The Alex Rios Mystery

[Ranger]

Lots of things could be said hurt the Sox, I'm not sure I can label 1 and say "this killed them", perhaps aside from Quentin's injury. Jenks has a better season, are they a playoff team, probably not. Dye doesn't stink in the 2nd half, are they a playoff team, probably not. The Sox have a better defense, are they a playoff team, probably not. 2 or 3 of those start happening...are they a playoff team, probably.

 

 

We had high hopes for Rios when he came to get us some hitting and it didn't happen, he can't totally wear the collar for last year.

 

 

Absolutely. Of the multitude of issues they had last year, outfield defense is pretty low on the list in regard to things that hurt them the most. Fewest hits in the league, Fewest extra base hits, one of the worst in OPS and runs scored, unearned runs, errors (in particular on the left side of the infield), 4th and 5th starters...those are the biggest reasons things went the way they did.

[Ranger]

It depends on your definition of "killing".

 

The Sox had one of the worst outfield defenses in baseball last year.

 

Pods, Quentin, and Dye were all negatives in UZR, with Dye being a -20.

 

When you're a -20, there's no need to explain why Dye was an absolutely horrendous outfielder.

 

Pods, as bad as he looked, isn't as bad as some people here think he is. Some here probably think he's worse than Dye, which is obviously not the case. Pods isn't good, but he's not horrendous either.

 

Quentin was a below average outfielder due to his foot problems last year, I think we can cut him a little slack.

 

Wise, given his small amount of playing time, was probably our best defensive outfielder last year. He was even better than Anderson.

 

Rios was slightly above average in CF (although UZR did not say this).

 

Kotsay didn't play much, but when he did, he was mediocre.

 

So basically, you have three guys who were negative in value, one mediocre in a small sample size, and three above average in a combined medium sample size.

 

The overall UZR of these White Sox outfielders last year was -29.4.

 

I don't care how flawed UZR might be, but if your outfielders supposedly cost your pitchers 29.4 runs last year, that's killing the team. When your outfield defense costs you 3 win shares (it would have been about 4.5 if Wise wasn't here), you need to correct that.

 

Now, with the current defensive outfield alignment, we can expect something a whole lot better.

 

Rios can be at least an average center fielder, if not an above average one. Pierre is an above average left fielder. Quentin, if healthy, can be a slightly below average right fielder. All three combined can possibly post a UZR around 0-5 together. That's a huge improvement from last year. You also have Jones and Kotsay on the bench who can play the outfield. Those two together should yield a 0 UZR if not a slightly negative one.

 

So basically, you've improved your outfield defense by 3-4 wins. That in itself could be the difference between a great team and a good one.

 

 

I disagree. The Sox allowed 732 runs last year, second fewest in the American League. That 29.4 runs is only 4% of all the runs they allowed last year. I don't believe that's significant.

 

Furthermore, you're assuming the Sox outfield did, in fact, cost them 29.4 runs last year. Do we know that for sure? Since at this point in time defense is incredibly difficult to quantify, I can't be confident that the number is correct anyway. Maybe it was less (maybe it was even more than that in reality), I just don't think it can be measured. I understand the value of the statistic, I just can't accept it to be as undebatable as OPS, BA, OBP or any other offensive stat.

[SoxAce]

Absolutely. Of the multitude of issues they had last year, outfield defense is pretty low on the list in regard to things that hurt them the most. Fewest hits in the league, Fewest extra base hits, one of the worst in OPS and runs scored, unearned runs, errors (in particular on the left side of the infield), 4th and 5th starters...those are the biggest reasons things went the way they did.

 

I'm not sure how many mental or physical errors our OF defense cost us those created big innings, but from what I watched all year it was more than just "pretty low" but I will agree about the others, which I said earlier KW did address, especially extra base hits (Beckham, Teahan and Rios will be the catalyst of that) not to mention changing all 3 guys in the OF spots (Q moving to RF, if you don't want to count Rios, then 2) for this upcomming season. (as he probably saw the same thing) But the offense overall was always suspect in Walker's tenure (and no I'm not saying he is the problem) Hell even our W.S. year, our offense overall was pretty much average, but our pitching and defense was what got us to the promise land.

Edited December 27, 2009 by SoxAce

[chw42]

The White Sox lost the division last year by 7 games and were farther back in the Wild Card. Your own numbers suggest that the OF defense hurt us, but it didn't kill us. Those games could have made it closer, but not put us in front.

 

What I said there was not pointed directly at the 2009 White Sox. When I said it could make a good team into a great team, I meant something along the lines of a improvement from 89 to 93 wins or 90 to 94 wins.

 

Or maybe even a 86-87 win team into a 90 win team.

 

In other words, the difference between a mediocre outfield defense and a horrible outfield defense is 3-4 wins, which in many cases can be the difference in staying home for the playoffs or playing in the ALDS.

[qwerty]

Basically, you're agreeing that UZR is flawed and that Sportsvision's program should give us some real accuracy. You're admitting that UZR doesn't give us the full story, which is exactly what I'm saying. I didn't say, and I'm not saying, that it should be ignored. It should be considered, it shouldn't be everything. It's helpful, but there isn't yet a defensive statistic that can stand alone (like we have with offense and OPS).

 

Sportsvision and STATS will have systems that can accurately measure ball speed so we don't have to rely on UZR which has an element of subjectivity. The problem with having an individual declare a soft, medium, or hard-hit ball is that the subjectivity of that decision ultimately influences the final number. Therefore, it can be a disputable

 

Of course, there's a good reason to use SABR, but there is also a very good reason that they still rely heavily on scouting and obeservation, too. Teams don't dismiss a player simply because they don't like his UZR. We can't quantify everything.

 

I agree with you, though, that the infield was responsible for up to 80% of the unearned runs, which is what I've been saying. The infield killed them last year.

 

He was definitely trying to be a smartass instead of actually contributing to the discussion.

 

I'm not gonna reiterate what ozzie ball said considering he hit the nail on the head... in every post thus far. I was also insulted by... Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? as it was directed at myself. Come on, that is baby stuff, absolute basics, and if you don't know the methodology behind any stat, i feel there is no reason to even bring it up.

 

You are more from the old school training of thought, not entirely, but more so than some others. You seem to be willing at times to be opened up to some of the slightly advanced metrics, but then discount them because they have flaws. Basically every stat has a flaw(s) in some shape or form, but we have to do our best to work around them (while trying to find ways to eliminate the flaws) and get the most information out of them. I acknowledge what is wrong with uzr, much more past what has been mentioned in this very thread, but i'm not gonna cite it's flaws in a precursor form every time uzr is mentioned. I don't owe anyone that much, nor does anyone else.

 

By your logic since upwards of 80% of the unearned runs came from infield they hurt us more than the outfield. As previously stated by bmags are more common in the infield than the outfield, vastly more common, for a number of reasons. You state that the infield defense killed the sox, but the degree that the outfield defense hurt us was not significant which is highly debatable, to say the least. Say what you want about uzr, but a -25.6 outfield defense in comparison to -10 infield defense is too large to of a difference to throw out the window. The outfield defense would have therefore cost us two and a half wins.. while on the other hand the infield defense cost us just one. It's fine to have a right to your own opinion, but the numbers (debatable or not, they are the best we as a community have to work with) do not favor your argument, in any shape or form. Well i just read your last post in this thread, and i see that you don't think uzr can measure the amount of runs saved or lost close to the neighborhood it suggests, so it's sort of a lost cause.

 

Anyway, when sportsvision and STATS bring those systems public, i'll be the first one to jump on board. But until then, it's uzr, +/- (not a huge fan) zone rating, range factor, arm ratings, etc. Everyone of these bring something to the table, that the others cannot by themselves. Defensive metrics are best used when these stats are used together, and not standing alone, the best analytical studies are done in such a fashion. Defense is the hardest thing to gauge in every sport, always has, and always will, so there will always be big time debate about the subject.

 

Ops does indeed stand alone, if just for two reasons, the simplicity of it, and how well it correlates to runs scored. Though ops still has a number of flaws of it's own, that cannot be disputed.

Edited December 28, 2009 by qwerty

[chw42]

I disagree. The Sox allowed 732 runs last year, second fewest in the American League. That 29.4 runs is only 4% of all the runs they allowed last year. I don't believe that's significant.

 

Furthermore, you're assuming the Sox outfield did, in fact, cost them 29.4 runs last year. Do we know that for sure? Since at this point in time defense is incredibly difficult to quantify, I can't be confident that the number is correct anyway. Maybe it was less (maybe it was even more than that in reality), I just don't think it can be measured. I understand the value of the statistic, I just can't accept it to be as undebatable as OPS, BA, OBP or any other offensive stat.

 

It gives you an idea. You can't put an exact number on it, but when your team is in the negative 30 range, you know it's bad.

 

Of the 732 runs the Sox gave up last year, 655 were earned.

 

The team's ERA was 4.16.

 

If we subtract the 29 runs that the outfield cost the pitching staff from the earned runs, that's a ERA of 3.98.

 

It's not the biggest difference in the world, but that's nearly a .2 run difference, significant enough I'd say.

[ThunderBolt]

We had high hopes for Rios when he came to get us some hitting and it didn't happen, he can't totally wear the collar for last year.

JD's second half had a lot more to do with how it went down last year then Alex Rios did.

[Springfield Soxfan]

JD's second half had a lot more to do with how it went down last year then Alex Rios did.

Great point, could not agree more.

[lostfan]

Lots of things could be said hurt the Sox, I'm not sure I can label 1 and say "this killed them", perhaps aside from Quentin's injury. Jenks has a better season, are they a playoff team, probably not. Dye doesn't stink in the 2nd half, are they a playoff team, probably not. The Sox have a better defense, are they a playoff team, probably not. 2 or 3 of those start happening...are they a playoff team, probably.

Co-sign

[knightni]

It seems to me that this is a fight between the "what-ifs" and the "actually happeneds."

 

Yes, if Konerko wasn't there, Alexei's D may have been worse than it was.

 

Yes, if Dye, Rios and Jenks hadn't struggled in August and September, the Sox may have been in it.

 

Yes, if Quentin and Peavy were healthy the whole season, then the Sox may have made the playoffs again.

 

Unfortunately, those things never happened and the Sox ended up in 3rd place last season.

 

Speculation is fun, but honestly arguing over it isn't very productive. People should save their anger for things that do happen, not things that didn't that they think should happen.

[greg775]

JD sucked; so did Rios. Rios gave us nothing more than Brian Anderson could have given us. He hit like Anderson.

Hopefully next year he'll hit like the Rios of old when he made the all star team.

[Ranger]

I'm not gonna reiterate what ozzie ball said considering he hit the nail on the head... in every post thus far. I was also insulted by... Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? as it was directed at myself. Come on, that is baby stuff, absolute basics, and if you don't know the methodology behind any stat, i feel there is no reason to even bring it up.

 

You are more from the old school training of thought, not entirely, but more so than some others. You seem to be willing at times to be opened up to some of the slightly advanced metrics, but then discount them because they have flaws. Basically every stat has a flaw(s) in some shape or form, but we have to do our best to work around them (while trying to find ways to eliminate the flaws) and get the most information out of them. I acknowledge what is wrong with uzr, much more past what has been mentioned in this very thread, but i'm not gonna cite it's flaws in a precursor form every time uzr is mentioned. I don't owe anyone that much, nor does anyone else.

 

By your logic since upwards of 80% of the unearned runs came from infield they hurt us more than the outfield. As previously stated by bmags are more common in the infield than the outfield, vastly more common, for a number of reasons. You state that the infield defense killed the sox, but the degree that the outfield defense hurt us was not significant which is highly debatable, to say the least. Say what you want about uzr, but a -25.6 outfield defense in comparison to -10 infield defense is too large to of a difference to throw out the window. The outfield defense would have therefore cost us two and a half wins.. while on the other hand the infield defense cost us just one. It's fine to have a right to your own opinion, but the numbers (debatable or not, they are the best we as a community have to work with) do not favor your argument, in any shape or form. Well i just read your last post in this thread, and i see that you don't think uzr can measure the amount of runs saved or lost close to the neighborhood it suggests, so it's sort of a lost cause.

 

Anyway, when sportsvision and STATS bring those systems public, i'll be the first one to jump on board. But until then, it's uzr, +/- (not a huge fan) zone rating, range factor, arm ratings, etc. Everyone of these bring something to the table, that the others cannot by themselves. Defensive metrics are best used when these stats are used together, and not standing alone, the best analytical studies are done in such a fashion. Defense is the hardest thing to gauge in every sport, always has, and always will, so there will always be big time debate about the subject.

 

Ops does indeed stand alone, if just for two reasons, the simplicity of it, and how well it correlates to runs scored. Though ops still has a number of flaws of it's own, that cannot be disputed.

 

First, let me say that it was not my intent to insult you. If you were, I apologize.

 

Second, no I have a hard time being convinced by UZR. Though I think it, along with OOZ (which doesn't really seem to be discussed all that much around here), are valuable and shouldn't be pushed aside, I also don't think they can be entirely accurate. Maybe sometimes they are, but I think there are too many variables (as I said earlier, positioning, accurate ball speed for example) which make it hard to put a number on it.

 

I know UZR might be the best we have to work with at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily make it great. That's why I would never look at a player's UZR and use that as the evidence that a player is either good or bad in the field. It should be a point of reference, really.

 

And I agree with you, I'll be all over these optical computer programs when they are perfected. I'm excited for them, and I think they'll change everything. They'll also be able to give us a true idea as to how reliable UZR really is.

[caulfield12]

Mr. Rongey,

 

Can you give us a little more "behind-the-scenes" on Mike Gellinger and his role with the club. If there's anyone who seems like they would be into this "stats world" in the White Sox organization, it might be him.

 

On the other hand, if you look at players like Iguchi (video-scouted but never actually seen in-person by KW), Ramirez, Viciedo, etc., it still seems the White Sox are more traditionalist in their approach to scouting. I would call them Moneyballers in quite a different regard, they find undervalued players with potential/ability and/or injury concerns (Jenks, Thornton, Dye, Rios, Quentin, Ramirez, etc.) and maximize their talent/performance output.

 

This "buy cheap" philosophy goes back to the 80's and 90's when seemingly every year we found corner outfielders (like Ellis Burks, Mike Devereaux, Dave Martinez, Cory Snyder, Ivan Bubbling Calderon, Lyle Mouton, Shawn Lil Abner, etc.) in the same way.

 

I think Beckham and Chris Getz would be the two players who would be "gym-rats" if they were basketball players...contrasting with some of the higher round draft choices the White Sox made over the last decade, where they alternated between "projectable" athletes and "MLB-ready" pitchers like Ginter, Wright, Royce Ring, Broadway, McCulloch, etc. Whatever has been said about Beckham's physical limitations (speed/range/throwing arm), the guy is just a baseball player, hopefully with a career-track similar to another one we grew up with in Robin Ventura.

 

On a scale or spectrum of 1-100 (with 90-100 being teams like the Red Sox and A's that use a blurrying amount of statistics to analyze players), how much do KW/Hahn rely on this for their analysis of both players for the draft and potential trade/FA acquisitions?

 

If you look at this offseason, you have the typical KW "special" in Putz and then it seems you have Vizquel, Jones, Kotsay and Pierre who feel more like "Ozzie picks" than KW ones. Well, I'll amend that, Jones and Kotsay feel like players that KW and Ozzie both wanted over time, whereas Vizquel and Pierre will be more like "Joey Coras" both on and off the field for the organization, serving as teachers/mentors/role models for everyone about how to approach the game.

Edited December 28, 2009 by caulfield12

[Ozzie Ball]

First, let me say that it was not my intent to insult you. If you were, I apologize.

 

Second, no I have a hard time being convinced by UZR. Though I think it, along with OOZ (which doesn't really seem to be discussed all that much around here), are valuable and shouldn't be pushed aside, I also don't think they can be entirely accurate. Maybe sometimes they are, but I think there are too many variables (as I said earlier, positioning, accurate ball speed for example) which make it hard to put a number on it.

 

I know UZR might be the best we have to work with at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily make it great. That's why I would never look at a player's UZR and use that as the evidence that a player is either good or bad in the field. It should be a point of reference, really.

 

And I agree with you, I'll be all over these optical computer programs when they are perfected. I'm excited for them, and I think they'll change everything. They'll also be able to give us a true idea as to how reliable UZR really is.

OOZ is fairly useless, on it's own. You need to combine it with RZR and then convert it into a plus/minus statistics for it to hold any real value. OOZ on it's own merely tells you how many out of zone plays a defender has made. Even if you do combine the two of them and convert it into a plus/minus form then you're still only looking at a far more basic version of UZR, and if you're unconvinced by UZR, then you should be in heavy protest of OOZ/RZR. You'll also find it extremely difficult to find the statistic anywhere now that THT has removed their stats section (well technically it's still there, but there are no links to it and I doubt it will be updated for '10). FanGraphs took on several of the more useful THT statistics such a xFIP, but of course due to already having UZR, there was/is no need for OOZ/RZR.

 

I know UZR might be the best we have to work with at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily make it great. That's why I would never look at a player's UZR and use that as the evidence that a player is either good or bad in the field. It should be a point of reference, really.

 

Ok, so if UZR is only a reference, the how do you build up an opinion. You're shooting down UZR as not being accurate enough and so how does Chris Rongey assess the defensive ability of a player?

[scenario]

UZR is a very useful stat.

 

The 'problem' IMO is people using UZR in situations where it isn't appropriate.

 

For example... using 1-year UZR (alone) to compare the supposed defensive abilities of two players is ridiculous.

 

There is simply too much variability in year-to-year UZR values to make that type of analysis meaningful.

[iamshack]

UZR is a very useful stat.

 

The 'problem' IMO is people using UZR in situations where it isn't appropriate.

 

For example... using 1-year UZR (alone) to compare the supposed defensive abilities of two players is ridiculous.

 

There is simply too much variability in year-to-year UZR values to make that type of analysis meaningful.

 

Well, if you have been reading and learning from Ozzieball and Qwerty here, it seems that using UZR for one year is not a great method of assessing a player's defensive ability, but instead, his value. It seems to me that UZR measures the value each player had at his position, rather than what type of ability he has. A guy such as Ben Zobrist may have had more defensive value at 2b this season than Chase Utley, and yet, Utley still may have more ability. From what I understand, you would want to compare several years of UZR numbers before you start building a profile for ability.

 

I agree with you though, there are some really radical departures (and arrivals) from year-to-year when it comes to UZR in regards to certain players. The best thing is probably to look at the numbers over a 3-5 year period before you start getting a fair idea of a player's defensive ability.

[qwerty]

Well, if you have been reading and learning from Ozzieball and Qwerty here, it seems that using UZR for one year is not a great method of assessing a player's defensive ability, but instead, his value. It seems to me that UZR measures the value each player had at his position, rather than what type of ability he has. A guy such as Ben Zobrist may have had more defensive value at 2b this season than Chase Utley, and yet, Utley still may have more ability. From what I understand, you would want to compare several years of UZR numbers before you start building a profile for ability.

 

I agree with you though, there are some really radical departures (and arrivals) from year-to-year when it comes to UZR in regards to certain players. The best thing is probably to look at the numbers over a 3-5 year period before you start getting a fair idea of a player's defensive ability.

 

By now you likely have seen targetview, but if not, it's rather cool.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/10/6...argetview-graph

[iamshack]

By now you likely have seen targetview, but if not, it's rather cool.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/10/6...argetview-graph

Cool stuff as always, Qwerty.

My Man (In my best Denzel Washington impression)!

[scenario]

Well, if you have been reading and learning from Ozzieball and Qwerty here, it seems that using UZR for one year is not a great method of assessing a player's defensive ability, but instead, his value. It seems to me that UZR measures the value each player had at his position, rather than what type of ability he has. A guy such as Ben Zobrist may have had more defensive value at 2b this season than Chase Utley, and yet, Utley still may have more ability. From what I understand, you would want to compare several years of UZR numbers before you start building a profile for ability.

 

I agree with you though, there are some really radical departures (and arrivals) from year-to-year when it comes to UZR in regards to certain players. The best thing is probably to look at the numbers over a 3-5 year period before you start getting a fair idea of a player's defensive ability.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not trying to pick on anyone with my comments. I love it when people add statistical data to support their arguments.

 

However, while reading through the thread I saw quite a few posts that seem to be judging or commenting on players' defensive ability... most of them based on single-year (2009) UZR numbers.

 

And I just wanted to add my two cents on how UZR can be misleading when used that way.

 

In general, I think everybody's contributions are making for a great conversation that will help posters understand the topic better.

 

Edited December 28, 2009 by scenario

[chw42]

By now you likely have seen targetview, but if not, it's rather cool.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/10/6...argetview-graph

 

 

That looks awesome. If they can actually develop a graphing system where it would show a player's supposed range (like over a 3-5 year span), much like in those graphics, it would be excellent.

[Dick Allen]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/t...yball-approach/

 

Interesting.

[Ranger]

Mr. Rongey,

 

Can you give us a little more "behind-the-scenes" on Mike Gellinger and his role with the club. If there's anyone who seems like they would be into this "stats world" in the White Sox organization, it might be him.

 

On the other hand, if you look at players like Iguchi (video-scouted but never actually seen in-person by KW), Ramirez, Viciedo, etc., it still seems the White Sox are more traditionalist in their approach to scouting. I would call them Moneyballers in quite a different regard, they find undervalued players with potential/ability and/or injury concerns (Jenks, Thornton, Dye, Rios, Quentin, Ramirez, etc.) and maximize their talent/performance output.

 

This "buy cheap" philosophy goes back to the 80's and 90's when seemingly every year we found corner outfielders (like Ellis Burks, Mike Devereaux, Dave Martinez, Cory Snyder, Ivan Bubbling Calderon, Lyle Mouton, Shawn Lil Abner, etc.) in the same way.

 

I think Beckham and Chris Getz would be the two players who would be "gym-rats" if they were basketball players...contrasting with some of the higher round draft choices the White Sox made over the last decade, where they alternated between "projectable" athletes and "MLB-ready" pitchers like Ginter, Wright, Royce Ring, Broadway, McCulloch, etc. Whatever has been said about Beckham's physical limitations (speed/range/throwing arm), the guy is just a baseball player, hopefully with a career-track similar to another one we grew up with in Robin Ventura.

 

On a scale or spectrum of 1-100 (with 90-100 being teams like the Red Sox and A's that use a blurrying amount of statistics to analyze players), how much do KW/Hahn rely on this for their analysis of both players for the draft and potential trade/FA acquisitions?

 

If you look at this offseason, you have the typical KW "special" in Putz and then it seems you have Vizquel, Jones, Kotsay and Pierre who feel more like "Ozzie picks" than KW ones. Well, I'll amend that, Jones and Kotsay feel like players that KW and Ozzie both wanted over time, whereas Vizquel and Pierre will be more like "Joey Coras" both on and off the field for the organization, serving as teachers/mentors/role models for everyone about how to approach the game.

 

What's with all this "Mr. Rongey" stuff?

 

Gellinger's job really isn't so much to help them decide what players to acquire as much as it is to help in the advance scouting and self-evaluation area. Players can quickly get video of their ABs or pitching performances from that department and Gellinger is in the statistical analysis of that. It's more about figuring out what they're doing wrong, and what they need to do within the game. The organization as a whole does use non-traditional numbers and one of the biggest proponents of that is Rick Hahn. They know the numbers and they're considered when they make evaluations.

 

You're right, though, they have had a history of finding the undervalued player or under performing player they believe still has something in the tank or has maybe not been tapped yet. I think they do it the way it should be done in that they use a combination of traditional scouting and statistical analysis. The problem is that neither (stats or observation) is perfect, so they need to use both to make a decision. They can't just use one or the other. Sure, sometimes they'll go on hunches and there is nothing wrong with that considering they really aren't in position to be in on every top free agent every year. They just don't have the financial resources for it, so they have to find the "diamonds" to round out a roster.

 

Beckham works hard and he is open to listening to his teammates. He fits in nicely. I wouldn't say that Getz is a gym rat...I don't think he's lazy, but he isn't a gym rat.

[caulfield12]

Thanks...Chris (I guess Mr. seems to make everyone feel older, haha...maybe if you work in St. Louis someday, they'll call you that too, because everyone is so polite there)

 

When I said Getz was a gym rat, I was thinking of it more in terms of a player who perhaps "overachieves" or who maybe doesn't light up the scouting scales with numbers off the chart in any of the five areas, but he's just a guy that "gets it done" and usually does the little things to help the team win. Sometimes the words like "heady" and "grinder" get overused as well, especially when used to refer to white players (in the NBA or college basketball)...obviously Beckham and Getz are both talented (hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in any major sport, arguably...look at all the trouble Michael Jordan had in Birmingham), but they certainly weren't considered as talented coming out of high school as uber-athetes like Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Jeremy Hermida or JD Drew.

 

Getz was kind of lighning rod last year around here, and so was Nix. Both had their defenders and opponents. Getz was streaky, had some injury problems that caused a few to be concerned about his durability, played average or below average defense, but he came up through our system (a rarity that a position prospect makes an impact, since Rowand/Crede), had proven himself at every level of the minors, had the POTENTIAL to be a high OBP guy from the bottom of the order or possibly a #2 hitter, very good stolen base percentage, etc.

 

Without stating the specifics, perhaps there were some concerns on the part of KW and Ozzie about him as a starter...obviously that must have been the case, because they certainly have to believe they'll now receive "plus" offensive numbers from that position with Beckham there, and at least above-average defense, considering Beckham is a converted SS. With Getz, there was always a question if he could put up a league-average OPS for a 2B or have a high enough OBP (.340?) to make up for his lack of power. He also seemed to have a hard time adjusting to getting busted in on the hands constantly by opposing pitchers.

 

 

[Ranger]

Thanks...Chris (I guess Mr. seems to make everyone feel older, haha...maybe if you work in St. Louis someday, they'll call you that too, because everyone is so polite there)

 

When I said Getz was a gym rat, I was thinking of it more in terms of a player who perhaps "overachieves" or who maybe doesn't light up the scouting scales with numbers off the chart in any of the five areas, but he's just a guy that "gets it done" and usually does the little things to help the team win. Sometimes the words like "heady" and "grinder" get overused as well, especially when used to refer to white players (in the NBA or college basketball)...obviously Beckham and Getz are both talented (hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in any major sport, arguably...look at all the trouble Michael Jordan had in Birmingham), but they certainly weren't considered as talented coming out of high school as uber-athetes like Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Jeremy Hermida or JD Drew.

 

Getz was kind of lighning rod last year around here, and so was Nix. Both had their defenders and opponents. Getz was streaky, had some injury problems that caused a few to be concerned about his durability, played average or below average defense, but he came up through our system (a rarity that a position prospect makes an impact, since Rowand/Crede), had proven himself at every level of the minors, had the POTENTIAL to be a high OBP guy from the bottom of the order or possibly a #2 hitter, very good stolen base percentage, etc.

 

Without stating the specifics, perhaps there were some concerns on the part of KW and Ozzie about him as a starter...obviously that must have been the case, because they certainly have to believe they'll now receive "plus" offensive numbers from that position with Beckham there, and at least above-average defense, considering Beckham is a converted SS. With Getz, there was always a question if he could put up a league-average OPS for a 2B or have a high enough OBP (.340?) to make up for his lack of power. He also seemed to have a hard time adjusting to getting busted in on the hands constantly by opposing pitchers.

 

 

Yeah, even the borderline rednecks/hillbillies are pretty polite down there. I can say that, ya know, because I was born and raised in one of the redneckiest towns in the midwest. I even have some in my family. And by "some" I mean "plenty".

 

I think Getz will turn out to be a "just fine" player. Not bad, but nothing special. He would probably fit right in with the type of team the Twins put together for so many years. The issue with him is that he hasn't quite learned to handle himself in the best way at this level. Not that he is a problem in the lockerroom, because he is not. It seems he also rubbed some of the guys the wrong way because he wouldn't play through some aches and pains that other guys play through. Probably for fear of making an injury worse, though often times they were ailments that just about every player deals with throughout the year. It's certainly something that he can correct very easily. He'll be fine.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Ranger

[caulfield12]

 

The funny thing is that the Twins can't have complementary players like Getz if they won't keep Mauer/Morneau/Cuddyer in the middle of that line-up.

 

Because Getz is a lot like a Brendan Harris, Tolbert, Punto type that doesn't really have any "plus" tools. That's why they have been trying to upgrade their offensive output there, as well as hoping for bigger numbers from D. Young and continued excellent all-around play by Span.

 

It will be very interesting to see if they pull the trigger on Mr. Beltre. If they make that move, they have to be the favorites heading into the pre-season, although nobody knows how they'll play in their new stadium, their pitching has a lot more room for improvement coming off 2009. Whereas, the White Sox have to get lights out performances from the Big 4 starters if we go into 2010 with THIS as our offense going forward.