reds will deploy an inferior hitter, though also a player who makes up for his so-so offense with other skills: He runs much better than Ludwick does, fields much better than he does, and still has above-average power, even if his on-base skills are lacking. In a hypothetical world in which both players got 500 plate appearances this year, projecting both to be about two-win players wouldn't be all that far-fetched. And of course if Heisey falters or another outfielder gets hurt, there's always Billy Hamilton, whose raw speed, both on the basepaths and afield, might be enough to make him a two-win player.

It's a considerably more nuanced claim than folks are making it out to be -- and his point is really not to sing the praises of Heisey ("an inferior hitter") but to tout the depth of the team -- and his ranking of them as #1 (which at this point is also admittedly, out of date).

Look, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm no longer a huge Heisey supporter either. I just thought it was an interesting article. I still think it is -- and I don't think it is discredited just for some speculation about how the Reds' fourth outfielder is actually kind of good when you consider his whole game. Because that's really all he's saying here. Far from "absurd."

[Mutaman]

Keri's point was not that Heisey would replace all aspects of Ludwick -- just that he is a more competent replacement than many think. You are basically just willfully misreading the article at this point.

Nope. I am happy to argue the "more competent replacement" criteria. And though its early, the first 18 games have clearly shown that such a statement was absurd. or as Kerri would say pretty "far fetched".

[mth123]

Heisey has a hot streak coming. I don't think he's more than a nice bench player, but he's not going to continue to OPS < .500. Regression to the mean works both ways. Dusty needs to pick and choose with him a little more with Paul and even Robinson mixing in as well.

[RedEye]

Nope. I am happy to argue the "more competent replacement" criteria. And though its early, the first 18 games have clearly shown that such a statement was absurd. or as Kerri would say pretty "far fetched".

How is it "absurd" to think that a guy who has put up 1.5 WAR in two other seasons could possibly put up 2.0 WAR with full playing time? Perhaps not guaranteed, but certainly not out of the question.

Your effort to discredit Keri's point just makes you look like you are putting words in his mouth. All he's saying is that the Reds have decent depth, and Heisey is part of that strength.

[RedEye]

Heisey has a hot streak coming. I don't think he's more than a nice bench player, but he's not going to continue to OPS < .500. Regression to the mean works both ways. Dusty needs to pick and choose with him a little more with Paul and even Robinson mixing in as well.

Thank you! I absolutely agree. You don't have to be a huge Heisey supporter to see that he has some value -- and that Keri is not making some outlandish claim. It needs to be read in the larger context of his write-up -- which I actually think makes good sense if one bothers to understand it.

[757690]

How is it "absurd" to think that a guy who has put up 1.5 WAR in two other seasons could possibly put up 2.0 WAR with full playing time? Perhaps not guaranteed, but certainly not out of the question.

Your effort to discredit Keri's point just makes you look like you are putting words in his mouth. All he's saying is that the Reds have decent depth, and Heisey is part of that.

If he's using Heisey as evidence that the Reds have decent depth, he clearly hasn't watched Heisey play.

Decent depth means you have players who can move from a bench role to a starting role and not hurt the team. Heisey has proven he's not one of those players.

[RedEye]

If he's using Heisey as evidence that the Reds have decent depth, he clearly hasn't watched Heisey play.

Decent depth means you have players who can move from a bench role to a starting role and not hurt the team. Heisey has proven he's not one of those players.

Here we go again with the "he hasn't watched Heisey play" argument. I repeat -- Keri has already presented statistics (WAR) that support his (remarkably logical and uncontroversial) claim that Chris is not that bad of a replacement player for Ludwick. I have yet to see anyone present persuasive evidence that this statement is untrue other than anecdotal claims about how Keri is "clearly not paying attention" since as Reds fans we already know that he "clearly isn't good" or "he's a journeyman outfielder" or he "makes knuckle-headed decisions from time to time."

I'm sorry, but this kind of name-calling is not really evidence against Heisey or against Keri's point. It's an eye test -- which should only be part of the equation. Now... if you want to argue that WAR is not the best measure of a player's ability, that's another thing -- at least it is arguing against Keri's statement on its merits -- but trying to pull rank on a national writer as an outsider hack who doesn't watch Reds baseball just doesn't hold much water in this case.

[757690]

Here we go again with the "he hasn't watched Heisey play" argument. I repeat -- Keri has already presented statistics (WAR) that support his (remarkably logical and uncontroversial) claim that Chris is not that bad of a replacement player for Ludwick. I have yet to see anyone present persuasive evidence that this statement is untrue other than anecdotal claims about how Keri is "clearly not paying attention" since as Reds fans we already know that he "clearly isn't good" or "he's a journeyman outfielder" or he "makes knuckle-headed decisions from time to time."

I'm sorry, but this kind of name-calling is not really evidence against Heisey or against Keri's point. It's an eye test -- which should only be part of the equation. Now... if you want to argue that WAR is not the best measure of a player's ability, that's another thing -- at least it is arguing against Keri's statement on its merits -- but trying to pull rank on a national writer as an outsider hack who doesn't watch Reds baseball just doesn't hold much water in this case.

You're actually making my point.

I can't blame Keri for his statement because he clearly hasn't watched Heisey play enough or followed the Reds closely enough to know his strengths and weaknesses, and there's no reason to expect him to.

However, that doesn't make his statement any less wrong. Keri based his analysis solely on stats, and he revealed a big problem when one does that.

The stats say Heisey isn't that much worse than Ludwick overall, if they played everyday. Watching them play tells us otherwise, and very clearly and decisively.

[RedEye]

You're actually making my point.

I can't blame Keri for his statement because he clearly hasn't watched Heisey play enough or followed the Reds closely enough to know his strengths and weaknesses, and there's no reason to expect him to.

However, that doesn't make his statement any less wrong. Keri based his analysis solely on stats, and he revealed a big problem when one does that.

The stats say Heisey isn't that much worse than Ludwick overall, if they played everyday. Watching them play tells us otherwise, and very clearly and decisively.

First -- how do you know he hasn't watched Heisey?

Second -- how does watching Heisey give you anything decisive or clear?

Third -- just who is this "us" you are talking about? I'm certainly not part of it.

I would hazard to say I've watched nearly as much Reds baseball over the years as you have. And I also study statistics. I'm not an expert in either, to be fair. But I'm here to say that nothing whatsoever about what you are saying is "decisive and clear" about Heisey's play. He's a guy who has gotten a smattering of opportunities over the past few years, and who has been frustrating at times. I'll give you that, but...

Human perception tends to dwell on glaring errors and big plays like home runs, and not to appreciate the nuances of, say, range in the outfield or base running speed. Heisey plays all three outfield positions well. He has been known to put up a .730-ish OPS based on his career numbers.

I'm no Heisey apologist. I just think we should make an effort to appreciate what value he does have.

And I'm no Keri apologist. But I think what he wrote here has some merit. And I think y'all are using straw men arguments to dismiss him out of hand.

[mth123]

If he's using Heisey as evidence that the Reds have decent depth, he clearly hasn't watched Heisey play.

Decent depth means you have players who can move from a bench role to a starting role and not hurt the team. Heisey has proven he's not one of those players.

I don't think it means that at all. Most teams don't have starting caliber guys sitting around in case of emergency. Heisey is a pretty good 4th OF all things considered. He's struggling when he plays every day because he's a good bench player but not really a starter.

Name 5 teams with a better option at 4th OF. Please provide team name and player.