Email
PrintComments
yeah…and the health of sizemore is not certain. he is a rotation player signed to a minor league contract. no risk and he is added just for depth.
We’re not still playing the “Grady isn’t coming back 100%” “Woe is me” card here, are we?
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
I am not saying he won’t come back, but he IS coming off an injury so there is always questions about health. there is questions about anyone coming off an injury.
the point is, it is a very cheap minor league contract that is more fore depth in our farm system.
I know. I am just stating how it makes sense to sign a guy like duncan to a minor league contract, especially since he has options left and will likely start the season in the minors.
No offense, bross, but this isn’t one of those forums where you have to explain to everyone the point of a minor league signing.
The snark factor is pretty high around here. A lot of us have been hanging out together a little too long. Stick around, you’ll adjust quickly enough.
lol…nothing wrong with a little snark…i get it and dole it out…I have used this website before, but all to often on the internet, i do things sporadically…that is why ppl don’t remember me anymore at dawgs by nature (the browns blog)…but i have reestablished myself…there is more interesting things to talk about now with the browns then with the indians…can’t wait for Spring Training though.
You know what? I like it.
I don’t want Brantley rushed to the majors or LaPorta rushed off the DL. And if you’ve got a few hundred PA to blow at 1B and LF, you could do a lot worse than Shelley Duncan. Still has an option remaining (which may not even get used up in 2010). Has spent about 150 days in the majors from what I can tell.
Three years in Triple-A with a 901 OPS. Duncan isn’t going to be anything more than a role player, but he could turn into a solid righty bat off the bench at minimum salary for three seasons. As fliers go, it’s got some potential.
Also! I was thinking to myself that he seems like a little better version of Jon Van Every.
Lo and behold, from the archives:
C.C. has got to be out of the game now, with 118 or so pitches.
And he’s probably not too happy with himself, and shouldn’t be. If he had his normal control tonight, he’d have done better. Now we’ve got a nail-biter.
By the way, Shelley Duncan = Jon Van Every?
by Jay on Oct 4, 2007 8:43 PM EDT
hopefully JVE isn’t as ugly.
by ASP on Oct 4, 2007 8:44 PM EDT
And this:
by Jay on Jan 4, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
According to Chad Jennings it’s a minor league deal. I don’t have a link, but someone over at Tony’s site reported it.
My sentiments exactly. He needs to OPS 850+ in the majors or he’ll remain as he now is today, my least favorite member of the Indians.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
This could be as big as the Morgan Ensberg signing!
During and after the 2007 ALDS this guy was the butt of many of the jokes I made to random and familiar Yankees fans. All I can think of this guy as is roster fodder. Now I get do do it while he’s wearing a Tribe uni. Great.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 5, 2010 8:04 AM EST up reply actions
So we also picked up Austin Kearns…..another minor league deal…..but this one bugs the hell out of me.
His SLG against RHP is actually higher; if anything, his advantage against LHP is OBP (he walks almost twice as often against lefties). And he’s never healthy (only two seasons with > 450 PA in his 8 year big-league career). I don’t have a problem with inking a minor league deal, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
I am pretty sure Kearns has a minor league deal. if it is an MLB deal it is at the league minimum…this isn’t much of a risk whereas the reward is fairly high
Did you utterly fail to read the top part of this page, that indeed states “both have signed minor league deals?”
I've really got to change my signature.
Shap always seemed to have a mancrush on Kearns – he was rumored to be in a few trade scenarios with the Tribe before he left for Washington (I think Kearns for Westbrook at one point?)
I like the pickups, since they’re minor league contracts. I don’t see them blocking anybody for regular playing time, altho it may affect Marte and Crowe somewhat (1B and 4th OF to begin the season).
Yeah, I pretty sure there were Kearns for Westbrook rumors.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Funny how nobody thinks about Westbrook as a disappointment and an albatross on the roster. I don’t know when those trade talks were, but Westbrook has contributed only 2.9 WARP to the club over the past three seasons, at a cost of $27.6 million. Not to mention he’s now on a one-year deal that’s overpriced by at least $5 million.
I like the guy as much as anyone, honest, but it should go without saying that it would have been no disaster for us to have lost him.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I think part of that is hindsight. had he not been injured, and there’s no way we could have predicted that, the deal isn’t bad and he contributes.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
How is this different from Hafner?
Who would even dream of saying here, “Thankfully we didn’t trade Hafner.”
It’s the same story and basically the same scale. Hafner is the bigger boondoggle, but Westbrook never approached Hafner’s peak productivity and hasn’t cost that much less.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
At the time, I liked the Hafner signing better than Westbrook’s – we had nobody on the near or far horizon to fill Haf’s function (middle of the order slugger), while at the time it seemed we did have some future replacements for Westy’s function (middle of the rotation starter).
But both signings were celebrated as “two out of three”, meaning if you can’t sign CC to an extension, at least lock up who you can for some peak year production.
Hard to argue with then, and hard to argue now with the fact that the return has been nearly as bad as possible, given the possible spectrum of future performance.
In fact, from the current vantage point, it would have been better to do the “one out of three”, and pony up for CC’s extension. That would have been perceived as the worst of the deals then, but the best now.
We’ll never know what it would have taken to extend C.C. a year early, only that they weren’t close.
We do know that C.C. eventually signed for about twice as much as Hafner and Westbrook combined.
We also know that most multiyear deals look their very best after exactly one year. That Sabathia deal won’t look so great two years from now, let alone five years from now.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but we could’ve signed him to an extension then for much less than the Yanks signed him later as a FA.
I probly would’ve been horrified if they had – just saying from today’s viewpoint the “then best” of those 3 deals (real or imagined) is the worst, and vice versa.
And I’m saying, you have to take the longer view. Ultimately it’s of no real value to know which deals look better when. It’s interesting, but it’s not helpful.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure what’s helpful, either. Just think its interesting. But mebbe you’re just saying you’d have to wait a couple yrs to make a judgement call?
I think its pretty likely CC would have taken a 3 yr, 75 million extension (approximately Jake + Haf). That would be for ‘09 thru ’11? So he’s a year into it by now, let’s say. The injury bug could hit him too, but I think even with that risk, from today’s vantage point I’ll take his deal over theirs.
Not helpful, just interesting the way it turned out.
just curious, but in this scenario did milwaukee need a DH and trade us hafner and westbrook for brantley and laporta?
Nope. But because of our sucky record, we do end up trading CC to the Red Sox in the summer of ’10 for Victor Martinez, Clay Bucholz and Bill James.
The “Heaven’s ’11” following year turns out to be one for the ages, as Nick Hagadone outduels CC in Fenway to earn a trip to the World Series – Victor weeping as he catches the final out on a dropped called strike/peg to first by Carlos Santana, able only to utter “MY house, this is MY house”, over and over in the post game interviews, leading to some confusion in both the Cleveland and Boston media as to which “house” he’s actually referring to…
by mcrose on Jan 5, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m saying Hafner’s deal was reasonable (though perhaps too risky). Westbrook’s deal was reasonable, and considering he’s a pitcher, basically just as risky as Hafner’s.
I’m saying Sabathia’s deal looked terrible when signed and will look terrible later. Because it’s terrible. That it looks good now, momentarily, is a mirage.
There is no reason to think Sabathia takes that three-year deal or that we would have considered a 25M salary even for only three years. I don’t see that it would have been a good deal for us. I think he basically was looking for Santana’s deal, or at least something respectably close, even from the Indians, and that would have been bigger and more risky than Westbrook and Hafner’s deals combined.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
The question is does one WS win make a couple bad contracts worth it if they pay off in the early years of those deals? I think yes, but at the same time it is extremely risk because winning in the postseason is no guarantee even for the Yankees.
Point being: If we win the Series in the first year of terrible Westbrook, Hafner extensions, in my view those extensions were worth it,
That’s a purely retrospective judgment. From our perspective, there is no price too high to have already paid if we get that ring. But we are not the Yankees. We have been waiting a lot longer, and the ring would mean a lot more.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Understood. It’s purely retrospective, but if CC blows out his shoulder and never pitches again, from my perspective it would have been worth it as a Yankees fan since they probably don’t win without him. It’s a completely different situation for that franchise though.
As a Yankees fan, you’d be a complete douchebag, so of course you’d think it was worth someone else’s money to give you a moment’s pleasure gasbagging your unearned bravado over anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 9 recs
yes but in life we don’t have 20/20 foresight and cannot see what will happen down the road. no one could have predicted the injuries to hafner and Jake. i wouldve been stupid to do the CC extention then…it only looks good b/c of injuries…it is not like the indians made the wrong move in the situation…
I think its different because nobody really has any hope of hafner returning to previous form, while westbrook has a realistic chance to rebound to pre-surgery production, or close to it.
This too is irrational. There’s nothing all that realistic about being a lot more confident in Westbrook than in Hafner.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Because Hafner already had a significant injury risk and had started to decline when we signed him. Jake, for what it’s worth, was on the upswing.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Travis Hafner had a half season’s worth of bad plate appearances and was coming off the best season of his career, by far when he signed on 7/11/07. He had appeared in 84 of the team’s 89 games that season and had started 81 of them. Any assertion that he was “injury concern” besides his long time elbow issue or his penchant for getting hit by pitches is the example of hindsight here. You can certainly argue that the doctors were incompetent but I think it’s disingenuous to argue that Hafner was viewed universally as a “significant injury risk.”
And, again, this is a half season of poor performance versus what was three years of the best offensive performance the Indians had seen since the likes of Thome.
Jake signed before the 2007 season, coming off a year that was basically right in line with his career line. I don’t see how he was viewed as “on the upswing.” His big year had been in 2004 and he had not matched it, or really come close, again. There was no extensive track record of incredible performance, as with Hafner. There was an extensive track record of OK performance.
They were both guys who had obvious risks (Hafner because of his player-type, Westbrook because he was a pitcher and not even a particularly great pitcher) who signed for what people thought were market figures. They have both completely collapsed.
The Westbrook and Hafner signings seemed equally well-done at the time and are both totally indefensible on a results basis.
I can’t believe we’re talking about this again.
Ah, mental lapse there — I for some reason thought Westbrook had a nice 2006 season but it was 2007 where he came out a little bit better. Fair enough… lazy and revisionist thinking on my part.
I can’t believe we’re talking about this again.
Not sure why you needed to add this little zinger. Not like I’ve ever been vehemently against either contract. There are far worse offenders. I’m with Jay for the most part, and was simply pointing out why I think the Westbrook contract isn’t perceived as negatively as the Hafner contract.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Not you and I, but the whole thing. I just can’t believe that we’re this close to getting back into “Hafner contract was [stupid] [reasonable].” I thought we’d all gotten over those bloodbaths. Nothing against you.
Kearns is a pretty solid player. His defense in the corners has always been plus and he walks a good amount. He also has some power, but for some reason that has been nullified over the past 2-3 years.
If Kearns fills in for Brantley or Choo every now and then (with Choo DH’ing on Hafner’s off days), I’m fine with that. It does leave Crowe and Marte without much playing time, but in Crowe’s case, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Kearns supposedly had thumb injury last summer.
by ken from alexandria on Jan 5, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
What’s upfudge?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 5, 2010 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
If nothing else, the Tribe is cornering a market in unique first names. Duncan is the only Shelley in the history of MLB (granted, his name is David, but let’s not be picky in this time of great need). Kearns is the first Austin since Austin Knickerbocker in 1947.
How many PA does one need before hackiness (hackitude?) can be determined? Is 53 enough? He’s from Bangall, NY – is that a hellhole?
depends on how many inner-city baseball fields it has.
by Brick. on Jan 5, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Is that it? Not a peep for three weeks, and you just waltz back in here like nothing happened?
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 7:40 AM EST up reply actions
It’s part the holidays disrupting my usual vast swaths of time sitting at my computer, part the fact that pretty much nothing has happened, Indians-wise.
by Logodaedalus on Jan 8, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
I think the obvious player comparisons here are Shane Spencer, Marty Cordova. Those worked out OK, so its a lock here.
Do you know Austin Kearns made $8 M last year? Yikes.
Hell, he’s making $1 million this year even if he just sits on a couch.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
I mean we can probably find guys the indians are paying more for less b/c of injuries.
It is a low risk (in a relative sense) and pretty high reward.
I’d be happy if one of these guys turned into a decent platoon option for 2010. I’m still somewhat confused (and concerned) with LaPorta’s rapid removal from LF.
The media (mainstream and blogosphere) have always been quick to move him to 1B, far quicker than the actual organizations he’s played for. If the removal has been rapid, it may be simply that the greater hole has been opening up at 1B rather than LF.
Let’s say both positions are open, and we’re not going to fill either with more than a mediocre hitter. Isn’t the greater opportunity for the team to sign someone to play LF, someone who can be a substantial upgrade defensively at that position?
It’s surprising how difficult it has been for the Indians to find a left-fielder.
by odradek on Jan 12, 2010 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It is interesting. It seems to be tied to an unwillingness to pay for marginal talent, or to pay substantially for a player who isn’t that high above the margins. Who have the good free agent LF been? Are there any good contracts in that area?
In hindsight you would be forgiven for saying the hell with it, we’ll just sign Raul Ibanez for too much money (though not way too much money) and cross left field off our list of concerns. But i can recognize the thinking that says, How hard is it to find a left fielder? One of these guys has to pan out. Obviously corner outfielders are not in great supply in the majors at present.
Frome Talonk’s list: During the decade the Indians played 13 different catchers (an amazing number), 30 different first basemen, 29 different 2B, 32 third basemen, 22 shortstops (props to Peralta), 52 leftfielders, 26 CFs, 48 rightfielders and 67 designated hitters.
props to Peralta
Props to Peralta and Vizquel, between the two of them they covered 79% of the appearances (Peralta 706 and Vizquel 671), next closest was Asdrubal at 127.
I would never think we would give props to Peralta for anything he did at short. i even forgot he played that position. I blocked it out of my memory…Now it is starting to come back…
The Horror…The Horror…
first of all…I am guessing you did not get my movie referenct.
second of all, i was referring to his HORRENDOUS defense…that is a fact that cannot really be disputed.
It can be, and has been, disputed many, many times.
Peralta’s range was almost certainly below average but he has a number of other tools that made him a relatively successful defender earlier in his career. His arm is strong and accurate and he was always praised for his defensive ‘consistency’-he supposedly makes nearly every player he gets to.
I don’t really care to speculate on how good he actually is but it’s certainly not a Carlos Lee in centerfield situation.
I am not going to disagree with those. He is an above average player when he gets to the ball (but not amazing) but that is the problem. at shortstop you have to get to the ball. he had one of the worst range factors at the position. sometimes when I saw him play, he just wouldn’t even try for balls. he would jog to them, not dive, and let it get under his glove and was called a hit…it is unfair to the pitcher to have eaned runs b/c your lazy ass SS doesn’t want to make plays.
I do not mind him at third. there it can emphasize his glove and arm…
I just have too many bad memories of losing games b/c of the plays peralta didn’t make…there was one game I saw at the jake where he couldve had 2 errors (balls he just didn’t get to) and b/c of the situation, the pitcher gave up like 3 runs b/c of them and lost a close game…
I don’t think Peralta is a fat lazy-ass shortstop. He may look like it sometimes, but I don’t believe he ever decided not to bother trying. If he dove and the ball went past his glove, would that be better?
maybe…Better than him not even reaching his glove down within a foot of the ground and then just look disappointed. I am not calling him fat or lazy-ass. i am just saying, adding to his subpar range, he seemed to occasionally give up on defensive plays.
And I am saying your anecdotal opinion of his defense is totally worthless to any serious discussion of his defensive value.
by afh4 on Jan 14, 2010 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
at the same time, even in a statistical defensive value, he is average at best. he has a good glove but his range is below average for a SS.
I have no idea what you think a statistical defensive value is but there has never been a consensus on Peralta from the major defensive stats. In fact, he’s bested Cabrera substantially in UZR/150 over the last two seasons from the shortstop position. BP’s Rate2 has put him as a basically average SS for his career, with Cabrera scoring out approximately the same way.
Stop saying things without making any effort to determine if they’re true. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
you may have to watch you write a bit more closely.
Jan 14, 2010 10:26 AM PST post above:
it is unfair to the pitcher to have eaned runs b/c your lazy ass SS doesn’t want to make plays
and then in this post directly above:
I am not calling him fat or lazy-ass.
people will call you on bs like this.
the hell with it, we’ll justsign Raul Ibanezextend Travis Hafner for too much money (though not way too much money)
Is there really that much of a difference?
But the impact and risk are generally the same. It’s not like it’s hard to find a replacement for Ibañez in the field.
This was another attempt at humor. How often can one say Ibanez is a better fielder? That explanation aside, shouldn’t it be easier to find a DH (albiet not one who led the AL in OPS) than a LFer?
Out of the 52 LFs in the last decade, only 5 exceeded 100 games (Coco 216, Lawton 209, Michaels 206, Francisco 148, and Dellucci 108). That means a lot of other warm bodies were thrown out there to fill a gap.
[Note: these are not games started, just appearances]
RF was not much better, 48 guys with 6 exceeding 100 (Blake 238, Gutz 213, Choo 207, Gerut 202, JuanGone 120, and Lawton 117)
These are the choices? Lawton or Magruder?
Lawton was kind of bad in his own right, although he was playing hurt for much of his time with the Indians.
And also made $28 million over four years, yes?
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 13, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I think that’s right.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Lawton and Gutierrez were not great pickups or contracts, but they weren’t nearly as bad as they looked in retrospect. In retrospect, we remember a bunch of missed time and poor performance against some decent dollar amounts that we put up.
In fact, the market for player salaries deflated in an unprecedented way within a few months after we made those deals, which made them look “fatter” than they really were. Against the backdrop of 2001 deals (A-Rod, Manny), they’re positively tiny, but the market contracted after that. We’re not talking about the Gary Matthews Jr. deal here.
At the same time, both guys played hurt for basically their whole contracts, including a freak spinal cord injury that should have left Gutierrez dead or at least paralyzed, and instead only limited his range at 2B and had him grounding into ridiculous numbers of double plays.
If Gutierrez doesn’t have that freak injury, then people probably would remember him more like they do Ron Belliard, and if Lawton hadn’t been injured so much, people wouldn’t lump him in with the likes of Dellucci. And if the market hadn’t contracted, nobody would even think of these contracts as significant ones.
Lawton wasn’t terrible, but $7 million per annum in 2000 is like $11 million today. I don’t think Matt Lawton equivalents (MLEs) would make that kind of dough today. But Lawton was a good player, despite all that.
I diagree with you about Gutierrez, but only because I saw him play a lot for the Cubs in 2000 and 2001. He was signed by the Indians as a 32-year-old after two aberrational years at Wrigley. When he had the two great years in Chicago it was clear he was a limited player. Hell, it was clear (to me) he was a bum.
His slugging for Cleveland was close to his career numbers. I don’t mean to sound harsh, because his injury was serious, but it was a good thing he couldn’t play more. He wouldn’t be Belliard.
Just looked at his pre-Indians numbers again, and I have to concede the point. It is baffling how they could have thought his productivity would justify that contract.
My dad has always insisted that they did the contract to help rationalize the Alomar trade. That may be the case, but if it is, it’s the only time Shapiro ever did something like that.
I think your dad was right. I had forgotten that. RG was a quick coat of fresh paint to cover the glaring hole left after Robbie’s departure.
Shapiro came right out and said that — that the Gutierrez signing was one and the same decision as part of the Alomar trade. But that was to cover a baseball need, not a PR need.
My dad, however, was talking about the Lawton deal. I agree that it does seem like they did that. I hesitate only because it’s totally out of step with anything else that Hart or Shapiro has ever done. They simply have not committed even 500K, seemingly, to make another move look better, let alone $27 million.
The only comparable move I can think of is Travis Fryman. After the 1997 season, Matt Williams had his divorce/custody situation and wanted to be in Arizona. He was willing to just retire. So we were talking trade with Arizona, and all of a sudden, they traded with Detroit for Travis Fryman.
Now we had to scramble, but they were willing to swap Fryman for Williams, so we did. (We also got Tom Martin.) Now we’ve got a great 3B for the 1998 season, but it’s going to be Fryman’s walk year. My recollection of reports at the time is, Hart tells Fryman, we want to have you on a long-term deal, and if you don’t want one, I’m going to trade you again.
Keep in mind, the Indians have just won their second pennant in three years, so Fryman is pretty damned happy to have landed there, and they get a fairly club-friendly deal done quickly, five years for $25 million.
This is similar to Lawton in that they traded for a guy entering his walk year and did an extension. But I hesitate to say it’s really the same thing. Fryman wasn’t a hole-filler, he was a sometime All-Star, a very good, all-around, everyday player. I can’t really think that they viewed Lawton in the same light.
I just didn’t really ever like that signing…and when I go back, he wasn’t horrible. I do not take OPS+ as the ultimate stat. I like BABIP b/c it measures luck and fielding. most players average near a .300 BABIP near there career. in cleveland his was around .250ish which means there was either bad luck, good fielding, or both. he also struck out 7% less than average and put balls into play 9% more…he just wasn’t lucky…
BABIP doesn’t measure luck or fielding. It can be an indication of either (or both), particularly when a given year’s BABIP deviates from trend lines, but in isolation, telling me Player A had a BABIP of .330 and Player B had a BABIP of .280 doesn’t prove anything. In 19 seasons, Ted Williams had a BABIP under .318 only 4 times, and exceeded .328 ten times. Lucky bastard.
the elite players can have a BABIP of over .315. the league average is .300 and a lot of it is based off of luck and fielding. some of it is based on where you hit it but I do not consider lawton a bad hitter. when you are a contact hitter like lawton and do not hit a lot of lazy flies (like shoppach does) and most of your hits are hard grounders, you should be hitting at least .300 for BABIP. in cleveland, he averaged about .250-.260. about 3/4 of his at bats were balls in play. that means he was a great contact hitter. he also didn’t hit a lot of popouts or flyouts. he was a line drive hitter. with most players (who aren’t elite) the BABIP eventually evens out and starts to hover around .300ish. shoppach had a monstrous .350 or above for 3 seasons, and last season hit .280 BABIP. lawton eventually rose back up in his final year here and when his BABIP was normal, he was an all star. I don’t know why his BABIP was that low. he also has good speed (speed is a factor). My only guess since I don’t have every game he played in on tape, is that maybe there was good fielding and he was not doing well at hitting it into the gaps/where the players weren’t. williams could “hit it where they ain’t”, but very few can really control that well on every pitch.
I did misspeak on that comment though about most guys averaging around .300. that is the league average. the elite players (pujols, mauer) hit significantly above .300 b/c they are some of the few that can truly control the pitch on just about every at bat. In fact, lawton put balls in play as often as mauer but he had a much lower average…yes it is somewhat b/c mauer could control it better but lawton might have had bad luck (hitting it where they were) or just running into good fielding.
It isn’t necessarily just elite hitters, it’s also a certain type of hitter.
Shoppach, for example, had a higher BABIP in part because he would swing and miss on pitches where most batters would ground out.
somewhat true…you say ground out but I also think, ground ball through the infield. he does have good power but I have not been impressed at all with his contact ability or his plate discipline (mostly his discipline)
Yes, but obviously it’s not much of a strategy to hit ground balls and see how it turns out, especially for a slow-footed guy as most catchers are. In fact, it’s fairly obvious that the “last” thing you’d want any below-average runner to do is to expand his strike zone in the hopes of putting more balls in play.
The other thing is, that swing-and-miss isn’t always strike three, of course. You get three strikes to try to hit the ball solidly, but as soon as you hit a groundball in play one time, you’re probably out.
shoppach has an expanded strike zone. he swings at a lot more pitches than most players. granted he doesn’t make contact that often but he himself expands the strike zone.
Look, the results speak for themselves, and if you understood the results, you wouldn’t denigrate Shoppach.
which results? the ’07 and ’09 results or the ’08 results…those are 2 different stories and 2 different players.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
