That's not an accurate description of anyone, if you're going to mince words. Most guys fail 7.5 times out of 10, and the really good ones only fail 7 or 6.25 times out of 10. He hits behind the runner. If you argue that, you weren't watching or you didn't know what you were watching.
a) He handles the bat well enough to slow his hands down, drag the bat through the zone & hit the ball to the right side behind the runner. I've seen him consciously do this exact thing several times over the past year. b) Not talking about showing bunt & then hacking. His *natural swing* produces a ton of balls on the ground to the left side. In potential sacrifice situations, the 3B will cheat up a few steps *before the pitch* in case there is a bunt, balls get on him quicker & you'll get some extra balls past him. This is not really a big deal, more of a tangential benefit. Garner has praised his ability to "get deep into counts" & "see a lot of pitches". His OB% is ~80 points higher than his BA (remains to be seen if that continues). His approach at the plate is much different than it was early last season and earlier in his career. p.s. Everett currently has the same OB% as Craig Biggio, .011 lower than Willy.
Still very young! Adam Everett is 28, which is the prime of his career. Most hitters peak at between 26 and 28. Tejada is 28, Michael Young is 28, those guys are big time shortstops in their prime. In the NL, Rollins is 26, Furcal is 26, both are much better all-around SSs than Everett, and younger. Dude's not going to be a multiple All-Star, he's a very good gloveman who strikes out way too much to qualify as a top-of-the-order hitter, and he doesn't walk. And he doesn't hit for enough power to qualify for middle of the order. Unlike Ausmus, I'm OK with Everett at SS, I like his defense, but I don't harbor any illusions about him being a perennial all-star candidate.
OK,while he's not as young as I thought,Adam is inexperienced,though proffessional at the MLB level,with plenty of upside.The guy figures to be our starting SS for the next 7 or so years.Even if he just plays 6 because of injury,that's 6 seasons of all star eligibility for a guy who is,arguably already the best defensively at his position.He is capable of hitting anywhere from .270-310.Go back to right before Everett was injured,hitting in the 2 hole.I know he was like at .270 overrall,but was hot in the 2.Before he was hurt,Everett had caught up to Major League pitching.
This observation is actually something that has seriously been troubling me about the Astros new "youth movement." Besides Taveras and Burke, there is very little "youth" on our team, and Burke's playing time is sporadic at best. Lane, Ensberg, Lamb, Berkman, are all in the 29 to 30 year old range, and Everett is 28. I'm not really sure how much upside most of these guys have, getting their big "break" in the majors well past (or into) their prime. By the time they get some seasoning, they'll be 32 and for the most part journeymen. Obviously, it 's mainly the fault of the Astros (through their success) by delaying Lane's progress so much (and is there any doubt how much better he'd be if he had been a full time outfielder for the past 2 or 3 seasons), as they are doing now to Burke. But the real question is, should we just temper our expectations of what Lamb, Lane, Ensberg, and Everett can actually produce, or should we still expect them to improve like a player in the mid 20s (when they are in their early 30s)? My bet is that in general (not Lane) they are they are all about as good as they'll ever be, and hoping for perenial All Star status out of any of those three is too much. It's also why I think Burke should get more playing time now, instead of having to play some utility role until Biggio decides to retire and suddenly he's 29 or 30 too.
