ed wade sucks unless he can somehow get mike lowell, torii hunter, and andy pettite in an astros uniform no really i think i'd prefer a third baseman over a center fielder even though i like torii hunter a lot
1 of them has consistently hit 25+ hr's and 80+ rbi per year while winning 6 gold gloves in a tough to play Minnesota CF. Another has shown a much more consistent ability to hit for power and average, while also playing stellar defensively. Scott is a good hitter. I don't think he got a fair shake this year. You can't argue that his defense is not good. When you combine it with Lee and Pence, that gives us possibly the worst defensive outfield in the majors...at one of the toughest outfields to defend. Pence is adequate in CF. Hunter is probably the best in the game right now. Rowand is pretty damn good, too. Even if you assume that all things offensive are equal between the 3, you can't deny that Scott couldn't hold their jocks defensively. Getting a Hunter in CF would help this team greatly. I'd love for someone to finally steal some of those Edmonds bombs to the hill.
True. But let me ask you this (and i really don't know the answer) how much credit does a GM, any gm, deserve in draft classes? How much should we assign to the scouting department, the scouting director, random chance/luck? In contrast, and correct me if i'm wrong, shouldn't the GM get basically all of the credit/blame for major league roster moves. Sure they could be in crappy situations (rolen or shilling?), but if i'm the Gm i'd hope to a little more back than what they ending getting for trading away two potential hall of famers in their primes.
I have a hard time with all of that. But I think you have to generally say that if among the GM's tasks is to hire the scouting director, then he gets some credit when the draftees are good. We've gone round and round about that with owners here, too. Drayton gets criticism when the team flounders...but when they do well it's all because of Hunsicker. What's overlooked is that he hired Hunsicker and kept him around for a decade. That's what running an organization is about...surrounding yourself with bright people.
ok but gold gloves and rbi are essentially meaningless in determining a player's worth. Deter Jeter has gold gloves, Rafael Palmeiro won a gold glove at first while only playing 28 games. It might be a somewhat accurate measure of a player's reputation, popularity or offensive ability, but it is in no means a measure of their true defensive abilities. Juan Gonzalez and Joe Carter both where year in year out rbi leaders. Neither were star players. Rbi's totals are largely are dependent of AB's, opportunities with runners on base, and basically a function of the offensive around you. Like Gold Gloves it doesn't give a accurate measure of a player's true production. Hr's: Okay, but Hunter and Rowland have played more years and gotten more ABs/PA's then Scott. If you want to talk about power or Hr power, lets talk about their hr/ab, hr/Pa or iso slugging percentage.
I watched every game this season, and I'd argue that. All available metrics show Scott as an adequate defender, and that's how he looked to me as well. Pence (with exception of arm) is above average. Defensive strength in the outfield is far, far down the list of the Astros' weaknesses.
Sure i agree with that. A gm's position is almost like a CEO's. a good gm will get good people around him/her and know when/who to trust for information. Again, though, how transferable is that ability? If a GM has good people around him is that an actual skill, or maybe even if has had good people around him, do we know that it's because of a skill. It's my impression that a good chunk of a mlb team's front office system, especially the player development system, is relatively stable and doesn't go through a lot of upheaval with new gm regimes. How much is attributed to the system already in place and how much is attributed to skill? I"m not sure if this makes any sense. regardless, the stuff (mlb roster moves) that we can judge him on that were related a discernible skill, is less than impressive.
And that's the other thing. I've heard a lot of people talk about scott's lack of defense. What is this based on? It's not the impression i got while watching him and, from what i've seen, it's not what most defensive metrics indicate.
I'd take best-in-baseball over adequate any time. I agree that OF defense is not the top priority. However, if given the chance to upgrade it, along with what most would consider an upgrade to the lineup, wouldn't you take it? Naturally, the price has to be right. It cant' hamper the team from making other moves. But, throwing that out, would you rather Luke Scott over Torii Hunter?
Who was better at defensive relative to their position last year? Pence, Biggio, loretta? If improving up the middle defense is the issue, why don't you improve it at 2nd where there is the most to be gained?
i have no idea what we'll do at 2B. but in the up the middle equation....ss, 2b, c, cf....2b is the least important defensively, in my view. and i played 2B.
