no, the reason he gets paid is because he accepted the arbitration that we offered him expecting it to be turned down so we would get a draft pick out of it, but, amazingly enough, none of the other 31 teams in the league thought it was worth paying a "great hitter" a couple million bucks for a season. go figure! i didn't realize great hitters were a dime a dozen. and keep on playing the innocent card. i dont think anybody here is naive enough to fall for that. as if you werent fully aware of the tone that starting your response with "Fail." was setting. heck, maybe you just don't know how to communicate with others.
biggio was an everyday starter, and an AWFUL defensive player on this team until he was 42. brad ausmus is an everyday starter at catcher and an awful defensive player and he's 40. i'm sure there are roughly thousands of examples, but barry bonds was 45, possibly the best hitter to ever play, and amongst the worst LF's in the game in his latter years, and was an everyday starter. this organization certainly wouldnt have a GREAT hitter wasting away on the bench just because of his age...not to mention, he's only 36. saying he's on the bench because of his age is just mindblowingly dense.
It is not dense at all and is actually the precise reason why he is not a starter. His offensive output as an Astro is nearly identical to his career numbers. If he was 5-7 years younger, either Wigginton or Matsui wouldn't even likely be here. Their was a big difference with Biggio and Ausmus. In both cases, we really didn't have other options. We lacked a true leadoff guy once Taveras was gone as well as a reasonable second option at catcher. Quintero and Munson just couldn't do enough with the bat to warrant sitting Ausmus. Plus, Biggio is a very special case because of what he means to this organization. In Loretta's case, we have much better options at 1st and SS this season and you aren't going to sit guys like Matsui or Wigginton unless they become absolute liabilities because you want to find out if they can play the position for the next few years. Last season, when Everett went down, Loretta jumped right into a starting role and hit very well as usual. Loretta is a great hitter and always has been. You are calling this opinion about Loretta dense yet there is not one person that has agreed with you. Is it possible that you are just wrong about Loretta?
thanks for ending your own argument with that link. scroll down a bit and look at his defensive numbers. "below mediocre", huh? mark loretta is a decent hitter at this point in his career. not "very good", not "GREAT", and most importantly, not somebody you let swing away down 1 in the 7th with a man on 2nd and no outs and under all the other circumstances i outline in the original post, which you trolled and picked out the smallest, most irrelevant part of to turn into an argument that you ended up getting owned on. good night, and good luck.
Are you trying to argue that it is because of his defense that we have him? I think you've been owned my friend. You have zero support for your initial point which was that Loretta is a bench player because he is not a good hitter. You keep talking about Loretta's light-hitting. Do you think we play Matsui at 2nd because of his power? The point remains the same. Loretta's greatest value is his hitting and his second greatest value is his versatility as an infielder. This the EXACT same point I made initially. He is a mediocre defensive player, at best, at this point of his career, despite his versatility. Versatility does not necessarily equate with good defensive player. The truth is that he is slightly below average defensively at this point with his declining range and athleticism. He can get the job done but just barely. The fact that he can play multiple positions is just added value to his hitting ability. It allows guys to rest and gives you a back up option at one of the infield spots if somebody gets injured. You continue with the name-calling and baby talk. Your reason for this is that I used the word "fail" in my original response on this topic. Who is the one that doesn't know how to communicate? We already know who is right about Loretta... You are cornered, dude. The only thing you have been trying to do in your last 10 posts is make me look bad because you know there are a few people here that don't like me. You may get a few people to slam me but you won't get anybody to agree with you about Loretta and that is the only thing I've ever been trying to discuss.
I was going to let this go, but why don't you just admit your initial post was wrong? It's not hard. None of the players you mention are even remotely similar to Loretta. First of all Biggio was starting despite his age and defense because he's one of the greatest players in Astros history. Brad Ausmus despite not being able to throw out runners at near the same rate as before is a good defensive catcher and calls a great game. It was surprising that he didn't cover that wild pitch from Wandy today. A ball has to take a crazy bounce like that to get away from him. And are you kidding? Bonds? 170 OPS+ last season. It's a crime that he isn't playing somewhere right now.
no, we have him because he accepted arbitration. loretta's greatest value to this team is his versatility as an infielder. on multiple occasions this season, he has gone a week without registering an AB. that isn't something that you do with a GREAT hitter. last year, loretta often served as a late-inning defensive replacement for craig biggio. that isn't something you do with a below-mediocre defensive player. so now, after reading his stats, you've upgraded him to "below mediocre at best, to mediocre at best.". i see you've given up trying to argue the fact that "he's on the bench because he's old" and "he's on the bench because I think he's a below average defensive player"...because you have no evidence to prove them and stuff. so, once again, we're back to the point that you're arguing just to argue. and shame on me for catering to you.
bro, are you seriously trying to argue that the reason he's on the bench is because of his age? like all other factors are tossed out the window and stuff? doesnt matter if you're a great hitter, doesnt matter if you're a great fielder, doesnt matter if you're blazing fast, doesnt matter if you have crazy range, power, and a cannon...one you hit that 36th birthday, it's a given that you have to be put on the bench and stuff?? i mean, at least make a case for the guy's lack of fielding or hitting, give me another reason, but are you serious????
Sorry, but I don't think the Astros offered him arbitration just to get a draft pick. Loretta is an extremely valuable tool off the bench, and getting him for the money they got him (through arbitration) is almost a steal. No other teams wanted him, or have wanted him since he arrived to the Astros because there hasn't been a huge market for 2nd basemen the past few years...especially for 2nd basemen who are leaning more toward the latter part of their career than beginning. Doesn't mean he shouldn't or couldn't be a starter somewhere. There's just no room for him to start here plus, as has been said, he's pretty versatile off the bench. Please tell me you meant Bidge was awful defensive player near his retirement. Because up until the last several years of his career, I'd say he was a quite capable 2nd basemen. Those last few years though he just lost a lot of his range. And Brad Ausmus...he's had a long career precisely because he has been one of the greatest defensive catchers of his generation. Can't hit for s**t, but when you got a guy behind the plate that can catch the nasty stuff pitchers like Lidge throw down the pipe, you better believe you can feel safe about that area of the field.
Yes. Age matters. Age is the reason Lofton does not have a contract right now. Age is the reason Loretta had only a 4.34 RF last season despite his career average being near 5. Age was the reason Biggio sucked his last few seasons. Age is the reason players like Bonds get lots of days off. Their body's can't take the wear and tear of playing everyday. Even moreso a middle infielder.
On another note, was at the game today and in the 8th or 9th they played a pretty sick music montage of the Astros through history...reminded me both of the montage before Rockets games this season and the "where ___ happens" theme the NBA did...only instead it was a "one ____" theme. Got a little choked up when Biggio's segment popped up on the screen.
do you have any evidence whatsoever that mark loretta's body cant take the wear and tear of playing everyday? or are you just making a generalization that once you hit the magic age of 36, you cant play everyday, and presenting it as fact? and if so, offhand, omar vizquez might beg to differ.offhand, and saying kenny lofton doesnt have a contract because of his age is just an awful, awful example.
Yes, I was making a generalization. There will always be exceptions. Hall of Fame players tend to do exceptional things. None of this arguing changes the fact that you won't admit that your initial assessment was wrong. Here let me remind you about what all this arguing is about.
Six of one, half a dozen of another. cardpire, I don't agree with your original point. Loretta is not a bench player because he is not a good hitter. He is a good hitter. BrooksBall. Quite simply, grow up. You're like a dog with a bone once you disagree with someone. You just don't let things drop man!
i don't think he's a very good hitter. he is an avg. hitter at this point in his career. there is no wrong that i need to admit. he took my words out of context and removed them from the actual point that they were connected to, just for the sake of instigating an argument, and congrats to him, because it's worked on you and i both. and he's DEFINITELY not a great hitter. that is one of the reasons that he's on the bench. my entire point of that original post that there is no way in hell that a hitter of his caliber should not be bunting there. i also, judging by these posts, have more faith in loretta than you guys do. he's a decent all around player, and can play anywhere in the infield. that's a valuable player to have coming off your bench. he said that loretta is a great hitter, and he's a bench player because he's old and a below mediocre defensive player. these are incorrect, and you agree with one of them, so you should admit you're wrong i guess. "none of your arguing changes the fact that you are wrong." good copout of a post. none of your failure and avoidance of providing evidence, examples, or prove your point changes that fact that i'm wrong.
i'll gladly rephrase it. the fact that loretta is not a great, elite hitter is a contributing factor to why mark loretta is not an everyday player. this is combined with the fact that he can play anywhere in the infield, and has a solid glove, as reasons mark loretta is a bench player for the astros. if mark loretta was a great hitter, he would be an everyday player, and kaz matsui never would have been signed. that isn't really arguable.
I'd argue that Loretta is a great situational hitter, which is the context of the situation. He's one of the best guys in the bigs at putting the ball in play in a specific direction. He simply makes contact and has a good eye. As I said at the time, if you need a ground ball or fly ball to the right side, he's your man. The advantage to that over bunting is that you have the chance to have a ball fall in or find a hole, while at a minimum you should get the same result as a bunt. (Remember, bunts can be fouled, popped up, hit too hard, etc. as well.) Obviously he's not a great hitter, period, but I do think he's an above average hitter for a middle infielder. And I definitely think he's a great situational and professional hitter, which is what should be the point of this discussion. As I said earlier, I personally would have bunted -- but there's a case for the other side, too. (And yes, age is the primary factor why Loretta isn't a starter at 2B.) The coaching decision that needs to come under fire is the inexplicable decision not to send Abercrombie -- a very fast runner -- to home as the tying run. That's the one that's unbelievable. Replay showed he would've likely scored easily -- but with Michael Bourn on deck and 2 outs, that's a situation where you take your chances even if you only think you have a 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 chance of him making it. Having seen the replay, his incredibly high probability of having scored makes it even worse. Absolutely stupid, and cost them the game.
BWA HA HA! The Astros suck, and they would've always been so if not for the juice. Man, I wish we still had Caminiti.
once again, no it isn't, and arguing that makes no sense. saying that age is the primary factor is implying that it doesnt matter what their skills are nor if they have declined or improved, once you hit a certain age, you gotsta get on the bench. craig biggio started for us for almost 7 years while being older than mark loretta is now. now, if you want to argue that his skills are declining as a by-product of aging, feel free to argue that all you please. but just saying he isnt a starter because of his age makes no sense. if mark loretta was outstanding all of last year, there is a 100% chance he'd be our everyday 2nd baseman this season, regardless of his age. so that's one of his 2 reasons for him being on the bench, and it is clearly incorrect as stated...now will you please address his "below-mediocre" fielding being the other reason he's a bench player?
