Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Adam Lind has a .987 OPS at Syracuse and appears to be perfectly healthy. He is hitting .355 with a .581 slugging percentage. The Blue Jays are struggling offensively and starting bench players at DH and the corner outfield positions. Why?


I didn’t hear WWJP on the FAN 590 yesterday, but apparently JP said Lind would be up “soon.” However, that seems somewhat non-committal, as JP didn’t indicate it would be “tomorrow” or “this weekend.” JP was asked about Bonds and didn’t deny having interest in him in the way that other teams (and I believe the Jays, as well) have done in the past. This could be for one of two reasons:

1. There are orders or has been strong pressure from the Commissioner’s office for teams not to completely deny having interest in Bonds, in case it would give him evidence and motivation to proceed with a collusion lawsuit. That could be the case, as some have speculated, but I’ve seen other teams flatly deny having an interest in Bonds, so it doesn’t seem like this is an MLB-wide policy. Tampa Bay was quick to quash the rumours a few weeks ago that they had an interest in Bonds and flat-out denied it, from what I recall.

Furthermore, any collusion action against MLB would be difficult for Bonds to prove, particularly because you can make a reasonable case for most teams not having an interest in him. Whether a team is rebuilding or simply deciding to avoid the ‘negative publicity,’ teams can make an argument for not signing a 43-year-old outfielder. He would improve most teams on the field, but it would be hard to disprove that it is reasonable to believe the issues associated with Bonds would be detrimental to a club’s interests. If JP is purely giving lip service to this interest in Bonds it still doesn’t answer why Adam Lind has not been promoted.

2. Alternatively, you can read into JP’s non-denials that he has an interest in signing Bonds and is currently prevented from doing so by the higher-ups in the organization. That’s Wilner’s interpretation and he makes a reasonable case for it, as JP said statements such as “we’d have to get a lot of sign-offs on a lot of things like this” and “we’re still thinking about (signing Bonds) in the sense we’re talking about a lot of things. Wilner also makes the point that JP said that even if Bonds’ came with a mini-entourage and did his own thing, it wouldn’t matter to his teammates if he was helping them win. That would have an easy thing to seize upon to flatly deny an interest in Bonds, particularly considering JP spoke so highly of character in relation to the Rolen and Eckstein signings.

Wilner does make the point that JP doesn’t think he could get more money for the payroll given how the team is playing and even these non-denial denials ended with JP saying “I really don’t see us going down the road there.” I'm not sure this is the case at all, but if the Jays gave themselves a few days or a week to get something done, it could explain the decision not to call Lind up. If not, we’re back to square one, as the team's best left-fielder is in Syracuse.

Are the Jays seriously interested in Barry Bonds? I’d like to think so, but I'm not optimistic than that is the scenario in reality. However, if they aren't, then why is Adam Lind still in Syracuse?

Free Adam Lind, Day 2 | 45 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 08:15 AM EDT (#183450) #
What the heck, Free Adam Lind AND Barry Bonds!
Thomas - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 08:32 AM EDT (#183454) #
In the other thread Robert made the point that JP can't categorically deny an interest in Bonds because of the fact it would reveal something other than trying to put the best baseball team on the field is influencing decisions. However, in the offseason or spring training Godfrey had categorically denied having an interest in Bonds and other teams have done the same, so I think it's unlikely that JP was somehow put in a position where he couldn't state they had no interest in Bonds.

My question is that couldn't a team reasonably claim, if MLB was faced with a collusion lawsuit, that Bonds' "extra baggage," such as his reputation in the clubhouse, was a legitimate influencing factor on their decision not to sign him? A team might not be able to claim that's the sole reason, but couldn't they say that influenced their decision and, therefore, they concluded alternative X was better, given the negatives associated with Bonds.
Ducey - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#183455) #

Could Lind's hold back be related to a desire for the Jays to prevent him from becoming a free agent sooner?

I have to say I have been supportive of JP up until this year.  I thought he was brought in to be innovative and gave him the benefit of the doubt.  However, his innovations essentially consisted of salary dumps, "safe" draft picks, lineups filled out by Howie Clarks, Dave Bergs, and Marco Scutaro's, and in recent years the signing/ trading for of big name elder statesmen.  He has been stubborn about a poor draft philosophy which has changed finally and has had little class or tact in dealling with a number of messy divorces, including the recent Frank Thomas mess.

I see less direction than the Gord Ash years and after 20 games I am giving up hope of ever making the playoffs.

While we are freeing people, Free JP Riccardi !!

China fan - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 08:56 AM EDT (#183456) #

   People are being overly conspiratorial here.  There is absolutely NO danger of a collusion charge in the case of a player who is 43 years old and facing an indictment in court.   Those are two perfectly valid reasons for any team to refrain from signing the guy.   A collusion accusation would be laughed out of any venue it is raised in.

   For the record, Paul Godfrey said on March 25 that he and Ricciardi believed that Bonds did not fit the team because he'd be a distraction.  "We didn't want a media circus wherever we went as a team,"  said Godfrey.

   Godfrey and Ricciardi could have easily repeated the same point this week.  They did not.  Instead, JP is now saying that they are considering the idea of signing Bonds.   In the careful diplomatic language of a general manager who might be in the midst of a negotiation, this is a massive change of rhetoric.  Something is bubbling here.   Maybe nothing will come of it, but my reading is that it's at least being seriously considered now.

Mike Green - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 08:59 AM EDT (#183457) #
Lind has 145 days of service already.  The only way to hold back his free agency is to keep him out off the 25 man almost the entire year.  He turns 25 in July. 
TheyCallMeMorty - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 09:17 AM EDT (#183460) #
Is it possible the Jays are holding Lind back for a little bit to avoid him earning a year of service for arbitration or free agency??  Has anyone asked him this?
3RunHomer - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 09:33 AM EDT (#183461) #
The answer to your question: baseball people aren't very bright.
Thomas - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 09:59 AM EDT (#183466) #
baseball people aren't very bright.

Unless you're dealing with the Cam Bonifays and Dave Littlefields of the world, usually there's some logic to most baseball transactions. Pistol referenced Overbay's struggles and the Box's reaction to his contract in the other thread. That's a good example, as some people thought it was a good move and others thought it was unnecessary. However, no matter which side of the debate you were on, it was easy to see the argument the other side was making.

Nobody's made any reasonable case against calling Lind up.
jeff mcl - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 10:00 AM EDT (#183467) #
When the discussion turned to Adam Lind last night on JaysTalk, I was waiting for JP to say "Shannon Stewart is a career .300 hitter."  He actually said "lifetime .300 hitter", but I digress.  I come to no other conclusion that JP believes that Stewart is a serviceable everyday left fielder, giving him no reason to "rush" Lind.  If that is the truly the case, this season may well slip away from us in the first 6 weeks just as it did last year.
Chuck - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#183471) #
Is it possible the Jays are holding Lind back for a little bit to avoid him earning a year of service for arbitration or free agency??  Has anyone asked him this?

Lind will be a free agent at age 29, past his theoretical peak. It is unfathomable that pushing off his free agency until he's older than 29 is a factor in any decision related to promoting him to the majors.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#183483) #
I was against bringing up Lind initially and agreed with the Jays plan to let him develop in the minors.  He still seems to be only a platoon-type player as he hasn't been able to touch lefties this year at all (.227/.308/.273).  However, things change and I'd currently prefer Lind to Diaz, who would be at best my 3rd choice as a call-up.  Coats would be my first choice, then Lind, and then Diaz (I might even go Adams before Diaz simply because I think Diaz needs more time to develop and doesn't provide us with much when he's on the roster whereas at least Adams can play mediocre at a lot of positions).

The reason I changed my mind is the roster looks a lot different now than it did at the start of the season - Thomas is gone, Stairs doesn't seem healthy enough to play every day, Overbay may not have the power he had 2 years ago, etc.

Coats and Lind both look like they'll only be useful against righties (Lind vs RHP - .425/.465/.750 and Coats vs RHP - .353/.400/.647 with Lind vs LHP - .227/.308/.273 and Coats vs LHP being .077/.188/.077).

So I realize Lind has the advantage with the bat, but Coats has the flexibility that he can play all 3 OF positions and provide pinch-running ability.  Plus, I think if Lind comes up now, he will be stuck in a platoon and not develop the ability to hit lefties - I don't think it's time to commit him to that role yet.
tr0mbone - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#183490) #
Patience... 140 games left.

The Jays pitching BABIP is still above .300 but the offense finally came back to average with a current BABIP of .287. 2 weeks ago they were at .314. Lot's of walks, good enough average, and screw the RISP splits. Situational splits are great in review but in this sample size you can't draw a realistic conclusion.

I might be a fanboy, but I don't care... I'm gonna cheer for Matt Stairs being a fellow Atlantic Canadian and cheer for the Jays because this team is wicked.

And, Rance should be fired... clogging the basepaths? Stop drawing walks??!?! Telling Vernon to be _more_ agressive?!?!?!?! My Joe Morgan meter just exploded.

TA - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#183501) #
FWIW Adam Lind is not in the starting lineup for Syracuse today.
uglyone - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#183509) #

Hmm, I'm assuming their not pulling a Gibbons and benching him because he went Ofer yesterday.

And it can't be that kink in his neck again, can it?

ayjackson - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#183510) #

FWIW Adam Lind is not in the starting lineup for Syracuse today.

Facing a Righthander too.  Either lineup construction is a weakness throughout the organization or Lind is on his way to Orlando.

(Granted, there are many other possibilities here - but jumping to conclusions seems in vogue.)

Rob - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#183516) #
Eric Nielsen is batting cleanup in left field, which is...odd? but it's a day game after a night game, guys. Lind, Luna, and Thigpen are all on the bench. Someone named Kevin Nelson is catching.
rtcaino - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 01:29 PM EDT (#183525) #
Even though the Blue Jays are not playing as well as we would all like, it sure is nice to have some good discussion going!

It has been clear for a few years now, pretty much since Delgado left, that a major weakness of the Blue Jays has been their ability to hit for power against righties. So far the Jays are 11th in the AL in that category.

Vs RHP

BA         .266      5TH
OBP      .357      3RD
SLG      .371      11TH
OPS      .731      10TH

Nice OBP though!
timpinder - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#183528) #

"He still seems to be only a platoon-type player as he hasn't been able to touch lefties this year at all (.227/.308/.273)." 

In fairness to Lind, this is from a very small sample size (22 AB).  Lind hasn't had trouble hitting left-handed pitching in the past.

In A+ in 2005 he had 134 AB vs. LHP and had an OPS .830.

In AA in 2006 he had 99 AB vs. LHP and had an OPS of .866

I couldn't find his 2007 splits for Syracuse.

The point is that Lind has showed that he can hit lefties and should be more than a platoon player in the majors.  He does hit righties a little better, but obviously that's normal for a left-handed hitter.  If or when he comes up he should play every day, with Stewart sharing time at DH with Stairs.

Rob - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:01 PM EDT (#183535) #
Adam Lind had 68 AB vs LHP in Syracuse last year. He hit .294/.314/.441, 100 OPS points lower than his line against righties, which is higher than his marks at AA and A, but lower than his career major-league split.

If I had to guess based on this very limited evidence (barely a full season's worth vs. LHP), he's probably going to struggle like all LHB do against LHP, but he's likely much less of a platoon player than Catalanotto.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#183537) #
Timpinder, I wasn't referring to Lind's AAA splits this year as being the reason I think he's only a platoon player, what I meant is that they hadn't convinced me he has recovered from his performance last year, which is what indicated to me he is at the platoon level.

Last year Lind was .194/.243/.299 (.542) in MLB and .294/.314/.441 (.755) in AAA versus lefties.  Both of those numbers are what make me think he's currently at the platoon level and this year's AAA numbers make me think not much has changed.
mcpherv - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#183542) #
Mike Green - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#183543) #
Alas, Lind pinch-hit for Nielsen in the 7th inning today.  We still need volunteers to pay for Adam's flight to freedom. Three have stepped forward; fourteen more are needed.
zeppelinkm - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:47 PM EDT (#183548) #

Mark me down. I'll even throw in an extra couple bucks to let Lind splurge on an in-flight package of peanuts.

I just need someone to come out and state WHY Lind isn't up. What is the logic that is fueling this non decision.

 

Pistol - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#183552) #
We still need volunteers to pay for Adam's flight to freedom. Three have stepped forward; fourteen more are needed.

Unfortunately it's probably the same price to send Diaz or Inglett back to Syracuse.  You can't just leave him at Disney!
Magpie - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 02:58 PM EDT (#183553) #
Nobody's made any reasonable case against calling Lind up.

They're waiting for the flu sweeping through the clubhouse to go away?

Really, that's the best I can come up with it.
Thomas - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:01 PM EDT (#183554) #
And, Rance should be fired... clogging the basepaths? Stop drawing walks??!?! Telling Vernon to be _more_ agressive?!?!?!?! My Joe Morgan meter just exploded.

I disagree. Occasionally Rance will let a head-scratcher fly, such as the clogging the bases comment, but most ex-baseball players will from time-to-time. However, there is such a thing as being an overly passive approach at the plate and Rance's approach to hitting is clearly more aggressive than some. You can debate about whether Rance draws the line in the right place or not, but when Vernon is followed by Stairs and then three catchers and the Jays are struggling offensively, I have no problem with Vernon going up there, looking to drive a first-pitch fastball.

Also, Rance rarely advocates an aggressive approach against a pitcher clearly struggling with his control, which is where some of Vernon's past aggressiveness has caused problems.

robertdudek - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#183555) #
Being too passive at the plate has never been one of Vernon Wells' problems. We may have to face the idea that Vernon just doesn't have very good innate strike-zone judgment, and that this will limit his value as a hitter. I said it years ago, but Vernon is really looking like the second coming of Joe Carter.
Frank Markotich - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:27 PM EDT (#183557) #

Agreed on the Joe Carter comparison, Robert. If Wells proves to be Joe Carter with a little better defence, I'll take it. Maybe Rance meant that Wells looked a little more tentative than normal this year. Anyway, I find Rance to be by far the most intelligent colour guy the Jays have, even though Mr. Charisma he isn't.

And Robert, where do you get the position that Dan Johnson is better than Overbay defensively? I don't know what the other pbp systems say, but Dewan's plus/minus has Overbay as much better over the last three years.

Mike Green - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#183561) #
Rally's Combined Zone Rating (which uses BIS and STATS data) agrees that Overbay is a better defender than Johnson. Here's his 2008 projection data.
Magpie - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#183563) #
I ran a Carter-Wells comparison a couple of years ago - the similarities were impossible to ignore.

They're both RH hitters, with good but not great power. Neither of them take a lot of walks; neither of them hit for particularly impressive batting averages. Both players had exceptionally strong sophomore seasons, banging out 200 hits and batting above .300, but in time that season would come to seem an exception, as their production settled in at a different level and shape. Both of them, essentially, are what we sometimes think of as RBI guys. Hitters like this drive in a lot of runs because they put the ball in play so much and because they have pretty good power.

But...

It's also quite obvious that [Wells] is a superior hitter. While both players are quite clearly the same type of hitter, [Wells] is generally a little bit better - neither player walks a lot, but [Wells] walks a little more. He strikes out a little less. His batting averages are a little better. [Carter's] advantages are that he appears to have more speed: he steals more bases, and doesn't hit into as many double plays. However, and this is of immense significance - [Wells] is also two years younger at each step along the way.

All of which still seems true to me today.
robertdudek - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 03:58 PM EDT (#183570) #
vOf course I could be wrong about Overbay/Johnson concerning defense. I've observed that Johnson has (or at least had) more agility than Overbay, but there is certainly a sample size problem there.

In any case, I don't advocate Johnson as a replacement for Overbay - merely as a decent lefty bat off the bench.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#183572) #

A couple major differences between Carter and Wells though, would be their respective capable peaks and their basic ability to make contact. 

Carters best season's came at the age of 26 and 31 and he was good for OPS+ of 130 and 124, respectively.

Wells (To date), has had his two career years at the age of 24 and 27 and his respective OPS+ was 132 and 129.

Carter's career strikeout to walk: 1387 - 527 or good for a 2.63 K/BB
Well's career strikeouts to walks: 558 - 289 or good for a 1.93 K/BB

That is a considerable difference - I think, and significant for their potential performances going forward.

Ignoring last year's number, the lowest BA Well's has ever posted in a full season was .269. This number happens to be a full 10 points higher than Joe's career average.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore... averaging things out using OPS+ they are very similiar to date. Joe was a career 105+ and Wells to date is 108+. 

However, I guess I do think Wells has considerably more upside. I wouldn't say it is outside the realm of possibility (even the realm of decent, realistic possibility), that as he matures his patience improves a bit more allowing him to improve the vally's he hits on occasion. IE: Rather then dropping down to a vanilla .269/.320/.463 OPS+ of 104 (His 2005 season) his vally's will be a line closer to maybe .280/.340/.480 while still mixing in a few of his great seasons.

And yes, 21 games is far too few games to place more emphasis on then 970, but Wells has most DEFINITELY (not yelling, emphasizing!) looked more patient at the plate this season. Perhaps it's the difference in approach Denbo preaches? Who knows, but it will definitely be something worth keeping an eye on as the season progresses.

Selectivity at the plate has consistantly been a characteristic of great hitters.  Let's see if Wells (and Rios for that matter), have caught on to this.

Magpie - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#183573) #
merely as a decent lefty bat off the bench.

Yes, if you could somehow convince the modern manager that he can actually exist in this world without seven relief pitchers. I hear ya, but good luck with that.
zeppelinkm - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#183574) #

And of course, after posting my post, I read up and see Magpie has beat me to the punch, and done so using a lot less words!

*sigh*

I swear I thought of all that stuff after spending a couple minutes looking at baseball-reference for each player...!

 

Magpie - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#183575) #
Fret not - I'd already written that (two years ago, click the link) and just had to copy and paste. You're actually much more current.
Thomas - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#183581) #
Being too passive at the plate has never been one of Vernon Wells' problems.

Robert, I agree. Perhaps my reply wasn't clear, but I wasn't implying that Vernon was being too passive, but that it is possible for a batter to have an approach that is too passive. There is nothing wrong with sometimes saying a batter should be more aggressive. I agree Vernon's not usually that batter (and I've been critical of him before - see numerous times when he's swung at the first pitch after the previous batter walks), but in situations like yesterday's game I don't have a problem with him being aggressive, considering how weak the lineup got following Stairs.

robertdudek - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#183582) #
Yes, if you could somehow convince the modern manager that he can actually exist in this world without seven relief pitchers. I hear ya, but good luck with that.

Mr Magpie, have I introduced you to Mike Scioscia (the best manager in baseball right now)?
Mike Green - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#183583) #
In his second PA today, Lind was hit by a pitch.  Hopefully, that won't mean another 2 or 3 day delay of the inevitable.

Wells and Carter share another common feature.  Carter had a severe uppercut and led the league in fly-ball and popout rate.  Wells' swing is more level, but he has had a propensity to pop-out.  His early statistical returns for 2008 are quite different, a greatly diminished pop-up rate and a higher ground ball rate, with a much better W/K.  This statistical profile (with his typical power production) would of course be a very welcome change.  A healthier shoulder and a new batting coach may be helping him.

timpinder - Thursday, April 24 2008 @ 04:55 PM EDT (#183586) #

Another day without Lind in the lineup.  Who will we have to endure tonight, Inglett or Stewart?

Did Adam Lind call Ricciardi "a pimp" recently?

owen - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 12:57 AM EDT (#183608) #
I would take Carter over Wells.  My reasoning is that, while Carter was a notoriously streaky hitter within any given season, in the long run he was a more consistently high-level performer than Wells has been, and, in my humble opinion, than Wells will be in the future (although that particular prognostication is based only on my grudge against Wells, as a frustrated fan).

Forget Carter's career OPS+ of 105.  I'm not interested in his post-strike career when he clung to life and could've used some injections of magical career extension juice.  Between 1986 and 1994, Carter's prime in terms of production and the period when RBI obsessed commentators always talked about his remarkable ability to knock in 100 every year (except 1988, they would always lament), Carter's OPS+ went like this: 130, 104, 117, 110, 85, 124, 119, 112, 113.  7 out of 9 years with 110 or greater and only the one real stinker (when, I will add, he still drove in 115 runs, if anyone cares - not bad for a 391 slugging % ... and I'm not trying to imply 'clutchiness' - I'm just reflecting on the career of a Blue Jay hero).

Anyways, Wells's OPS+ in his full-time career thus far go 96, 132, 105, 104, 129, 85.  2 out of 6 years at 110+ or better. 

Now, I have chosen the OPS+ of 110 as the line between an actual good season and a fairly mediocre season somewhat arbitrarily (and because it makes my case for me) but my point is that Wells has only had two seasons, ever, when he was anything other than an average hitter who could play CF.  Thus far in his career, Wells has usually been just average, while occasionally being very good.  Carter was usually good, while occasionally just average.

That's my case, hastily thrown together.  The similarities between Wells and Carter are clear enough, but I'll take Joe, because I think he's less likely to frustrate me all year.

Chuck - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 07:14 AM EDT (#183617) #
Carter's OPS+ went like this: 130, 104, 117, 110, 85, 124, 119, 112, 113.

Bear in mind that OPS+ overstates a player's value when his OPS is OBP-light and SLG-heavy, Carter's recipe of choice. And also bear in mind that most of Carter's career was spent as a corner outfielder, where an OPS+ of 110 would have been closer to the norm than 100, which is the norm for all players at all positions.
ChicagoJaysFan - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 08:25 AM EDT (#183621) #
Just to add to Chuck's point - if you take a look here, you'll see the average OPS+ by position last year to give you some flavor of the difference in OF positions.  Depending on how you want to look at it (the mean of OPS+ versus the median), the average LF was at 107 / 101 and the average CF was at 97 / 88.

Of course, a player's fielding position doesn't make them a better or worse hitter, but when you start to talk about average / good, you have to consider how they're doing versus other people who can play that position (let alone at a high level, like Wells).

zeppelinkm - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 10:42 AM EDT (#183634) #

Owen it's also some what dirty to ignore Carter's age 25 season when he posted a 93 OPS+. It doesn't make a big difference to your argument, but being unbiased while presenting your argument gives it more validity.

Also, let's compare Apples to Apples. Instead of Apples to Oranges.  Same number of seasons, starting from their first full year in the bigs.

Wells, through from his age 23 season (first full year) he goes: 96, 132, 105, 104, 129, 85 = roughly averages to 108.5
Carter, through from his age 25 season (first full year), goes: 93, 130, 104, 117, 110, 85 = roughly averages to 106.5

Hmmmm..........  so through their first 6 years they are nearly identical. Granted, Carter strung off 4 very nice seasons after his 85 stinker.

Oddly enough, Carter's OPS+ in that season after his 85 OPS+? 124.
Wells so far this year is at 119.

These guys can't get enough of each other!

 

 

owen - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#183642) #
Well.  When you put it that way ...

I will revise my argument.  Wells and Carter are very similar and I have yet to conclude who I would rather have.  However, in World Series Game 6's vs. Philly Left-handers, I will always take Joe.

(I swear, it's almost like you guys are willing to just forget about fabled home runs in order to present fair, balanced and edifying arguments!  Where in the name of bias do you get off?)

zeppelinkm - Friday, April 25 2008 @ 01:34 PM EDT (#183656) #

Hey Owen, if Wells even just gets 1 at bat in a World Series game 6 versus any team (while as a Jay), i'll be beyond super pumped.

You did raise a good point though - Carter was very consistant during his prime years. And I agree, that's what makes Wells so frustrating. You know he has the talent to be awesome, but he teases us so badly with it! I think the key will be him maturing into a guy who can consistantly deliver good - great years, as opposed to just "sprinkling them in".

 

Free Adam Lind, Day 2 | 45 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.