Who is your Minor League MVP?

[HokieRed]

I predict the problem of LF will look clearer by July, 2010, when it will be apparent that the best solution is to move Votto there b/c it makes no sense to play Alonso anywhere but 1b in Cinti.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I am sorry, but we just aren't going to agree on this. There is simply no way that you can try to justify that being better than the league average by 29 points of OPS, which an .810 in left field would be, isn't good enough. Building a baseball team is about trying to have your guy better than their guy at as many spots as possible. When your guy is above average, you are doing that more than you aren't. That means that guy isn't the problem. Sure, maybe you look for an upgrade, but you should ALWAYS be looking to do that. That doesn't make the guy the problem with the team. I don't get how Stubbs being league average is worth more than Frazier being league average.... league average is just that, league average.

If your starter is at .810, then the position as a whole probably won't be better (because other players will drag it down). Look at the list. Its only better than the crummy ones. That is far different than good. Good is still the goal.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

If your starter is at .810, then the position as a whole probably won't be better (because other players will drag it down). Look at the list. Its only better than the crummy ones. That is far different than good. Good is still the goal.

Well then build a better bench. You should count on your starter to be at around 150 starts a year. If you can get 150 starts of .810 OPS in LF you are doing your job. Certainly .850 would be better, but if you get .810, there is simply no reason to not be happy with it because its better than most other teams are getting out of the position. Do that at most of your other spots and you are going to be just fine offensively.

[mth123]

So lets be happy with Scott Hatteberg at 1b then. A line-up needs a couple of big run producers. Manning all the positions with guys who squeak just above league average won't get you there. Hatteberg is a pefect recent example. He was fairly productive versus the league, but killed the team IMO.

Historically, teams haven't won in the manner that you are suggesting.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

So lets be happy with Scott Hatteberg at 1b then. A line-up needs a couple of big run producers. Manning all the positions with guys who squeak just above league average won't get you there. Hatteberg is a pefect recent example. He was fairly productive versus the league, but killed the team IMO.

Historically, teams haven't won in the manner that you are suggesting.

Depends on which Scott Hatteberg you are talking about. Scott Hatteberg in 2007 was the only Scott Hatteberg who was better than the 2009 NL League average at first base. If you mean that guy, then sure, I will be fine with it. Otherwise you are trying to compare someone who is below average to someone who would be 29 points above average. Your example was what you thought to be solid, but it was in fact just not accurate in the sense that 'he was fairly productive versus the league' because well, in his entire career he was only that for 1 season and it wasn't even a full one. Since the 2009 NL first baseman averaged an .858 OPS, you're basically saying that a first baseman with an .887 OPS isn't cutting it.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Depends on which Scott Hatteberg you are talking about. Scott Hatteberg in 2007 was the only Scott Hatteberg who was better than the 2009 NL League average at first base. If you mean that guy, then sure, I will be fine with it. Otherwise you are trying to compare someone who is below average to someone who would be 29 points above average. Your example was what you thought to be solid, but it was in fact just not accurate in the sense that 'he was fairly productive versus the league' because well, in his entire career he was only that for 1 season and it wasn't even a full one. Since the 2009 NL first baseman averaged an .858 OPS, you're basically saying that a first baseman with an .887 OPS isn't cutting it.

I think Votto of 2009 is the only 1B that this team had "cutting it" for a long, long time (maybe Casey in 1999 or 2004). Even 2008 Votto was iffy, but I expected it to foreshadow better things so I was thrilled with it.

IMO, you are confusing starting caliber player with winning player. Frazier can be a starter similar to what Bob Bailey was when he was a bonus baby in the 60's. Put up some decent years for some bad teams, but the good teams he was on made him a very good bench player or part timer. He had a long and fine career. Not sure why everyone thinks its such a slight, but I don't think Frazier is a guy you want in LF on a winning team. If he could handle 3B that is another story, but I want to see him actually do it before thinking the team should hand him the 3B of the future title (silly me actually wanting to see a guy perform on the field again). You may be able to get by with him in LF if you have well above average production at other spots, but its less likely to find big production up the middle than it is in LF or 1B, so I don't like the idea of filling one of those spots with league average or slightly above. Those are the most likely spots to find the middle of the line-up thumper and if you close that option by making a guy like Frazier a mainstay, then it becomes harder to get it somewhere else without giving up tons of defense where it matters most. I'd rather have Brandon Phillips at 2B and a thumper in LF, then say Frazier in LF and have to turn to some one like Jeff Kent at 2B to fill out the middle of the order. The defensive hit from Phillips to Kent would be enormous, but if I keep Phillips and Frazier, I have 2 sixth or seventh spot bats and no one to hit 3rd or 4th. (And yes, on a good team an .810 OPS would bat 6th and Brandon Phillips would hit 7th). If the team had Chase Utley at 2B, then I'd happily stick Frazier in LF and save my resources for the pitching staff. But, until some one like that is in hand for an up the middle spot, I'm not satisfied with league average or slightly above in LF or 1B.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think Votto of 2009 is the only 1B that this team had "cutting it" for a long, long time (maybe Casey in 1999 or 2004). Even 2008 Votto was iffy, but I expected it to foreshadow better things so I was thrilled with it.

Then your expectations are simply unrealistic if you think its reasonable to expect a .900 OPS first baseman every year.

IMO, you are confusing starting caliber player with winning player. Frazier can be a starter similar to what Bob Bailey was when he was a bonus baby in the 60's. Put up some decent years for some bad teams, but the good teams he was on made him a very good bench player or part timer. He had a long and fine career. Not sure why everyone thinks its such a slight, but I don't think Frazier is a guy you want in LF on a winning team.

I just don't get your idea of a winning team. You seem to believe that winning teams must be well above average at every position on the diamond and thats simply not accurate. If I can get anyone, at any position, who is going to be above average for that position, regardless of how much its by, then I want that guy out there. If Frazier can get to that .810 OPS talked about, then he absolutely is a guy I want out there. Likewise, if I had a chance to get an .850 or .900 bat out there (assuming not much decline in the defense), then I want that guy as well.

If he could handle 3B that is another story, but I want to see him actually do it before thinking the team should hand him the 3B of the future title (silly me actually wanting to see a guy perform on the field again). You may be able to get by with him in LF if you have well above average production at other spots, but its less likely to find big production up the middle than it is in LF or 1B, so I don't like the idea of filling one of those spots with league average or slightly above.

It's not really 'easier' to find above average production anywhere else. Average is that, average. Above average first baseman are going to have to be above average of .858 OPS. Above average shortstops have to be above average of a .752 OPS. Neither is easier or tougher to find. If team A has a shortstop thats 15 runs better than team B but team B has a first baseman thats 15 runs better than team A, aren't both teams equal at those two spots? Of course they are. It doesn't matter where you get your production at, you just want to be better than the other guys in the opposing clubhouse more than they are better than you.

Those are the most likely spots to find the middle of the line-up thumper and if you close that option by making a guy like Frazier a mainstay, then it becomes harder to get it somewhere else without giving up tons of defense where it matters most. I'd rather have Brandon Phillips at 2B and a thumper in LF, then say Frazier in LF and have to turn to some one like Jeff Kent at 2B to fill out the middle of the order. The defensive hit from Phillips to Kent would be enormous, but if I keep Phillips and Frazier, I have 2 sixth or seventh spot bats and no one to hit 3rd or 4th. (And yes, on a good team an .810 OPS would bat 6th and Brandon Phillips would hit 7th). If the team had Chase Utley at 2B, then I'd happily stick Frazier in LF and save my resources for the pitching staff. But, until some one like that is in hand for an up the middle spot, I'm not satisfied with league average or slightly above in LF or 1B.

You can continue to pretend that being better than league average but not great at 1B and LF (as if the two spots are even close in terms of their actual level, when LF is a lot closer to RF, CF, 2B than 1B in terms of what you should get offensively) all you want, but its not going to change the fact that its flat out wrong that its not a good thing. If you are slightly above average across the board, your offense is going to be pretty darn good overall and that is what matters. If you are above average at a spot and your offense overall isn't cutting it, don't blame it on the guys who are above average. Blame it on the guys who aren't. The guy with an .810 OPS in LF isn't the problem.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Then your expectations are simply unrealistic if you think its reasonable to expect a .900 OPS first baseman every year.


I just don't get your idea of a winning team. You seem to believe that winning teams must be well above average at every position on the diamond and thats simply not accurate. If I can get anyone, at any position, who is going to be above average for that position, regardless of how much its by, then I want that guy out there. If Frazier can get to that .810 OPS talked about, then he absolutely is a guy I want out there. Likewise, if I had a chance to get an .850 or .900 bat out there (assuming not much decline in the defense), then I want that guy as well.


It's not really 'easier' to find above average production anywhere else. Average is that, average. Above average first baseman are going to have to be above average of .858 OPS. Above average shortstops have to be above average of a .752 OPS. Neither is easier or tougher to find. If team A has a shortstop thats 15 runs better than team B but team B has a first baseman thats 15 runs better than team A, aren't both teams equal at those two spots? Of course they are. It doesn't matter where you get your production at, you just want to be better than the other guys in the opposing clubhouse more than they are better than you.

You can continue to pretend that being better than league average but not great at 1B and LF (as if the two spots are even close in terms of their actual level, when LF is a lot closer to RF, CF, 2B than 1B in terms of what you should get offensively) all you want, but its not going to change the fact that its flat out wrong that its not a good thing. If you are slightly above average across the board, your offense is going to be pretty darn good overall and that is what matters. If you are above average at a spot and your offense overall isn't cutting it, don't blame it on the guys who are above average. Blame it on the guys who aren't. The guy with an .810 OPS in LF isn't the problem.

Its easier to find middle of the line-up production at 1B and LF than anywhere else (though RF has its share). If you don't get it there, its harder to find in players who can adequately man other spots. Its more difficult to find a run producer who has the range for CF, the ability to pick-it at 2B or SS, the reactions of 3B or the arm for RF. To deny that, denies reality. Stick your 6th place hitter in LF, and then you have a tougher task finding your mid-line-up main man. You can deny it all you want, but its true.

You yourself said it takes a combination of players, and that includes a couple guys who do produce the .900 plus OPS. I say the easiest place to find that is at 1B or LF where having the other skills is less necessary. Its not the only way to build a winner, but its the most likely way and with the exception of Bruce, I don't see that caliber of bat anywhere on the team or in the system for the other spots. The low bar of positional league average at those up the middle spots is fine for the good defenders, but somewhere the team needs big producers and league average for any position shouldn't be a consideration when it comes to filling that role. You need a couple of big bats to win in most cases and at some point you have to forget about league average and find what it takes to make the line-up actually competititve.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The Reds brass has been saying for a while now that they believe Todd can play 3B, which is why they have him playing elsewhere.

This is the exact sort of logic that made the losing stop now.

CAN play is fine, I guess.

140 games at 3B next year in Louisville would be a helluva lot better.

[HokieRed]

I suspect what the org. has done is a better guide to what they really think than what they've said. No doubt Todd "can" play 3b; one could have said that about EE. Question is about whether they have confidence that he can play it everyday at a level consistent with the kind of defense you've got to have for groundball pitchers in GABP. The acquisition of Rolen makes me continue to think they really don't believe in Frazier as a 3b at that level.

[GOYA]

Juan Francisco

[tbball10]

I say Heisey. I gave consideration to Francisco and Wood also.