As we all know, the Reds were supposed to be dark horse contenders this year. Their core of young players, a potentially solid pitching staff, a stable bullpen and improved defense were all ingredients for a possible playoff run. Well, so far, the starters have struggled (rookie Mike Leake leads the staff with a 3.92 ERA, but carries with it 13 walks and only 13 strikeouts in just over 20 IP), and the Reds promising outfield of youngsters - Jay Bruce, Drew Stubbs, and Chris Dickerson - all have OBPs under .300.
Jay Bruce will hit. Or at least that's what I keep reading. Concerned Reds fans should keep in mind that Bruce just turned 23 this month. He's essentially been a league average hitter at ages 21 and 22 and his power numbers improved from 2008 to 2009. Additionally, his plate discipline drastically improved as he decreased his strikeout rate and increased his walk rate, raising his BB/K ratio from 0.30 to 0.51. He's had a relatively slow start to 2010, but of course it's early.
Which is what we should remember when considering Stubbs and Dickerson. I will admit that I was a big fan of Dickerson when he showed up in '08, and felt he deserved more playing time in the beginning of '09. Of course, his .413 OBP and .304 ISO was in only 122 plate appearances. In 2009 he showed a similar ability to get on base, posting a .370 OBP and a walk rate similar to '08. However, his power disappeared and his ISO dipped below .100. In fact, after hitting 6 HRs in his first 75 major league at bats, he's hit only 2 since (317 ABs).
This lack of power shouldn't be a big surprise, however. In the minors Dickerson averaged only 14 HRs per 650 plate appearances (18 in AAA), so we wouldn't expect him to keep pace with his 2008 numbers. The bottom line is, Dickerson got a late start because his numbers in the minors aren't overwhelming. He got his first taste with the big club at age 26 and took on part-timer duties at age 27. Now 28, Dickerson has continued to show an ability to walk, get on base, and occasionally swipe a bag, while playing above average defense. At this point he's not likely to change much as a player.
Meanwhile, the jury's still out on Stubbs. At 25 he's had a rough start to the 2010 season. 2009 was a bit better, but Stubbs still registered only a .323 OBP. He hasn't had enough major league at bats to draw any conclusions, but in the minors he posted .364 OBP and a decent stolen base percentage. Combine that with a surprising flash of power last year, speed, and above average defense, and Stubbs could do well patrolling centerfield in Great American Ball Park.
Conclusion: In this case we are comparing a relatively known (Dickerson) to a relatively unknown (Stubbs). Dickerson doesn't have a ton of major league ABs either, but his numbers with the big club are pretty well in line with his performance in the minors. Neither is likely to be a star, but both could potentially be serviceable in the Reds outfield alongside Jay Bruce. 2010 should be telling as both players are set to receive significant playing time. At this point, I'd have to go with Stubbs simply because he is 3 years younger and still has some time to develop. For the Reds to contend in 2010 though, the entire outfield needs to significantly improve upon its April.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, November 21, 2008
Legal, but unnecessary
There was alot of talk leading up to Thursday's Bengals-Steelers game around the possibility of retribution. In the teams' first meeting on October 19th, Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward broke the jaw of Bengals rookie linebacker Keith Rivers. Rivers is now on IR (meaning, he's out for the year). No penalty was called; no fine imposed. Hines Ward is known as one of the toughest players at his position, if not in the entire NFL. If you're his teammate or a Steeler fan, you love him. Most everyone else feels otherwise. Ward's hit was deemed "legal" according to NFL rules, and that's not really the issue. Here's the video - unfortunately it's not great, but you get the idea.
So yes, I can agree that according to NFL rules, it is a legal hit. But why is that legal?? Every so often I read a player or writer talk about how the NFL going soft. Based on my own empirical research, I will say that more penalties are called now for unsportsmanlike conduct, roughing the passer, etc. Defensive players sometimes complain that they are worried about not drawing a penalty instead of simply making the play. I understand that there's an element of ferocity to the game that makes it what it is, and I understand why some players claim the league is "softer" than it used to be. But when players are unnecessarily getting their jaws broken on a play that was fully intentional (meaning that Hines Ward fully intended to legally block Keith Rivers by hitting him as hard as he can - I'm not implying that he intended to break his jaw), doesn't that indicate a problem?
Couldn't Ward have made a perfectly effective block without lowering his shoulder and leveling an unsuspecting Rivers? Rivers was pursuing the ball, paying no attention to potential blockers coming from down field (nor should he be). This play is seen all the time in football, most often during punt or interception returns. A player pursuing the ball carrier is blindsided by someone coming in to block him. This makes for great highlights on SportsCenter, but what about when a player's season is ended? This is a specific instance where a rule could be instated without changing the nature of the game. Conversely, if a defensive back levels a receiver as he attempts to catch the ball, jarring the ball free, this is a "necessary" play. If the defensive player doesn't hit the receiver as hard as he can and the receiver catches the ball, the defensive player is doing himself and his team a disservice. Of course, there are rules protecting the receiver, such as no helmet to helmet contact, but further limiting what the defender can do in this situation would certainly change the game. That is not the case with the Ward/Rivers play.
Isn't there a penalty called "unnecessary roughness"? I would propose that a play that breaks a player's jaw, when the exact same football outcome could have been achieved through other, less violent means, be deemed unnecessary.
**********
Please note: this post has nothing to do with my disdain for Hines Ward, which was nothing to do with the fact that I despise the Steelers.
So yes, I can agree that according to NFL rules, it is a legal hit. But why is that legal?? Every so often I read a player or writer talk about how the NFL going soft. Based on my own empirical research, I will say that more penalties are called now for unsportsmanlike conduct, roughing the passer, etc. Defensive players sometimes complain that they are worried about not drawing a penalty instead of simply making the play. I understand that there's an element of ferocity to the game that makes it what it is, and I understand why some players claim the league is "softer" than it used to be. But when players are unnecessarily getting their jaws broken on a play that was fully intentional (meaning that Hines Ward fully intended to legally block Keith Rivers by hitting him as hard as he can - I'm not implying that he intended to break his jaw), doesn't that indicate a problem?
Couldn't Ward have made a perfectly effective block without lowering his shoulder and leveling an unsuspecting Rivers? Rivers was pursuing the ball, paying no attention to potential blockers coming from down field (nor should he be). This play is seen all the time in football, most often during punt or interception returns. A player pursuing the ball carrier is blindsided by someone coming in to block him. This makes for great highlights on SportsCenter, but what about when a player's season is ended? This is a specific instance where a rule could be instated without changing the nature of the game. Conversely, if a defensive back levels a receiver as he attempts to catch the ball, jarring the ball free, this is a "necessary" play. If the defensive player doesn't hit the receiver as hard as he can and the receiver catches the ball, the defensive player is doing himself and his team a disservice. Of course, there are rules protecting the receiver, such as no helmet to helmet contact, but further limiting what the defender can do in this situation would certainly change the game. That is not the case with the Ward/Rivers play.
Isn't there a penalty called "unnecessary roughness"? I would propose that a play that breaks a player's jaw, when the exact same football outcome could have been achieved through other, less violent means, be deemed unnecessary.
**********
Please note: this post has nothing to do with my disdain for Hines Ward, which was nothing to do with the fact that I despise the Steelers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)