chopsx9

I realize he wasn't a rookie but they were about the same age. I would almost argue that since Wilkins had more "seasoning" his season was a little less likely to be a fluke. I didn't recall the injuries so maybe that played a big part.

I gonna' guess Murton is involved. Just 'cause.

I remember, a little bit, when Wilkins had his big year. I believe he was still young at the time. Was he regarded as a top prospect then? Was he a good defender? Anyone know what his downfall was. I am assuming there was similar hope/expectation for Wilkins to continue to develop. If not why not? I'm really looking for some reassurances (as much as that is possible) that Soto stands a better chance than Wilkins did of continuing to produce and hoping that someone familiar with Wilkin's situation can shed some light.

But that's not really all that new. It's not a sign of how different this team is from the Dusty years. They were 2nd in the NL in SLG in 2004 and 2005, yet the team wasn't that good. The walks are notable because of how different it is from the bad years, when they were obviously the problem that nobody in charge paid attention to or cared about. Oh I don't disagree; just saying they were 8th and 10th in SLG the last two years so the offensive resurgence is a robust one.

They also lead the league in SLG.

Is he the anti-MVP now? they are scoring virtually .5 a run a game less with him and are on the brink of being out of it. his ops is virtually identical but his slg is way down and obp is way up. I know which way I'd rather have it but that would start a whole new discussion. If it weren't for Richardi and his panic induced rants I think Toronto would be the perfect place for him.

Makes no sense to me either. I look at it like this (seems like a no-brainer..): How many times out of 10 will he successfully get the sac bunt down and GIVE UP AN OUT vs how many times will he get a hit? Open and shut case - stupid call. ps - I'm sure there's some metrics at Baseball Prospectus on this, but I'm too lazy to look it up. In same situation the next inning Soriano hit away to the same DP result. Certainly not saying I wanted Soriano to bunt...just saying. I don't mind the sac bunt as much as some here but I certainly do question asking Soto to do it. Soriano did GIDP, but he wasn't trying to make an out on purpose like Geo was told to do. I agree with you in that you never know what would happen with every circumstance every time- Geo swinging away coulda been a GIDP too, but it's the giving up of the out on purpose(especially with a guy that can hit it out of the park) that riles some of us. Oh I absolutely agree that asking Soto to bunt was questionable at best, because of his power and maybe more so because I don't think he has any particular past success as a bunter. As someone said earlier if you decide that the bunt is the play there, bring someone in who can. The only thing I can think is maybe the plan was one bunt attempt and then swing away (I don't recall what pitch in the at bat it was), but that is also questionable for the same reasons.

Makes no sense to me either. I look at it like this (seems like a no-brainer..): How many times out of 10 will he successfully get the sac bunt down and GIVE UP AN OUT vs how many times will he get a hit? Open and shut case - stupid call. ps - I'm sure there's some metrics at Baseball Prospectus on this, but I'm too lazy to look it up. In same situation the next inning Soriano hit away to the same DP result. Certainly not saying I wanted Soriano to bunt...just saying. I don't mind the sac bunt as much as some here but I certainly do question asking Soto to do it.

Nothing revolutionary just thought it was interesting how close there numbers mirrored each other. (so's notwithstanding) Not that familiar with McCann's defense - how does Soto compare? RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 22 Brian McCann ATL 461 62 135 35 1 23 80 5 0 50 60 .293 .365 .523 .888 23Geovany Soto CHC 462 61 135 33 2 21 80 0 0 57 115 .292 .369 .509 .877

I think he had been pitching better so I'm not so critical of him coming in but....my granny goodness how did Lou let him face so many batters. The first batter tripled -somebody should have been up - next guy gets a hit - if the guy in the bullpen is not ready he faces 1 more batter MAX. 5 batters is unfathomable. I was screaming at the TV as he was delivering the pitch with the bases loaded. Could Lou really have thought he was going to get out of it, or even get an out, at that point?

This has always been my assumption of what being a "clutch hitter" is I don't understand when people bring in "you can't improve your ability" - It is about performance not ability - if it were about ability Todd Van Poppel and Glen Brag would be in the Hall of Fame.

I believe he was a 1st round pick of the Padres and Cubs got him in the Barret trade. I also believe there was talk of converting him to a pitcher?? At 20 he's turned it on a bit at Boise. Anybody know any more about him? Is there any potential there?

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse?? This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout. As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made. Which can't happen on a strikeout without an error. Ofcourse context is everything except when the out is a strikeout because it doesn't matter what the context is a SO is never going to result in anything productive while a ball put in play, even if it results in an out, can. Besides all that the original point was essentially that if Dunn put the ball in play more often he would make fewer outs especially with his ability to put the ball out of the park.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

I want at lest one triple though. :mrgreen:

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said. I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them. wrong dead wrong absolutely positively wrong no where near correct, rather, you are wrong If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive) So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons. That's just it, Dunn wouldn't duplicate his numbers if he took a more contact-minded approach. His power and walk totals would most likely suffer for it. Absolutely! and he shouldn't try. Nobody has said he should. BUT if he were able to (and its not going to happen) it would make a good player better.

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out. But it is still just one out. Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks). But nobody has said he should change. I wouldn't want him to change. He SO's a lot; it is not a positive part of his game. That's all.

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said. I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them. wrong dead wrong absolutely positively wrong no where near correct, rather, you are wrong If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive) So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons.

I've never heard someone argue ks are a fantastic result. But on the scale of terrible things, ks aren't worse than other outs, at least not significantly so. Of course they are. Except in situations where the cathcher misses the ball you can't advance a runner with a SO, you can't score a runner from third with a SO. They are not as bad as hitting into a DP in most cases. Again SO's aren't the be all and end all but they are not the same as other outs.

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said. I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

Whogivesacrapaboutstrkeouts? When you strikeout 25 - 30% of your plate appearances (30 - 35% of your abs) it matters. It's not the be all and end all and he definately offsets it at least partitially in other areas but it is still a negative. If you are going to tout the positives it dimishes the argument if you simply ignore the negatives.

I think both Ramirez and Soriano are basically in the same boat. They are certainly not sure things but if they stay as productive as they have been they have decent shots. If either fades in the next few years then so do their chances. Soriano probably needs to stay productive until he's 40 (assuming he's not 40 now) Zambrano certainly has a shot if he stays healthy. Pitching careers can be so iffy though. (see: Dwight Gooden)

...and his first error!!

...and his first error!!

Not commenting on the oppurtunity cost but I have seen more than one quote from scouts that have said Dunn is incapable of playing 1st base at the major league level. You'd think the Reds would have put him there by now if he could - how much worse of an outfielder could Joey Votto be?