Michigan Sports Thread
View Single Post
06-21-2011, 04:22 AM
I pay off the mods.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by
I don't know where you got your UZR numbers, but fangraphs has Inge's 2011 UZR at 0.3. That may technically be positive, but ahead of him at 3b are Longoria, Sandoval, Beltre, A-Roid, Uribe, Tejada, Callaspo, Nix, DON KELLY, Descalso, Morel, Hannahan, Roberts, Rolen, Mora, and Polanco. And that's only counting guys with 200+ innings (and Kelly), as there are another couple dozen guys ahead of Inge in UZR but with limited appearances. So that's 15 or 16 guys ahead of him, not 11.
No, fangraphs has his UZR/150 at 2.7. And even if you were looking at straight UZR, it's at 0.9. Not sure where you see this 0.3. But fangraphs defaulted to 350 minimum innings, where he was ranked 12th in UZR/150, and 10th in UZR, and that's what I was looking at. And, really, anything less than 350 at this point is a part-time player, or part-time third baseman, so I wouldn't count them anyway. They just skew the rankings of full-time 3Bs.
If he were a guy hitting .300 or if he were having a 20 HR 100 RBI season, his defense would be acceptable. For a guy with no bat whatsoever, his defense is unacceptable. And that's over 52 games and 432 innings - basically a third of a season. How long do you need before you accept that he's not going to be playable again? 150 games? 300?
He's played 7 effective seasons at 3B, defensively. I need more than a third of a season (most of which included him having mono) before I can conclude he will never again play 3B effectively. I mean, what a laughable conclusion to come to. Players with a multi-year track record who struggle (whether it be offensively or defensively) for a third of the season bounce back all the time. Some guys struggle for an
and still bounce back. And it's not like Inge is 40. I just don't see how you can sit there and definitively say that Inge will never be effective defensively ever again. Except when I consider your irrational hate towards the guy. Then I can see it
They certainly didn't get top value for him, but DD wanted that reliever guy badly and he didn't place any value on Sizemore. Purcey has put up 8 scoreless innings, so he's looking pretty good. It's too early to tell on either guy, but just because Sizemore had a couple nice games, it doesn't mean it was an awful deal.
No one said that. I called this a terrible deal the day it happened. I didn't need to wait until Sizemore started hitting. The kid has a lot of talent. They let go of Polanco partly because they felt Sizzemore could take over. Unfortunately, he suffered an ankle injury that tanked his 2010 season. But once healthy and tearing up AAA, the Tigers never really gave him a chance. But the upside is still there. And they gave him away for a guy they could have had for free and who is interchangeable with the other 3 leftys in the pen.
As far as other 2b/3b prospects, why is Worth a bench player and Sizemore is a budding superstar? Worth hit pretty well last year from the start, and he's hitting very well this year so far. Sizemore had even more opportunity to get himself going and he never did. Couldn't hit last year. Couldn't hit this year. And his defense is lousy while Worth is a plus-defender.
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is saying Sizemore is a budding superstar. But he has talent and upside. Something Worth does not have. What Worth has is defensive ability. That all spells: bench player. He is what he is.
But yeah, Worth has been hitting well for two years and Sizemore hasn't been able to hit for two years. That's why their career OPS is 3 hundredths of a point apart. Please. This is ridiculous. If you think Danny Worth has the upside Sizemore does, then you obviously don't follow the Tigers minor league system. You gave some love to Rhymes earlier too. For someone who hates the way Jim Leyland loves players like Don Kelly, you sure think highly of other players in the same category.
Sizemore has had a nice week at the plate. He's also got a .895 fielding % at 3b where the A's have been playing him. Pretending that he's the messiah is ridiculous.
That's because Sizemore is a second baseman. If the A's want to adapt him to 3B, hey, that's their prerogative. The transition isn't going to be immediate. And stop with the hyperbole. Again. No one is calling Sizemore a messiah. Why does he have to be a messiah for it to be a bad trade? The answer is he doesn't. You making it sound that way just discredits your flaky position.
The Tigers have three guys at Toledo that play 2b and/or 3b and are batting .315 or better this year. They've got a 3b in Erie batting over .300 at 20 years of age. They've got a blue-chip prospect 3b in Lakeland along with a 20 year old 2b who's hitting .308 with 12 steals. They've got plenty of 2b and 3b depth in the system.
Where in the hell are you getting these numbers? Erie has 4 players hitting over .315 - 3 outfielders and a DH. No 2Bs or 3Bs. Toledo doesn't have a single player hitting over .315, let alone a 2B or 3B. They also don't have a 3B prospect in Erie hitting .300. Martinez is an ok 3B prospect and is hitting .288. And Castellanos is not in Lakeland, he's in Grand Rapids. This entire part of your post is pure fantasy, a complete fabrication.
I'm not worried about the depth of the system though. And I'm not worried about 3B prospects (Castellanos is good and Martinez is ok). I'm worried about the Tigers not having a homegrown 2B; not having a quality 2B prospect. And they have none now. Except for your make-believe guys.
Worrying about Sizemore is silly. The Tigers have made a bunch of these AAAA prospect dumps to the A's in recent years, and the guys they dumped all turned out to be (gasp!) AAAA players at best. He'll go cold at the dish and his average will be back down to .225 in a couple weeks. Yawn.
Peddle your speculation however you'd like. But it's still just speculation.
Yes, it is. When a guy sucks for 52 games, he has to prove that he can still play. I don't have to prove that he's done. If Magglio doesn't start hitting, I'll say the same about him too.
Ah. So, in short, we should take your speculation as fact. You can say a guy is done but have absolved yourself from the responsibility of explaining why he is done. That's nice.
A .565 OPS is their "best option". You actually included that in your argument FOR Inge. We're done here. Sorry, but that's a TKO.
No I actually
include Inge's OPS in my argument, but thanks for fabricating that. The man made of straw looks proud.
You love your tiny sample sizes because that's all you have to support what you'd like to see happen. But Inge has a track record that Kelly doesn't. And as much as you don't want to hear it, Inge has earned the opportunity to get back to an acceptable level, because Inge at his normal level is worth a hell of a lot more than Don Kelly. That's the reality. Not because Leyland loves Inge.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by jaster