Move Rickie to a new position?

[TheCrew07]

I fail to see how he's not "doing his job."

Does "play to his ability" make you feel better about it because that what I meant? The point is, I'd tell Rickie the same thing I tell every player I've ever had that was criticized by team mates, parents, friends, whomever... If it bothers you that much don't give them anything to talk about, period. Rickie is above replacement level... yay or something. His tool set far exceeds his results thus far, the bar is set much higher than replacement level for him given his natural abilities. At worst he should be a .270/.360/.480 guy with his bat speed, his patience, and his running speed, he could easily OPS in the upper 800s and lower 900s if he'd make any sort of consistent contact with the ball. All of the things written in articles about Weeks this spring are exactly the same things that we discussed on this board over the winter... he's off balance, through the zone to fast, doesn't make consistent contact, bat wiggle issues, the turns on DPs, etc, etc...

 

I'm not comparing Weeks to his peers, I'm judging him against his natural athletic ability, the same way I do for any player. I could care less about replacement level, it's a made up statistical benchmark that has no meaning between the lines. This is why I end up liking guys like Brady Clark when most people around here can't stand the guy, because he got every single last bit out of what he had to work with. There's no better compliment than that for anyone, he/she got the most out of what they had.... I loathe wasted talent, probably because I grew up a coach's kid and still coach myself, and no one on the Brewers gets less out of more than Weeks and Hall. Weeks doesn't get grief because he's a bad guy or doesn't work hard, he gets grief because he keeps making the same mistakes over and over and over. I'm not questioning his work ethic, I still maintain that he's always trying to do too much instead of just taking what comes to him, which is why I don't like him leading off regardless of the perfect lineup. Working hard hasn't exactly helped him achieve his desired results so far in his career, and why should we expect anything less from him than he expects of himself?

 

I'd rather Rickie be the best player he can be, but as long as he continues to do things like booting the routine turn he'll be a lightening rod for criticism, because he's earned it.

[lukevan]

I guess my point is there's a time when physical tools take you only so far. Some players just have better instinctive abilities when it comes to fielding a ground ball or being able to cover all of the strike zone. For me, Rickie's tools make up for what he might lack in baseball instincts, and that might not be something that you can just learn over time. Time will tell with Rickie.

[Fatter than Joey]

he's improved from being atrocious to meh defensively at 2nd

 

I disagree -- he may have had better stats last year -- but I still have yet to see any evidence that he has improved significantly.

 

I think the Brewers should have tried him in the OF from day 1.

 

Agreed -- and certainly with Braun as well.

[Fear The Chorizo]

FTJ - by saying Weeks is "meh" defensively, I meant that he's gone from horrible to really bad - I wasn't implying he improved defensively enough to be considered even close to league average.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Neyer definitely looks foolish in the article - I think the implication is to put Escobar at 2nd after putting Weeks in left, trading Fielder, and moving Braun to 1st. Let's see, let's trade away our sole LH impact bat who we just locked in at a certain cost for the next two seasons - then we can move an athletic LF back to the infield where his speed will be negated and his shaky glove emphasized, and combine that with having 2nd and left field played by guys who haven't played 2nd and left field before, both of which wouldn't be good enough offensively to be pluses at those new positions...no wonder Neyer's a writer instead of working in a baseball front office somewhere.

 

these are the type of articles that make it obvious that real games need to start being played soon - less time for some of these "experts" to come up with dumb ideas while they focus on their "that's nasty/touch 'em all" segments or coreographed demonstrations on their miniature studio baseball field.

[Fatter than Joey]

FTJ - by saying Weeks is "meh" defensively, I meant that he's gone from horrible to really bad - I wasn't implying he improved defensively enough to be considered even close to league average

 

Fair enough -- I was using the more liberal definition of "meh" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[mnevis]

I am a huge Rickie Weeks apologist. I don't blame Rickie one bit for his failings. I think that is the reason why Doug Melvin is so steadfast in his support of Weeks. I think he knows they didn't handle his development correctly. Rickie is "taking one" for the team, by batting leadoff. To me that is a sign of mutual loyalty. He is not a natural fielder of the ball. However, I think if you let him be the offensive force he can be by batting him 2, 3,5 or 6 he could cover those defensive deficiencies. Don't throw "the baby out with the bath water". I will be content to watch him progress at his own pace, while he is cheap and adequate for his position. With all that said, if Lawrie is a fast mover all of this may be moot in 2 to 3 years.

[pete]

Weeks is really bad defensively? I'm not a big fan and it wouldn't bother me in the least if they traded him, but that statement doesn't seem correct to me. I'd say he's about average and the real question is whether he lets pressure situations affect him and boot critical balls.

[strawbossisevil]

Are you suggesting TheCrew07, when you say that it is Rickie's fault, that it is due to some lack of effort on his part? Because almost everyone around the club says that he is one of the hardest workers on the club. I guess I fail how you can fault a guy for trying his best, even if his best attempt doesn't live up to your high standards.

 

As long as a guy is going 100%, I don't think they "deserve" criticism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't objectively point out a player's flaws, but to criticize the person seems over the top, unless there is a reason within the player's control that would deserve the criticism. Show me how Rickie has brought his poor play on himself, otherwise this "no fault but his own" stuff is over the top and unnecessary.

 

Yes, he hasn't lived up to his perceived potential, not all prospects do, but that doesn't always reflect on the prospect. Rather, sometimes the perceived potential can be flawed from the start, and we can perceive them in ways that are unfair to the player (giving the player shoes that he is never able to fill despite appearing to have the natural ability to do so).

[TooLiveBrew]

Weeks is really bad defensively? I'm not a big fan and it wouldn't bother me in the least if they traded him, but that statement doesn't seem correct to me. I'd say he's about average and the real question is whether he lets pressure situations affect him and boot critical balls.

 

Yeah, the 'Weeks is awful defensively' comments really aren't accurate or objective. He's not good, but his range makes up for a lot more than most fans will realize and/or admit. While it's frustrating when he boots easy/easier plays, the fact that he can get to more balls than a lot of 2B helps to mitigate that. Honestly his ability puts him (imo) at anywhere from 'below average' to 'above average' in any given season. I think a lot of fans see frustrating plays & mistakes and then make the broad assumption that, 'Boy, it just couldn't get worse than Rickie at 2B', when the reality is that he's about average on defense overall. Whether he makes us want to pull our hair out on certain occasions shouldn't carry any more weight than when he makes a rangy play that has jaws dropping to the floor.

 

 

Yes, he hasn't lived up to his perceived potential, not all prospects do, but that doesn't always reflect on the prospect.

 

And this isn't 'new' news, but to anyone that has the super-critical approach that Weeks should be better bc of where he was drafted... just go re-visit that draft class.

[Ennder]

Weeks was awful defensively in previous seasons but the last season or two he has improved quite a bit.

[Fatter than Joey]

when the reality is that he's about average on defense overall.

 

This is not "reality", only your hand-waving arguments. One could easily make an objective case that Weeks is well below average.

 

Weeks was awful defensively in previous seasons but the last season or two he has improved quite a bit.

 

Again, I think this is a dangerous statement. I think he has had better seasons defensively perhaps, but you cannot quickly conclude that he has improved his skills, which I think is where you are going with this.

 

It is like when a pitcher gets "lucky" in a particular season, perhaps his lucky season was an improvement over the previous season, but ultimately, he is the same pitcher.

 

Yeah, the 'Weeks is awful defensively' comments really aren't accurate or objective.

 

Frankly, I don't find your school of thought any more objective -- I think you want to see Weeks succeed, so you are willing to overstate one year of data to support your conclusion. I certainly hope your school of thought prevails though -- and you may end up being right -- but I think you are at least one season away from realizing it.

 

If I could describe Weeks's defense -- I would say "Inadequate for a playoff team."

[TheCrew07]

I am suggesting that everything that Rickie struggles with is directly within his control. His approach at the plate, his issues defensively, etc... Again, his raw tools are obvious, the only thing that limits Weeks is whatever is going on his in head. I've said before this isn't an issue of work ethic, I'm not sure why when a player of Rickie's talent gets criticized for not reaching their potential people tend to assume "lazy", I've never suggested that in any post. I've clearly stated that he gets in his own way... for example the bat waggle, even after injuring himself he continues to utilize it. To me, that's simply not a wise a decision. We discussed his approach at the plate in great detail over the off season and many of us were criticized by other posters because there was a lack of statistical evidence to support our claims. However come spring his coaches are talking about all of the exact same issue and TH is reporting them in print. Weeks' flaws are very correctable, but all the hard work in the world won't help someone if they don't fix the root cause of their problems and certainly won't make a difference if the person doesn't buy in to the program entirely.

 

There seems to be a notion that all observation is flawed when I don't feel that's the case. Any somewhat educated fan sitting in the stands could see how off balance Rickie was at the plate if they paid close enough attention, my father pointed it out to me. It's not like we're dealing with quantum mechanics here.

[Ennder]

Again, I think this is a dangerous statement. I think he has had better seasons defensively perhaps, but you cannot quickly conclude that he has improved his skills, which I think is where you are going with this.

 

Well you can never be 100% sure of anything. He is making fewer errors, his range metrics look significantly better, he looks better to my naked eye. There isn't much more that he can do to convince me he is getting better. You can disagree with my opinion but yeah I can conclude that his 2007+2008 defense is better than his 2005+2006, I can back it up with numbers and with empirical observation.

[Fatter than Joey]

There isn't much more that he can do to convince me he is getting better.

 

Incremental or significant?

 

You can disagree with my opinion

 

I can't touch your opinion obviously, but it should be represented as such. A number of posters are making some pretty authoritative statements that Weeks is now an "average-above average defender" -- leading others to believe that Weeks's skills have improved, based only on one season of data. I find that rather presumptuous.

 

but yeah I can conclude that his 2007+2008 defense is better than his 2005+2006, I can back it up with numbers and with empirical observation.

 

Right -- but again, I could do that with any "lucky pitcher" that enjoyed a "lucky season" -- I have no issue with saying Weeks's 2008 numbers are better than his 2006 numbers -- I have an issue with concluding that he has improved his skills (in a significant fashion), based on 2008 v. 2006 alone.

 

As I said before -- you may end up being right -- but I think that Weeks is still capable of having an awful season defensively, because I do not believe his skills have improved significantly. If his 2009 turns out to be better than 2008, I will happily admit I was wrong.

[Ennder]

Right -- but again, I could do that with any "lucky pitcher" that enjoyed a "lucky season" -- I have no issue with saying Weeks's 2008 numbers are better than his 2006 numbers

 

You can usually point out why a pitcher is lucky though. Weeks 2007 was better than his 2008 too so we have 2 years where he was one of the worst in the game at 2B and two years where he was below average but not painfully so. There is no reason to think that 2 of the years data are any better than the other two and since I personally feel he has improved from watching him and since most players defense improves in those age ranges, I can safely say that in my eyes he is improving. When numbers, trends and "scouting" say the same thing you usually have a winner.

[Fatter than Joey]

I can safely say that in my eyes he is improving.

 

Absolutely. When it goes past that, is when the red flags start throwing up.

[Ennder]

I can safely say that in my eyes he is improving.

 

Absolutely. When it goes past that, is when the red flags start throwing up.

If you personally dont' think he has improved there is no amount of proof I'm going to be able to give you to change your mind. I can accept that. If he puts up a 3rd year in a row of improved metrics and you still don't accept it you are probably just being pig headed about it though.

[TooLiveBrew]

This is not "reality", only your hand-waving arguments. One could easily make an objective case that Weeks is well below average.

 

That's true. I think that in any given season, he could wind up being anywhere from 'well below average' to 'above average' in terms of defense. I'd appreciate you not just outright mocking what I have to say on him though. There's nothing 'hand waving' about hard data that supports the impression I get with my eyes.

 

 

Frankly, I don't find your school of thought any more objective -- I think you want to see Weeks succeed, so you are willing to overstate one year of data to support your conclusion. I certainly hope your school of thought prevails though -- and you may end up being right -- but I think you are at least one season away from realizing it.

 

While I do want to see Weeks succeed, I think my posts on him are pretty fair. As Ennder already pointed out, there is certainly empirical evidence to support the argument that he's about average defensively, but you make a good point. You're certainly right to say, hey hang on a second... we need more data/time here to be sure. This is why I made the comment about being somewhere in between 'below average' & 'above average' in any given season. I think it's only reasonable to refine that by stating more often than not imo Rickie will be close to below average than above average, but I don't agree with your categorization of him defensively anymore.

[Fatter than Joey]

If you personally dont' think he has improved there is no amount of proof I'm going to be able to give you to change your mind.

 

Your opinion is not proof. I think I have clearly stated that enough times -- every player is going to have different metrics from season to season, better or worse, different metrics does not necessarily mean that skills have changed. What you "see" is your opinion, nothing more and nothing less. I have no problem with your opinion, it is a reasonable one that I happen to disagree with -- I have a problem with the authoritative manner in which you present it.

 

If he puts up a 3rd year in a row of improved metrics and you still don't accept it you are probably just being pig headed about it though.

 

I said this earlier (#64):

 

As I said before -- you may end up being right -- but I think that Weeks is still capable of having an awful season defensively, because I do not believe his skills have improved significantly. If his 2009 turns out to be better than 2008, I will happily admit I was wrong.

 

I think you are enamored with your self-sense of objectivity, when in reality you have similar prejudices as other posters do.

 

As far as being pig-headed, you are probably right about that more than I would care to admit.

[JJHardy7]

Yes, he hasn't lived up to his perceived potential, not all prospects do, but that doesn't always reflect on the prospect. Rather, sometimes the perceived potential can be flawed from the start, and we can perceive them in ways that are unfair to the player (giving the player shoes that he is never able to fill despite appearing to have the natural ability to do so).

 

The problem I have with Weeks is in part of your post. What is perceived? He put up some pretty darn good numbers in the minors and has at periods in the bigs. Rickie may work hard and be loyal and all that, but to me he's more frustrating because I don't know if he'll ever reach his potential. He could easily be the best (or one of the best) hitting 2B in all of baseball. He only bats leadoff one time each game (he could other innings besides the beginning, but so do other players). I just think he hasn't been able to figure out major league pitching. Is that a talent thing? I'm not sure. I just believe that if Rickie ever figures it out he could be a stud. He has every physical tool you could ask for...he's just not consistent and makes the same mistakes over and over. Should he be cut? Of course not. I just think depending on what type of contract he wants when he's eligible it might be time to part ways if he wants to get paid for potential. If he wants to be paid for his MLB production, I say we extend him today and maybe get 'lucky' and like it as been said for what seems every off-season...maybe 'he puts it all together', 'figures it out', etc etc.

[strawbossisevil]

Right, but there are plenty of examples of people putting up big numbers in the minors, and never performing up to those levels in the majors. We can often take a bit of an educated guess as to what to expect from someone who hits a certain way, but there is no guarantee that when they make the switch to the big leagues that those numbers will transfer over as much as we'd like them to.

 

I think to always be blaming the player for this is unfair, especially if they are giving their all towards becoming a better player. With Rickie, I just don't think he is a smart hitter. That isn't his fault, he just may not have the intelligence of figuring out how to change his approach now that the pitchers are much smarter in their approach than they were in the minors.

 

It's like a guy who has the kindness, patience, and work ethic needed to be a doctor, but piling on said doctor for going to UW for med school because he doesn't have the smarts to go to Harvard Med. Is it necessarily his fault that he couldn't get into Harvard med? If he poured his all into his college studies, but just didn't have the smarts to do so, I'd say "no".

 

I think some people just love to shove "blame" at people, even when there isn't blame to shove. Things just can't be disappointing, it has to be "someone's fault".

[endaround]

Talking about Weeks without mentioning the fact that he's had serious hand issues since he came to the big leagues misses a lot. Its most likely why his batting line is all over the place.

[Fatter than Joey]

I'd appreciate you not just outright mocking what I have to say on him though.

 

I really am not mocking you -- I thought your argument was mostly hand-waving -- which is OK up until you announce it as reality. I just thought your argument lacked substance for the conclusions you presented as you did, I have no interest in mocking you, and I'd hope you'd know that -- there are so many other things I'd rather mock. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

There's nothing 'hand waving' about hard data that supports the impression I get with my eyes.

 

The data is the data -- the conclusions you draw however are not necessarily "reality". I think that there is a huge distinction between "improved seasons" and "improved skills".

 

You're certainly right to say, hey hang on a second... we need more data/time here to be sure.

 

Exactly -- and while I certainly understand that Weeks is our best and only real option for 2009, I certainly would be leery of contract extensions, etc... I am not comfortable with the Brewers making any future plans regarding 2b under the premise that Weeks is an adequate fielder at this time.

 

but I don't agree with your categorization of him defensively anymore.

 

and that's fine -- as I have said a few times now, I am willing to re-evaluate my position after 2009. I don't think your position or Ennder's are unreasonable or indefensible at all. I think I am more in the "jury's still out" boat, than "this is reality" boat.

[TooLiveBrew]

Yeah, fair enough. I guess I just see improvement with the naked eye, and data to support that, over a couple of seasons. To me that indicates it's much more likely that he will continue that level of performance than suddenly regress for no real reason (other than that he used to be awful).

 

 

I thought your argument was mostly hand-waving -- which is OK up until you announce it as reality.

 

I stand 100% behind the statement, "[Rickie]'s about average on defense overall", as being reality. I intentionally made the statement as a relative one, since I think a player's exact defensive value can be nearly impossible to pin down.