=== Doogie ===
It says on LL that despite Fister's three runs earned, and reportedly "nervous" demeanor, that actually Fister's BIP results were good. He gave up one hard-hit ball, four popups, and two grounders.
Sully e-called the game, it says here, and in the 12:29 and 12:55 comments, I figured out that I assumed Fister's start all wrong.
So, that's cool. GL reminds that Fister isn't on as short a list as I fear he is ... it's hard to remember the last time I rooted this hard for a fringe guy ... but still. If his first two early-March games had (1) five strikeouts in 2 IP and (2) that game, then I issue a retraction. Probably Fister doesn't need a couple of lockdown starts inmediatamente.
Don't tell anybody I un-fizzled him.
........
The 1:04 comment is why Lookout Landing has 20,000 readers.
.
=== Yep, What a Con Cept, We Could All Use a Little Change ===
Shannon Drayer's blog is warm and reassuring about the Lopez 3B situation. Drayer's blog is a good place to get a feel for how the M's shot-callers are looking at things. When she's friendly towards a situation, probably the M's are too.
They obviously want Lopez at 3b. Why? Well, according to Brock and Salk, every time you ask anybody with the M's about Lopez, they mention either (a) his 170-lb starting weight, or (b) his 220-lb current weight. According to this line of reasoning, the Brewers' transplanted brain just doesn't view Lopez as an NL second baseman. Remember, the NL is classic baseball, not 220-pounders up the middle.
Is Jose really that much bigger? No. His range problems are way overstated and, IMHO, a reflection of the fact that we've got NL guys in here calling the shots. It doesn't matter much whether he's actually fine at 2B. The shot-callers don't care for him there.
Anyway, SSI is sticking with its stealth theory: that if Lopez is dealt midseason when the Padres lower the C-130 gate to airdrop Tank Gonzalez, it's a whale of a lot easier to replace your 3B than your 2B.
............
I agree with Sully that there are tricky plays at 3B -- the backhander, the swinging bunt -- it's as if Jose is playing 2B, only in on the grass every play.
True dat, but Lopez has played a little third, and Wakamatsu knows that Jose Lopez has hands, not range.
.............
Taro consistently asks, do you want to give up those peachy-keen 2009 UZR's? I question the data. I just don't buy the 2009 UZR's as hard as some do.
Yes, I do throw out, er, temper the 2009 UZR's: I think they were maybe Figgins good (5-10 runs) and Lopez okay (0 to -5 runs). I think in 2010, if you gimme a good ST for Lopez, it projects to +10 to +15 for the SB king Figgins at 2B, and +5 or better for the 3B Lopez.
...............
I could be wrong, but will remind that the M's are going to be wrong with me. Yep, what a con-cept.
.
=== Adam Moore ===
Drayer also clues us in to the fact that the M's are feeling warm-and-fuzzy about Moore.
SSI called Moore as the Opening Day starter last October, so how 'bout a little love for the mainframe. :- ) Anybody else call Moore, C in February, much less October? Nah, every Bard in here had to be the starter. Off the tarp in right-center, babe. Just like Moore's gonna be doin' for us.
It becomes apparent that the M's worked with Kenji Johjima towards a return to Japan, precisely because they were not uncomfortable with Moore at the plate.
It's tough to bet your pennant on a rookie catcher. No doubts there. But Moore has a set of unusual attributes that should allow him to beat the house:
We've been warning for two-three years, the Seattle Mariners have seen Adam Moore as a latent ML impact catcher, capable of being one of the five best catchers in the league.
But Wakamatsu's choice of words: "He's got a chance to be a front line guy." Wok said it better.
See you at the ballpark,
Dr D
Spring Training results are mostly irrelevant with pitchers working on things and hitters tuning up their swings, etc..
For Fister, French, and Vargas though the performances are going to be important.. Thats probably going to be the main thing to look out for this April.
Figgins over the past two years has rated as a great defensive 3B by PMR, Dewan (#2 defensive player runs saved behind Gutierrez), RZR, OOZ (2nd last year), UZR, etc. Scouts love him, fans rate him very highly as well.
Figgins' elite D looks pretty legitimate to me and if he doesn't translate into an awesome defensive 2B, its hard to see how the move is going to make any sense. Not even getting into Lopez at 3B...
I'm going to give it a chance, but I don't see the logic in it unless BOTH players look like naturals at their new positions starting on opening day.
My take on the Fig/Lop flip-flop is that Lopez playing third INCREASES his trade value - and might double the potential teams showing interest.
Doc is correct that a lot of defensive rating is "perception". Does a player "fit the mold." This is NOT, (and never has been), a National League thing. It's a major league thing. It's a 100-years-its-been-this-way thing. It's a -- "I'll tell you where you can stick your stats" thing.
There were "experts" screaming that Youkilis would be a defensive disaster at third. Why? Because physically, he just didn't look like Brooks Robinson.
Honestly, I don't think the 2b/3b experiment is focused on what's good for the 2010 team. I think there's a mindset that it might not make the team worse. And if THAT is the case -- if the move simply treads water defensively, then the trade value for Lopez leaps up -- and all those GMs out there going -- ("Sorry, we need a decent glove at second.") -- will start salivating at the idea of a young, 30-HR (once he's out of Safeco) third-sacker.
Given the club's concern with defense, I have NO doubt that if they feel the swap is going to actually be defensively detrimental, that they'll drop the experiment. And the choice won't be made based on where Lopez *IS* at the end of March ... it will be based on where they think Lopez can get to defensively at third, (and how quickly).
According to reports, if I'm correct, Lopez was not told of the change until the beginning of spring -- meaning that the final decision came AFTER the brain trust decided that Ackley was 'for real' at 2b.
Logic: Figgins won't be traded. Ackley won't be traded. All three of them don't fit in the infield at the same time. Therefore, Lopez will be traded, and they must think that the versatility enhances his value and won't hurt the overall team in the meantime.
Figgins will be the 3b when Ackley starts playing full time (next year or later this year), right?
I cringe at the thought of Lopez starting the season at 3B. Anybody that saw the game vs Milkwaukee could have seen he's downright terrible at the position right now. He was akward, had no idea how much time he had to make throws, and looked extremely uncomfortable.
In an ideal situation Figgins would be manning 2B, because he's already made 2-3 plays that have gotte "Wows" from the bloggers watching these ST games. He would be a large improvement over Lopez at 2B. However, given how futile Lopez looked at 3B, I have no idea how they could justify taking the field on April 5th with Jose at third.
You just cannot improve that much in 2-3 weeks. I don't understand why the organization did not have Jose in Arizona, in January working out at 3B, if this was a move they wanted to make.
forget whether it was Larry LaRue or Larry Stone - reporting the first day out of camp, he said on the radio that Lopez was blindsided by the move when he arrived in camp, and looked quite unhappy out at his position.
Drayer said the opposite. But, in any case, interesting take on the timing of the Ackley assessment & all...
.....................
Ya, Figgins goes back to 3B, which is no problemo.
Still, for some reason, we haven't seen this idea gain traction: (1) EVERYbody says the Padres will trade AGone as soon as they go 12-25, right? (2) The M's have replacements at 3B but not 2B, right?
For some reason, it seems M's fans aren't particularly *crazy* about a trade for Gonzalez. Hm.
the plot thickens :- )
I wonder why I'm not more enthused about him, too.
But I think I can explain it.
Gonzalez started playing MLB full time at age 24. His OPS+ was 127. Next year, age 25, his OPS+ was 126.
Manny Ramirez and Vlad Guerrero were OPS+'ing 150 *at age 23*. Ditto Prince Fielder, who was at 157 at that tender age.
So with Gonzalez, you're projecting a late-blooming career arc that feels not super-likely to happen. The big boppers, the 'aircraft carriers', seem to be just that from pretty early on.
For Gonzalez to OPS+ 166 at age 27 with experience, feels like a career year. It feels like there's a good chance he slides back down to his career average OPS+ of 134 from here on out. Speaking from a purely stats-based point of view, of course.
Throw in to the mix that he did this in the NL (yes, like Vlad), that adds another veneer of skepticism to the pile.
Look, when the Angels signed Guerrero, he was 29 and had a full 6 years of averaging a 150 OPS+. There was *no doubt* about that dude's ability to crush balls. With Gonzalez, there's the possibility that you're going to get something significantly less than 2009 from him.
While I think Fister has the inside track, Wak's comments about Fister looking nervous made me a little nervous.
It's not very often that you hear this leadership group criticizes a player. So when it happens now, I take note. Coupla times it's happened recently:
1. Z on the radio saying Olson needed to 'Step up and be a big league pitcher'. I interpreted this as, 'we think his mechanics and ability are fine, he's not pitching up to his ability, and if he doesn't soon then we're done with him'.
2. Wak saying Fister looked nervous. He spoke it like he was concerned about it, not like ' I'm sure it's a one-time thing and he'll be OK'. It made me think, maybe they're not as enamored with Fister as I thought they were.
That, along with the raves I've been hearing about Vargas, makes me wonder about the whole situation.
Hopefully, they're just trying to push Fister to better heights, and he'll respond.
I'm gingerly taking Wok's comment as not having anything important behind it - just a day-of-game reaction.
The more odd, since Sullivan pointed out that actually Fister got DER'able balls out of 6/7 batters.