|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 21, 2005 23:58:00 GMT -5
Sounds like you're getting awfully nitpicky then. And you didn't answer my question about how you're evaluating who the best leadoff hitters are.  |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 0:08:36 GMT -5
It's a combination of factors. Leading off isn't just about OBP. We tried that experiment with Jeremy Giambi as a lead off hitter. Didn't work.
It's about a combination of getting on base, whether hits or walks, AND being a good enough/fast enough base runner to get to third on a single instead of winding up on second. Damon can hit the ball well (sometimes you need the hit, not the walk) for extra bases, he can steal a base if he needs to and he can run the paths quickly and intelligently.
Who brings that level of excellence in all those factors with the exception of Ichiro? And perhaps Jeter, but that's not really his game.
Not to mention that Johnny scored more runs as a leadoff hitter than anyone else in the AL. That's what a leadoff hitters job truly is, not his OBP.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 0:14:58 GMT -5
It's a combination of factors. Leading off isn't just about OBP. We tried that experiment with Jeremy Giambi as a lead off hitter. Didn't work. It's about a combination of getting on base, whether hits or walks, AND being a good enough/fast enough base runner to get to third on a single instead of winding up on second. Damon can hit the ball well (sometimes you need the hit, not the walk) for extra bases, he can steal a base if he needs to and he can run the paths quickly and intelligently. Who brings that level of excellence in all those factors with the exception of Ichiro? And perhaps Jeter, but that's not really his game. Not to mention that Johnny scored more runs as a leadoff hitter than anyone else in the AL. That's what a leadoff hitters job truly is, not his OBP. Anyone who didn't completely flat out suck leading off a line up with David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez batting behind them should score a ton of runs. Yeah, he has to get on base, but seriously, with two of the biggest run producing machines in the league batting behind him, it would say a lot more if he didn't score those runs than it does since he did. Nearly every leadoff hitter in the league is fast. Most are faster than Damon. It's true. He's a good lead off hitter, don't get me wrong, but to think that he's irreplaceable, or that the Red Sox can't be just as good if not better without him is just silly, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 0:19:25 GMT -5
Um, he scored 136 runs in 2000 as a Royal. I think the guy has a talent for plating runs.
This isn't even bringing up the fact that he plays stellar defense and has great range. About the only thing he can't do is throw. That's his one weakness.
And who exactly, outside of trading for Griffey, would adequately replace Damon? Coco Crisp? Jeremy Reed? These guys are middling players on also-ran teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 0:20:49 GMT -5
Oh, also, Jeter actually scored more runs than Damon did. He may have technically not scored as many as a leadoff hitter because of the ridiculousness with Womack or Cano leading off for part of the year, but that doesn't mean he's any less of a leadoff hitter for it. I hate Jeter, but seriously man, he's a better leadoff hitter than Damon in just about every way. Everything you just cited as being a plus for Damon are all things that Jeter can do as well or better. Just because Jeter is more a traditional #2 guy than a leadoff man doesn't mean doesn't mean he isn't still a better leadoff man than Damon.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 0:24:40 GMT -5
Eh, Griffey...he's too injury prone. And yes, Damon has excellent range. I willingly acknowledge that he has great range. But that weak arm...well, you can't really gloss that over. That's a big weakness.
Also, I think you're making the mistake of thinking that they have to replace Damon all in one fell swoop. Okay, so say whoever replaces him in centerfield is slightly worse than Damon, but they use that money to slightly upgrade at two other positions. Is the team worse for that? Potentially, but not inherently.
I really think that a lot of Boston fans right now are suffering from the fact that, for many years they watched their team fall just short, and now that they're a year removed from winning it all, they can't stand to see any of the pieces changed. That was the only combination of players that worked for all those years, so you're having trouble believing that its possible with any other combination of players. It's understandable with all that the Red Sox fans went through for so many years, but it doesn't mean its rational.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 0:39:17 GMT -5
The problem is that there's no reasonable alternative. It's a bad baseball decision, both on the field and off the field. And since when do you get "awfully nitpicky" over this "Jeter being a leadoff hitter in spirit" stuff?  I should point out that David Ortiz scored more runs than Damon, too. Doesn't make Ortiz a better lead off hitter. And please try to keep in mind that it's the combination of skills that makes Damon that much better than everyone save Ichiro. Ichiro does everything except hit home runs (which he can actually do if his BP is any indication, he just would rather hit singles, sort of like Boggs) and Damon does everything except throw. Everyone else has some form of multiple weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 0:41:20 GMT -5
The problem is that there's no reasonable alternative. It's a bad baseball decision, both on the field and off the field. And since when do you get "awfully nitpicky" over this "Jeter being a leadoff hitter in spirit" stuff? I should point out that David Ortiz scored more runs than Damon, too. Doesn't make Ortiz a better lead off hitter. And please try to keep in mind that it's the combination of skills that makes Damon that much better than everyone save Ichiro. Ichiro does everything except hit home runs (which he can actually do if his BP is any indication, he just would rather hit singles, sort of like Boggs) and Damon does everything except throw. Everyone else has some form of multiple weaknesses. All I'm saying is, there are a lot of guys who can do those things. I'm not even saying that Damon isn't really really good at those things. I'm just saying he's not irreplaceable. The whole mentality that the Red Sox completely fucked up by not dramatically overpaying for him, and are now destined to lose just makes no sense to me, that's all I'm saying. He's a good lead off hitter, yes, but losing him is something that they can very easily afford if they play it right. Now if they trade Manny, that's a totally different story. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 0:44:35 GMT -5
Griffey's been pretty healthy as of late, the Sox medical team is far superior to Cinci's, he brings that extra lineup protection should Manny be replaced (and if not, holy fuck that's a murderer's row from 3-5), his defense is still good enough to be a few rungs below Damon even if he isn't climbing walls like Torii Hunter, his arm is better, and he would cost about as much as Damon but for only 2 years. More importantly, he's the only readily available alternative that can compete in terms of the total package he'd bring. Cinci needs to get rid of an OF, he has the biggest contract and we have a few picthing prospects (Abe Alvarez, Andrew Dobies) that they might be interested in.
And Griffey can handle the spotlight and excell therein, something I don't see Reed or Crips doing. And yes, that shit DOES matter in Boston.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 0:49:17 GMT -5
Griffey's been pretty healthy as of late, the Sox medical team is far superior to Cinci's, he brings that extra lineup protection should Manny be replaced (and if not, holy fuck that's a murderer's row from 3-5), his defense is still good enough to be a few rungs below Damon even if he isn't climbing walls like Torii Hunter, his arm is better, and he would cost about as much as Damon but for only 2 years. More importantly, he's the only readily available alternative that can compete in terms of the total package he'd bring. Cinci needs to get rid of an OF, he has the biggest contract and we have a few picthing prospects (Abe Alvarez, Andrew Dobies) that they might be interested in. And Griffey can handle the spotlight and excell therein, something I don't see Reed or Crips doing. And yes, that shit DOES matter in Boston. Yeah, it matters, I just don't think it matters as much as you seem to think it does. Certainly there's more pressure in Boston than in most cities, but all these guys are used to performing under pressure. Some guys can handle it and some guys can't, but I think most of the time when someone fails to perform in New York and Boston, there's often more to it than just the pressure involved. And I'd love to hear why you're so sure Crisp couldn't handle it. He hasn't shown that he can yet, but he hasn't been given the opportunity to yet. But you seem awfully certain, so there must be a reason, other than simple resentment that he isn't Johnny Damon. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 1:26:41 GMT -5
Crisp had 600 ABs last season, in one of the top 3 offenses in the AL, and only had 86 runs and an OBP of .345. How is this an adequate replacement? He had his playing time and was in a good position to excel in a quality lineup.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 1:36:16 GMT -5
Crisp had 600 ABs last season, in one of the top 3 offenses in the AL, and only had 86 runs and an OBP of .345. How is this an adequate replacement? He had his playing time and was in a good position to excel in a quality lineup. To be fair, they were the #4 offense in the AL, not in the top 3. But more to the point... HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT COCO CRISP WOULD COMPLETELY REPLACE JOHNNY DAMON? This has got to be at least the sixth time now where I have said that I do not expect Coco Crisp to produce as much as Damon. Therefore, it is really odd that you keep asking how he is an adaquate replacement. Let me say it one more time: Crisp is good enough so that by acquiring him, along with making a few other minor upgrades elsehwere, they can make up for the loss. So again, I'M NOT SAYING THAT CRISP IS AN ADAQUATE REPLACEMENT FOR DAMON ON HIS OWN. All I'm saying is that losing Damon is not the end for the Red Sox, that he is not so good that they can not overcome the loss of him, and that there are in fact many things that they can do to recover from the loss and maybe even be better. So for now I'll try to think of a few more ways to say that I don't think Crisp can completely replace Damon,and you can go ahead and keep thinking of another way to ask me why I think that Crisp is just as good as Damon, even though I never said he was. Jesus Fucking Christ, Shin. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 1:39:37 GMT -5
My bad, I just counted. That was only the third time that I said that Crisp or whoever might come in wouldn't be as good as Damon. My bad.
And I also counted the number of times in which I said that he was as good. And that number was zero. There was one post where I said that I wouldn't be surprised if he was better four years from now, but nowhere did I say he was as good now. I'll keep digging around and see if I missed one though.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Dec 22, 2005 1:51:52 GMT -5
Ok, so we sign a SS to replace Renteria. I hear Alex Gonzalez is available.
And also a 1B, which we also need. Maybe Josh Phelps can fill that hole.
Saving money is a great idea in concept, but there simply aren't any more impact free agents left to fill our holes. This has been a debacle of an offseason and just because the theory of "save money and sign more guys" looks great on paper, it doesn't always translate into an improvement.
As if the Sox are hemmoraging cash, too. I mean come on, they've been selling the infield dirt. They have the money, they just don't want to spend it. That's their perogative, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to do what they're doing.
So yeah, I heard you the first three times or whatever. Your point just isn't as solid as you think it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 22, 2005 1:57:20 GMT -5
That's their perogative, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to do what they're doing. So yeah, I heard you the first three times or whatever. Your point just isn't as solid as you think it is. I went ahead and counted the number of times I said that HAD to do what they were doing, and that was also zero. Weird. No, I have a fine point, you're just trying to read a whole lot more into what I'm saying than is really necessary, or than it really makes sense to. Pretty much everything you've said here is in response to something I haven't even really said. My point was this: losing Johnny Damon doesn't have to be that big of a deal if they manage things right. That's all I've said, that's all I've meant to say, that's all there is to my point. Anything else that you want to read into it is on you, as I will no longer feel the need to defend points that I'm not even making. |
|
