Add new comment

Doc,
Wanted you to know your fixation on eye ratio is beginning to color my assessments.  While I understand at this point that YOU understand eye ratio out of context can range from dubious to worthless -- I am beginning to believe there are SOME eye ratios that demand warning bells regardless of context.
To oversimplify -- 1 to 3 eye ratios don't scare me off - though I expect SOMETHING for that sacrifice, (usually power).  So, while Branyan and Gutz don't have the patience that I'd like, I think both are good values.
But, in 2009, the club had these problems:
Beltre - 19/74 -- (1 to 4 eye ratio is where I think problems become exponential instead of linear).
Wlad -- 13/43 -- just a hair over 1 to 3, but his power was waning, not growing.
Cedeno 10/50 -- (sorry, nobody competes FOR LONG with 1 to 5 ratios)
Josh Wilson 6/32 -- (ah-oh)
Bill Hall - 8/48 -- (yikes)
Saunders - 6/40 -- (I'll give the rookie a pass for transitioning)
JACK Wilson - 6/17 -- (hmm, he played hurt, struggled in new environs, but as bad as he fared, his eye ratio was TWICE as good as Josh).
While I like the "type" of pickup of Josh Wilson -- the eternal backup just wanting a chance.  While his production has been nice -- that eye ratio I believe points to a case of him running an unsustainable line.  I think he does bring more power to the table than is generally appreciated.  But, I don't think it's nearly enough to offset the whiff-rate over the long haul. 
But, the question for development purposes is simple ... is the eye ratio really his ability, or is their something fixable that can return the eye ratio to something serviceable?  Wlad showed a much better eye ratio in Cinci than in Seattle.  Hall USED to run 1 to 3 rates, which have gotten steadily worse.  Is he lost cause, or salvageable?