Left Handed sticks...

[HiAndTight]

Logan you might want to check out this article from Jason Grey on the adjustments McGehee made in 2008.

Wow, this is exactly the article I was referring to, and you posted it a minute later. Guess we're on the same wave length.

And when he went through some struggles last year he made an adjustment to stand higher so he could see the ball better. Hitters make a LOT of adjustments, funny you only hear about the ones when a guy gets hot after.

 

It's not unreasonable to expect McGehee to see a large decline. I understand all those who think it's be insane to bench him for Gamel. It won't happen, but I don't think it's as ridiculous as some seem to think.

[bigredrobbo]

logan, obviously you just have some sort of vendetta against McGehee, or a biased favoritism towards Gamel. Nothing you really laid out follows any sort of reasonable logic.

That's an awfully arrogant statement. Claiming his opinion that Gamel over McGehee would be an improvement to our lineup in your mighty opinion doesn't "follow any sort of reasonable logic?"

 

I think it does, and I think he laid it out. I think McGehee's played over his head, I think Gamel's going to be the better offensive player, and McGehee is a terrible defender as well, so not much concern there. And it's not exactly irreversible.

 

I for one will take Gamel as well.....though I must be void of any reasonable logic.

Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is.

 

And "not exactly irreversible" means that it IS reversible. So are you saying that Casey can get better at defense or he can't? Now I'm confused...

[logan82]

Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is..

As long as we are clear that arguing for McGehee no more logical than arguing for Gamel.

[bigredrobbo]

logan3825]

Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is..

As long as we are clear that arguing for McGehee no more logical than arguing for Gamel.

I'm not using opinion to argue for McGehee, though. I'm using statistics, history (we have more for Casey than we do for Mat) and the lack of a compelling reason that he'll regress other than "he just has to, nobody saw that production from a waiver wire pickup", which seems to be the main gripe against him.

[logan82]

bigredrobbo]

bigredrobbo wrote:

Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is..

As long as we are clear that arguing for McGehee no more logical than arguing for Gamel.

I'm not using opinion to argue for McGehee, though.

It is your opinion that McGehee won't regress despite his lack of hitting in the minors. You think you are arguing fact when you are not. Our opinions on how to judge players are just different.

 

I'm using statistics, history (we have more for Casey than we do for Mat)

As am I. We have more MLB history for McGehee. We also have MiLB history we can use to form opinions. You are just choosing to give less weight to both players' minor league numbers

than I am.

 

and the lack of a compelling reason that he'll regress other than "he

just has to, nobody saw that production from a waiver wire pickup",

which seems to be the main gripe against him.

Strawman. Nobody ever said he won't hit because he was a waiver pickup.

 

We are both using facts to form our opinions. We just are weighing the facts differently.

[HiAndTight]

logan, obviously you just have some sort of vendetta against McGehee, or a biased favoritism towards Gamel. Nothing you really laid out follows any sort of reasonable logic.

That's an awfully arrogant statement. Claiming his opinion that Gamel over McGehee would be an improvement to our lineup in your mighty opinion doesn't "follow any sort of reasonable logic?"

 

I think it does, and I think he laid it out. I think McGehee's played over his head, I think Gamel's going to be the better offensive player, and McGehee is a terrible defender as well, so not much concern there. And it's not exactly irreversible.

 

I for one will take Gamel as well.....though I must be void of any reasonable logic.

Not to drag this down a semantics corridor, but a whole bunch of "I thinks" are pure subjective opinion, not logic. You also have not provided a logical argument beyond pure conjecture. You think Gamel is a better player that Casey. Fine - he very well may be, but without any sort of argument beyond "because I said so" IS lacking reasonable logic. It just is.

 

And "not exactly irreversible" means that it IS reversible. So are you saying that Casey can get better at defense or he can't? Now I'm confused...

Yes, because "thinking" about something is an awful way to go about coming to any sort of rational conclusion.

 

I'm simply proceeding under the assumption that most people on here are well informed on both.

 

McGehee came up out of nowhere having a very poor minor league career.

He's overweight, had knee injuries, has terrible range already, and has about a year and a half that he's played far better than the 8 years prior would have ever suggested he would have.

 

Gamel's younger, far, far more athletic, has better OB skills, or has shown to in the minors.

 

I also don't think you're confused about anything, even if something was a bit poorly worded. By the way, I'm curious, what do the first two "I think's" have to do with eithers ability? Looks to me though they're completely irrelevant to your point, other than you just wanted to oversell it. Congrats.

 

 

 

 

But I'll tell you what, once there is a formula in which we can without doubt quantify future performance, then we'll say it's "fact" and not opinion that the younger less proven player won't perform as well or better than the older more proven player.

[bigredrobbo]

None of this answers what was a very reasonable question. What more does Casey have to do as the incumbent Brewers 3rd base guy to make people believe he's worth keeping and not replacing with Gamel? All he's done is pretty much all we've asked and more.

[kramnoj]

McGehee came up out of nowhere having a very poor minor league career.

 

I'm curious why you would describe his minor league numbers as very poor. If you feel a .741 OPS in the minors for a 3B is very poor, what would you describe as poor, and what would you describe as average?

 

I'm also curious if anyone has seen a study that shows that there needs to be a balance of righties and lefties in the lineup, or if this is commonly accepted.

[jerichoholicninja]

Just read through the last page and this just ties in with my "so many chances" thread quite well. McGehee has now played quite well for two years and some still are waiting for him to crash and burn. Gamel on the other hand has done absolutely nothing on the MLB level (very, very small sample size) but he is still considered the better player because of "potential". Yes Gamel has had the better minor league career but they are called the "minor" leagues for a reason. Now I hope Gamel becomes a really good player but to negate anything Casey has done because Mat "might" be better is not using good sense from a fan or a managing perspective. If healthy, Casey will be at third opening day and Mat will most likely not be on the field in the bigs. Casey has earned his spot and Gamel hasn't.

[HiAndTight]

None of this answers what was a very reasonable question. What more does Casey have to do as the incumbent Brewers 3rd base guy to make people believe he's worth keeping and not replacing with Gamel? All he's done is pretty much all we've asked and more.

No, it does, it just doesn't answer the question the way YOU like, hence the "opinion" aspect of this that you somehow view as being invalid as it's apparently "fact" that McGehee will continue to perform at his previous level, and that Gamel is not capable of doing so.

 

 

But since this is the first time you've asked this question in this context, how about lose weight, cover more ground, and hit left handed? He's been a wonderful surprise. However given the Brewers current lineup, I'd prefer to see Gamel in there hitting 2nd and playing 3rd than McGehee. Now if you think it's "fact" I'm wrong, there really isn't any other direction for this conversation to go. I realize the major league performance is on the side of McGehee(obviously) as it always is with incumbents.

[HiAndTight]

McGehee came up out of nowhere having a very poor minor league career.

 

I'm curious why you would describe his minor league numbers as very poor. If you feel a .741 OPS in the minors for a 3B is very poor, what would you describe as poor, and what would you describe as average?

 

I'm also curious if anyone has seen a study that shows that there needs to be a balance of righties and lefties in the lineup, or if this is commonly accepted.

Well, for starters I'd say .865 is good.

 

I'd say for a corner IF'er, .741 after playing at AAA for 3 years can best be described as average and closer to poor.

[kramnoj]

I'd say for a corner IF'er, .741 after playing at AAA for 3 years can best be described as average and closer to poor.

 

Given that, why did you describe his career as very poor? It just seems like a way to try to diminish McGehee more than is reasonable. It's easy to say that Gamel has been better offensively in the minors than Casey has. There's no need to degrade McGehee to say that Gamel was better.

[HiAndTight]

I'd say for a corner IF'er, .741 after playing at AAA for 3 years can best be described as average and closer to poor.

 

Given that, why did you describe his career as very poor? It just seems like a way to try to diminish McGehee more than is reasonable. It's easy to say that Gamel has been better offensively in the minors than Casey has. There's no need to degrade McGehee to say that Gamel was better.

As I said, this discussion really has no further course, especially if we're devolving into arguing semantics. Really? Poor vs very poor is the basis of your question?

 

 

Fine, it was only "poor.''

 

And it's not denigrating McGehee. It's baffling how you can run your head into the wall. The question was posed in a manner to suggest there's no "logical" reason to want Gamel to play over Mcgehee or expect more of Gamel.

 

Wasn't the issue a lack of "facts?"

 

So now providing the "facts" about McGehee is some how denigrating him? Look at the topic of the thread. That's a big part of it. Another is my belief in Gamel's ability. A third is my reluctance to believe McGehee can continue to perform at such a level. A big part of that reason is his pedigree among others. His build, complete lack of range and a lack of athletic ability is also concerning.

[kramnoj]

As I said, this discussion really has no further course, especially if we're devolving into arguing semantics. Really? Poor vs very poor is the basis of your question?

 

Defending a point by pointing to semantics is usually a sign that the person defending did a poor job communicating. You chose to use the term very poor, and when asked to define that, you backed off. Given that, why did you describe it as very poor, if not to attempt to diminish McGehee?

 

It's baffling how you can run your head into the wall.

 

I don't know what this means. You used a word to describe something and then used a different word. Seems to me my head isn't running into a wall, but changed your description.

 

Wasn't the issue a lack of "facts?"

 

Saying something is very poor with no objective support isn't facts. If you want to point out his minor league stats, you can list them as a fact. If you want to put them in perspective, then do so. But inaccurate language is not addressing the lack of facts issue.

[HiAndTight]

Just read through the last page and this just ties in with my "so many chances" thread quite well. McGehee has now played quite well for two years and some still are waiting for him to crash and burn. Gamel on the other hand has done absolutely nothing on the MLB level (very, very small sample size) but he is still considered the better player because of "potential". Yes Gamel has had the better minor league career but they are called the "minor" leagues for a reason. Now I hope Gamel becomes a really good player but to negate anything Casey has done because Mat "might" be better is not using good sense from a fan or a managing perspective. If healthy, Casey will be at third opening day and Mat will most likely not be on the field in the bigs. Casey has earned his spot and Gamel hasn't.

What player HAS performed well at the major league level prior to being given an opportunity to do so?

 

 

That's maybe the most confounding strawman that you regularly here on when talking to baseball fans. Gamel got a handful of AB's at 3rd, not a worthy sampling, but if you do in fact chose to use it, he was league average as a rookie, and he was exceptional when he was starting at 3rd base. Again, a statistically irrelevant number, but it does shoot down the "done absolutely nothing on the MLB level" unless the simple argument is just that he hasn't done anything because of a lack of AB's....which brings us back to the first sentence of this paragraph.

[logan82]

None of this answers what was a very reasonable question. What more does Casey have to do as the incumbent Brewers 3rd base guy to make people believe he's worth keeping and not replacing with Gamel? All he's done is pretty much all we've asked and more.

It really hasn't been 2 seasons. It is only a little over 1 and a half. I understand why nobody agrees with my opinion but like I said, McGehee was not much of a hitter in the minors and suddenly he hits way better. I don't expect it to continue. Halfway through 2011 I may change my mind.

 

Just because a player has done what was asked of him doesn't mean we should just stick with him if we have a better player.

 

Gamel on the other hand has done absolutely nothing on the MLB level

(very, very small sample size) but he is still considered the better

player because of "potential". Yes Gamel has had the better minor

league career but they are called the "minor" leagues for a reason.

I wouldn't call a .760 OPS nothing. Gamel did ok in his limited chances and it is reasonable to expect him to do better with regular playing time.

 

Now I hope Gamel becomes a really good player but to negate anything

Casey has done because Mat "might" be better is not using good sense

from a fan or a managing perspective.

Why? If you think a player can be better why should we just stick with the current guy? To you it may not make sense but you probably don't think Gamel can be a better player than McGehee.

 

If healthy, Casey will be at third opening day and Mat will most likely

not be on the field in the bigs.

I think Gamel makes it as a backup at the very least. I bet McGehee will start though. From some of Macha's quotes Gamel was lined up to make the roster this year until he got hurt.

[TooLiveBrew]

Gamel on the other hand has done absolutely nothing on the MLB level (very, very small sample size) but he is still considered the better player because of "potential".

 

I don't like Gamel better just because of some arbitrary concept of "potential". I think his physical tools are superior to McGehee's, and I love Gamel's swing & discipline. I actually think he's very capable of being a good option off the bench this season because his offensive skills are so polished. While it's easy to make a blanket statement & say people like a player because of potential, it's important to consider *why* people see potential.

 

Weeks is a perfect example -- people actually (seriously) wanted him DFA'd a few seasons back, with no realistic foresight paid to the fact that he had the kind of physical tools to be one of the best 2B in the league (which is exactly what he was in '10). While I'm not trying to claim in any way that anyone wants Gamel DFA'd, there's been very similar lack of belief and/or foresight in his physical abilities so far from many fans.

 

It also bothers me in principle when people want to stick with McGehee just because 'he has been solid' or 'he has been better than expected'. I don't hate McGehee or disagree that he's been a solid player, but I don't think that these should be reasons why an upgrade wouldn't be considered. Of course this will all be moot next season when Casey & Mat are the starting corner IF players. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I honestly believe we'll look back at this 2011 team in a few seasons & say, 'Wow, that team was stacked -- they even had Gamel coming off the bench!'

[thebruce44]

As I said, this discussion really has no further course, especially if we're devolving into arguing semantics. Really? Poor vs very poor is the basis of your question?

 

Defending a point by pointing to semantics is usually a sign that the person defending did a poor job communicating. You chose to use the term very poor, and when asked to define that, you backed off. Given that, why did you describe it as very poor, if not to attempt to diminish McGehee?

On this board pointing to semantics is usually a sign someone is in a pointless debate with you. Everyone gets his point, including you.

 

If you want to chastise posters for embellishment in attempts to diminish what players have done why not look at posters saying Gamel has done nothing at the MLB level.

[kramnoj]

On this board pointing to semantics is usually a sign someone is in a pointless debate with you. Everyone gets his point, including you.

 

I don't know what his point is. If the point was just to say that Gamel had a much better minor league career, that's an easy point to make. I don't know what the point of calling McGehee's career in the minors very poor is, but I have a suspicion. I don't typically ask rhetorical questions, if I ask one, I'm trying to gain understanding.

 

If you want to chastise posters for embellishment in attempts to diminish what players have done why not look at posters saying Gamel has done nothing at the MLB level.

 

There are enough defenders here to carry that banner. As for the statement of whether Gamel has done nothing at the MLB level, well, it's not enough of a sample size to say anything with certainty. If I want to make the case that Gamel will have a good major league career, I cite his minor league numbers and cite the general projection of minor to major stats.

 

If I try to find significance in the 94 PA that Gamel had as a 3B in 2009, that opens the door to thinking that is a significant number of PA to base projections on. I mean, Counsell has a 967 OPS in his career with the bases loaded in 123 PA, but I doubt many people would prefer him over other hitters in that situation. Shane Spencer once had a 1.321 OPS in 73 PA. It's too small a sample to have much meaning.

 

As far as Gamel vs McGehee, my preference is for the Brewers to choose what his defensive position in 2012 is and have him play that position in the minors in 2011. If Gamel's only real defensive issue is his arm, 1B would be a decent position for him to play. His projection would be reasonable at 1B, but below what many people would like.

 

For a lot of people that want McGehee replaced, it seems the -22/150 UZR of 2009 has overpowered the -4/150 UZR of 2010. Given that Gamel has made 35 errors at 3B in AAA over the last 157 games played, I don't really think Gamel's better ZIPS projections makes up for his defensive questions.

[jerichoholicninja]

Unless Gamel greatly outperforms Casey in spring training, what message would it send to players throughout the organization. Casey (.288/.342/.470/.812) has better career numbers than Mat (.241/.335/.414/.749). Looking at facts (<--those numbers) Casey has shown himself to be the better player. Now if Gamel suddenly becomes the starter (barring a hot spring for Mat) I can see other players thinking that potential trumps results in this organization and it may not be the place they want to play anymore. Especially when you consider that Doug has gone all in for this year, starting the guy who has proven to be the inferior player (to McGehee) is not the message you want to send.

 

Once again, though, I want Gamel to succeed. I want him to be great. But right now McGehee is the guy who deserves to be starting and has proven that.

[TooLiveBrew]

Junior Spivey had better stats than Weeks, should Melvin not have traded him to clear room for Rickie? I get that the situation with McGehee is a bit more complicated, but it's just bad logic imo.

[Invader3K]

It would be one thing to trade McGehee for something valuable (like when Spivey was dealt for Tomo Ohka...and Melvin could probably get a better player than Ohka for McGehee). It would be entirely another thing to make a successful 28 year old third baseman ride the bench in favor of a questionable prospect.

 

Anyway, most of this discussion is probably moot since it seems more and more like the Brewers do not foresee Gamel as their third baseman of the future. Hence why he had been seeing action in the outfield and at first base.

[HiAndTight]

I don't know what his point is. If the point was just to say that Gamel

had a much better minor league career, that's an easy point to make. I

don't know what the point of calling McGehee's career in the minors

very poor is, but I have a suspicion. I don't typically ask rhetorical

questions, if I ask one, I'm trying to gain understanding.

 

 

That's too bad as I frankly don't know how to possibly break it down any simpler for you. The point WASN'T just to say that Gamel had a better minor league career(which kinda shoots a hole in the "no facts" argument being made here) it was also to point out that McGehee was not a good minor league player.

 

Now if you really want to bog down the rest of this conversation by carrying on several posts arguing about the difference between "very poor" and "poor" you win. But please don't pretend you don't know what point I'm making. I'm not being subtle and I've made it several times.

If I try to find significance in the 94 PA that Gamel had as a 3B in

2009, that opens the door to thinking that is a significant number of PA

to base projections on. I mean, Counsell has a 967 OPS in his career

with the bases loaded in 123 PA, but I doubt many people would prefer

him over other hitters in that situation. Shane Spencer once had a

1.321 OPS in 73 PA. It's too small a sample to have much meaning.

 

And we're off veering again. Who's using his very brief big league stint as an argument FOR him? We're simply saying it shouldn't be used against him. You're going off on a tangent about others who've put up big numbers in 100 or so at bats.

 

What point are YOU trying to make here? I don't see people running around actually citing Gamel's big league performance OTHER than to point to it and argue that he was bad in his brief big league stint. The opposing argument is "no, he was actually fine....in a small sample size." So you wasted your time to look to Shane Spencer's OPS in his 73 PA's as that's utterly besides the point here.

I don't really think Gamel's better ZIPS projections makes up for his defensive questions.

 

So why does it bother you so much that some disagree? That some, in particular given the title of this thread, simply think that Mat Gamel would be a better option to play 3rd base and hit 2nd in our lineup this year?

 

 

By the way, I've been told arguing "I think" doesn't really work in a rationale discussionhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[jerichoholicninja]

It would be one thing to trade McGehee for something valuable (like when Spivey was dealt for Tomo Ohka...and Melvin could probably get a better player than Ohka for McGehee). It would be entirely another thing to make a successful 28 year old third baseman ride the bench in favor of a questionable prospect.

 

Anyway, most of this discussion is probably moot since it seems more and more like the Brewers do not foresee Gamel as their third baseman of the future. Hence why he had been seeing action in the outfield and at first base.

Huge agreement. If Doug is able to trade Casey, then yes Gamel should start. However, benching Casey for Mat would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

[HiAndTight]

Unless Gamel greatly outperforms Casey in spring training, what message would it send to players throughout the organization. Casey (.288/.342/.470/.812) has better career numbers than Mat (.241/.335/.414/.749). Looking at facts (<--those numbers) Casey has shown himself to be the better player. Now if Gamel suddenly becomes the starter (barring a hot spring for Mat) I can see other players thinking that potential trumps results in this organization and it may not be the place they want to play anymore. Especially when you consider that Doug has gone all in for this year, starting the guy who has proven to be the inferior player (to McGehee) is not the message you want to send.

 

Once again, though, I want Gamel to succeed. I want him to be great. But right now McGehee is the guy who deserves to be starting and has proven that.

Once again, I just want to point out that the vast majority...(really, I think everyone, but I'd have to go back and look) who are using this tiny sample of Gamel's big league stats are using them against Gamel, not for.

 

I also don't think the players who are established are going to suddenly become fearful of looking over their shoulders if Mat Gamel were to start at 3rd base. I think they'd most likely understand the Brewers believed he was better than McGehee. But I certainly don't see some mass exodus by our star players because the Brewers replace McGehee for Gamel.

 

And the bolded part is really, truly just absurd. Gamel certainly hasn't "proven" to be the better player. Nobody would argue that. Those who want him to start are talking on faith. A belief in his swing, his athletic ability, etc..etc...but he also most certainly hasn't "proven" to be the inferior player.

 

Those arguing that he's "proven" anything at the big league level.....I'm just not sure what you're looking at. The sporadic time in which he posted average numbers? Well, if that sample size somehow works, lets just take the games he started at 3rd? Those are quite a bit better than McGehee's line(.278/.340/.522/.862).

 

Of course I don't think anyone's putting much stock into 100 AB's, but a previous poster went through a lot of work to tell the "Pro-Gamel" contingent that his big league numbers are irrelevant...something I agree with. So now arguing that those have somehow "proven" him to be inferior is....flawed.