REPORT FILED: OCTOBER 6
I felt pretty good about last week's article when I wrote it. Most of the time, you get a feeling about whether a specific article is one of your better works or not while you're writing it. I don't claim to be brilliant, but I try to be accurate, and I thought I did a pretty good job of that last week.
Still, when you look in your e-mail box in the morning, and see lots of stuff that wasn't there the night before, there is always just a bit of apprehension when I click the file open, wondering if it's a positive comment or a negative one.
Two letters I got last week deserve special attention, since they took me to task for some things I wrote in last week's article.
John,
I enjoy your articles as you generally say intelligent things, but on
September 29th you said something that both surprised and irritated me. I am
not sure where you get off saying that "Some useless players like Jeff Huson
and Ozzie Guillen have 'intangibles' but they still suck". Really was this
necessary? If your son was Jeff Huson, would you like some hack writer
calling him useless and saying that he sucked. Just because they aren't the
next Mike Schmidt or Honus Wagner, does not mean that you have to belittle
their hard work that they have put into being the best major league
ballplayer that they could be. I hope that you rectify this situation by
apologizing to both of them in your next column, because otherwise, you have
lost yourself a reader.
Jay G.
I call this the "Enos Cabell Problem."
Bill James once wrote some nasty things about Enos Cabell's playing skills, and Enos, who is apparently a really nice guy, didn't take too kindly to what Bill had written. I've received a few criticisms from parents of players I've written about over the years who felt I've been unfair to their sons.
I try to be entertaining when I write, but sometimes something that looks funny when I write it and sounds funny in my head comes across as just plain mean. I don't mean it that way, and I'm perfectly aware that the worst player in professional baseball is a million times better than I am.
I certainly meant no disrespect to Mr. Huson or Mr. Guillen when I wrote that they sucked despite their intangibles. What I was trying to say was that sometimes players are on rosters not because of actual, current playing merit, but because they are "good in the clubhouse" or because the manager likes them.
Simply, because they have "intangibles."
Ozzie Guillen is taking a spot on a major league roster that should go to any number of more worthy players currently in the minor leagues. Same goes for Jeff Huson. Can anyone honestly say that either player is doing much to help their current clubs win? Their own statistics are poor, and certainly the records of the Devil Rays and Cubs don't reflect any positive influence from whatever "intangibles" they may bring to the table.
I'm sure that both Guillen and Huson are very nice people, and both are certainly much better players than I am or could ever hope to be. Both must have thick skins to have survived on major league fields for so long. I'm sure they've heard much worse from loudmouth hecklers on the field than what I've said about them.
I meant no offense to either gentleman, but frankly I think my assessment was on the mark, if perhaps poorly stated.
Another letter writer had other criticisms.
You are incorrect about your assessment of David Espinosa's arm
strength. His arm is actually very strong. David Espinosa has thrown 94
mph off the mound and has been clocked at 92 mph from the infield. He also
runs a 6.5/60-yard dash. I've seen him and he really doesn't look like a
power hitter but he is still a teenager. His arm strength and speed were
tops in the 2000 draft.
I got a couple of other letters about Espinosa, but this was the first one. The letter writer is correct: Espinosa has a very strong arm. The reason he is moving to second base is not because of a mediocre arm, as I inaccurately assumed, but because of other concerns about his defense, namely a "lack of touch" on his throws, resulting in some inaccuracy. The information was there; I just didn't look it up. Sloppy of me. Also, the Reds are happy with their other shortstop options, with Larkin, Gookie Dawkins, and Pokey Reese.
And here's more on Rafael Furcal.
Al M. writes: Don't be so quick on a mea culpa about Furcal. Think of what
your projections for him would have been if you had measured him as a 22-
year-old instead of a 19-year-old. You would have expected the quicker
development that we've seen. I'm in no position to figure out his true age, but I
notice that long before this controversy started, his teammates kept saying -- intending it as a compliment -- that they couldn't believe the guy was
only 19. I suppose we'll have to wait a decade now to see when his decline starts for further circumstantial evidence on the case, but I, for one, view his listed age through a very large crystal of salt.
You're making a good point here, Al ... if I had known that Furcal may be as old as 22, my assessment of him may have changed. Or maybe not.
My thought process had as much to do with the fact that Furcal had no experience above A-ball as it did his age. Even 22 year olds jumping from A-ball have a bad track record; most players need at least a year of Double-A before they are ready. Even considering the fact that Furcal may be two or three years older than originally stated, I have to say that I remain surprised about how well he has played this year.
John Sickels is the author of the STATS 2000 Minor League Scouting Notebook. You can email your questions to him at JASickels@AOL.com. | |
ALSO SEE
Down on the Farm archive
 |
