10 Things That 10 Games of Spring Training Have Shown

March 15, 2010

Since I’ve been somewhat cynical mentioning the meaninglessness of individual games in spring training, and the overall deceptiveness that stats can give you from this month, I wanted to show that I do think a few things can be learned from the month. It’s more than just a tuneup, it can give managers a very good idea of what to expect. I just believe that a month of games when people don’t care shouldn’t override several years of evidence. Anyway, here are a few things I’ve noticed in the first half of the spring:

  1. Strasburg has looked very good – his second start wasn’t as well-covered or noticed, but it was just as good as the first. He’s pretty impressive so far
  2. Elijah Dukes hasn’t looked very good – hitting .174/.263/.294 so far probably won’t make him lose his job, but it will significantly shorten his leash in April. He’s gotta start hitting, although at least he still can walk
  3. Ian Desmond has alot of good news surrounding him – he’s hitting the hell out of the ball (.455/.580/.815, if you must know – whatever I’m sure that’s real sustainable) but Rizzo has also said he’s definitely NOT coming on the club as a utility man. This was assumed, but there were rumors to the contrary – like when Riggleman went on XM-Sirius last week and said he might be a utility man. He’s gonna start in Washington or Syracuse at SS – my guess is in Syracuse until they figure out whether they could get anything for Guzman
    Read the rest of this entry »

Disappointment with the Callups

September 9, 2009

The excitement of seeing youngsters get called up has quickly been abated. Why? Well, because the guys I want to see play aren’t really going to play. Let’s start with Detwiler. He’s near his innings limit, so they aren’t going to use him as a starter. Instead, he’ll be coming out of the bullpen. This is fine, I guess. I understand the innings limit thing, so I won’t complain about management doing the wrong thing, I just was hoping to see him start. So be it.

Ian Desmond, on the other hand, is slated to come off the bench. This is the real disappointment. It’s all in the WaPo NaJo. But basically if Guzman can play, he’ll start. I assume that means at SS, which sucks for those of us that actually want to see Desmond play. And, in the words of Onyx, “bu-bu-bu-bu-wait it get’s worse.” Riggleman goes on to say:

If his [Guzman's] foot flares up on him that will be an opportunity to get Desmond in there, but we also have Gonzalez and Orr who will be playing up the middle. I love to see young players play, but I don’t ever want to take away the opportunity from the veterans who have been here all year… and disregard their efforts all year by planting them on the bench. Like I said, the at bats might be inconsistent.

Huh? First of all, to call Gonzalez a veteran is stretching the definition of the word. The guy has a total of 144 games for his entire career. I wouldn’t call that a vet who deserves anything. Gonzalez is batting .250/.285/.350, so putting him on the bench should probably be considered regarding his efforts all year, not disregarding them. As for Pete Orr, well, he’s definitely more of a veteran. He’s played in 330 games in the majors dating back to 2005. So I see where Riggleman is going, except, wait for it… ORR HAS ONLY PLAYED IN 10 GAMES THIS YEAR WITH THE NATS!!!one!!one1!!

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.