What qualifies you to make that observation? Any links to any professional scouts or any defensive statistics that backs up your observation?
I don't have any links...but i remember thinking in 2006 that he was a butcher in LF. That he wasn't good defensively, at all. I dont remember thinking that nearly as much in 07.
He looked okay to me, but I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough make that judgment based on limited personal observation. And i seriously doubt that other casual and, even, knowledgeable baseball fans can make this thin judgment based on limited personal observation. I'd rather trust scouts whose job it is to make these judgments or statistics which track every single play without bias.
Which is probably what the Astros are doing. As a baseball fan, I have been fussing for a year and a half for Luke to be the everyday starter, but now two GM's and two managers have decided he's not worthy. I'm just going to have to trust that they are making this assessment with good professional advice and information. I don't think he'll fetch much in a trade, but he might help make a package of players more desirable. He also seems to hit pretty well in the clutch, meaning he could be your fourth outfielder and a decent pinch hitter.
oxygen, i guess... i don't claim to be a scout, and i certainly don't have extensive baseball knowledge. i DO have season tickets; i've watched luke scott play the OF these past two years. i know people in austin who know people within the organization.
He already has it. Can you think of a player who played as well as Scott has the past two seasons who didn't get it? The situation is very rare for a player with the line of Scott over the past two years not to have a regular job. And before you say there's a reason for that, it's not exactly like the Houston Astros have been known for great management the past three years... I don't think he's as valuable as any of the three straight up (well, perhaps the middle infielder), but I think he can be a key cog in a deal for one.
I asked this question already. The response is, none. Cat, I think your opinion of Luke Scott is borderline Spanoulis-esque. I only say borderline because Scott has at least produced something. At best, Luke Scott is a marginal starting corner outfielder (really left fielder). Really he's a DH. Is he any better than say, Daryle Ward a few years back (or now)? Is he better than a Wilson Betemit now? Not to say that any player capable of starting is worthless, but lefty bats with a little pop and marginal defense, while useful (and maybe even essential to have) can come and go. Hell, look at Mike Lamb. Lamb even plays what I would consider a more premium position.
This deal is very simple: Going into the offseason you had a hole at the leadoff spot, and a very shaky rotation after oswalt. You do not have the next roy or someone elite coming through the system anytime soon. The free agent market has no dominant SP on it, and those guys usually get locked up pre free agency. What is the best way to make mediocre pitching look solid? A great defense. What is the foundation of a great defense? Your catcher, 2b, SS, CF. Catcher and short were already very solid. Thus you need to fix 2b/CF. Bourn is an elite defensive CF, and by replacing scott with pence in RF you added more range in RF as well. Next up is deciding between castillo, iguchi or staying in house with loretta(who is fine defensively at 2b) And this move frees up money for other needs the team has to fill because they cut lidge's salary and don't have to spend big bucks on a free agent CF. The amount of runs that bourn's defense will save will be more than the difference between a lineup of: bourn 2b pence berk lee wiggy catcher/ss and 2b pence berk lee scott wiggy catcher/ss
In a full season's worth of at-bats (since August 2006), Scott has an OPS above .900 with capable play in right field by every available metric. Every season Betemit's ever had even above .800 was in fewer than 200 ABs. Ward had one above .800 season, but it was still significantly below Scott's production and his defense was significantly worse. In that time, he's been one of the more productive outfielders in the National League. Meanwhile, Spanoulis averaged 2.7 ppg and played in 32 games. I'm thinking the comparison might be a stretch.
Yes he is significantly better Daryle Ward was and Betemit is and it's not really even close. It's very basic, he is a career 273 /.366 /.516 (which is right in line with his mnior league numbers). How many corner outfielders in baseball posted a better line than that last year? How many starter posted a worse line?
I like Scott, that's why I would not be in a hurry to trade him. Considering he is not a young player, nor does he have experience in starting full-time, I really doubt we would be getting a fair deal if we trade him away. I would much rather keep his bat on the bench. If someone gets hurt, he'll get a chance to win back his job. If not, I am certain he will get at least 300 ABs in a part time role if he is doing well.
so why has he fallen out of favor with another regime? look, i hope you're right, and that we can flip him for something of value. i don't understand the team's approach to him, either. but i'm doubtful he'll bring anything beyond bench/bullpen fodder.
No kidding. Betemit? Spanoulis?? Tubby Ward????? Holy crap. Just say you don't like the guy. He can't even carry their jock in terms of defensive liability and ineffectiveness. Luke's not a gold-glover. He's not even above average. But I've heard or seen nothing, save perhaps his arm a little bit, that would deem him a liability on the field (though I've admittedly seen much less than others commenting here).
Didn't I read a comment about the Astros being displeased with how much time he had to spend in the training room? Do they view him as physically fragile? Even though I've been defending Luke a bit, here, I agree with the assessment of what he'd bring--but I'd add that I see them making him part of a package (and his status would be a little better than 'throw-in fodder').
Let's be honest; it's essentially the same regime, with a new figurehead. It's not as if the entire organization has been revamped, yet. (Well, it has at the scouting and minor league level, but it's too soon for that to take effect.) The party line for months from Tal and Drayton has been speed and defense in center, and when it comes down to it, those two are still the decision-makers. They always were and always will be. And as I said, it's not exactly like these regimes are highly respected for their baseball competence...
This is definitely, definitely true. The top concern the Astros have had with Scott is durability... it's not defense or offensive production.
the team has nothing behind oswalt that would be described as good starters wise. An outfield of lee, pence and scott, makes blah pitching look even worse to do the lead footedness of the corners and pence's inconsistency in CF. They do not have a stud starter in the minors, so this pitching is going to have to get it done for awhile with some veteran adds here and there. They had to make CF an elite defensive position again if they wanted any hope of making mediocre pitching look better than it is(ie wanting to win) and bourn is an elite defender in CF. It's why they would've started anderson over scott if they had struck out on getting the CF upgrade they wanted. Lee and Pence are cornerstones, so who gets replaced for the CF defender they need, scott does. Plus they needed a leadoff man, they got that done in the same move.
Quoting this again because I think it's the point people are overlooking (unless I'm misreading). This deal isn't about Bourn vs. Scott. Or Bourn's OPS vs. Scott's OPS. It's about filling a huge hole in the leadoff spot and dramatically upgrading our defense up the middle, specifically CF. Once you acquire Bourn, you have a LF (Lee), a CF (Bourn), and 2 RFs (Pence and Scott). So it's really Pence vs. Scott, and I don't think anyone would argue we keep Scott over Pence. I guess what's debatable is whether or not Bourn can be the everyday CF/leadoff guy we covet and how much value Scott has on the trade market. Personally, I agree with The Cat -- that Scott can be a key part of a deal to land a quality SP. If we sign Castillo/Iguchi/etc, we can start with a package of Burke/Scott/Anderson/prospect for a Dontrelle, etc. That's not too shabby.
