Pence's zone rating and range factor are both superior to Taveras. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats...&seasonType=2&split=84&sortColumn=rangeFactor
Sure, its ONE of the issues (I never said our OF defense is stellar)... still nowhere close to being a main issue, and doesn't ever warrant more than 3 pages of discussion given the other problems on this team (and even then, I'm still more concerned with Lee on road games than I am with Pence/Berkman/Scott in any game). And, I can easily see this team be a "good" team even if they have the current OF in place (given that they improve the starting pitching, bullpen, figure out once and for all the 3B/C situation, and get Everett's defense back)... on the other hand, I don't see the Astros suddenly becoming a decent team by just replacing the current OF with an above average defender arm in CF. My main concern about Pence was how much range he could cover... given his size, and the spacious dimensions at MMP. I'm not that concerned about that anymore... certainly not enough to keep discussing this over and over (and over) again. The infield defense IS currently the worst in baseball... that's not a big stretch when you have Lamb playing as many games as he is at 3B, Biggio with limited range at 2B, Loretta as a god-awful SS, and Lance still having adventures at 1B.
you continue to make points no one is arguing. i think they'd be a better team with willy in CF and pence in RF. i guess "better" is open for debate, but they're currently 15 games under .500, so fixing just one of their problems isn't going to make up enough games to bring them in the spectrum of "decent." it's a bad team with deficiences up and down the roster. and having a better defensive OF would favorably impact the pitching staff, btw - one of the problems you keep listing as more important; that's why it's not a "waste of time" to discuss it. especially when, in the same post, you mention the importance of getting a defensive piece like AE back. i'll cop to not knowing a lot about our prospects beyond very surface insights; but pence was always billed as a guy with speed, so i'm not sure why his coverage would have concerned you or anyone else.
And you still continue to debate/argue the value of players who aren't on this roster, and aren't going to be on this roster any time soon... that's not helping provide any solutions either (just like saying "they just needed to sign Pettite" isn't going to help right now). What we have is a CF who does cover ground, and likely will be able to stay there for the forseeable future, unless they find a gold-glove calibur/above average hitting CF (not as likely as finding an average RF). Yes, his ability to play CF was in question, given that he'd never done it before, and was being asked to do it in the biggest CF in baseball. Speed isn't everything... Burke has more speed than Pence, and we all saw how he performed in CF. I've actually seen less growing pains from Hunter in CF than I saw in Willy... and that includes Willy's time at AAA, and his first year in the majors.
uhm... it's been pointed out numerous times in our debate over taveras' merits, but he never played at the triple A level, jumping to the majors (and staying) from double A. as for debating players not on the roster - it's a means to an end because it calls out the current GM who made the deal and built this roster, asking, in essence, that he either get his act together or start packing. here's the reason this debate seems to never die, nick - and this is not pithy messgae board bull****: you've been soundly debated at each and every turn in this discussion. and the reason it keeps going 'round and 'round is because you either come up with a new angle to try and exploit, you invent a debate no one is having, you post errorneous info (such as you seeing taveras at triple A), or you revert to ground we've already covered that no longer has any merit. the jason jennings deal was a bad trade. it is very nearly reaching the realm of fact - he's been awful while the younger, cheaper, club-controlled pitcher we dealt has been as good/bad, and the other two players, especially taveras, would be filling what are right now glaring needs on this team and change its dynamic considerably in the positive (assuming all things equal). i remain at a loss how anyone could continue to defend the deal at this point.
nick, apologies - that reads much meaner and pissier than i intended. i just think anyone NOT coming down hard on the jennings deal at this point is just being stubborn, which i can certainly understand/relate to - i STILL find myself defending david carr, LOL... intellectually, i've always understood the trade; i've just always thought purpura had a poor read on the team he was left with in the trade's wake and the deal cut his margin for error down to the nub. and now we're seeing the worst case scenario play out.
Are you sure you are not confusing jennings with Williams? Jennings has a 4.15 ERA, which is not awful by any stretch. I also fail to see why anyone would display man-love for Taveras. The only thing I miss about Taveras is his arm. I do not miss his inability to walk, to hit the ball out of the infield, to run the bases, to steal bases, or to get a good jump on the ball. BTW I am sure that Pence's arm will improve long before Taveras improves his game.
i'm not real intrigued by defensive stats. though i know they're getting better at their attempts to quantify that. i thought he was a good defender...not a great one.
"awful" relative to expectations. the guy has a 1.4 WHIP, commiserate with wody williams; jennings, at least, has shown a propensity for not giving up the ill-timed homer. but there are fewer top of the rotation starters posting such woeful pereferrable stats. again, at a loss why anyone wouldn't miss a lead-off hitter posting an ob% 70 points higher than our current lead-off hitter. and for what i truly hope is the last time: i'm not advocating any kind of arrangement that would have willy taveras replacing hunter pence, save for their defensive positions. i'm favoring taveras replacing luke scott.
i thought last year (his second season), he was a great, difference-making defensive CF'er. i don't know much about defensive statistics, but i'm assuming he hasn't regressed.
To be fair, I'm sure his OBP is nowhere near 70 points higher than an average MLB leadoff hitter. Were Willy T here, he (sadly) wouldn't be hitting leadoff, and our leadoff hitter has no business hitting leadoff anymore.
From what I've read and heard:<bl> <li>His routes to the ball improved very much, his instincts and decision making got much better (and these are all things that will most likely improve in the same way with Pence).</li> <li>His arm was still good, but he made fewer dumb throws (Pence will also make fewer dumb throws, but his arm won't get as good as Willy's).</li> </ol>All-in-all, from what I've gathered, Willy went from a fast-but-below-average CF to an above-average speedy CF, like Beltran (but not like Andruw Jones). From what I read about Pence, I gather that he'll be everything Willy is defensively *except* the arm. And, No Worries was dead-on about Willy on the bases--though not as bad as Glen Barker (shudder): fast and stupid. I haven't followed Willy to see if he's gotten better on that front or not.
No apologies needed... but don't blame me as the only reason we're debating any of this. First of all, plenty of people agreed with the trade at the time... it wasn't just me. Secondly, I've never brought it up by myself... I've merely responded to all those criticizing the trade now, in hindsight (I know you're not one of them). I'm also not an idiot... I'm not saying the trade has worked out for the best, nor am I saying the team is in great shape right now (although I still don't believe they're in as dire straights, and need a complete overhaul which would lead to getting rid of guys like Oswalt). I was merely defending the trade at the time of the trade... just like most trades should be evaluated (but never are). Obviously, looking back now, there are several reasons why it hasn't worked out (Jennings injury, Willy playing the best he ever has, the other struggles of this team that weren't there last year... Berkman, Oswalt, Qualls, Wheeler, Lidge getting hurt). In the end, the Astros are in the same position they were in the off-season... they need more pitching. Of course, Oswalt can no longer (for the time being) be considered automatic for a 20 win/sub 3 ERA season, the bullpen can no longer be counted on for at least two above average stoppers (they used to have 3... right now, they only have one... and he's injured), and all of that obviously makes the ability to fill the void that much harder. The plus side is that the offense has improved, and Pence looks to have more tools than was invisioned when he was being promoted through the system (I see him going the opposite way with the pitch more than he ever did in the minors, and he will develop more power as he fills out). The club needs to see what they really have in Burke, say bye to Biggio, address "switch-hitting" Lance to see if its really worth him batting right-handed anymore (i'd like to see Pence in the 3 spot against lefties), not be shy with Patton if he continues to show good command at AAA, not be shy with Towles to put him in a position to make the team outright next year, and not be shy with Bogusevich/James/Perez/Einertson.
Its hard to get that point across because of the inherent risk of all trades... I never really understood why its a good point till recently (too many memories of Bagwell-Larry Anderson, Drexler-Thorpe, Barkley-Horry/Cassell dancing in my head)... but I've recently heard both LaRussa AND Garner belabor this point. You can still look back on a trade in 10 years that didn't work out, and criticize all you want... but would it change anything? Would it accomplish anything? In all likelihood, the Red Sox were never going to invision Bagwell as a future HOFer... thus they traded him, and would trade him 1000 times out of a 1000 if the exact scenario played out again (them needing a dominant reliever to help them into the playoffs, while letting go of an unproven minor league prospect).
there are two components to every trade: the need and then the action. i understood, intellectually, why purpura felt he needed to deal for a garland or a jennings. (but i disagreed then (and still do) with his reasoning - it was, imo, based on a gross misevaluation of the team he had assembled.) he compounded that misevaluation by acting on it, giving up too much for too little and reducing his margin for error. yes, all trades have risk, but you can, to a degree, control that risk. huff was a "risk" but purpura controlled it by giving up marginal prospects and refusing to part with his bigger guns (pence, hirsh and/or patton, et al).
The market essentially dictated what he gave up... not just his own misevaluation (which is still a bit of a stretch given that Hirsh/Buchholz may very well amount to nothing). ALL the big deals are starting to look a little stinky... Zito, Lilly, Marquis, Kip Wells, Pettite (clemens), Weaver, etc. (hell, once again I reiterate that I'm thankful for Jennings not having an extention in this crazy market already signed). The White Sox rejected the deal for Hirsh/Taveras/Buchholz... looking at the shape they're in now, did their "genius" GM misevaluate that siutation? If in 5 years, the only MLB players left out of this deal are Taveras and Jennings, does that make this an ok trade? Because straight up, that's not a bad deal (but was impossible given the off-season market). In all reality, I feel Pupura knows his prospects well enough to be in the position to make judgements on guys like Hirsh, Patton, Zobrist, Pence, Albers, Talbot, and Buchholz. I give you that impatience/urgency may have gotten the best of them with Willy (as two full years of guaranteed playing time with little results, on a team which needed more offense, can do that)... but it also could have been the key to the Colorado deal (as they know pitchers are a risky proposition no matter who they are, in Colorado).
wow, I've never seen it argued that a trade shouldn't be evaluated after the fact. whatever makes your argument work. trades are just like draft picks, they are evaluated after the fact. ask any fired gm. ask charlie casserly, hey buchanon looked great on paper.
I never said you shouldn't ever criticize a trade after the fact... that's never going to change. I said that trades should be evaluated in their entirety AT THE TIME... and note the strengths/weaknesses of said deal and why the trade is being done. After the trade is done, yes... feel free to bring it up time and time again... but its still not going to serve much of a purpose (unless you have a GM with a history of making those types of bad deals, and hence you use it as a reason why said GM shouldn't be there). Casserly fell into that argument... additionally, I don't know one person who thought trading two first day picks for either Babin or Buchannon "looked good on paper." Nor did either trade come close to attempting to fulfill a need, while allowing decent backup plans.
