Fields v. Getz

[VAfan]

On the other hand, Getz possesses a different skillset from most of the rest of our roster, and thus, even when he is scuffling a bit, he is capable of doing a few things that our other players, for the most part, cannot. That probably creates a bit more breathing room for him in terms of his performance.

 

As I said in my last post in this thread that I started, I have pretty much given up on Fields at this point, since it is obvious the Sox are not going to ever give him enough ABs to find out if he can be better than the player he was in 07. .244/.308/.480/.788

 

But I want to respond here because I just don't buy the notion that players with "different skillsets" are valuable because of those skillsets UNLESS they also produce at an overall level. To me, the best and most understandable overall stat is runs created per game. (RC27). It measures all of a player's offensive contributions, not just on base and power. So, it gives you what you deserve for stealing a lot of bases and not getting caught, which is probably Getz's best "different skillset."

 

The point is, for that skillset to be of value, the player has to do the rest of the essential things, like making fewer outs per plate appearance, hitting for some power, etc. You can't steal first base.

 

Getz has become a player who, because he is doing those things, is at least not hurting the club offensively. His RC27 rate is 4.84 runs a game, just above Josh Fields 4.72 he posted in 2007, and significantly better than what Fields posted this year. But as I mentioned on the Beckham for ROY thread, that still ranks Getz as about the 12th best offensive 2B in a 14-team AL. He's not so far below these other 2Bs that you would consider him a significant liability. But I also wouldn't consider him to be much of a positive offensive force either. As a rookie, when the alternative could be worse, I'll take it. But unless Getz continues to improve -- it's really a push right now between him and Jayson Nix (4.73 RC/game) -- the Sox ought to continue looking for someone better.

 

And by that I mean that when the Sox have a 3B other than Beckham who hits better that Getz, then they ought to move Beckham again. Of course, that isn't going to happen this season. (On this last note, a lot of guys seem to believe the Sox are best moving Ramirez to CF, with Beckham sliding over to SS when the Sox get a 3B ready -- i.e., Viciedo. Until recently, I wouldn't have supported that, but now I'd have to know more about how it would play out defensively. It would also assume that Getz is maximizing his potential.)

 

 

Edited August 4, 2009 by VAfan

[beautox]

As I said in my last post in this thread that I started, I have pretty much given up on Fields at this point, since it is obvious the Sox are not going to ever give him enough ABs to find out if he can be better than the player he was in 07. .244/.308/.480/.788

 

Yeah I think the sox will move him in the offseason, and i think they'll wind up targeting a live arm that hasn't been able to find success at the major league level as Hahn was saying targeting relief. Jose Arredondo would look awfully nice in a sox uniform

[iamshack]

As I said in my last post in this thread that I started, I have pretty much given up on Fields at this point, since it is obvious the Sox are not going to ever give him enough ABs to find out if he can be better than the player he was in 07. .244/.308/.480/.788

 

But I want to respond here because I just don't buy the notion that players with "different skillsets" are valuable because of those skillsets UNLESS they also produce at an overall level. To me, the best and most understandable overall stat is runs created per game. (RC27). It measures all of a player's offensive contributions, not just on base and power. So, it gives you what you deserve for stealing a lot of bases and not getting caught, which is probably Getz's best "different skillset."

 

The point is, for that skillset to be of value, the player has to do the rest of the essential things, like making fewer outs per plate appearance, hitting for some power, etc. You can't steal first base.

 

Getz has become a player who, because he is doing those things, is at least not hurting the club offensively. His RC27 rate is 4.84 runs a game, just above Josh Fields 4.72 he posted in 2007, and significantly better than what Fields posted this year. But as I mentioned on the Beckham for ROY thread, that still ranks Getz as about the 12th best offensive 2B in a 14-team AL. He's not so far below these other 2Bs that you would consider him a significant liability. But I also wouldn't consider him to be much of a positive offensive force either. As a rookie, when the alternative could be worse, I'll take it. But unless Getz continues to improve -- it's really a push right now between him and Jayson Nix (4.73 RC/game) -- the Sox ought to continue looking for someone better.

 

And by that I mean that when the Sox have a 3B other than Beckham who hits better that Getz, then they ought to move Beckham again. Of course, that isn't going to happen this season. (On this last note, a lot of guys seem to believe the Sox are best moving Ramirez to CF, with Beckham sliding over to SS when the Sox get a 3B ready -- i.e., Viciedo. Until recently, I wouldn't have supported that, but now I'd have to know more about how it would play out defensively. It would also assume that Getz is maximizing his potential.)

 

VA, I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote there. If you've read my posts in regards to Getz, I think you'll see I am very lukewarm on him.

 

That being said, all one needs to do is compare the very favorable comments Ozzie has made about Getz and Nix after saying nothing much positive at all about Fields since ST. I think Ozzie very much appreciates the different skillset Getz brings, and I think it buys him a longer leash than a guy like Fields might get.

[SockMe]

If you gon value then Getz should be let go because we have Nix or you could move over Bacon or TCM.

 

But in terms of producitivity you have to let Fields go and that is very obvious, as he is now in the minors.

[caulfield12]

Nix, Getz=more value to Sox than a return in trade, like a pitcher.

 

Nix can't play everyday, he's a platoon player in all likelihood against LHP.

 

If all three were on the market (including Fields), Josh would bring the most back in return, by far.

 

 

[Balta1701]

If all three were on the market (including Fields), Josh would bring the most back in return, by far.

Really?

 

Fields is already in the Anderson "He's about to be dumped for nothing or released" boat. Why would anyone give anything in return for him?

[beck72]

If all three were on the market (including Fields), Josh would bring the most back in return, by far.

Not a chance. Getz is an everyday player. Fields and Nix are not.

 

Unless this statement was backdated to October 2007, then you might have something.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not a chance. Getz is an everyday player. Fields and Nix are not.

 

Unless this statement was backdated to October 2007, then you might have something.

I wouldn't say that 100% on Fields just yet. Unlike BA, who had just an overall bad approach and swing, Fields has had success and is one mechanical change away from being a valuable hitter. Whether he does that or not remains to be seen, but, I wouldn't sentence him to that just yet.

 

[lostfan]

I wouldn't say that 100% on Fields just yet. Unlike BA, who had just an overall bad approach and swing, Fields has had success and is one mechanical change away from being a valuable hitter. Whether he does that or not remains to be seen, but, I wouldn't sentence him to that just yet.

So was BA.

[NorthSideSox72]

So was BA.

I disagree there. Brian's whole swing was long and loopy, usually - but he had different swings. And no consistent approach either. He was just all over the place. His problem is not the same as Fields', in my view.

 

[lostfan]

I disagree there. Brian's whole swing was long and loopy, usually - but he had different swings. And no consistent approach either. He was just all over the place. His problem is not the same as Fields', in my view.

He had the same kind of hole in his swing that Fields has. He spent basically his whole time here trying to smooth it out and couldn't ever do it (mostly his fault, partly because he wasn't given extended time to get it until this year and even then Wise poached some starts vs. RHP even though BA had no problem hitting them). Brian was a 2 o'clock hitter - he'd get all the lessons and coaching throughout the day, but come game time, he couldn't apply it.

Edited August 4, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

He had the same kind of hole in his swing that Fields has. He spent basically his whole time here trying to smooth it out and couldn't ever do it (mostly his fault, partly because he wasn't given extended time to get it until this year and even then Wise poached some starts vs. RHP even though BA had no problem hitting them). Brian was a 2 o'clock hitter - he'd get all the lessons and coaching throughout the day, but come game time, he couldn't apply it.

Brian didn't have one mechanical flaw - he had many, and they changed all the time. For him, it was at least partially a head case issue (as you note), but also all sorts of mechanical ones. That just isn't the same as Josh's issue. Josh's issue isn't even the swing per se, its what happens just before the swing.

 

 

[RME JICO]

Since June 28th, Getz is batting .364 (11th in MLB during that timeframe), with 9 2Bs, and 7 SBs. Beckham is batting .373 in that same timeframe.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

I think Fields is going to end up being a Waiver deal in the next month.

 

 

Who woulda thunk that the Sox traded(theoretically) 4 first round picks away in 1 season. 3 as of right now

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I think Fields is going to end up being a Waiver deal in the next month.

 

 

Who woulda thunk that the Sox traded(theoretically) 4 first round picks away in 1 season. 3 as of right now

 

I'd suspect Fields would be plucked off waivers though. If I'm Washington or Florida or Pittsburgh he's the type of guy I take a flyer on.

[Kyyle23]

I'd suspect Fields would be plucked off waivers though. If I'm Washington or Florida or Pittsburgh he's the type of guy I take a flyer on.

 

if a waiver claim is placed, does the team that placed the waiver claim automatically get the player? I thought then the teams can negotiate a trade

[ChiSox_Sonix]

if a waiver claim is placed, does the team that placed the waiver claim automatically get the player? I thought then the teams can negotiate a trade

 

They can, but if they don't agree to terms the player can't just go anywhere. He'd have to pass through again and odds are he wouldn't. It's much easier to trade a player who clears waivers since they can be traded anywhere (obviously).

[Jeremy]

In my mind, Josh is at a disadvantage because at his best, he shares a similar skillset as several of our other players. He is almost too redundant and unnecessary.

 

At his worst, he is almost impossible to place in a major league lineup because he does not make contact nearly enough.

 

On the other hand, Getz possesses a different skillset from most of the rest of our roster, and thus, even when he is scuffling a bit, he is capable of doing a few things that our other players, for the most part, cannot. That probably creates a bit more breathing room for him in terms of his performance.

 

IMO, people tend to overstate the importance of strikeouts (or the lack thereof ) for hitter.

 

I also think you're overstating the extent to which Fields resembles other players on the roster (I assume you're referring to Dye, Paully, Thome, etc.) because unlike our other sluggers he can run relatively well.

 

That said, if the argument is simply that Getz should have been the guy because he best diversifies the roster, that's a fair argument - just not one I've seen in the past few pages of this thread.

 

Additionally, perhaps the coaching staff saw that it might be possible to make adjustments which could turn his season around a bit, while Josh was never going to considering his mechanical issues. I honestly don't know.

 

Seems unfair to Josh to speculate that the reason he got demoted is that he didn't work well with the coaching staff; by all accounts, he's a pretty good guy.

 

Clearly with the way Beckham and Getz have played, the White Sox choosing to give them playing time over Fields was the correct choice. I really don't understand your argument. "Anyone who insists that Fields wouldn't have improved in June and July is wrong because...we just don't know." Would that also work for anyone who insists Corky Miller wouldn't have been an All Star catcher if the White Sox hadn't sent him down?

 

No, because that's an absurdly extreme example. No one objective and open minded believes the chances of Josh Fields making some adjustments and hitting better than terribly at the major league level - something he's done in the past - is just as likely as a career minor league becoming an All-Star.

 

Where a guy was drafted doesn't matter either. In fact, its refreshing an organization gives playing time based on performance rather than draft position and/or signing bonus. Would you rather have the 38th pick Mark Buerhle on the mound, or first rounder Lance Broadway? Fields was 7th in ROY voting. Care to bet me that Getz will be at least in the top 7 this year? Fields has 620 or so major league at bats and has a .228 career batting average and career .302 OBP with well over 200 strikeouts. Defensively, he's below average. Bang his drum all you want, but the numbers and your eyes, if you're honest with yourself, will tell you Chris Getz will help the White Sox win more games at this time.

 

Fields didn't get this far because of where he was drafted. It's because he consistently earned a spot as one of the team's top prospects by hitting a strong .275/.359/.459 in the minors and then showed he could have success at the major league level by hitting .244/.308/.480 as a rookie and, as you mentioned, earning votes for the rookie of the year award despite receiving just over 270 at bats. Getz, by comparison, failed to match Fields' minor league performance.

 

There was no hindsight involved when I bumped this thread. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, and this can be seen in my comments earlier in the thread. There was never any Fields vs. Getz competition, only a hypothetical in the OP's mind. The two players were in totally different situations and were not comparable. It didn't take much forethought to look at Fields and Getz, see their numbers falling (Fields's numbers were never actually that great early on, actually), and see the difference between the two. At this stage in his career, after all the talk of 2007 and the fact that he's had 300-something PAs already, Fields should be close to a finished product. Instead, he's regressed, a lot, and has never adjusted to his weaknesses. Getz was getting his full-time play in the majors, started hot, and pitchers adjusted to him. This thread was started at around Getz's lowest point, while Getz was still trying to adjust. Nobody's claiming to predict Getz being on fire right now, but one doesn't have to be Nostradamus to say "Getz stands a good chance of improving here, let him get through this".

 

Hey, I'll give you credit for recognizing that Getz could turn it around. However, as you admit you didn't come close to predicting that he'd hit .360 over a month and it remains to be seen whether or not Fields can make improvements, so I disagree somewhat with bumping the thread and claiming vindication. Bump the thread and pat yourself on the back in 500 at bats or so if Fields continues his downward spiral.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Jeremy

[lostfan]

Hey, I'll give you credit for recognizing that Getz could turn it around. However, as you admit you didn't come close to predicting that he'd hit .360 over a month and it remains to be seen whether or not Fields can make improvements, so I disagree somewhat with bumping the thread and claiming vindication. Bump the thread and pat yourself on the back in 500 at bats or so if Fields continues his downward spiral.

I'm not claiming vindication. I was re-emphasizing the point I was trying to make in the first place.

 

I also don't know how you can dismiss Field's strikeout numbers when he's had over 700 MLB PAs, and generally 800 is the point where you want to stop and look at what a player is doing so 700 is almost enough. Strikeouts and a low batting average are excusable if you're getting a ton of walks. Fields gets a respectable amount of walks, but in the minors he's only had one year in the minors where I'd call his OBP above average, and that's 2006. 2007 it was almost .400 but that was a shortened season and whatever he does in the majors trumps that anyway. He looks much more likely to be in the low .300s than high .300s so yes, he does strike out too much. How much more can he turn it around, really?