Yikes!

First, Rob doesn't even mention Matt Kemp. I mean I might not pick Kemp for the spot but he gives a shout out to Brett Gardner, Michael Bourn and Adam Jones so omitting Kemp is a major brain fart.

Then Rob seems to have not noticed that Torii Hunter was moved to RF at the end of last season, claiming one reason Trout won't play for another few years is because Hunter is "firmly ensconced" in CF for the Angels with a contract that runs through 2012. I am reasonably certain the Angels won't let Peter Bourjos block Trout if they think Trout is ready.

EDIT: CF does seem a bit down at the moment. Ain't no young Griffeys in MLB right now, that's for sure.

Ain't no young Griffeys in MLB right now, that's for sure.

The cream of the CF crop right now should be a prime Grady Sizemore (injuries), a prime Curtis Granderson (never learned to hit LHP), a slightly-aging Carlos Beltran (injuries), and BJ Upton (hits .220). Instead, we have to debate about whether Kemp and CarGo are CFs and squint to see if McCutcheon has room to improve.

TLR, Colby and everybody else have denied there's a problem, and management has forcefully stated colby won't be traded. at least that's what i've heard. i think even if tony doesn't care much for colby rasmus personally he sees that he can't keep kicking players to the curb, especially someone with rasmus' upside.

Someone explain to me why Mike Trout, in February 2011, should be considered ahead of, oh, crap, Jordan Schafer or someone.

Then explain to me how anyone could presume to predict the "players of the decade" in year one of said decade.

OMG Austin Jackson.

A Cashman hyped prospect.

Then explain to me how anyone could presume to predict the "players of the decade" in year one of said decade.

Well, that's part of the point of this series of articles Neyer's doing. He started off by going over who we would have predicted were the players of the decade for the 2000s back in 2000, and can we do any better this time around, and what can we learn from how wrong we were last time, and so on.

Then explain to me how anyone could presume to predict the "players of the decade" in year one of said decade.

Yeah, I mean, why would people spend time talking about baseball, who were going to be the best players in the next 10 years and so on. Who could possibly be that interested in baseball?

I've been reading this series of articles, and the first one or two were pretty decent but now it seems like it's almost a chore for Rob to be doing this. I like how he is going back and looking at who he picked the first time and realized that he was probably wrong in concentrating on youngsters who hadn't proven themselves last time.

Colby's defensive shortcomings from last year is fixable, heck if Edmonds hadn't retired suddenly, I would have expected him to fix Colby's throwing position problem, which was a major flaw in his defense last year. (He literally threw at least two balls that deflected off of the mound in what should have been fairly routine throws to the plate, and another that bounced before it reached second base)

It seems like part of the problem is trying to figure out which CFers remain in CF for a long time. It wouldn't be surprising if Matt Kemp or even Colby Rasmus are moved to a corner outfield position after several years.

Someone explain to me why Mike Trout, in February 2011, should be considered ahead of, oh, crap, Jordan Schafer or someone.

Because Schafer is a 1st round draft pick who lit up full season ball to the tune of .341/.428/.490 as an 18 year old (at the same age your boy Jordan hit .203/.256/.352 in Rookie Ball)
and Jordan is now 24, has a career minor league line of .258/.326/.416, has hit .258/.326/.416 in AAA and .204/.313/.287 in the majors...

though to be fair Schafer did have a good half season in AA once, jacking up his career AA line to .253/.359/.428, which is more or less comparable to Carlos Gomez's AA line of .281/.350/.423, but alas Gomez' MLB line of .246/.293/.349 is just a tad better than Jordan's to date.


Actually, I think you do have point, but Jordan Schafer is a terrible example to trot out as no one outside of crazed Braves fanboy would prefer him over Trout even in the immediate short term

Actually, I think you do have point, but Jordan Schafer is a terrible example to trot out as no one outside of crazed Braves fanboy would prefer him over Trout even in the immediate short term

I'm not touting Schafer so much as bringing up an example of how quickly the shine can come off the sh*t. See also Chris Young.

Well, that's part of the point of this series of articles Neyer's doing. He started off by going over who we would have predicted were the players of the decade for the 2000s back in 2000, and can we do any better this time around, and what can we learn from how wrong we were last time, and so on.

Hmmm, I see. Not sure I buy the conceit, but okay.

I remember the original articles he wrote and thought it was a great thought exercise and think that doing it again is another fun read. He's going into it with one year of data already under his belt though so hopefully he could do better this time.

So far his choices have been along with his prior decade pick (and the guy who in reality was it)
catcher-Mauer ----Kendall(Posada)
first base- Pujols---Nick Johnson (Helton)
second base- Cano---Edgardo Alfonzo (Kent or Utley)
shortstop- Tulowitzki---Nomar Garciaparra (Jeter)
third base- Longoria---Fernando Tatis (Rolen)
Left Field- Crawford----Ben Grieve (Bonds)
Centefield- Mccutchen----Andruw Jones (Beltran or Edmonds)
Right field----------Vlad (Ichiro)
Starer---------------Pedro (Halladay-among others)
closer-----------Wagner (Rivera)

I don't see why you dislike this exercise, it's fun, it's something to talk about during the offseason, it's wild ass guessing of the funnest type. And of course in Rob's case since he's been writing for a decade and it doesn't look like it's going to slow down, it's something to point at a decade from now and remember the busts and the breakouts.

A Trio Of 24-Year-Olds In Center Field

As Groucho once quipped: "I'd rather have a trio of 24-Year-Olds in Center Field than to have a 72-Year-Old in the Bullpen"

I remember the original articles he wrote and thought it was a great thought exercise and think that doing it again is another fun read. He's going into it with one year of data already under his belt though so hopefully he could do better this time.

Fair enough.

So far his choices have been along with his prior decade pick (and the guy who in reality was it)
...
Third Base- Longoria---Fernando Tatis (Rolen)
...

Scott Rolen, 2000-2009: WAR 47.1
Chipper Jones, 2000-2009: WAR 50.0

first base- Pujols---Nick Johnson (Helton)

Actually, Pujols was his (and the correct) choice for first baseman of the previous decade.

Scott Rolen, 2000-2009: WAR 47.1
Chipper Jones, 2000-2009: WAR 50.0

Were Chipper's two seasons as a LF during the time frame the reason he tipped the scales toward Rolen?

Were Chipper's two seasons as a LF during the time frame the reason he tipped the scales toward Rolen?

I don't know, but I guess that's at least a valid argument. Not convincing, IMHO, but valid. Chipper moved to LF because the Braves thought Vinny Castilla was a better FA option than the corner OF options on that market, not because he couldn't play 3B. I think it's splitting hairs to attempt to "adjust" Chipper's value based on two years out in LF that were driven more by his willingness to do what asked rather than any inability to field his position.

Also, I'm not familiar with the defensive components of WAR, but Chipper has always been undervalued defensively by metrics IMHO.

Scott Rolen, 2000-2009: WAR 47.1
Chipper Jones, 2000-2009: WAR 50.0

it's the left field thing as Sosh pointed out.

Actually, Pujols was his (and the correct) choice for first baseman of the previous decade.

he added Pujols to the 'correct' answer later(mentioning the fact that he played time away from first base), but still kept Helton on his list, so that is why I posted that.

I don't know, but I guess that's at least a valid argument. Not convincing, IMHO, but valid. Chipper moved to LF because the Braves thought Vinny Castilla was a better FA option than the corner OF options on that market, not because he couldn't play 3B. I think it's splitting hairs to attempt to "adjust" Chipper's value based on two years out in LF that were driven more by his willingness to do what asked rather than any inability to field his position

if he's basing it strictly on positional value, then it's fair not to count the seasons that Chipper didn't play third base, it doesn't matter why he didn't, just that he didn't. I would consider Chipper a third baseman when ranking his career, but when doing an exercise like this, I think it's right to only include time at the position you are being rated at.

Also, I'm not familiar with the defensive components of WAR, but Chipper has always been undervalued defensively by metrics IMHO.

have you actually ever seen a good defensive third baseman? Chipper is like Jeter, just watching him play you know his defense is sub par and you can't fathom how experts can't see that. Not saying Chipper is as bad as Jeter, but you watch Chipper play and mentally compare him to good or even average fielders and it's very apparent that he just isn't on their level.

have you actually ever seen a good defensive third baseman? Chipper is like Jeter, just watching him play you know his defense is sub par and you can't fathom how experts can't see that. Not saying Chipper is as bad as Jeter, but you watch Chipper play and mentally compare him to good or even average fielders and it's very apparent that he just isn't on their level.

Chipper isn't on Rolen's level defensively, certainly. But he's not been "bad" there more than a couple of outlier seasons over the course of his career. He does some things well, some things poorly, and a few things exceptionally well.

Chipper isn't on Rolen's level defensively, certainly. But he's not been "bad" there more than a couple of outlier seasons over the course of his career. He does some things well, some things poorly, and a few things exceptionally well.

I don't know, not even looking at any numbers, but he just doesn't look good there, he seems fine if it's not a reaction play(which of course most plays at third are reaction) he just doesn't seem to move his body as soon as you would expect a good thirdbaseman to move his body. From memory he has solid hands, below average reaction time, and fairly accurate arm, not real strong though. To me that is a below average thirdbaseman. The most important skill is that initial reaction and I don't think Chipper has it.

Left Field- Crawford----Ben Grieve (Bonds)

As an A's fan: GAH.

I don't know, not even looking at any numbers, but he just doesn't look good there, he seems fine if it's not a reaction play(which of course most plays at third are reaction) he just doesn't seem to move his body as soon as you would expect a good thirdbaseman to move his body. From memory he has solid hands, below average reaction time, and fairly accurate arm, not real strong though. To me that is a below average thirdbaseman. The most important skill is that initial reaction and I don't think Chipper has it.

In his prime he was average on first step. Decent to his right, a little slow to his left. Average in general, but helped immensely by a rangy defender at SS (Furcal, Escobar.) Strong but not overbearing arm. Mostly accurate with occasional bouts of the yips, especially if he had time to think about the throw. His best defensive skill by far was charging bunts and slow rollers in front of him, a play that he made all the time and the only time you'd ever describe him as "graceful" in the field.

He also hit like a god. Both aspects of his game have, obviously, decreased with age.

According to BB-REF, he is -17 runs below average for his 21 year career -- which, within the margin of error, is essentially average for his career.

According to BB-REF, he is -17 runs below average for his 21 year career -- which, within the margin of error, is essentially average for his career.

the problem is that Sam is arguing that he is better than the numbers indicate, and I'm saying that just by watching him, there is very little reason to think he is better than the numbers.

i remember what seemed like his first year (dont really remember) he made a great catch of a line drive by jumping and using his glove to knock it down straight to his other hand. alcohol may have altered this, but its what stands out for me about his defense. all i can think of for rolen was costing the cards runs against the cubs with defensive #### ups

Ben Grieve (Bonds)

Ouch.

if he's basing it strictly on positional value, then it's fair not to count the seasons that Chipper didn't play third base, it doesn't matter why he didn't, just that he didn't. I would consider Chipper a third baseman when ranking his career, but when doing an exercise like this, I think it's right to only include time at the position you are being rated at.

Yeah, and notice that Alex Rodriguez didn't make his revised list either. What good is a players of the decade list that doesn't include Alex Rodriguez?