You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Baseball within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by Vargsmal
I'm cool with DeWitt, he's done a good job. Don't fix what isn't broken.
DeWitt has done an "average" job. Has he exceeded expectations? Yes, is
I'm cool with DeWitt, he's done a good job. Don't fix what isn't broken.
DeWitt has done an "average" job. Has he exceeded expectations? Yes, is he a good 3B? Not really. His numbers are ok, nothing great. I don't see why anyone is against playing LaRoche when he is ready.
__________________ "11:19 -- You're not gonna believe this, but J.D. Drew took a called third strike to end the inning.
(Note: Dodgers, Braves and Cardinals fans everywhere are nodding and saying, "Yup ... been there, done that.")
I still refuse to hop on the anti-Pierre bandwagon. Sure his fielding isn't his strong point, but the dude gets on base.
Usually, no, he absolutely does not get on base. Look at the numbers. Was never good at getting on base, with the exception of a couple years dating back to Florida's WS year. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but it's clear as day in his stat line.
This year...different story. Small sample size? Very. Will he keep it up? I wish, but unlikely.
DeWitt has done an "average" job. Has he exceeded expectations? Yes, is he a good 3B? Not really. His numbers are ok, nothing great. I don't see why anyone is against playing LaRoche when he is ready.
Because LaRoche hasn't done anything in the majors that's why. You are just so convinced that because DeWitt had bad numbers in the minors that he shouldn't be playing in the majors.
So what the hell has LaRoche done in the majors? Nothing. In fact DeWitt has been a lot more impressive in his short major league career than LaRoche.
That's probably the reason people are against playing LaRoche.
And you mention, DeWitt having done an "average" job at 3B? .293 avg and solid D is "average" to you? Wow! With the exception of 1 defensive game at third, he's been pretty damn good.
Will DeWitt keep it up? Probably not. But right now, in my opinion, the job is DeWitt's.
Neither guy has proven anything at the major league level. One month means nothing. Let them compete and the coaches will figure it out.
That's exactly what I meant. Will DeWitt hit around .290 the whole year? No. But he hasn't done anything to justify losing the spot to LaRoche who will probably end up getting hurt anyway.
Because LaRoche hasn't done anything in the majors that's why.
I don't think 93 ABs is enough to judge anybody. That's why I'm hesitant to call DeWitt "good" after just 75 of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claw21
You are just so convinced that because DeWitt had bad numbers in the minors that he shouldn't be playing in the majors.
You are so quick to discount minor league numbers as if they are meaningless. You know what, find me a player who had a long successful major league career while putting up mediocre numbers in the minor leagues. Find me a few guys that have done that and I'll believe your theory that minor league umbers are meaningless.
Like I said, DeWitt has done an admirable job of filling in, but numbers and logic say that he won't sustain that. I don't know why its so out of the question to give LaRoche a legitimate chance at the job. Maybe without having a ton of pressure and expectation laid on him he can succeed, kinda like DeWitt has.
Weisman comments on this in one of his recent posts at Dodgerthoughts.
Quote:
So I'll just spend a few moments talking about third base.
Andy LaRoche has been officially activated - and optioned to Las Vegas. With Nomar Garciaparra on the disabled list, Blake DeWitt will remain the starter at third base. Russell Martin will spot start against the occasional lefty, with Gary Bennett catching on those days.
Now, I've gotten as much of a kick as anyone out of Martin showing off his stuff at third - and at the same time, I don't expect it's going to happen every day, like it has the past two days. And I realize that Bennett has to play some, a little. And the Dodgers arguably need 12 pitchers right now, though an off day looms next week.
And I'll even give the Dodgers the benefit of the doubt that they're making this move for LaRoche's benefit, to give him some useful low-pressure at-bats before putting him on the major-league roster - as opposed to the way Garciaparra rushed back into the lineup. "At this point, Andy is healthy, and we want him to stay down there and get at-bats," Dodgers assistant general manager Kim Ng told Tony Jackson of the Daily News.
But essentially, on nights like Saturday, the Dodgers are choosing to start Bennett over LaRoche. And if LaRoche is healthy, that becomes pretty senseless.
There used to be a code that a player shouldn't be demoted because of an injury. Based on what happened with Matt Kemp last year and LaRoche this year, the Dodgers don't honor that code. I don't like to be a slave to codes, and I appreciate what DeWitt has done. Really. This isn't about putting down DeWitt, it's about comparing two enticing players. It's still worth remembering that if LaRoche had produced DeWitt's numbers in 2008 - .373 on-base percentage, .389 slugging percentage, zero home runs - many would have considered them disappointing. Expectations are higher for LaRoche, and he shouldn't be punished for not getting the same opportunity to meet them that DeWitt had in April - the same opportunity, as opposed to starting irregularly. DeWitt's season is reminding me at this point of Jack Fimple's 1983 season, in which he came out of nowhere when Steve Yeager and Mike Scioscia were nursing injuries and wowed Los Angeles with his simple competency and occasional clutch hits.
You know what, find me a player who had a long successful major league career while putting up mediocre numbers in the minor leagues. Find me a few guys that have done that and I'll believe your theory that minor league numbers are meaningless.
I'll leave all the research, stats, theories to you. You're obviously good at that part.
So who is Weisman? Did he ever play ball above the high school level?
Are you honestly saying that you can't know baseball without playing in college? That's absurd. You'd basically be discrediting a large number of the GMs in baseball right now.
Athletic ability and intelligence are not necessarily hand-in-hand.
It's still worth remembering that if LaRoche had produced DeWitt's numbers in 2008 - .373 on-base percentage, .389 slugging percentage, zero home runs - many would have considered them disappointing.
But he didn't. DeWitt has. Until that changes, DeWitt deserves to play.
We're not talking about Furcal losing a job to Ramon Martinez because of an injury. DeWitt hasn't proven anything long-term, but neither has LaRoche. The choice right now is between two minor league third basemen, one of which has done a good job (so far) and the other has done nothing but get hurt.
__________________ I'm not even supposed to be here today!
Usually, no, he absolutely does not get on base. Look at the numbers. Was never good at getting on base, with the exception of a couple years dating back to Florida's WS year. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but it's clear as day in his stat line.
This year...different story. Small sample size? Very. Will he keep it up? I wish, but unlikely.
Not fond of his .302 career average? Nearly 1500 hits in 8 1/4 seasons? What about his ability at stealing bases?
