there are certainly ample examples of players who proved to be late bloomers. luke scott, for instance. mike lamb. i just think too many people are ignoring how relatively inexperienced AE is.
Did anybody see Adam Everett's wife last night during the game? Anyone who can pull that deserves to be the starting SS.
AE's actually gotten lots of at bats in his career. He's been a regular for 4 seasons now. He's not "inexperienced". And Ozzie's 'breakout' season was probably when he was 30, Adam's age. His best season came at 32. I really think yall are fooling yourselves if you think the man's going to turn into a good offensive player. It just isn't in the cards. He's a low average, a little power, basically low production, back of the lineup guy. That's not to say that he isn't valuable, his glove certainly speaks well for his continued presence out in the field. But I doubt we'll ever see him hit .300 in a season. I'd be thrilled with .275 and fewer Ks.
In honor of Everett, I actually went and did some research on the Mendoza Line. I'd always heard of the Mendoza Line, but I never bothered to do any research until now. Poor guy, there actually existed a major league player that sucked so much he had a batting average range named after him. A career .215 hitter. Pretty funny stuff
you guys are gonna hate me, but, speaking of shortstops, i think jose reyes might be the best all-around player in baseball next to everett.
i didn't say he was "inexperienced;" i said he was "relatively inexperienced." case in point: in his 4 seasons as a regular, AE's totaled 1,834 ABs. ozzie, in his first 4 seasons as a regular, totaled 2,236. that's 100 more ABs/year, and that's significant. you could guess... or look it up. ozzie went .257/.684 with 1 HR and 44 RBIs when he was 30 - well below average; last year, AE was .239/.642 with 6 HRs and 59 RBIs - the difference is a mere 10 hits over the course of a 162 game season. and no, his best season ('87, when he finished 2nd in MVP voting) was at 33 - AE is 30. even though you just referenced a player - a light-hitting, defensive-minded SS, no less - who had his best season at 32 (actually, 33, but...)... you forgot to add he'll never hit 45 HRs... [insert eye roll]... no one here is even remotely suggesting AE could become even an above-average (if not just average) offensive player. but keep in mind: ozzie was a career .262 hitter with an OPS of .665, which is horrible. if AE could develop a more discerning eye (something that requires experience and practice), he could certainly become... what's the right word? more useful. and it's not out of the question, given ozzie's career arc.
The AL cornered the market on great young SS for awhile with Tejada, Arod, Garciapastop****ingwithyourbattinggloves, Jeter; now the worm has turned with Hardy, Hanley, Douchbag met, Drew, Tulowitzki. But hey, the AL's got Ben Zobrist...what's that? International League? Oh. Sorry Charlie.
ahh..the last great threat to AE's job, huh? i didn't realize he got sent down. he's in Durham now. enjoy. where's bruntlett now? meanwhile MadMax rolls around H-Town in his Everett 28 Astros tshirt. what whaaaaaat?????
Summer 2006: "I guarantee you Ben Zobrist is a better hitter/shortstop than Adam Everett RIGHT NOW!" [/Charlie Palillo squeaky hyper voice] I have half a mind to call in & talk **** about his incessant hyping of players he's never seen outside a statline.
absolutely. i wish you would. seriously, you should call him on the zobrist thing. before you do, call me and let me know so i can tune in!
You could be an ass... or you could get your facts straight, at least when you are calling me out for getting mine wrong. Ozzie's .257/.684 season was 1984. He was born on December 26, 1954, so he was 29 years old all season in 1984. And, by virtue of mathematics, he was therefore 29+3=32 in 1987. Jerk.
you're right. i looked at his YOB. congratulations in successfully diluting the actual content of my post by splitting meaningless hairs and proving you have the temperament of an 8-year old. here are the points you didn't address: * AE, for a "4-year starter," is still relatively inexperienced, lagging behind ozzie's pace by as many as 100 ABs/season; he's had two seasons in which he's played in 80% (or 130) of the games - '05 and '06. * that it seemed silly for you to deem me foolish for believing a light-hitting, defensive-minded SS could become a good offensive player by citing a light-hitting, defensive-minded SS that became a good offensive player; * that no one here is unrealistic in their expectations of AE's offensive potential.
ozzie smith played in one of the worst offensive eras in modern baseball. comparing his numbers and adam's straight up is ridiculous.
no one is doing that; he's merely being used as an example of a player who, past 30, turned it around offensively. that he happens to be a defensive-minded SS adds some weight to the info, though it's not by any means indicitive of anything specific, re; AE.
Ozzie also played in an era with an abundance of artificial fields that played right into his slap & run style. It cuts both ways. Just for the record, there's about a .5 run/game difference in the mid-70's-80's NL compared to now. There's less than .10 points difference in BA & OBP. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml
Just looked up his career splits: Turf: .273 / .352 / .344 / .696; 42 SB per 162 games Grass: .244 / .313 / .304 / .617; 27 SB per 162 games
Seems like the more relevant thing to the entire Ozzie Smith discussion is that great defensive shortstops can hold onto their jobs despite offensive suckitude because the defense is so valuable at that position.
Oh please, you make a point to criticize me on my listing of Ozzie's age, pointing out that I was (supposedly) a year off, and tell me I should "look it up", and in doing you actually commit the grievous mistake that you so eloquently accused me of? And I'm the one diluting the argument? I'm the one who's an 8 year old? The whole argument was instigated not by your mistake, but by the snotty language you used in telling me how I made one. [insert Ric eye roll] Your tone was hostile when it didn't need to be. Ozzie is a good example. There are others. I could come up with examples where the player never got to be a significantly better hitter at such an advanced age. And, of course, there are plenty of guys out there who never got the chance to be so bad for so many at bats, because they got demoted/cut/relegated to the bench. Most of those guys didn't have the glove of Adam Everett, which makes up for his shoddy hitting. But here's a telling point, one that I don't see you refuting. After the age of 26, Ozzie's OPS got better every season (except one year he dipped .007) until his 2nd place MVP season at the age of 32. That's an improvement 5 of 6 seasons, leading up to his peak. Everett peaked (so far) at age 27, the age many players peak at, and since then declined in 2 consecutive years. He's on pace (it's very early) to decline a 3rd straight year. Here's another point that you haven't brought up - Ozzie's offensive value is far from being adequately stated by his OPS. He was a base thief, he stole at least 22 bases for 15 consecutive years. He stole 30 bases 11 times, and had over 50 twice. And he stole them at a good rate compared to his CS numbers. Adam has stolen as many as 21, but last year stole only 9. Everett also strikes out far more often than Smith did - Ozzie never had a season in his career where he struck out more often than he walked. Everett's numbers are the opposite. Anyway, I don't think Everett is a bad SS. I think he's great defensively, and we can live with his poor offense. But I think it's unrealistic to expect him to develop into an Ozzie-like player. He doesn't have the speed or the plate discipline of even a young Ozzie. But he can be adequate (but still well below-average), especially if we can put him 8th and eventually fill the other offensive black hole on our roster in the person of Ausmus. I don't think the defensive loss by switching to Loretta would be compensated enough by the difference in their offense.
