"0 errors in 31 games and a .986 FLD%"

That makes no sense.

"What's so bad about that"

Nothing, except you're using an archaic metric to evaluate Skippy's defense. His UZR has been the worst in the NL the past two years. He was -15.4 last year, which was the worst by about 5 points.
If Descalso has accomplished one thing since Skippy got hurt, it's that he's made all of us remember that second basemen really are capable of making plays to their left.

"So again, why are we crucifying him again?"

This isn't a crucifixtion, Alz. I don't lay the blame for Skippy's inadequacies as second baseman on Skippy. He's an above-average defensive outfielder who accommodated the team's wishes to move him to a drastically different position. It's a lot to ask of a player, and Skippy should be lauded for making the switch.

UZR isn't that difficult to figure out. If it was complicated, I wouldn't be able to understand it. Simply put, it's the number of plays a player ought to make during the course of a season based on a statistical analysis of all the defensive metrics. A UZR of 0 is the average. Utley led the NL last year with a UZR of +10. So if Skip was a -15, that means Utley saved 25 more hits than Skippy did over the course of the season. That doesn't sound like much, but look at it from an offensive perspective. Over the course of 500 at bats, 25 hits is the difference between a .250 average and a .300 average.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (4/27/2011 1:57 pm)

"wouldn't that be enough to stop calling for him to be pulled from his position?"

I don't think I've ever done that. What I've written is Schumaker isn't Descalso's equal in the field, just as Schumaker is better offensively than Descalso. I don't think that's being unfair, nor is it a revelation.
Obviously, what the Cardinals were trying to do was take a outfielder whose offense is more of a middle infield prototype and plug him into the middle infield. Has it worked? Not really. Skippy's offensive production has suffered and his defense during his first two years at second base was the worst in the league at that position. Has it failed miserably? No, mostly because of Skippy's work ethic and character.
Mags famously wrote several years ago that if La Russa was ever faced with the situation of a square peg not fitting into a round hole, he'd go out and get a bigger hammer and pound the peg harder. I think Skippy's performance over the past two years has proven Mags to be remarkably prescient.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (4/27/2011 2:49 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

\It's a stupid comparison, and no matter how many times you say it doesn't make it so.

"stupid"?  out with the pejorative language again, i see.

there are specific comparisons between bob gibson and lindsay lohan.  what they are, i can't think off the top of my head.

i have made the specific comparison so many times, and the similarities are so clear, that it as pointless to continue down this path as it is to show a birther Obama's birth certificate.  John Jay could end up a .250-ish hitter, decent d, and out of the majors after this year or next and you would not acknowledge the specific similarities I mentioned . . . apparently.

tkihshbt wrote:

I don't remember Mags writing that, but it's incredible. It sums up La Russa better than I ever could have.

To build on that, look at last night's game. Runners on with one out in the sixth and trying to protect a 3-2 lead. You've got two guys coming up who whiff a lot, so La Russa goes with the pitcher who nibbles and can't miss bats. Why? Because the situation dictated that someone like Batista come in.

It was heartening to hear La Russa say they would go with the pitcher who best fits the situation, but that's out the window a week later. His preconceived notions usually get the best of him. Like the Schumaker situation. What other manager says "we need a second baseman, Schumaker looks like a second baseman. He'll be our second baseman."

i agree with most all of that TK, but i see those things as examples of la russa accepting some pain now in return for a better team down the road.  i too would have liked to have seen salas or sanchez come in last night instead of batista, and to have considered leaving motte in for the ninth.  but i think tony does think in terms of roles, and that means round holes, and square holes, and triangular holes.  when tony says he'll match the pitcher to the situation, i think what that really meant was that the closer's job is boggs's unless he loses it.  likewise, he's already determined that batista comes in for the 6th or 7th.  but he doesn't want to have to justify changing roles around while things are still in flux.  so he makes it sound like things will be more flexible than he really intends for them to be.

bottom line, we will learn over the course of the next few weeks if batista can cut it in the role tony needs him for.  ditto for boggs.  a similar situation is happening with utility infielder.  if tony's method works out, by july we will know what is working, what isn't, and where we need to acquire new players to fill roles.  we'll lose some games that could have been won in the meantime, but tony will get the team adjusted--round pegs in round holes, square pegs in square holes, etc.--in the process.

that's my thought on the yin and yang of the la russa method.

Last edited by Max (4/27/2011 3:18 pm)

yeah with salary I can understand.

2.7 million is a lot to pay a backup OF, which was Max's original statement. From the sense of his contract and play, well .... it's a contract year, so an elevated amount of play isn't out of the norm (Fernando Tatis...)

I didn't realize he made that much, nearly 3million to hit .241 isn't really enough. Financially I would make the move to DD after this season is over, unless Skip REALLY goes off the charts at the plate.

Hart tried to become a switch hitter at the end of his career, so there's always that option for Jay.

"Like the Schumaker situation. What other manager says "we need a second baseman, Schumaker looks like a second baseman. He'll be our second baseman."


Someone who didn't invent the closer, isn't fawned over by the national baseball media and has concerns about future employment?
Honestly, converting Skip to a 2nd baseman isn't the worst idea. He's not a corner outfielder, and the Cardinals were prepping Raz to play CF for a decade. Skip was coming off a year that would have been great offensively for a 2B, so it was worth a shot. Especially when one of the alternatives was another season of Aaron Miles playing the game the right way.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (4/27/2011 5:47 pm)

alz wrote:

2.7 million is a lot to pay a backup OF, which was Max's original statement.

it's also a lot to pay for a starting 2B when there seems to be options just as good, maybe better, for $400k.  so, assuming they are not going to release skip during the middle of this season, he might fit better in the jon jay role for the rest of this season, then in the starting 2B role.  when craig and skip come back, 2 guys need to be sent down.  Greene has made his case to be one of them, who will be the other?  Descalso makes the most sense, but that's kind of a weird way to put it, since he seems to play 2B about as well as skip or better, and he seems to play 3B as well anyone on the team.

i seriously doubt that la russa will actually move skip to back-up outfielder, but I was saying that might be best for the team at this point, assuming skip's D in the OF is still any good.

I dont think we have seen enough of Descalso to say that he is worst then Skip at the plate.  Surely he cant be to much worst then the 2010 version of Skip.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max, you can be as snide as you want. I'm not a birther. I can support my argument with facts.

You on the other hand are like many bad attorneys I've seen. When you can't support your case, you say things like "it's obvious" or "clearly" or you suddenly decide the discussion isn't worth continuing.

Your discussion the other day about Boggs was a perfect example. You were more than happy to point to Gamecast to support your position that Boggs was throwing meat pitches, but when PitchFX proved you wrong you questioned the technology. Never mind the graphics on Gamecast come from PitchFX cameras, if it doesn't support your point of view it can't be correct.

funny 'cause I think I wrote that maybe Boggs' pitches have more movement than is apparent and that your hypothesis about camera angle might be correct.

as for your critique of my suggestion that jay might be 'this year's' (last year's) bo hart, it seems to be so stupid that it is hardly worth carrying any further.  your point seems to be that if john jay does not end his career with exactly a .272 BA exactly 13 ABs into his second season then the comparison was inaccurate and stupid.  why not take it the other way?  why not claim that neither batted .400 for one month, but rather, say one batted, .402 and the other .407, and it 34 days and 37 days respectively.  that's idiotic.  now if your intent was not to be idiotic then please clarify why on Earth small differences in their MLB career trajectories invalidate the observation . . . back when Jay was still batting .300 . . . that Jay might be the new bo hart because he began with a burst of excitement with one month of .400 ball and defense good enough to raise hopes, but who then crashed down and turned out to be not good enough to stay in the majors?

forsberg_us wrote:

I'm sure I could come up with more but my thumbs are getting tired. But you're right Max, Jay and Hart are exactly the same player.

of course you could come up with more differences.  honestly i don't know what your point is.  when people were comparing heyward to hank aaron, did anyone assume that there were no differences between the two???

look both guys started out red hot and had a .400 BA for the first month or so.  both guys cooled off.  hart finished up with 309 AB and a .272 BA.  Jay has 315 AB and a .295 BA.  Jay's doing a little bit better.  How much better?  Nine base hits better than Hart. 4 BB better than Hart.  1 HR better than Hart. 

Your opinion that a comparison of the two is stupid is . . . well, stupid.