Defense vs. Offense

[Limey]

Perhaps lost in the blizzard of Cincy baserunners last night was the fact that the all-stick, no glove infield selected by Gar was of little help to the reeling starter.  Munson and Bruntlett both got errors.

When the next clark comes in here wanting Burke at SS, we should link 'em to tonight's game recap.

[austro]

I found myself wondering if Ensberg would have got the 1st inning line drive down the LF line that Lamb just missed.  If that ball is caught, maybe Wandy settles down and the inning doesn't snowball.  Probably not, given that he kept throwing meatballs, but still...

[pravata]

Quote:
Perhaps lost in the blizzard of Cincy baserunners last night was the fact that the all-stick, no glove infield selected by Gar was of little help to the reeling starter.  Munson and Bruntlett both got errors.

When the next clark comes in here wanting Burke at SS, we should link 'em to tonight's game recap.

That ball hit right in Bruntlett's glove, he's usually a very good fielder.  As for the rest of them, it is beyond expectation that they should catch a ball hit right at them.  We can't even dream that they could field one for which a step to either side is required.  Taveras needs a stick out in center.  That ball was still wigglin.

[Limey]

Quote:
That ball hit right in Bruntlett's glove, he's usually a very good fielder.  As for the rest of them, it is beyond expectation that they should catch a ball hit right at them.  We can't even dream that they could field one for which a step to either side is required.  Taveras needs a stick out in center.  That ball was still wigglin.  

I sat through the whole thing last night.  Two rows behind the Astros' dugout, and I have to watch that dogshit.  They looked more dead than the dead 'n' buried 2005 team.  If nothing else, the threat of a glare across the locker room from the Racket might smarten some of these boys up.

The only interesting thing about last night (Sampson aside - and it was extremely grating having to listen to the ignorant corporate fans blathering on about who he was, clearly having no clue) was that the roof was open, then closed, then opened again for the fireworks.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Perhaps lost in the blizzard of Cincy baserunners last night was the fact that the all-stick, no glove infield selected by Gar was of little help to the reeling starter.  Munson and Bruntlett both got errors.

When the next clark comes in here wanting Burke at SS, we should link 'em to tonight's game recap.

But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

P.S. Wandy walked five batters last night.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
That ball hit right in Bruntlett's glove, he's usually a very good fielder.  As for the rest of them, it is beyond expectation that they should catch a ball hit right at them.  We can't even dream that they could field one for which a step to either side is required.  Taveras needs a stick out in center.  That ball was still wigglin.  

I sat through the whole thing last night.  Two rows behind the Astros' dugout, and I have to watch that dogshit.  They looked more dead than the dead 'n' buried 2005 team.  If nothing else, the threat of a glare across the locker room from the Racket might smarten some of these boys up.

The only interesting thing about last night (Sampson aside - and it was extremely grating having to listen to the ignorant corporate fans blathering on about who he was, clearly having no clue) was that the roof was open, then closed, then opened again for the fireworks.

Palillo, even after acknowledging his history, used Sampson as an example for his rant on how the Astros don't use their minor leaguers.  I also forgot Wilson, that misjudged liner that he had to leap for set him going backward, the runner on 3rd had an easy trot home on a ball to mid left.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

My sacrcasm meter is in the shop (or shoppe for Limey's sake).  Did you *really* not understand his point?

[David in Jackson]

Maybe not, but I'm not sure I agree with it if I understand correctly.

As a long-time BFT regular, I do have enough sense to stay out the Clark trainwreck threads, though.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Maybe not, but I'm not sure I agree with it if I understand correctly.

As a long-time BFT regular, I do have enough sense to stay out the Clark trainwreck threads, though.

Huh?

[Limey]

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

Of course.  My point was that those who argue that offense can overcome defensive shortcomings should take note of the comedic glovework from last night.  Burke is simply the latest poster child for the debate.

Quote:
P.S. Wandy walked five batters last night.

Yep.  And when he really, really, really needed his defense to make a routine play for him, they failed.  I wasn't excusing Wandy, but how many times have you seen a struggling pitcher get bailed out by his defense and then right the ship?

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

Of course.  My point was that those who argue that offense can overcome defensive shortcomings should take note of the comedic glovework from last night.  Burke is simply the latest poster child for the debate.

Quote:
P.S. Wandy walked five batters last night.

Yep.  And when he really, really, really needed his defense to make a routine play for him, they failed.  I wasn't excusing Wandy, but how many times have you seen a struggling pitcher get bailed out by his defense and then right the ship?

Theoretically, a certain level of offensive production can overcome defensive shortcomings. Obviously not in the case of Burke at SS. (And I guess Lamb and Bruntlett starting on the left side.)

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Theoretically, a certain level of offensive production can overcome defensive shortcomings. Obviously not in the case of Burke at SS. (And I guess Lamb and Bruntlett starting on the left side.)

Theoretically, anything is fair game, including putting Sampson back at shortstop and/or Biggio back at catcher.  Reality is a bit more fun though.

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

Of course.  My point was that those who argue that offense can overcome defensive shortcomings should take note of the comedic glovework from last night.  Burke is simply the latest poster child for the debate.

Quote:
P.S. Wandy walked five batters last night.

Yep.  And when he really, really, really needed his defense to make a routine play for him, they failed.  I wasn't excusing Wandy, but how many times have you seen a struggling pitcher get bailed out by his defense and then right the ship?

Theoretically, a certain level of offensive production can overcome defensive shortcomings. Obviously not in the case of Burke at SS. (And I guess Lamb and Bruntlett starting on the left side.)

I agree.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I agree.

Weren't you the one who said "Adam Everett is not a major league shortstop" at one time.  In fact, you never retracted it if I remember correctly.

Bias much?

[David in Jackson]

AE's offense in 2003-04 exceeded what I thought he could do.  I was wrong about that.

I do think there is a point at which Everett's poor offense makes him a liability in the lineup, regardless of his defense.  I think his terrible postseason and terrible 2006 has Garner playing Bruntlett more for this reason.

I realize some people here argue that offense and defense are entitely separate things and that one has nothing to do with the other.  Some have argued it doesn't matter what AE hits because of his quality defense.  I don't agree with that.  I think a player, and a team, is a combination of all the various skills (hitting, fielding, defense, intelligence, guts, speed, etc.) and all have to be considered when choosing a roster and starting lineup.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I think his terrible postseason and terrible 2006 has Garner playing Bruntlett more for this reason.

You think wrong.  AE has a back problem that has hindered his ability and so Bruntlett (not Burke) has gotten to fill in for him.

And you didn't answer the question: Weren't you the one who proclaimed that "Adam Everett is not a major league shortstop!".

[David in Jackson]

"Bruntlett's been swinging the bat well," manager Phil Garner said. "Of course, if Bruntlett gets 10 hits in the next couple of days we might have to extend that a little bit. We'll see."

In other words, Garner is saying if we can get an offensive boost out of Bruntlett, Everett will sit a while, his defense notwithstanding.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

My sacrcasm meter is in the shop (or shoppe for Limey's sake).  Did you *really* not understand his point?

I understand the general point. I don't think the specific instance cited is a very good illustration of the general point. Surely you *understand* that. As has been pointed out, Bruntlett isn't really a defensive liability out there.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I understand the general point.

So why did you pick on the *specific* reference to Burke?

Quote:
I don't think the specific instance cited is a very good illustration of the general point. Surely you *understand* that.

Hyperbole from Limey aside, was it really a specifc point *worth* harping on?  Did his general point not make sense to you because of it?

Quote:
As has been pointed out, Bruntlett isn't really a defensive liability out there.

No. No he isn't.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
"Bruntlett's been swinging the bat well," manager Phil Garner said. "Of course, if Bruntlett gets 10 hits in the next couple of days we might have to extend that a little bit. We'll see."

Adam Everett has a bad back and will see a doctor about it. From Garner:

"I have not made a decision that it was anything permanent or semi-permanent or what have you," Garner said. "If Bruntlett did get 10 hits, I would probably continue to play him on a day-by-day basis.

If Bruntlett got 10 straight hits, I'd eat my cap and nominate him for Babe Ruth reincarnated. Seems Garner's remarks on Astros.com have a little more sarcasm mixed with realism in them, doncha think?  You're really reaching now!

Quote:
In other words, Garner is saying if we can get an offensive boost out of Bruntlett, Everett will sit a while, his defense notwithstanding.

You're wishing.  But still, why do you not answer my question: You were the one who said "Adam Everett is NOT a major league shortstop!"... right?  Bias much?

[Zan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But Burke didn't play shortstop last night.

My sacrcasm meter is in the shop (or shoppe for Limey's sake).  Did you *really* not understand his point?

I understand the general point. I don't think the specific instance cited is a very good illustration of the general point. Surely you *understand* that. As has been pointed out, Bruntlett isn't really a defensive liability out there.

I think it's good Limey has a solid sample size of good posts, because in this instance he used a Clarkian strategy to make his (valid!) point. Referencing a game in which some bad defense was played by somebody other than Burke as an example of why Burke shouldn't start is a stretch. I may as well reference the brutality of Wilson's 5K game as evidence that AE shouldn't start.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
"Bruntlett's been swinging the bat well," manager Phil Garner said. "Of course, if Bruntlett gets 10 hits in the next couple of days we might have to extend that a little bit. We'll see."

Adam Everett has a bad back and will see a doctor about it. From Garner:

"I have not made a decision that it was anything permanent or semi-permanent or what have you," Garner said. "If Bruntlett did get 10 hits, I would probably continue to play him on a day-by-day basis.

If Bruntlett got 10 straight hits, I'd eat my cap and nominate him for Babe Ruth reincarnated. Seems Garner's remarks on Astros.com have a little more sarcasm mixed with realism in them, doncha think?  You're really reaching now!

Quote:
In other words, Garner is saying if we can get an offensive boost out of Bruntlett, Everett will sit a while, his defense notwithstanding.

You're wishing.  But still, why do you not answer my question: You were the one who said "Adam Everett is NOT a major league shortstop!"... right?  Bias much?

I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

Why do you think he's hitting .209, Neil?  You can do it, come on.  Why?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I think it's good Limey has a solid sample size of good posts, because in this instance he used a Clarkian strategy to make his (valid!) point. Referencing a game in which some bad defense was played by somebody other than Burke as an example of why Burke shouldn't start is a stretch. I may as well reference the brutality of Wilson's 5K game as evidence that AE shouldn't start.

This is B.S.  He wasn't talking about Burke, he was talking about people who put Burke on a pedestal and generally ignore Burke's shortcomings at defense as "non-issues" because defense does not mean much.

Gosh, are people this stupid around here all of a sudden?

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:
I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

Why do you think he's hitting .209, Neil?  You can do it, come on.  Why?

Because he has 36 hits in 179 official at bats. Get yourself a calculator and do the math ... it works out that way every time you try.

[CJM]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

Why do you think he's hitting .209, Neil?  You can do it, come on.  Why?

Because he has 36 hits in 179 official at bats. Get yourself a calculator and do the math ... it works out that way every time you try.

Every time I try doing the math 36 hits in 179 ABs comes to .201.

If you want to be a smart ass, you could at least get the math right.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

Why do you think he's hitting .209, Neil?  You can do it, come on.  Why?

Noe, I don't know why he's hitting .209.  Last year he hit .248.  His career high's been .273 over 109 games.  Right now, his career average is .248.  Maybe it's because he's hitting where he's hitting in the lineup.  Maybe he's injured.  Maybe he's not a major league hitter, and major league pitchers have him figured out.  Maybe he's in a longish slump.  All I know is that I suspect that regardless of how good they were  defensively, the list of major league position players with long, successful careers and sub-.248 averages with no power is going to be short.  I'm not saying that I know that for certain, only that I suspect it. I also suspect that the further south of .248 a player's average goes, the less successful the player's career is.  The problem is that if this is true:

 There is a problem with saying offense can overcome defensive shortcomings  

then this is also true:

 There is a problem with saying defense can overcome offensive shortcomings,

[which, as an aside, is why I think so many people on the board can't make sense of either statement, but that's a different issue.]  I don't think I have any agenda in this post other than to say hitting .209 is a problem for any position player, and if he continues to go south with his hitting he starts looking like someone who can't hit in the major leagues.  If he turns it around, great.  Everett will be a fine major league shortstop hitting .250 and .260 and .270 from season to season.  Hitting .209, he starts looking like a slightly less productive Tim Bogar with a bit better defense.  

Lane too.

[otterj]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I hate to say this Noe, but if Everett keeps hitting .209, you may be begging the question.

Why do you think he's hitting .209, Neil?  You can do it, come on.  Why?

Noe, I don't know why he's hitting .209.  Last year he hit .248.  His career high's been .273 over 109 games.  Right now, his career average is .248.  Maybe it's because he's hitting where he's hitting in the lineup.  Maybe he's injured.  Maybe he's not a major league hitter, and major league pitchers have him figured out.  Maybe he's in a longish slump.  All I know is that I suspect that regardless of how good they were  defensively, the list of major league position players with long, successful careers and sub-.248 averages with no power is going to be short.  I'm not saying that I know that for certain, only that I suspect it. I also suspect that the further south of .248 a player's average goes, the less successful the player's career is.  The problem is that if this is true:

 There is a problem with saying offense can overcome defensive shortcomings  

then this is also true:

 There is a problem with saying defense can overcome offensive shortcomings,

[which, as an aside, is why I think so many people on the board can't make sense of either statement, but that's a different issue.]  I don't think I have any agenda in this post other than to say hitting .209 is a problem for any position player, and if he continues to go south with his hitting he starts looking like someone who can't hit in the major leagues.  If he turns it around, great.  Everett will be a fine major league shortstop hitting .250 and .260 and .270 from season to season.  Hitting .209, he starts looking like a slightly less productive Tim Bogar with a bit better defense.  

Lane too.

Fuck you. That's more truth than I can handle.

The turnaround begins soon....

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Because he has 36 hits in 179 official at bats. Get yourself a calculator and do the math ... it works out that way every time you try.

So you think this is how a player is evaluated by team management?  Phil Garner takes a look at a calculator and says "Wholly Crap!  Who knew?!?!"  Seriously?

[JimR]

damn, you're trying to outdo stupid every post you make. laughable.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Noe, I don't know why he's hitting .209.  Last year he hit .248.  His career high's been .273 over 109 games.  Right now, his career average is .248.

Yes, he's a career average hitter of .248.  Is that good or bad for what he brings to the table defensively?  I don't seem to know since I am not aware of the demarcation of the offense versus defense tradeoff that is apparent to everyone.  Somehow the .209 he's hitting has set off some sort of alarm in the heads of some and I'd like to know what set it off given that a player will slump for various reasons throughout his career.

Case in point, Richard Hidalgo after looking like a superstar in the making.  Why did he go south of what look like a promising career offensively?  Was it a calculator that did him in?  Damn those calculators!!!  Damn them all!!!

Quote:
Maybe it's because he's hitting where he's hitting in the lineup.  Maybe he's injured.  Maybe he's not a major league hitter, and major league pitchers have him figured out.  Maybe he's in a longish slump.

Which one of those do you think the Astros themselves, since we're all pretending to speak for Garner and the rest, seems to be the answer?  Or what combination of the above?  That is all I'm asking.

Quote:
All I know is that I suspect that regardless of how good they were  defensively, the list of major league position players with long, successful careers and sub-.248 averages with no power is going to be short.

Good Lord, you think this is permanent?  If so, then I agree, get rid of Everett.  What tells you that Everett is a permanent loss offensively (or sub-career hitter) from now on?  Is it his bat speed perhaps?  He has a back injury that he will not recover from ever?  It happens you know, like with the Great Bill Spiers.  You can only take so many cortizone shots.

So what do you know?

Quote:
I'm not saying that I know that for certain, only that I suspect it.

Ooooohhhh... okay!  I thought you *knew* something, like David did!  My bad.

Quote:
I also suspect that the further south of .248 a player's average goes, the less successful the player's career is.

By that you mean if it is a permanent southbound journey or even if it's a temporary thing?  There are many things to do with a player who brings value like Everett does at shortstop defensively *IF* you're so concerned about his offense.  A good manager will look to try those things:

1. Bench him temporarily to get his head straight
2. Leave him in and let him fight his way through it
3. Have the hitting coach work with him to fix any mechanical flaws (that will increase bat speed)
4. The player himself might try a different approach to hitting
5. Have doctors look at the players ailing back and re-evaluate what may be wrong (structurally)  They may of missed something that a cortizone shot will mask

So before we "throw away a perfectly good white boy" like AE, why not allow Garner the chance to do those things?

Quote:
The problem is that if this is true:

 There is a problem with saying offense can overcome defensive shortcomings  

then this is also true:

 There is a problem with saying defense can overcome offensive shortcomings,

[which, as an aside, is why I think so many people on the board can't make sense of either statement, but that's a different issue.]  I don't think I have any agenda in this post other than to say hitting .209 is a problem for any position player, and if he continues to go south with his hitting he starts looking like someone who can't hit in the major leagues.

You believe you're seeing Richard Hidalgo all over again?  You can say so if that is what you believe.

Quote:
If he turns it around, great.  Everett will be a fine major league shortstop hitting .250 and .260 and .270 from season to season.  Hitting .209, he starts looking like a slightly less productive Tim Bogar with a bit better defense.  

Lane too.

Ensberg hit .216 in May.
Berkman hit .241 in May.
Wilson actually hit .295 in May, but doesn't stop folks from calling for his benching in favor of Burke regardless.
Lane hit .154 in May

That is your middle of the order, run producers.  That is also when the Astros went on this horrendous slump of medocrity.  (Aside from the slumping pitching, this is probably the biggest reason for the May swoon from the April outburst)

Adam Everett hit .173 in May, he's been sideline for his back injury flareups

So if Berkman gets a pass for his knee because we all *know* that he will hit better, why is AE not given the benefit of the doubt?  What is it by the young man that makes folks in here become such morons in judgement?

Phil Garner's job is to win games of course, not to please anyone in particular.  If he benches AE, it is simply because he has a better option.  Period!  That includes defense.  That includes offense.  I've watched Eric Bruntlett play for a whole season at shortstop, and while he is a nice player, he's not going to make anyone stand up and cheer "Hail to our new shortstop!".  He's a nice utility man.  So the answer for Phil if he is in concert with some of thinking in here that AE is a bust, game over for him... trade for a major league shortstop.

Let the wild-arse speculation begin!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
damn, you're trying to outdo stupid every post you make. laughable.

In-freaking-credible, eh?

[Holly]

Quote:
Phil Garner takes a look at a calculator and says "Wholly Crap!  Who knew?!?!"  Seriously?

I think Garner might take a look at the arguments here and proclaim them "wholly crap," yes.

[pravata]

4/26
Adam Everett's hand was wrapped in gauze following the Astros' 14-inning game on Tuesday, but a very relieved shorstop said he was going to be fine.

"It's swollen up pretty good," Everett said. "Luckily, it's not broken. It's pretty sore. But it's not broken."
Everett left Tuesday's game against the Dodgers in the fifth inning after he was hit on his left hand with a Brad Penny pitch. X-rays were negative, and Everett was diagnosed with a bruise. He's listed as day-to-day.
The Link

On 4/25, Everett was hitting .273.

as has been noted,

(Everett) has been bothered by a sore back in recent days, which figured into Garner's decision...
The Link

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
(Everett) has been bothered by a sore back in recent days, which figured into Garner's decision...
The Link

It is the same back (like he has another one?) that he hurt in spring training:

 Adam Everett returns to the lineup

He had to fly back to Houston from spring training to get it looked at and they shot him up with cortizone.  We all know what eventually happened to the Great Bill Spiers and his back.  Right now, there is nothing to worry about, but if you can swing a bat as you would like because your back is biting you, then it stands to reason that you will compensate a little on your swing and approach at the plate.

What I saw Adam Everett do this April and parts of May was have an approach to drive the outside pitches to right field more.  If he did that, his average would go up, but his power (if he had any) would go down.  That is why AE was amongst the top of the list of #8 hitters with RISP stats and RBIs.  He had an excellent approach at the plate.

Why he's slumping now is anyone's guess.  It may be the back injury coupled with his wrist, it can a huge part of the reason.  If so, patience is the key.  Phil Garner knows much more than we do what he needs to do to win games.  If AE is being deemed a bust, it would surprise the hell out of me that they came to that conclusion.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
What I saw Adam Everett do this April and parts of May was have an approach to drive the outside pitches to right field more.  If he did that, his average would go up, but his power (if he had any) would go down.  That is why AE was amongst the top of the list of #8 hitters with RISP stats and RBIs.  He had an excellent approach at the plate.
 

Exactly the approach that has served Ausmus so well for the past year.

Note, also, that Taveras was successful in April when he was doing this.

I'm not going to discount the injury, but is the power outage in the middle of the lineup making some of these guys press a little to turn on the ball when they can't?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
(Everett) has been bothered by a sore back in recent days, which figured into Garner's decision...
The Link

It is the same back (like he has another one?) that he hurt in spring training:

 Adam Everett returns to the lineup

He had to fly back to Houston from spring training to get it looked at and they shot him up with cortizone.  We all know what eventually happened to the Great Bill Spiers and his back.  Right now, there is nothing to worry about, but if you can swing a bat as you would like because your back is biting you, then it stands to reason that you will compensate a little on your swing and approach at the plate.

What I saw Adam Everett do this April and parts of May was have an approach to drive the outside pitches to right field more.  If he did that, his average would go up, but his power (if he had any) would go down.  That is why AE was amongst the top of the list of #8 hitters with RISP stats and RBIs.  He had an excellent approach at the plate.

Why he's slumping now is anyone's guess.  It may be the back injury coupled with his wrist, it can a huge part of the reason.  If so, patience is the key.  Phil Garner knows much more than we do what he needs to do to win games.  If AE is being deemed a bust, it would surprise the hell out of me that they came to that conclusion.

Far as I can tell, it's the same issue as in ST.  I'm surprised that these close observers of the Astros didn't notice the drop immediately after the injury.  Also, I thought that Bruntlett was a middle way between Burke and Everett, but watching him, he's looking closer to Burke than Everett.

[Limey]

Quote:
I think it's good Limey has a solid sample size of good posts, because in this instance he used a Clarkian strategy to make his (valid!) point. Referencing a game in which some bad defense was played by somebody other than Burke as an example of why Burke shouldn't start is a stretch. I may as well reference the brutality of Wilson's 5K game as evidence that AE shouldn't start.

Not a stretch.  Simply debunking the blanket theory that good hitting can overcome defensive weakness.  Starting Burke at SS is a terrible idea because he won't hit enough to overcome his lack of arm/footwork.  Starting him in RF is a whole nother story.

[MikeyBoy]

Quote:
Also, I thought that Bruntlett was a middle way between Burke and Everett, but watching him, he's looking closer to Burke than Everett.

I agree, it's one thing to make a few nice plays in one inning here and there, and another to make those same plays in 1200-1300 innings over a coarse of a season. Bruntlett is a great utility player due to his versatility and the level he plays at those positions while filling in, but if he played everyday I'm not sure everyone would see him in the same light, defensively.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Noe, I don't know why he's hitting .209.  Last year he hit .248.  His career high's been .273 over 109 games.  Right now, his career average is .248.

Yes, he's a career average hitter of .248.  Is that good or bad for what he brings to the table defensively?  I don't seem to know since I am not aware of the demarcation of the offense versus defense tradeoff that is apparent to everyone.  Somehow the .209 he's hitting has set off some sort of alarm in the heads of some and I'd like to know what set it off given that a player will slump for various reasons throughout his career.

Case in point, Richard Hidalgo after looking like a superstar in the making.  Why did he go south of what look like a promising career offensively?  Was it a calculator that did him in?  Damn those calculators!!!  Damn them all!!!

Quote:
Maybe it's because he's hitting where he's hitting in the lineup.  Maybe he's injured.  Maybe he's not a major league hitter, and major league pitchers have him figured out.  Maybe he's in a longish slump.

Which one of those do you think the Astros themselves, since we're all pretending to speak for Garner and the rest, seems to be the answer?  Or what combination of the above?  That is all I'm asking.

Quote:
All I know is that I suspect that regardless of how good they were  defensively, the list of major league position players with long, successful careers and sub-.248 averages with no power is going to be short.

Good Lord, you think this is permanent?  If so, then I agree, get rid of Everett.  What tells you that Everett is a permanent loss offensively (or sub-career hitter) from now on?  Is it his bat speed perhaps?  He has a back injury that he will not recover from ever?  It happens you know, like with the Great Bill Spiers.  You can only take so many cortizone shots.

So what do you know?

Quote:
I'm not saying that I know that for certain, only that I suspect it.

Ooooohhhh... okay!  I thought you *knew* something, like David did!  My bad.

Quote:
I also suspect that the further south of .248 a player's average goes, the less successful the player's career is.

By that you mean if it is a permanent southbound journey or even if it's a temporary thing?  There are many things to do with a player who brings value like Everett does at shortstop defensively *IF* you're so concerned about his offense.  A good manager will look to try those things:

1. Bench him temporarily to get his head straight
2. Leave him in and let him fight his way through it
3. Have the hitting coach work with him to fix any mechanical flaws (that will increase bat speed)
4. The player himself might try a different approach to hitting
5. Have doctors look at the players ailing back and re-evaluate what may be wrong (structurally)  They may of missed something that a cortizone shot will mask

So before we "throw away a perfectly good white boy" like AE, why not allow Garner the chance to do those things?

Quote:
The problem is that if this is true:

 There is a problem with saying offense can overcome defensive shortcomings  

then this is also true:

 There is a problem with saying defense can overcome offensive shortcomings,

[which, as an aside, is why I think so many people on the board can't make sense of either statement, but that's a different issue.]  I don't think I have any agenda in this post other than to say hitting .209 is a problem for any position player, and if he continues to go south with his hitting he starts looking like someone who can't hit in the major leagues.

You believe you're seeing Richard Hidalgo all over again?  You can say so if that is what you believe.

Quote:
If he turns it around, great.  Everett will be a fine major league shortstop hitting .250 and .260 and .270 from season to season.  Hitting .209, he starts looking like a slightly less productive Tim Bogar with a bit better defense.  

Lane too.

Ensberg hit .216 in May.
Berkman hit .241 in May.
Wilson actually hit .295 in May, but doesn't stop folks from calling for his benching in favor of Burke regardless.
Lane hit .154 in May

That is your middle of the order, run producers.  That is also when the Astros went on this horrendous slump of medocrity.  (Aside from the slumping pitching, this is probably the biggest reason for the May swoon from the April outburst)

Adam Everett hit .173 in May, he's been sideline for his back injury flareups

So if Berkman gets a pass for his knee because we all *know* that he will hit better, why is AE not given the benefit of the doubt?  What is it by the young man that makes folks in here become such morons in judgement?

Phil Garner's job is to win games of course, not to please anyone in particular.  If he benches AE, it is simply because he has a better option.  Period!  That includes defense.  That includes offense.  I've watched Eric Bruntlett play for a whole season at shortstop, and while he is a nice player, he's not going to make anyone stand up and cheer "Hail to our new shortstop!".  He's a nice utility man.  So the answer for Phil if he is in concert with some of thinking in here that AE is a bust, game over for him... trade for a major league shortstop.

Let the wild-arse speculation begin!

Well, what I know is that Everett right now has a problem that I'll watch and learn from.  Maybe a month from now he's back on track offensively, whatever that may be, maybe he's not.  Right now I don't think a major league position player can hit .209 and think that's ok.  .248?  Is that adequate?  I dunno and don't pretend to.  It's a number that's going to raise questions, for as we say, no matter what Adam Everett brings to the table defensively, good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  .248 will look to some folks like an offensive shortcoming.  .270?  If Adam Everett hits .270, then he's Eric Clapton and the Taj Mahal.  Or maybe he's Taj Mahal.

Everett and Lane's offensive woes may not be permanent, they may hit better (and they can't hit worse), and all your remedies will be tried, I'm certain.  But at some point, some day, if Lane (and I think Everett) don't hit better, then it seems to me at least that the team moves on.  I don't know how far the Astro's patience go.  I don't know if their patience is even being tested:  They may be looking at Lane and Everett and thinking no problem, any day now we'll be back on track.  I wouldn't trust what the Astros say in the press, I haven't asked them and wouldn't expect them to tell me.  So another thing to watch and learn.

What I was saying that I suspected wasn't anything about Everett's hitting, only that I suspected that the list of successful baseball players with sub-.248 career averages was relatively short.  Even among historically defensive shortstops, I'm guessing that's on the low side.  That's what I'm not certain about:  I took a quick swing through hall of fame shortstop numbers, then stopped off by Tim Bogar, but that's not much of a survey.  Maybe all the great defensive shortstops who weren't in the hall of fame hit sub-.250.  I dunno, the only one I could think of with that reputation was Bogar.

So to re-cap, right now what I'm saying all I know is that a guy hitting .209 has a problem.  I'm speculating that if it continues, it's a career-damaging problem, and from his history there's nothing to tell me whether it will or will not continue.  Do I know the cause?  No.  Is it permanent?  I don't know.  I've been told by folks who might know that he can't get the bat around fast enough, and that it's not something that's easy to change.  Do I know that?  No.  Do I know if there's a replacement player out there?  No, and I'm not advocating replacing Everett.  So what's the point?  Just this: if he keeps hitting .209, he's not a major league hitter.  No more, no less.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
I understand the general point.

So why did you pick on the *specific* reference to Burke?

Quote:
I don't think the specific instance cited is a very good illustration of the general point. Surely you *understand* that.

Hyperbole from Limey aside, was it really a specifc point *worth* harping on?  Did his general point not make sense to you because of it?

The specific example did not support the general point. Why should that be ignored? Because the ends of supporting the general point justify the means of using an unsupportive example?

[BudGirl]

I don't think Lane and Everett should be compared.  Lane is not playing in a defensive first position, Everett is.  Everett is not in the line up for RBI's, Lane is.

Plus, Lane is hitting at a worse average, without any word of him being injured.

[T. J.]

Quote:
What I was saying that I suspected wasn't anything about Everett's hitting, only that I suspected that the list of successful baseball players with sub-.248 career averages was relatively short.  Even among historically defensive shortstops, I'm guessing that's on the low side.  That's what I'm not certain about:  I took a quick swing through hall of fame shortstop numbers, then stopped off by Tim Bogar, but that's not much of a survey.  Maybe all the great defensive shortstops who weren't in the hall of fame hit sub-.250.

Ozzie Smith's first 6 major league seasons:
1978:  159 games, .258 BA
1979:  156 games, .211 BA
1980:  158 games, .230 BA
1981:  110 games, .222 BA
1982:  140 games, .248 BA
1983:  159 games, .243 BA

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
If Bruntlett got 10 straight hits, I'd eat my cap and nominate him for Babe Ruth reincarnated. Seems Garner's remarks on Astros.com have a little more sarcasm mixed with realism in them, doncha think?  You're really reaching now!

I wonder if Garner really meant 10 straight hits, or if his general point was that if Bruntlett hit reasonably well, he might take some playing time from Everett.

[don_mynack]

Quote:
When the next clark comes in here wanting Burke at SS, we should link 'em to tonight's game recap.

I think Burke would be great at SS, provided he has a cut off man for his throws to first base.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
What I was saying that I suspected wasn't anything about Everett's hitting, only that I suspected that the list of successful baseball players with sub-.248 career averages was relatively short.  Even among historically defensive shortstops, I'm guessing that's on the low side.  That's what I'm not certain about:  I took a quick swing through hall of fame shortstop numbers, then stopped off by Tim Bogar, but that's not much of a survey.  Maybe all the great defensive shortstops who weren't in the hall of fame hit sub-.250.

Ozzie Smith's first 6 major league seasons:
1978:  159 games, .258 BA
1979:  156 games, .211 BA
1980:  158 games, .230 BA
1981:  110 games, .222 BA
1982:  140 games, .248 BA
1983:  159 games, .243 BA

You're right.  I only glanced at his lifetime, which was .262.

[NeilT]

Quote:
I don't think Lane and Everett should be compared.  Lane is not playing in a defensive first position, Everett is.  Everett is not in the line up for RBI's, Lane is.

Plus, Lane is hitting at a worse average, without any word of him being injured.

Now BudGirl, I don't know how often we have to say this, but defense and offense are different things.  Good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  

Anyway, Lane's just a streaky hitter.  He'll be fine.

[MikeyBoy]

Quote:
Ozzie Smith's first 6 major league seasons:
1978:  159 games, .258 BA
1979:  156 games, .211 BA
1980:  158 games, .230 BA
1981:  110 games, .222 BA
1982:  140 games, .248 BA
1983:  159 games, .243 BA

Omar Vizquel's first 5 major league seasons:
1989:  143 games, .220 BA
1990:  81  games, .247 BA
1991:  142 games, .230 BA
1992:  136 games, .294 BA
1993:  158 games, .255 BA

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think Lane and Everett should be compared.  Lane is not playing in a defensive first position, Everett is.  Everett is not in the line up for RBI's, Lane is.

Plus, Lane is hitting at a worse average, without any word of him being injured.

Now BudGirl, I don't know how often we have to say this, but defense and offense are different things.  Good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  

Anyway, Lane's just a streaky hitter.  He'll be fine.

That is why I said you shouldn't compare the two players and their averages.

Lane's not streaky, he sucks.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Ozzie Smith's first 6 major league seasons:
1978:  159 games, .258 BA
1979:  156 games, .211 BA
1980:  158 games, .230 BA
1981:  110 games, .222 BA
1982:  140 games, .248 BA
1983:  159 games, .243 BA

Omar Vizquel's first 5 major league seasons:
1989:  143 games, .220 BA
1990:  81  games, .247 BA
1991:  142 games, .230 BA
1992:  136 games, .294 BA
1993:  158 games, .255 BA

And a career .275.  Adam Everett gets to .275, he's had a great career.  Maybe that's the direction he'll go.  Hope so.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
You're right.  I only glanced at his lifetime, which was .262.

Here's Smtih, 1978-1983, and Everett, 2001-2005:

Player    Avg  LgAvg   OBP  LgOBP   Slg  LgSlg
----------------------------------------------
Smith    .235   .260  .306   .324  .293   .380
Everett  .253   .269  .305   .341  .365   .432

If you adjust Ozzie's numbers to account for the differences in the league averages, this is what you get:

Player    Avg   OBP   Slg
-------------------------
Smith    .244  .322  .333
Everett  .253  .305  .365

[NeilT]

So what that tells me, at least, is that Everett isn't looking different from some great shortstops, and given his defensive skills, Everett batting .209 for a month or so, or maybe even a season, isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.  Staying there for a couple of years?  I dunno.  We'll see.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think Lane and Everett should be compared.  Lane is not playing in a defensive first position, Everett is.  Everett is not in the line up for RBI's, Lane is.

Plus, Lane is hitting at a worse average, without any word of him being injured.

Now BudGirl, I don't know how often we have to say this, but defense and offense are different things.  Good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  

Anyway, Lane's just a streaky hitter.  He'll be fine.

That is why I said you shouldn't compare the two players and their averages.

Lane's not streaky, he sucks.

C'mon BG, you're among friends.  You can express your opinion.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:

Quote:
If Bruntlett got 10 straight hits, I'd eat my cap and nominate him for Babe Ruth reincarnated. Seems Garner's remarks on Astros.com have a little more sarcasm mixed with realism in them, doncha think?  You're really reaching now!

I wonder if Garner really meant 10 straight hits, or if his general point was that if Bruntlett hit reasonably well, he might take some playing time from Everett.

Couldn't this be read as: "While AE is out, and Bruntlett is performing well, he will get some playing time. Otherwise, we will have to look at other options for SS."  

[Reuben]

Quote:
So what that tells me, at least, is that Everett isn't looking different from some great shortstops, and given his defensive skills, Everett batting .209 for a month or so, or maybe even a season, isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.  Staying there for a couple of years?  I dunno.  We'll see.

hitting .209 for a while certainly isn't ideal, but as alluded to earlier, I think the collective slouch of the middle-order is probably more of a cause for concern. It seems that the Astros have also begun to be bothered by Taveras' continued inability to get on base, as evidenced by Burke's start in CF (unless I missed something about Willy getting a routine day off). That, of course, opens up another defense v. offense debate.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Well, what I know is that Everett right now has a problem that I'll watch and learn from.  Maybe a month from now he's back on track offensively, whatever that may be, maybe he's not.  Right now I don't think a major league position player can hit .209 and think that's ok.

No one said it was okay.  The question on the table is he going to be better or stay at that level?

Quote:
.248?  Is that adequate?  I dunno and don't pretend to.  It's a number that's going to raise questions, for as we say, no matter what Adam Everett brings to the table defensively, good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  .248 will look to some folks like an offensive shortcoming.  .270?  If Adam Everett hits .270, then he's Eric Clapton and the Taj Mahal.  Or maybe he's Taj Mahal.

Hence why I don't understand the comparisons for defense and offense making any sense in that regard.  One man's .240 is another man's "may as well be .209, he sucks!".

Quote:
Everett and Lane's offensive woes may not be permanent, they may hit better (and they can't hit worse), and all your remedies will be tried, I'm certain.

What do you think helps make the evaluation that you're looking at a "norm" or a "deviation" in your mind?  I mean, if we're going to speak for the manager and management team, we may as well think and make analysis like them as well, doncha think?

Quote:
But at some point, some day, if Lane (and I think Everett) don't hit better, then it seems to me at least that the team moves on.

See above.  The case of Richard Hidalgo was exactly a "move on..." proposition.  And then the rumblings out of New Yawk was that Don Baylor had fixed one iteey-biteey problem in his "mechanics" and Hidalgo was launching bombs again.  The TZ denizens who are prone to think of management being superiorly dumb (or at least lower in baseball prowess than they) railed against the Astros for failing to redeem the young, talent Hidalgo via this tried and true method.  Why could Baylor fix a mechanical problem and Spillman could not?  So the call to fire Spillman went out amongst the masses, and Hidalgo was exhibit A that a rope wasn't good enough for him.

Turns out the suspicions on Hidalgo were correct afterall, Don Baylor's prowess aside for a false radar blip.  Bat speed, plain and simple.  When a major leaguer loses it and it doesn't come back, he's toast.  Of all the ones I've ever heard of losing bat speed that were able to magically work their way back, Ruben Sierra was the only one that comes to mind quickly.

So I ask... is Lane and Everett's problem one of a loss of bat speed?  And if so, can they mechanically fix the problem or is this the end of the road for the two?

Quote:
I don't know how far the Astro's patience go.  I don't know if their patience is even being tested:  They may be looking at Lane and Everett and thinking no problem, any day now we'll be back on track.

Meaning, they don't think like fans.

Quote:
I wouldn't trust what the Astros say in the press, I haven't asked them and wouldn't expect them to tell me.  So another thing to watch and learn.

What I was saying that I suspected wasn't anything about Everett's hitting, only that I suspected that the list of successful baseball players with sub-.248 career averages was relatively short.

Career?

Quote:
Even among historically defensive shortstops, I'm guessing that's on the low side.  That's what I'm not certain about:  I took a quick swing through hall of fame shortstop numbers, then stopped off by Tim Bogar, but that's not much of a survey.  Maybe all the great defensive shortstops who weren't in the hall of fame hit sub-.250.  I dunno, the only one I could think of with that reputation was Bogar.

Career?  You're going to go on record that Everett will not recover and go south of .240ish or so?  What is the sub part of your remarks really mean?  I'm curious.  Look, we live in the era of baseball where Cal Ripken redefined the shorstop position.  But that re-definition has caused more confusion than it has enlightenment.  Before Cal, there was a championship caliber shortstop on the very same Orioles team... his name was Mark Belanger.  A *career* .220 hitter.

The name of the game is winning and Belanger was as much a factor in that winning as anyone else on the team.  Look at winning and not historically great *hitting* shortstops if you want to search again.

Quote:
So to re-cap, right now what I'm saying all I know is that a guy hitting .209 has a problem.

And I'm asking you to look to see if it is a career death knell problem or a slump.  Garner said as much "You don't bench a guy because he's in a slump!"  You think he might know what he's talking about?  Just a little?

Quote:
I'm speculating that if it continues, it's a career-damaging problem, and from his history there's nothing to tell me whether it will or will not continue.  Do I know the cause?  No.  Is it permanent?  I don't know.  I've been told by folks who might know that he can't get the bat around fast enough, and that it's not something that's easy to change.  Do I know that?  No.  Do I know if there's a replacement player out there?  No, and I'm not advocating replacing Everett.  So what's the point?  Just this: if he keeps hitting .209, he's not a major league hitter.  No more, no less.

And if you contribute to winning baseball, you're welcome on the team.  No more, no less?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
The specific example did not support the general point. Why should that be ignored? Because the ends of supporting the general point justify the means of using an unsupportive example?

It did to me.  Burke worship was a fine example of how enamored one can become on a theory of one facet of the game can overcome another facet.  It was applicable to the standard of what Clarkish post looks like.  It was not, however, applicable to a game summary or analysis... no.

But I didn't think Limey's point was singular.  But that's just me.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
If Bruntlett got 10 straight hits, I'd eat my cap and nominate him for Babe Ruth reincarnated. Seems Garner's remarks on Astros.com have a little more sarcasm mixed with realism in them, doncha think?  You're really reaching now!

I wonder if Garner really meant 10 straight hits, or if his general point was that if Bruntlett hit reasonably well, he might take some playing time from Everett.

You're correct, he didn't say 10 straight hits... I did though.  However, it just may be that Garner is taking advantage of a .330 hitter on a hot streak, swinging a good bat and another player dealing with frustration and being a little dinged up to make such a comment?  No?  I mean, it makes sense what Garner is saying in such a regard.

Hey, why not let a guy who is swinging well take a few more hacks?  However, is he saying this is permanent?  No, he said for folks to perist the thought?  Is he benching Everett?  No, he told folks to stop reading that into his move!

But those parts are just to logical and managerial like for fans to digest.  We'd rather dance in the streets like a bunch of Kansas City Faggots that Garner has finally gotten rid of AE... the problem child of the offense.

Or so it seems.

And so, maybe I'm wrong when I point to the emperor not wearing any drawers in here... maybe everyone is right and I should just go with the flow and accept.  AE is dead.  May he rest in peace.

Maybe?  Naaaaah... some of you are dancing nekkid... sorry, just my view from here.

[WulawHorn]

AE hitting 209 doesn't bother me in the least.  Berkman, Ensberg, Lane and Wilson hitting (or lack thereof) like they are bothers me.  If those guys hit AE in the line up is more or less irrelevant.  I think AE is just the face of this team wide slump for most fans- an easy scape goat.  I could be wrong though.

[WulawHorn]

btw- I think Kanssas City Faggots is a nice turn of phrase.  Good job my man

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
AE hitting 209 doesn't bother me in the least.  Berkman, Ensberg, Lane and Wilson hitting (or lack thereof) like they are bothers me.  If those guys hit AE in the line up is more or less irrelevant.  I think AE is just the face of this team wide slump for most fans- an easy scape goat.  I could be wrong though.

I'm worried about the bullpen.  We haven't discussed this item in weeks now.  Why?  Because when you say bullpen, most folks fixate on "closer" and nothing else.  And it's not worth discussing unless Brad Lidge is struggling again and he's not.

But the bullpen is not a shut down pen like it was last year.  Roger Clemens will only give you six innings or so, so the Astros aren't getting an inning eater.  So you need a pen... a really good pen.  You need to think when you send out a guy to shut down the 7th, that he can do it (as well as the 8th and 9th).  You need the defense behind him to help too.  I've seen way too many games lost this year where the sixth, seventh, eight and yes, the ninth belonged to the other team when in the past, they belong exclusively to the Astros.

They are dangerously close to non-contention with such a bullpen.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
btw- I think Kanssas City Faggots is a nice turn of phrase.  Good job my man

No harm intended, just thought of a Blazing Saddles reset, that's all.

[WulawHorn]

I know at one point in time the astros were bludgening teams in the 1st and 2nd ininings and had massively outscored the opposition.

Last year we "boatraced" all those teams to borrow a term from jim rome with our excellent bullpen.  This year it has been the opposite as you point out.  There really isn't a fascet of the team playing well right now.  Individually Ausmus has exceeded expectations, Biggio has done as well as could be expected for a 40 year old middle infielder.  Ensberg's done about what you could hope for and that's about it.  A recipe for disaster I guess, especially since the completion of the sweep of the Turdnals.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Well, what I know is that Everett right now has a problem that I'll watch and learn from.  Maybe a month from now he's back on track offensively, whatever that may be, maybe he's not.  Right now I don't think a major league position player can hit .209 and think that's ok.

No one said it was okay.  The question on the table is he going to be better or stay at that level?

Yep.  That's the question.

Quote:

Quote:
.248?  Is that adequate?  I dunno and don't pretend to.  It's a number that's going to raise questions, for as we say, no matter what Adam Everett brings to the table defensively, good defense can't overcome offensive shortcomings.  .248 will look to some folks like an offensive shortcoming.  .270?  If Adam Everett hits .270, then he's Eric Clapton and the Taj Mahal.  Or maybe he's Taj Mahal.

Hence why I don't understand the comparisons for defense and offense making any sense in that regard.  One man's .240 is another man's "may as well be .209, he sucks!".]

Yep.  But at some level a particular player's defense sucks, and at some level a particular player's offense sucks.  What that level may be for any given player is probably a team question, not a hard number, or a hard anything other than the needs of a particular team.

Quote:
Everett and Lane's offensive woes may not be permanent, they may hit better (and they can't hit worse), and all your remedies will be tried, I'm certain.

Quote:
What do you think helps make the evaluation that you're looking at a "norm" or a "deviation" in your mind?  I mean, if we're going to speak for the manager and management team, we may as well think and make analysis like them as well, doncha think?

I don't think I can guess how management will analyze Everett, or even Lane.  All I can really say for certain is that I think both are hitting well below what you would expect from a major league hitter, and that it'll be interesting to see what management does.

Quote:

Quote:
But at some point, some day, if Lane (and I think Everett) don't hit better, then it seems to me at least that the team moves on.

See above.  The case of Richard Hidalgo was exactly a "move on..." proposition.  And then the rumblings out of New Yawk was that Don Baylor had fixed one iteey-biteey problem in his "mechanics" and Hidalgo was launching bombs again.  The TZ denizens who are prone to think of management being superiorly dumb (or at least lower in baseball prowess than they) railed against the Astros for failing to redeem the young, talent Hidalgo via this tried and true method.  Why could Baylor fix a mechanical problem and Spillman could not?  So the call to fire Spillman went out amongst the masses, and Hidalgo was exhibit A that a rope wasn't good enough for him.

Turns out the suspicions on Hidalgo were correct afterall, Don Baylor's prowess aside for a false radar blip.  Bat speed, plain and simple.  When a major leaguer loses it and it doesn't come back, he's toast.  Of all the ones I've ever heard of losing bat speed that were able to magically work their way back, Ruben Sierra was the only one that comes to mind quickly.

So I ask... is Lane and Everett's problem one of a loss of bat speed?  And if so, can they mechanically fix the problem or is this the end of the road for the two?.

I dunno.  That's the question.  And not even whether this is the end of the road, but whether, someplace down the line, is that what their current hitting points to?  And how long is the line?  Everett's current problems could be from any of the stated reasons, head problems, injury, bad mechanics, physical limitations, just a slump, or it could be any combination thereof. I dunno. In this case, Occam's razor probably doesn't point to a single answer, and the simplest answer probably is a combination. The only thing I've claimed to know is that a major league hitter hitting .209 is a problem.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know how far the Astro's patience go.  I don't know if their patience is even being tested:  They may be looking at Lane and Everett and thinking no problem, any day now we'll be back on track.

Meaning, they don't think like fans..

Depends on the fans, I guess, but we can be pretty safe saying not like this fan. I'll watch and see.

Quote:
I wouldn't trust what the Astros say in the press, I haven't asked them and wouldn't expect them to tell me.  So another thing for me to watch and learn from.

What I was saying that I suspected wasn't anything about Everett's hitting, only that I suspected that the list of successful baseball players with sub-.248 career averages was relatively short.

Career?//quote]

What am I missing?  As I said, I made a quick pass through and looked at some career #s.  Interestingly, a couple of posters have already noted that early career #s for some pretty good shortstops weren't that different from Everett's.

Quote:
Even among historically defensive shortstops, I'm guessing that's on the low side.  That's what I'm not certain about:  I took a quick swing through hall of fame shortstop numbers, then stopped off by Tim Bogar, but that's not much of a survey.  Maybe all the great defensive shortstops who weren't in the hall of fame hit sub-.250.  I dunno, the only one I could think of with that reputation was Bogar.

Career?  You're going to go on record that Everett will not recover and go south of .240ish or so?  What is the sub part of your remarks really mean?  I'm curious.  Look, we live in the era of baseball where Cal Ripken redefined the shorstop position.  But that re-definition has caused more confusion than it has enlightenment.  Before Cal, there was a championship caliber shortstop on the very same Orioles team... his name was Mark Belanger.  A *career* .220 hitter.

The name of the game is winning and Belanger was as much a factor in that winning as anyone else on the team.  Look at winning and not historically great *hitting* shortstops if you want to search again.



Well, I don't think I was looking at historically great hitting shortstops, I think I was looking at how historically great fielding shortstops hit, which is different.  But as I said, what I did was pretty limited.  How about I go on record that Everett will go en fuego and hit .333, signalling the commencement of Armageddon?  I've got just about as much chance as getting that right as if I went on record and announced that Everett will never recover.  What do you think is wrong? For me, I'm happy just to try to define the question.  Maybe he's tipping pitches.

'Course the only reason any of us are even discussing this, I suppose, is because we're considering winning.

I'm trying not to have any subpart, and with the exception of Lane, I'm trying to concentrate on what's going on with Everett.  Will Everett recover?  Maybe.  Is it certain?  No.  What's recovery?  Hard to argue with .250, though some will.  .209?  That's a really lousy year.  Here's to turning it around, or at least figuring out what's wrong. I guess we could be having this discussion about Taveras, too.

Quote:
So to re-cap, right now what I'm saying all I know is that a guy hitting .209 has a problem.

And I'm asking you to look to see if it is a career death knell problem or a slump.  Garner said as much "You don't bench a guy because he's in a slump!"  You think he might know what he's talking about?  Just a little?



Of course he does.  But that doesn't mean that quote is the sum of Garner's thoughts about Everett, or that it's particularly enlightening.  If you were Garner, would you announce to the press that Everett's hitting sucks, and that he is forever beyond the pale of major league hitters, even if you thought that true?  Almost regardless of what you thought, you'd say that you don't bench guys for a slump.  Until you benched them.  It just deserves a grain of salt.

Quote:
I'm speculating that if it continues, it's a career-damaging problem, and from his history there's nothing to tell me whether it will or will not continue.  Do I know the cause?  No.  Is it permanent?  I don't know.  I've been told by folks who might know that he can't get the bat around fast enough, and that it's not something that's easy to change.  Do I know that?  No.  Do I know if there's a replacement player out there?  No, and I'm not advocating replacing Everett.  So what's the point?  Just this: if he keeps hitting .209, he's not a major league hitter.  No more, no less.

And if you contribute to winning baseball, you're welcome on the team.  No more, no less?



Contribute? It's not that simple.  The question is whether you contribute enough, right?  Richard Hidalgo was the best right fielder in baseball, so he clearly contributed.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Before Cal, there was a championship caliber shortstop on the very same Orioles team... his name was Mark Belanger.  A *career* .220 hitter.  The name of the game is winning and Belanger was as much a factor in that winning as anyone else on the team.  Look at winning and not historically great *hitting* shortstops if you want to search again.

We have now been presented the proposition that Mark Belanger was as much a factor in the Orioles winning as any of the Hall of Famers on those championship teams.

I think the fact that a .228 hitter stuck with a very successful team for 17 seasons says a lot for him, as does the fact that he won eight Gold Gloves.

Whether that means he was as important to those teams as Jim Palmer, Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Eddie Murray, etc. is a different matter.

[WulawHorn]

I actually agree with Rob Neyer's analysis of pre stat based approach to defensive guys, i.e. that in the absence of stats measuring as such we can probably presume that shortstops that couldn't hit their weight were really really good defensively or they would not have been employed in the major leagues for a long time, as teams want to win.  I know, I know, simplistic, but it is one area where I think he and Noe are probably in agreement regarding defense- you can figure it out by watching the game (that's what teams did back in the day) and figure they got cut after 6, 8 or 10 years not b/c the teams suddenly decided they couldn't take seeing their SS hit 220 anymore, but rather b/c their skills in the field diminished.

Circular argument maybe but I found it funny coming from a stat guy, that he figured in absence of meaningful defensive statistics or analysis you have to trust that teams knew what they were doing.  Weird, b/c that level of trust doesn't exist now.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I actually agree with Rob Neyer's analysis of pre stat based approach to defensive guys, i.e. that in the absence of stats measuring as such we can probably presume that shortstops that couldn't hit their weight were really really good defensively or they would not have been employed in the major leagues for a long time, as teams want to win.  I know, I know, simplistic, but it is one area where I think he and Noe are probably in agreement regarding defense- you can figure it out by watching the game (that's what teams did back in the day) and figure they got cut after 6, 8 or 10 years not b/c the teams suddenly decided they couldn't take seeing their SS hit 220 anymore, but rather b/c their skills in the field diminished.

Circular argument maybe but I found it funny coming from a stat guy, that he figured in absence of meaningful defensive statistics or analysis you have to trust that teams knew what they were doing.  Weird, b/c that level of trust doesn't exist now.

It says a lot about what Earl Weaver thought of Belanger that Weaver played Belanger at shorstop for 1,850 games despite his meager offense.

In MVP voting, Belanger finished 29th in 1969, 21st in 1973 and 26th in 1974. Those latter two seasons, Belanger batted .226/.302/.262 and .225/.298/.300, respectively. If you look at the balloting, Belanger has by far the least impressive offensive statistics (except the pitchers) among those receiving votes. The writers (and Weaver and the Orioles) obviously were very impressed by his glove.

The Link

The Link

The Link

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Contribute? It's not that simple.

I think it can be.  Shoot me.

Quote:
The question is whether you contribute enough, right?

"enough" means what?

Quote:
Richard Hidalgo was the best right fielder in baseball, so he clearly contributed.

Yes, he contributed to winning baseball in Houston (as far as I could tell).   However, one of the things that started to worry Houston moreso than his hitting was his growing disgruntled attitude.  More than a few Astros management felt one day they'd walk into the clubhouse to find Hidalgo's hands wrapped around Jimah Williams neck.

That was going to be messy.

Is Adam Everett becoming a clubhouse cancer?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It says a lot about what Earl Weaver thought of Belanger that Weaver played Belanger at shorstop for 1,850 games despite his meager offense.

In MVP voting, Belanger finished 29th in 1969, 21st in 1973 and 26th in 1974. Those latter two seasons, Belanger batted .226/.302/.262 and .225/.298/.300, respectively. If you look at the balloting, Belanger has by far the least impressive offensive statistics (except the pitchers) among those receiving votes. The writers (and Weaver and the Orioles) obviously were very impressed by his glove.

The Link

The Link

The Link

The year Bill Mazeroski had his best year hitting a baseball, a fine .275, he finished 8th in the league MVP voting, right behind Frank Robinson if I remember correctly.  That is a guy with the reputation of all glove/no stick finishing top ten because he did well swinging the sticks one season.  By the way, while not a shortstop, Bill Mazeroski the second baseman finished his career at .260 lifetime... and a Hall of Fame induction too.

Ironically, it is his 7th Game, walk off world series winning homerun against the powerful Yankees that probably solidified his name in the minds of all who would recognize him for his prowess as a baseball player.  And a contributor to winning baseball in Pittsburgh.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
It says a lot about what Earl Weaver thought of Belanger that Weaver played Belanger at shorstop for 1,850 games despite his meager offense.

In MVP voting, Belanger finished 29th in 1969, 21st in 1973 and 26th in 1974. Those latter two seasons, Belanger batted .226/.302/.262 and .225/.298/.300, respectively. If you look at the balloting, Belanger has by far the least impressive offensive statistics (except the pitchers) among those receiving votes. The writers (and Weaver and the Orioles) obviously were very impressed by his glove.

The Link

The Link

The Link

The year Bill Mazeroski had his best year hitting a baseball, a fine .275, he finished 8th in the league MVP voting, right behind Frank Robinson if I remember correctly.  That is a guy with the reputation of all glove/no stick finishing top ten because he did well swinging the sticks one season.  By the way, while not a shortstop, Bill Mazeroski the second baseman finished his career at .260 lifetime... and a Hall of Fame induction too.

Ironically, it is his 7th Game, walk off world series winning homerun against the powerful Yankees that probably solidified his name in the minds of all who would recognize him for his prowess as a baseball player.  And a contributor to winning baseball in Pittsburgh.

Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith are perhaps the two players in history best known for their defense.  But they are exceptions to the rule.  Mark Belanger got 16 votes, on 3.75% of ballots, in 1988.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Contribute? It's not that simple.

I think it can be.  Shoot me.

Naw.

Quote:
The question is whether you contribute enough, right?

Quote:
"enough" means what?

More than 1, less than X]

Quote:
Richard Hidalgo was the best right fielder in baseball, so he clearly contributed.

Yes, he contributed to winning baseball in Houston (as far as I could tell).   However, one of the things that started to worry Houston moreso than his hitting was his growing disgruntled attitude.  More than a few Astros management felt one day they'd walk into the clubhouse to find Hidalgo's hands wrapped around Jimah Williams neck.

That was going to be messy.

Is Adam Everett becoming a clubhouse cancer?



Never thought so.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith are perhaps the two players in history best known for their defense.  But they are exceptions to the rule.

"If you can do only one thing well, then be more than just great at it!" - Jeff Kent

Quote:
Mark Belanger got 16 votes, on 3.75% of ballots, in 1988.

FWIW - I don't think Belanger belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he was the smoothest, most skilled shortstop of his time.  Made Cuellar, Palmer, Dobson and McNally verrah happy to be part of a team that had four 20 game winners in the rotation.  I'm not saying Belanger did that by himself and that those four also had nothing to do with it (you gotta make yourself clear around the TZ nowadays!), but that starting rotation would probably tell you Belanger helped quite a bit.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
"enough" means what?

More than 1, less than X

There, that will give AE something to shoot for!  

[shortstop]

Bud Light Presents, Real Men of Genius.

 Real Men of Genius ?

Today we salute you ? Mr. OWA TZ know-it-all poster!

 Mr. OWA TZ know it all poster ?

You battle away in your war of endless words while sitting behind your monitors. Click, click clicking away your insults and condescension as fast as your ex-clarinet playing fingers will allow you to. Misrepresenting, misunderstanding, not even paying attention, whatever it takes to win your little argument.

It never gets old for you, no, because every day there is a Clark, Sports Talk show host, or beat writer who needs to be taught a lesson.

 Fuck off, moron ?! Read more ? post less. I?m often wrong, but never in doubt ? but, fuck off anyway.

Your eternal quest to convince the other side that they are wrong will never end and the world needs people like you ... determined to fight a war about nothing, against someone you don?t know, over the www.web. Without you, we?d all be stuck in the delusion that being a good hitter would actually improve a player?s defense ? Without you, no one would know the REAL Chris Burke.

 Doing my part for humankind. 7000 posts and counting ? Yup, I really do have a life away from here.

So crack open another Bud Light Mr. OWA TZ know-it-all poster, the real man of genius.

 [image]http://www.newmoanyeah.com/images/2004/other/bud_light.jpg[/image]

[JimR]

i did not play the clarinet.

pretty good song. i knew there must be something you could do. talking baseball ain't it. playing baseball wasn't either. i figure you were a pretty great cheerleader though, and i'll bet your fantasy team wins big.

[Limey]

Quote:
i did not play the clarinet.

Maybe shortstop has a fixation for wood instruments he can put in his mouth.

[pravata]

That is so geh.  First rule of the TZ, whiner, no being a whiner.

[Arky Vaughan]

Why do you still post here if you think it's so awful?

[JimR]

because Spack allows him to post. perhaps the TZ Overlord will come out of retirement.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Bud Light Presents, Real Men of Genius.

 Real Men of Genius ?

Today we salute you ? Mr. OWA TZ know-it-all poster!

 Mr. OWA TZ know it all poster ?

You battle away in your war of endless words while sitting behind your monitors. Click, click clicking away your insults and condescension as fast as your ex-clarinet playing fingers will allow you to. Misrepresenting, misunderstanding, not even paying attention, whatever it takes to win your little argument.

It never gets old for you, no, because every day there is a Clark, Sports Talk show host, or beat writer who needs to be taught a lesson.

 Fuck off, moron ?! Read more ? post less. I?m often wrong, but never in doubt ? but, fuck off anyway.

Your eternal quest to convince the other side that they are wrong will never end and the world needs people like you ... determined to fight a war about nothing, against someone you don?t know, over the www.web. Without you, we?d all be stuck in the delusion that being a good hitter would actually improve a player?s defense ? Without you, no one would know the REAL Chris Burke.

 Doing my part for humankind. 7000 posts and counting ? Yup, I really do have a life away from here.

So crack open another Bud Light Mr. OWA TZ know-it-all poster, the real man of genius.

 [image]http://www.newmoanyeah.com/images/2004/other/bud_light.jpg[/image]

I can't remember where in the list of the troll profile this sort of response was listed.  Towards the end I suppose, at least it seems desperate enough to be towards the end.

P.S. Know-it-all is different from Know-more-than-you!

[Astroholic]

It must be added.

16. (I think) Post an attempt at humor while trying to bring down the people whom make this site a reality...  and fail miserably.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
P.S. Know-it-all is different from Know-more-than-you!

Which, in this case, is know-something.