Yost: Rickie's "doing fine," but has "never achieved"

[logan82]

sheethead wrote:

Exactly, which is why Durham needs to be installed as the starter.

Pretty much the opposite actually. Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

[sheethead]

logan3825[/b]]

sheethead wrote:

Exactly, which is why Durham needs to be installed as the starter.

Pretty much the opposite actually. Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

I understood the part where you said a Weeks/Durham platoon would not be a benefit. Therefore my argument is why start Weeks?

[logan82]

sheethead wrote:

I understood the part where you said a Weeks/Durham platoon would not be a benefit. Therefore my argument is why start Weeks?

Read the previous page to see the splits on Weeks and Durham.

[davego]

I think the rational is that it might fit Rickie's skill-sets better to hit outside the 1-hole. Before you guys decide to hang me; relax a bit. I stated that it would be an interesting idea; not that Ned must implement it now or be banned to the netherworld.

[RyDogg66]

The quote that stood out to me was:

 

"I wouldn't say he has underachieved," said Yost. "He has never been a .300 hitter (in the majors), so who says he is underachieving?'

 

"He's working his way up. He's getting better in all phases of his game. For me, he has never underachieved because he never achieved up here. How can you say he has underachieved?"

 

Hmmm...

I dont know if he knows it or not, but what Yost has essentially said is that Rickie isn't underachieving but rather playing at this true level of ability. I mean, if he isn't underachieving then he is pretty much just a crappy hitter.

 

[tristarscoop]

I read this yesterday and posted it in the Durham trade thread because it seemed the most appropriate at the time.

 

I thought this was an interesting version of Ned's "supporting" his players.

 

As someone else said in that thread: I think it was Casey Stengel who once said that, "'Potential' is a French word that means you're not worth a damn yet."

 

I still wonder if this trade was done "around" Ned. By that I mean, Ned's been unabashedly supporting Rickie and I wonder if Doug Melvin made the trade knowing that he'd have to force Ned's hand. It's just a theory.

[homer]

I think people are giving Yost too much credit for having the brainpower to deliver a subtle "read between the lines" message.

[rluzinski]

Why do people continue to try and analyze Yost's throw away comments? He's (clumsely) trying to defend Weeks, like he defends everyone. It's the same thing every time: Tom H. ties to get Yost to throw a struggling player under the bus. Yost defends the player. Tom writes an article pointing out Yost's silly defense. Those articles practically write themselves.

[sheethead]

sheethead wrote:

I understood the part where you said a Weeks/Durham platoon would not be a benefit. Therefore my argument is why start Weeks?

Read the previous page to see the splits on Weeks and Durham.

I looked a the previous 3 years splits again, just in case I thought I missed something, and I didn't. Durham has better overall splits against LHP and RHP in my opinion. Sure he doesn't get hit by as many pitches as Rickie (6 vs. 45 over the last 3 years), therefore a lower OBP. But looking at SLG and OPS I can see who I would play. As for defense, I don't see how Durham could be any worse than Weeks.

[TooLiveBrew]

Well he is -- range is extremely valuable at 2B, arguably moreso than any other defensive spot (since arm strength is less valuable at 2B). For goodness' sake, Weeks has both started hitting better & having his smashes find holes/turf/bleachers. He had a fantastic game at the plate last night and made one bad play in the field (the deflection off Torres's glove was no gimme, no matter how much people complain about it)

 

July: .241/.349/.426/.775

 

Last 14 days: .306/.419/.472/.891

 

Last 7 days: .267/.476/.533/1.010

 

 

And for some strange reason, he's had awful results at MP (.209/.302/.295/.597) so far... in only 36 games. Now if people think that's likely to continue, I just don't think we can have an objective discussion on Weeks.

 

Road line: .227/.349/.438/.787

 

 

All signs (& common sense) point to Rickie performing much, much better the rest of the way than many are 'predicting'. A platoon with Durham is just an awful idea imo. Now, I know Weeks has been frustrating for a lot of this season, but the strange part is that now it's basically irrelevant. The team was able to (somehow) withstand its leadoff man stinking horribly for the first 3 full months of the season. Because of this (& not anything Rickie has or hasn't done), Weeks needs to be basically evaluated on a clean slate. Yes, the past results can & should be included, but there's enough wackiness in them to be a bit misleading.

[rluzinski]

Considering that the overwelming consensus is that Durham has worse defense, you might want to look harder.

 

And why is it relevant how Weeks gets on base? OBP is OBP. I'd take a HBP/BB heavy OBP over a BA one, anyway. It's a more stable skill set.

[owbc]

First, Corey Hart is NOT a leadoff hitter, never has been, never will be. He's always been a middle of the order hitter--and an effective one at that. I don't care what his OBP is, why would you move your best RISP hitter out of a run producing slot?

 

Secondly, there are a ton of reasons why Rickie Weeks is better than Ray Durham. The defense is bad either way. On offense, Rickie Weeks has tremendous upside, while Durham's numbers are likely to decline. Weeks still has a .258 BABIP. Weeks has pressure to perform now, Durham doesn't. Durham doesn't want to be a starter, he wants to be a role player and role model. Weeks has been playing better lately. Weeks sees lots of pitches, patience at the plate is important for a leadoff hitter. Weeks' projections suggest he will improve. Weeks is faster.

 

I'm a Yost supporter, so maybe I'm somehow skewed, but I think Yost, Weeks, and Durham have all handled the situation great. As usual, the Brewers continue to have great clubhouse chemistry, which is a direct result of their manager.

[2008 world champs]

Whenever I think about Rickie Weeks I just wonder what it would be like if he just hit 260..270.. Many thought he would be a 300 hitter and maybe he still can but I really don't think he is a 210 hitter. As far as Yost goes, he just needs an English class or 10.

[logan82]

sheethead wrote:

Durham has better overall splits against LHP and RHP in my opinion. Sure he doesn't get hit by as many pitches as Rickie (6 vs. 45 over the last 3 years), therefore a lower OBP. But looking at SLG and OPS I can see who I would play. As for defense, I don't see how Durham could be any worse than Weeks.

It is pretty ovbious that you prefer SLG to OBP. I however prefer OBP to SLG. Mostly because most sources seem to think that 1 point of OBP is equal to 1.2-1.7 points of SLG. Not making outs is important. If stats are close, I will always go with the higher OBP. I actually think there is a good chance that Durham finishes the year with better stats than Weeks, but Weeks plays better than Durham from here on out, which is what I think is more important.

[ELCABALLO45]

I think where he was picked is irrelevant at this point. If that's the criterion you want to use, I can spin that and say that he's had a better career to this point than the #1 pick in that draft.

No you couldnt. Delmon Young right now would be a better lead off hitter for the Brewers then Rickie Weeks.

[sheethead]

And for some strange reason, he's had awful results at MP (.209/.302/.295/.597)

 

I am calling for a home/away platoon http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

I understand how many people feel Weeks is going to play better than Durham down the stretch. And I do value OBP, which is one of the reasons I like Durham better than Weeks right now. About 60 points better.

 

Also, I don't have a problem with taking one for the team once in a while. But the rate at which Weeks gets HBP sets off an alarm to me that his propensity to get hit (ala Fernando Vina style) only hides some of his inadequacies as a hitter.

[FVBrewerFan]

It is pretty ovbious that you prefer SLG to OBP. I however prefer OBP to SLG. Mostly because most sources seem to think that 1 point of OBP is equal to 1.2-1.7 points of SLG. Not making outs is important. If stats are close, I will always go with the higher OBP...

I realize you didn't direct the question to me, but I believe that depends on where you are in the batting order. OBP is the most important stat to me for a lead-off hitter. SLG more important in the 3-5 slots, for example. Very simply, you want someone on base as often as possible with Hardy, Braun, Fielder, Hart at the dish. I'm sure someone will find stats to prove otherwise if I'm wrong, but I would think a high OBP lead-off man generates more runs than a high SLG lead-off man. He's up after the #8 and #9 hitters, so logic tells me there's less opportunity to score that way, vs having your big RBI guys following a high OBP lead-off man?

 

 

(edit: nested quote --1992)

[Brew Guzzler]

Theres no reason we need to decide Durham's playing time right now. Give Rickie another shot (he impressed last night) at picking up his production. If he starts to slip I'm sure Durham will see more playing time. At the least Durham is going to put a little pressure on Weeks and he will either produce or he wont. I want to see Rickie play well and I would like to see Durham flourish in an important role off the bench. Durham solidifies our already good bench and that is our biggest advantage over the Cubs and Cards.

[craigharmann]

I just don't get Ned's comments. Granted Rickie hasn't ever hit 300 in the majors, so yeah, he's not underachieving. But compared to his potential, he's not achieving what his potential says he's capable of. I get standing up for your guys, but you've got to live in the world of reality, Ned, if you're going to make it to the playoffs and keep your job. Yeah, and don't pitch Mota no matter how much you want to pitch him.

[TooLiveBrew]

Give Rickie another shot (he impressed last night) at picking up his production.

 

He's been playing extremely well for 2 weeks or so now, though.

 

 

Theres no reason we need to decide Durham's playing time right now... If he starts to slip I'm sure Durham will see more playing time.

 

Yes, this is what I think of Durham -- and, as you point out, he strengthens an already strong bench.

[Darnell Junior]

I think people take a casual glance at the .220 BA and say he's still slumping. However, like someone says, all that matters from here on out is how he plays in the future in my opinion. He's been raising that average and OBP for the last couple weeks and he'll continue to do so. The question it comes down to is whether you think he'll be able to come up with another huge second half to help us, and I for one think he will. People who just take a glance at the entire season's stats are missing out on the overall issue. If Weeks is hitting .235 by the end of the Cubs series, I don't think we should be saying "OH look at that BA a change needs to be made". Weeks is still just a kid who is some kind of headcase. I have faith that if we stick with him he'll become a huge contributor. Look at how late Brandon Phillips and to a lesser extent Ryan Howard developed. I'm not saying he's that kind of player, but he's still got a good chance to be a darn good one. I don't think benching him for a 36 year old will help him develop or even make us a better team for the last 60 games of this year.

[TooLiveBrew]

Look at how late Brandon Phillips and to a lesser extent Ryan Howard developed.

 

Agreed on Phillips, but Howard was held down in the minors by Philly to keep him cheaper in his prime years. Hence why Howard was pissed at them.

 

 

I'm not saying he's that kind of player, but he's still got a good chance to be a darn good one. I don't think benching him for a 36 year old will help him develop or even make us a better team for the last 60 games of this year.

 

I certainly share these sentiments.

[logan82]

sheethead wrote:

I understand how many people feel Weeks is going to play better than Durham down the stretch. And I do value OBP, which is one of the reasons I like Durham better than Weeks right now. About 60 points better.

I guess I was wrong about your preference for SLG. You seem to be disregarding everything before this year.

[Bucky Rules]

I think where he was picked is irrelevant at this point. If that's the criterion you want to use, I can spin that and say that he's had a better career to this point than the #1 pick in that draft.

No you couldnt. Delmon Young right now would be a better lead off hitter for the Brewers then Rickie Weeks.

 

I couldn't??? Weeks has been a better hitter than Young to this point in their careers (.351/.404/.755 to .324/.412/.736), and he does it while playing 2B instead of LF. I think that's a pretty compelling argument.

 

 

He's been playing extremely well for 2 weeks or so now, though.

Correctamundo... He's got a .415 OBP since July 6.

 

And I do value OBP, which is one of the reasons I like Durham better than Weeks right now. About 60 points better.

Not only has Weeks been hot for 2.5 weeks, but his career OBP is virtually identical to Durham's. Durham at 36 is unlikely to outperform is career averages going forward, while Weeks very well could. I really like the acquisition of Durham, but he shouldn't be playing instead of Weeks - except maybe occasionally.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Why do people continue to try and analyze Yost's throw away comments?

I've always wondered this as well. Well said. I reserve my judgements for Yost and the whole team for that matter on what they do on the field or in the dugout as the manager, and not what they say to the media.