Ray Durham: any chance he re-signs?

[Weirdos19]

Do you guys think that there's any chance Durham resigns here? If we are looking for OBP, this guy should be our second baseman. A .380 OBP this year and a history of patience.

 

It wouldn't bother me a bit to see him start 140 games next year.

[Ennder]

He is worse defensively than Weeks and not really much better offensively. I don't really see the point.

[brewjihad]

In 464 ABs in 2007, he hit .218/.295/.343. If he's a cheap backup, I'd consider it, but not worth spending a whole lot on given the possibilty that he "improves" our team OBP with another .295.

[MNBrew]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how is he worse defensively?

 

Range isn't everything. The fact is that Rickie can't make a play easily or well a large number of the times the ball makes it into his glove. Durham plays smart and doesn't make a high number of errors and can turn the DP. Ray Durham's defense doesn't hurt the team. Rickie Weeks' often does.

[endaround]

Because unless the ball is hit right to him Durham won't get it

[paul253]

I agree.....from what I saw of him in Milwaukee, which was a small sample admittedly, i wouldnt say he is worse defensively. I don't know....I just didnt cringe and cross my fingers every time a ground ball was hit his like way like I did with Weeks.

 

I wouldnt mind seeing him back, but he is limited to 2nd base and so is Weeks. If you can find an every day 3rd basemen to allow Hall to play supersub, thats fine I guess.

[Ennder]

Weeks makes more plays than Durham that is how. That is why Durham was one of the worst defensive 2B in baseball statistically last year and Weeks was just a tiny bit below average.

 

As for errors, Weeks made 15 errors last year for a .975 FPct and 13 errors in the year before for a .976. Durham had a great year for errors last year but in 2007 he was a .978 and he generally lives in the .972-.982 range, it isn't like he is WAY better than Weeks for errors.

 

Unless the ball is hit right at Durham it is a single pretty much, he just can't move at all out there.

[danzig6767]

I don't doubt the serious lack of range by Durham overtakes his more steady glove, but Weeks error total unfortunately doesn't reflect the many botched double plays where we only got one out instead of two, thus he didn't get an error even though he really deserved one.

[tigerbrew]

I wouldn't mind having a Durham / Counsell platoon at 2B in 2009, if Weeks do get traded.

[MNBrew]

Stats tell part of the story but not all. Fielding stats beyond errors are just flat out harder to quantify, and I'll put a lot more faith in my eyes and gut far more so with fielding than with hitting & pitching. Weeks flat-out blew games by botching double plays that never went as an error. The Brewers should've easily had lots more double plays but so many chances to turn 2 with Weeks in the game are a total crapshoot. And that's just one element of it.

 

The balls that Durham gets to, by and large he makes the plays. Same cannot be said about Weeks to anything near the same degree of certainty. What a guy could/should get to is far more subjective.

[MNBrew]

By the way, I'm not suggesting Durham is the most logical guy for the Crew to sign. It just peeves me that people make it sound like Durham's a marble sculpture in the field.

 

Folks used to say the same thing about Mark Loretta and Loretta was always a player who usually helped and never hurt his team offensively OR defensively. Shoot, you'd think it'd've made only a slight difference if the manager's just planted a tree where the second baseman stands.

[logan82]

They are both pretty equal on offense so I would go with the younger guy. Durham would make more sense for a team that needs a stopgap 2B until their prospect is ready more than he does for us. If he could play more than just 2B I think he would be a good guy to bring back. I wouldn't mind him as a bench player.

 

The Weeks vs Durham defense stuff was part of the reason I started the Hardy vs Weeks defensively thread. I think preferring Durham over Weeks on defense is just another case of "Our player isn't good so anybody else would be better." Fans need a change of scenery.

[brewjihad]

Ray Durham's defense doesn't hurt the team. Rickie Weeks' often does.

 

The balls that Durham gets to, by and large he makes the plays. Same cannot be said about Weeks to anything near the same degree of certainty.

 

There's a natural tendency to think that surehandedness balances out lack of range. You might think that they are equal because they have different strengths and weaknesses, but that's not really the case.

 

Say that for every 100 balls hit to second, Durham gets a glove on 75 of them and converts every single one into an out. Weeks, given the same exact amount of opportunities, gets to 90 of the balls hit and converts 80 of them into outs. Weeks is plenty more valuable of a defender than Durham in that scenario. You can't look at a ball thrown away as hurting the team. It's a misconception.

[Ennder]

Durham started 6 DPs in 202 innings at 2B. Weeks started 26 DPs in 1056 innings. Weeks was 7th in DPS by 2B in the NL and if you prorate him to say Utley's innings(the best fielding 2B in the NL) he would have had 34 DPs compared to Utley's 37. I'm just not buying that he is so terrible at turning double plays that it offsets Durhams lack of range.

 

Weeks was a very poor defensive 2B the first four years of his career and a roughly league average one last year. Was last year just a fluke? Could be, you never know. He looked much better to me last year so he passes my 'eye' test at the very least. Durham just looked terrible in the field last year because he couldn't get to any balls not hit right at him.

[MNBrew]

Maybe I'm off, but isn't the issue with Weeks turning DPs not him starting them but rather being the guy at 2nd receiving the first throw and then being the one who makes the throw to 1st for the 2nd out of the DP? That's what I remember standing out in the 2nd half of the season.

 

Sorry if there's a more concise way to have said that. I couldn't think of it.

[nate82]

Weeks was a very poor defensive 2B the first four years of his career and a roughly league average one last year. Was last year just a fluke? Could be, you never know. He looked much better to me last year so he passes my 'eye' test at the very least.

It isn't a fluke when you look at how Weeks has been improving every year at 2B. If he continues to improve I believe he will be an average 2B.

[Mike]

Well, that obviously depends on whether the Brewers want him.

I an not close enough to comparisons of Weeks versus Durham since I really haven't watched Rickie, but what I can tell you is based on me watching Durham in San Francisco he is injury prone. Bear with me as I have not looked at his health in Milwaukee, perhaps he was healthy all season.

However, if his injury history is any indication, I would not re-sign him.

[nate82]

I an not close enough to comparisons of Weeks versus Durham sine I really haven't watched Rickie, but what I can tell you is based on me watching Durham in San Francisco he is injury prone. Bear with me as I have not looked at his health in Milwaukee, perhaps he was healty all season.

 

Interesting you bring this up Durham did get hurt a couple of times near the end of the season.

[Mike]

Specifically he has had hamstring issues throughout his time in San Francisco, averaging only 125 GP in his five seasons there.

[Ennder]

Maybe I'm off, but isn't the issue with Weeks turning DPs not him starting them but rather being the guy at 2nd receiving the first throw and then being the one who makes the throw to 1st for the 2nd out of the DP? That's what I remember standing out in the 2nd half of the season.

 

Sorry if there's a more concise way to have said that. I couldn't think of it.

Weeks was 6th in DPT and everyone ahead of him on the list had more innings than he did. He had 47 in 1056 innings while Durham had 23 in 535 between milwaukee and san fran. Of course those types of stats have a lot of noise in them but the Brewers have never been a bad double play team while they had Hardy/Weeks up the middle, especially considering they aren't a very groundball pitching oriented team.

[CheezWizHed]

Weeks was 6th in DPT and everyone ahead of him on the list had more innings than he did. He had 47 in 1056 innings while Durham had 23 in 535 between milwaukee and san fran. Of course those types of stats have a lot of noise in them but the Brewers have never been a bad double play team while they had Hardy/Weeks up the middle, especially considering they aren't a very groundball pitching oriented team.

Like you said, there is a lot of noise in those stats. Is there a stat for DPT %? Successful DPs divided by Total DP opportunities? Thats really what is being discussed here...

 

Weeks has improved over the years, but still not enough to prevent me from flinching everytime the ball is hit to the right side... Can we get Fernando Vina to come back as a coach (or maybe player)? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[splitterpfj]

Ray can still hit, he had one bad year, but otherwise he's been solid in that regard.

 

My two issues with Durham would be the dollars involved - and his hamstrings, which were the reason he had that bad year in the first place.

 

I don't think the Brewers could sign him for less than six million dollars, and I'm not sure his legs would make it through the season as the every day 2B.

 

I like him, and I'd love to have him on the bench, but I don't see it happening, for financial reasons.

[Weirdos19]

I started this thread with the idea of Weeks being traded. I don't think Weeks or Hall are in our plans for next year. With Cameron coming back, I just don't see us keeping those two in the lineup with Cam there.

 

Too many unproductive outs. You can blame almost the whole lineup. Hart, Cam, Weeks, and Hall come to mind. Hart and Cameron will be in our outfield next year.

 

You can say whatever you like about strikeouts. The bottom line is they are not moving runners.

[Ennder]

Melvin is too smart to think that strike outs are really a big deal, I highly doubt we trade Weeks just because of that.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I started this thread with the idea of Weeks being traded. I don't think Weeks or Hall are in our plans for next year. With Cameron coming back, I just don't see us keeping those two in the lineup with Cam there.

 

Too many unproductive outs. You can blame almost the whole lineup. Hart, Cam, Weeks, and Hall come to mind. Hart and Cameron will be in our outfield next year.

 

You can say whatever you like about strikeouts. The bottom line is they are not moving runners.

 

Instead of what you invite me to do, I will say whatever I like about "productive outs". Actually, I've already said it in a post here:

http://forum.brewerfan.net/search.php?keywords=423334#reply-423334http://brewersfandemonium...reply/423334#reply-423334

 

I'll even repost the relevant section.

 

The Great Productive Outs Debate of 2004, spurred by a Buster Olney article on ESPN, produced some of my favorite moments in sabermetric research. For example, here Cyril Morong demonstrates that for an entire season's worth of data (2004), if you hold team OPS constant, run scoring actually decreases the more productive outs a team makes. Larry Mahnken had a couple of gems that are still archived at Hardball Times -- check out this one. A couple of findings:

 

- The top five teams in POP have scored 4.33 runs per game, have a .351 POP and a .392 winning percentage.

 

- The bottom five teams in POP have scored 4.74 runs per game, have a .230 POP and a .534 winning percentage.

 

Recoding an aversion to strikeouts as an affinity for productive outs doesn't accomplish much, since caring about whether enough of the outs a hitter makes are productive is at least as silly as caring about whether a hitter strikes out too much, if not even sillier.