This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.
This thread is a perfect example of why "statheads" get a bad name.
So it's only the "statheads" behaving badly?Originally Posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
There's plenty of goofiness on both sides.
Gonelong nailed it exactly. For whatever the reason, Casey was well below average for a major league firstbasemen from 2001 thru 2003 (352/413, approx 1700 TPA's).
Casey is having an MVP type season so far this year, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't very good for three years compared to the other 1Bs in the league.
Actually I was thinking the exact opposite. And believe me Randy, "staheads" as you refer to us, are not the only ones with a "bad name." And I just re-read this entire thread and I must have missed the part where this became a debate about stats.
Last edited by MWM; 06-02-2004 at 08:42 AM.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Oh, I think that most of us already knew that and that has been crystal clear to the majority of us for some time.
"Hey Neil bring me my beer"
Stop and think about what you have written here, have you not been enabling in contrast to your own rules? There was a time boss that you would not have hesitated to call me to task for the caustic behavior and dribble that a certain poster gets away with on your website chronically and with many.
Clearly you are correct, well said Creek.
Should be singular
Absolutely, RF62 has always been a class act and valuable read on this forum in contrast to the other attention seeking character.
I wonder where GAC is, surely he has something to add ?
I just re-read this entire thread and the thought that keeps coming to mind is "what constitutes a personal attack on a player?" I think what happens is fans getting attached to certain players. I know I certainly do. So when someone comes along and is critical of that player, we take it personally.
I don't think there's any question that Ken Griffey, Jr. was attacked personally on this board almost from the day he arrived. His work ethic, his integrity, his desire, and just about everything else was called into question. I think the same can be said for Barry larkin. He's been called a primadonna, money hungry, the works.
But I think that aside from a few non-regular, usually younger posters, most of the criticism of players stays primarily performance related. Rosie, I remember the talk of Walker and I was actually one of his supporters. I liked Todd and thought we should have kept him. But I seriously can't recall anything personal being thrown in his direction. It's possible i just don't remember.
I kept wondering what exactly is the disagreement within this thread. And I keep coming back to "what is a personal attack." Some seem to think it got personal with Casey, while others who were criticial of Casey want to defend themselves because they knew they kept it about performance. I'd still like someone to give me an example of these incessant personal attacks on Casey. I'm not suggesting they aren't there and I'm not trying to be difficult. It just seems that if these personal attacks were so rampant, it shouldn't be difficult to find a few examples. And if Casey leading the lead in hugs is the worst thing that was said, I'm not sure how that is so offensive. Does that cross the line into personal, probably. But are comments like that worthy of some of the accusations in this thread, I don't think so.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
If Casey were here, he'd give you both a hug.
And yeah, he'll hit .390 all season. Maybe even .400. I think.
"It's easier to give up. I'm not a very vocal player. I lead by example. I take the attitude that I've got to go out and do it. Because of who I am, I've got to give everything I've got to come back."
-Ken Griffey Jr.
Hit the nail on the head. Adios.
And yet when I said the very same things last year that you just stated above Mike, I was laughed at and told it just didn't seem feasible.
I was also rebuked for even suggesting that though the 2002 season was considered an injury year for Casey (that's when he had the surgery, and it basically shot that season down the tubes), and that Casey most likely had hurt the shoulder in the last 1/2 of the previous 2001 season. Yet it was the Drs who originally suggested that after they had opened the shoulder up and saw the extent of the damage. It wasn't you; but I was nailed pretty good for that by a few posters on here. Not in a mean-spirited fashion mind you. but I was nailed/ribbed for it.
Sure Casey didn't produce at the levels we expected over the last 2 1/2 seasons. But why? His detractors always threw out his OPS and other various stats to give weight to their argument. But what they always seemed to conveniently omit that the possible reason for that drop in production was due to INJURY, and the subsequent recovery time needed.
They threw out every other bit of reasoning BUT that one.... slow bat speed, not being able to go the other way anymore, drop in extra base hits, and finally, some stated he was just over-rated or in decline.
I'm sorry Mike, but I feel you're doing that now with this statement... "After three years and several failed predictions of a comeback, what were we supposed to think?"
What several failed predictions of a comeback? If he was hurt the entire 2002 season, and the 2003 season was a recovery season, which most of us Casey "supporters" saw it as.... then THIS YEAR would be his comeback year IMO. You can't have a comeback until you are healed or deemed healthy? So the earliest a comeback could even be attempted would be last year at the earliest. And I still maintain that it takes some players a year to fully recover from that type of surgery (every player is different). And I have always stated that. I even told SD awhile back, when we were having this same discussion, that this had to be the year for Casey, and that there could be no more excuses. And Casey is living up to it IMO.
I'm not saying that Casey will necessarily continue all season at this torrid pace. And I don't think anyone says that. But now that the guy is healthy, everyone can give an honest and fair evaluation of the guy can't they?
I consider the '99 season Casey's first full season with the Reds. Look at his stats from '99 through 2001...
1999 - .332 B/A .399 OB% + .539 SLG% = .938 OPS
2000 - .315 B/A .385 OB% + .517 SLG% = .902 OPS
2001 - .310 B/A .369 OB% + .458 SLG% = .827 OPS
Now those are the stats from a healthy Sean Casey. He was producing at those same levels during the first half of the '01 season, and then his production really fell off in the 2nd half of the season to give him an OPS for the year of .827. That is still not terrible. But since he ended up having major shoulder surgery in the early stages of the '02 season, then why is it suspect to assume (especially when even the Drs suggested it) that his shoulder injury/degeneration went back into the '01 season? I do not think that is being far-fetched at all. I don't see that as making excuses, but trying to be realistic in my approach/assessment.
And what bothered me was when I saw some continually quoting his stats from the two previous years (02-03), and yes, using them against Sean, in an attempt to give validity to their argument that Casey has somehow peeked and was now in decline, while giving little consideration that he was injured, and that contributed to his declining stats. All they saw were the stats, and what that told them. That's all that mattered.
I never stated on here, during the whole Casey debate, that I thought any of his "detractors" WANTED Casey to fail.
I just don't think they were being fair and objective in their assessment AT THAT TIME.
As I stated above.... he's healthy now, and there can be no more excuses for Casey. IMO, everyone can now be objective in their assessment. And so far, IMO, Casey is proving some wrong.
But even this year I have heard a few state that they are simplying waiting for the Casey of old to re-appear at some point, and that it will be inevitable. And what are they basing their assessment on?
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Oh yeah! And lets don't forget the Calvin Pickering comparisons to Sean Casey. Calvin tore up the Mexican League (along with the seat of many a pairs of pants!) :mhcky21:
I wish Ben Broussard all the best. And since I live in central Ohio I still follow him as an Indian. But that trade didn't bother me one iota. There was no room for Broussard on this team with Casey and Dunn. Branyan didn't work out for us. Maybe Broussard won't work out for the Indians. I know the Indians are "experimenting" with Hafner and others at 1B.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Currently in Omaha
.292 .430 .733, 16 HR's, 39 rbis (and an Ernie Lombardi amount of 2b (3) and 1 magic 3b)
Holy Joe Bauman!!
You make some good points, GAC, but I don't necessarily agree entirely with your assessment. You make it look like it was obvious that injuries were the ONLY reason for Casey's drop in production. Like I said, I thought the second half of '01 he was clearly suffering from injury. Most were even willing to admit that '02 was a result of being less than a year removed from the surgery. It wasn't until '03 that many, including myself, began to wonder if Sean Casey just wasn't the player we thought he was going to be. It was a legitimate question that came from trying to be objective.
You make it sound lke that was somehow "unobjective" or "unfair." It was different opinion, that's all. I don't think you can blame 2003 on a surgery he had in 2001. Other players have had similar surgery and had gone back to normal production in much less time. Why was it taking Sean so long to recover completely? He did have 14 HRs in 2003. Now if he had other injuries last year, then that's another story. But I think it was a perfectly legitimate opinion to think Sean Casey's production from last year could not be blamed on his shoulder and that just maybe he was a player who peaked early and was on the decline. I don't think anyone hoped for this, but after last year I think it was definitely something that could have LEGITIMATELY been considered. It's not that uncommon for players to come up and put up Casey-like numbers for a year or two and then go into an unexplained decline. Ben Grieve comes to mind.
But I take a little umbrage with guys who now come in and say "we knew all along". No you didn't. You hoped and it looks like you might be right. I'll gladly admit that I didn't think Sean Casey would do what he's doing. It wasn't until last year that I began to think this way. Like I said, I predicted a big comeback for him in 2002 and 2003, because I thought the injury was why his production had passed. But after it didn't happen two full seasons after his surgery, you have to begin to question. In my opinion, that's EXACTLY what someone being objective would do. How could someone being objective not consider that asa possibility. You say there were people who considered everything BUT injury. I think there were also who never considered anything BUT injury. Why do you think there was no interest in Casey in the trade market? Afterall, the Reds FO would have gladly given him away to anyone willing to take his contract. Maybe it was that the other 29 teams, who were being objective, didn't think his drop in production was entirely injury related.
It's entirely possible that Sean Casey realized that this was a make or break year for him and worked in the off-season to return to the hitting approach he employed in his successful years. It's possible that it was all about adjustments and hard work as opposed to nothing more than health. I don't think anyone knows entirely. All we can do is hope that it's permanent.
BTW, please stop calling yourself Casey "supporters" and referring to others as "detractors."
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
