NFBC Message Boards

Time to fire up the Rickie Weeks discussion again. Hit .210 with a DL stint in the first half of the year. Didn't exactly defy the expectations many of us had. Does this kind of performance bump him up to a 4th round pick in 2009?



[ June 10, 2008, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

He went 4th round in the Ultimate this year.

He was coming out of an early slump. His BAPIP was extremely low, suggesting a significant rise in BA ... was on pace to score 110 runs and get close to 20 hr and 30 SB in spite of his bad luck BA. But I guess he did prove again he can't make it through a full season.



Still, there are far, far bigger disappointments out there. I haven't been unhappy drafting him in the 5th round. How long he is out will dictate my happy meter going forward.

His September '07 was awesome...as was that of James Loney.



The difference being (aside from SB) the .244 AVG of Weeks vs. .381 AVG in 110 SEP at bats.



Factor into that an interview or two with each player, and it became apparent to me that Weeks was very dumb, whereas Loney was not.



A player can thrive on pure talent...but when you can analyze at higher levels an approach or game plan at the plate for each pitcher...it will factor into your success down the road.



~Lance

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

He was coming out of an early slump. His BAPIP was extremely low, suggesting a significant rise in BA ... was on pace to score 110 runs and get close to 20 hr and 30 SB in spite of his bad luck BA. But I guess he did prove again he can't make it through a full season.



Still, there are far, far bigger disappointments out there. I haven't been unhappy drafting him in the 5th round. How long he is out will dictate my happy meter going forward. It looks as though he is in fact being touted for the 4 slot next year. He can do no wrong!

Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

He went 4th round in the Ultimate this year. I'll go on record saying that I don't hate Weeks half as much as the study group.

Ive Said it Before and Ill say it Again!



Rickie Weeks STINKS! you cant base a career on what somebody did for a month 2 years ago. If you want to say that he has great potential you can say that, and I will not argue with you. Until the guy can prove over the long haul of a season he is more then a 220 hitter. He is what he hits, and thats a 220 hitter.

I thought Weeks was to much of a gamble to be taken in the 4th and 5th round.I ended up with him in one league only because he deep into the 7th round.Just replaced him with the Cuban Missile. aka Alex Rameriz.

Originally posted by TheFoot:

Ive Said it Before and Ill say it Again!



Rickie Weeks STINKS! you cant base a career on what somebody did for a month 2 years ago. If you want to say that he has great potential you can say that, and I will not argue with you. Until the guy can prove over the long haul of a season he is more then a 220 hitter. He is what he hits, and thats a 220 hitter. Why would you call a career 250 hitter at the "mature" age of 25 years old a 220 hitter? And more so, why would you say it repeatedly?

Forget about his stats... How can anyone take a guy so high when he doesn't average 100 games per season?

Originally posted by UFS:

Forget about his stats... How can anyone take a guy so high when he doesn't average 100 games per season? I believe most of his missed time was a busted wrist on a HBP. Which is mostly random bad luck.



If I remember correctly, in '05 he didn't have a full-time job to start the season (he was 22), in '06 he busted his wrist and missed the rest of the season, and that injury carried over into '07 before he was fully healthy sometime in the second half.

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

Forget about his stats... How can anyone take a guy so high when he doesn't average 100 games per season? I believe most of his missed time was a busted wrist on a HBP. Which is mostly random bad luck.



If I remember correctly, in '05 he didn't have a full-time job to start the season (he was 22), in '06 he busted his wrist and missed the rest of the season, and that injury carried over into '07 before he was fully healthy sometime in the second half. [/QUOTE]It's very admirable of you to defend the Week(s).

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

Forget about his stats... How can anyone take a guy so high when he doesn't average 100 games per season? I believe most of his missed time was a busted wrist on a HBP. Which is mostly random bad luck.



If I remember correctly, in '05 he didn't have a full-time job to start the season (he was 22), in '06 he busted his wrist and missed the rest of the season, and that injury carried over into '07 before he was fully healthy sometime in the second half. [/QUOTE]You forgot to make excuses for his 2008.

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by TheFoot:

Ive Said it Before and Ill say it Again!



Rickie Weeks STINKS! you cant base a career on what somebody did for a month 2 years ago. If you want to say that he has great potential you can say that, and I will not argue with you. Until the guy can prove over the long haul of a season he is more then a 220 hitter. He is what he hits, and thats a 220 hitter. Why would you call a career 250 hitter at the "mature" age of 25 years old a 220 hitter? And more so, why would you say it repeatedly? [/QUOTE]Were you counting his single-A stats? He is a career .243 hitter. And isn't it really splitting hairs when you get as low as .220 or .240 anyway?

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

Forget about his stats... How can anyone take a guy so high when he doesn't average 100 games per season? I believe most of his missed time was a busted wrist on a HBP. Which is mostly random bad luck.



If I remember correctly, in '05 he didn't have a full-time job to start the season (he was 22), in '06 he busted his wrist and missed the rest of the season, and that injury carried over into '07 before he was fully healthy sometime in the second half. [/QUOTE]You forgot to make excuses for his 2008. [/QUOTE]I'll reserve that for next offseason.

Ok he is a 243 life time hitter.

only because he hit 279 in 2006 ( 359 ABs/ 100 hits)...But

in 2005 he hit 239 ( 360 ABs/ 86 hits)

in 2007 he hit 235 ( 409 ABs/ 96 hits)

and in 2008 he is hitting a sparking 210( 229 ABs/ 48 hits)



If you take 2005,7,8 he is a life time 234 hitter. All in all not much different then a 220 hitter.take 15 hits away and he is a 220 hitter over that time periods Either 234 or 220 the average stinks.

And yes I will say that there is alot of talent in that guy, But to me he looks more like a 235 hitter the a 279 hitter. I think he is always going to be a player that dissapoints and in my book that means he stinks.

* in my number crunch I didnt include the 12 ABs / 2 hits from 2003. But if you want to be high on a guy that puts up those numbers thats on you.

I think you guys put too much into the number crunching of the baseball forcaster. If you watch Rickie Weeks with your own eyes you can plainly see what kinda of player he is.

1) He Strikes out too much.

2) he swings and misses too much .

Ive been playing , coaching and umpiring baseball for a long long time. Sometimes what your looking for is right infront of you.

(All number where crunched using baseball-reference.com)

Originally posted by TheFoot:

Ok he is a 243 life time hitter.

only because he hit 279 in 2006 ( 359 ABs/ 100 hits)...But

in 2005 he hit 239 ( 360 ABs/ 86 hits)

in 2007 he hit 235 ( 409 ABs/ 96 hits)

and in 2008 he is hitting a sparking 210( 229 ABs/ 48 hits)



If you take 2005,7,8 he is a life time 234 hitter. All in all not much different then a 220 hitter.take 15 hits away and he is a 220 hitter over that time periods Either 234 or 220 the average stinks.

And yes I will say that there is alot of talent in that guy, But to me he looks more like a 235 hitter the a 279 hitter. I think he is always going to be a player that dissapoints and in my book that means he stinks.

* in my number crunch I didnt include the 12 ABs / 2 hits from 2003. But if you want to be high on a guy that puts up those numbers thats on you.

I think you guys put too much into the number crunching of the baseball forcaster. If you watch Rickie Weeks with your own eyes you can plainly see what kinda of player he is.

1) He Strikes out too much.

2) he swings and misses too much .

Ive been playing , coaching and umpiring baseball for a long long time. Sometimes what your looking for is right infront of you.

(All number where crunched using baseball-reference.com) Or, you may be crunching numbers too little, in an effort to support your eyes, based on:



A) taking a 22-yr old rookie's numbers and labeling that (actually below that) as his likely career avg. (Chase Utley by comparison hit 239 in his partial rookie season, and 266 the following season - and he was 3 yrs older than Weeks was in his rookie year, and the same age as Weeks is right now).



B) taking half a season when he and his team admitted/expected he wasn't at full-strength due to a busted hand.



C) Using a 1/3rd of a season (2008) in which he had an unsustainably low BABIP, and during which his K rate actually showed substantial improvement (delcined by 25%).



IMO you've got to look at the numbers, AND the story behind the numbers, when making projections.



[ June 12, 2008, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

A good player is not good because he projects good numbers. He is good because he has good numbers.

Chase Utley showed marked improvement every year from his rookie year.

2003 239

2004 266

2005 291

2006 309

2007 332

He also showed marked improvement in extra base hits. he also showed the ability to cut down on his K's In 2006 he struck out 132 times in 2007 he K'ed 89 times.

I think chase utley not a good comparison for Rickie Weeks. In his first 4 year he has not shown the abilty to be consistent and make the marked improvements of a Chase Utley.

Originally posted by TheFoot:

A good player is not good because he projects good numbers. He is good because he has good numbers.

Chase Utley showed marked improvement every year from his rookie year.

2003 239

2004 266

2005 291

2006 309

2007 332

He also showed marked improvement in extra base hits. he also showed the ability to cut down on his K's In 2006 he struck out 132 times in 2007 he K'ed 89 times.

I think chase utley not a good comparison for Rickie Weeks. In his first 4 year he has not shown the abilty to be consistent and make the marked improvements of a Chase Utley. Utley showed improvement every season beginning at age 26. Weeks will be 26 next season.



I wonder how Utley would have done his first three seasons if they brought him up to face major league pitching when he was age 22, rather than face pitchers in "A" ball?



[ June 12, 2008, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

When you look at some of the better young 2B in baseball Aaron Hill, Ian Kinsler, Kelly Johnson, even Howie Kendrick ( even though he cant stay healthy) are all the same age as Rickie Weeks , And over the last 3 or 4 years have all shown some kind of marked improvement. More then a Rickie Weeks.



If I had to compare Weeks to anyone it would be Josh Barfield. Both players are the same age. The both have a world of talent , but neither one can play consistent enough to improve the stat line.

Originally posted by TheFoot:

When you look at some of the better young 2B in baseball Aaron Hill, Ian Kinsler, Kelly Johnson, even Howie Kendrick ( even though he cant stay healthy) are all the same age as Rickie Weeks , And over the last 3 or 4 years have all shown some kind of marked improvement. More then a Rickie Weeks.



If I had to compare Weeks to anyone it would be Josh Barfield. Both players are the same age. The both have a world of talent , but neither one can play consistent enough to improve the stat line. Weeks had as many homers in a partial '07, not at full strength, than Barfield had in two full seasons. He has nearly double the SBs in his 1100 ABs than does Barfield in 900. Barfield had an OBP around 290 over his last two seasons, Weeks was 370. I think the comparison begins and ends with: they are both second basemen that you don't care for.



BTW, both Aaron Hill and Kendrick had a lower OBP and a lower SLG pct, and about one-fifth of the SBs, in comparison to Weeks over the last two seasons. And these are the guys you think are the top young players while Weeks is a hapless 220 hitter ???



I think you should spend a little more time with the stats, and a little less watching little leaguers. The defense rests, and case closed.



[ June 12, 2008, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by TheFoot:

When you look at some of the better young 2B in baseball Aaron Hill, Ian Kinsler, Kelly Johnson, even Howie Kendrick ( even though he cant stay healthy) are all the same age as Rickie Weeks , And over the last 3 or 4 years have all shown some kind of marked improvement. More then a Rickie Weeks.



If I had to compare Weeks to anyone it would be Josh Barfield. Both players are the same age. The both have a world of talent , but neither one can play consistent enough to improve the stat line. Weeks had as many homers in a partial '07, not at full strength, than Barfield had in two full seasons. He has nearly double the SBs in his 1100 ABs than does Barfield in 900. Barfield had an OBP around 290 over his last two seasons, Weeks was 370. I think the comparison begins and ends with: they are both second basemen that you don't care for.



BTW, both Aaron Hill and Kendrick had a lower OBP and a lower SLG pct, and about one-fifth of the SBs, in comparison to Weeks over the last two seasons. And these are the guys you think are the top young players while Weeks is a hapless 220 hitter ???



I think you should spend a little more time with the stats, and a little less watching little leaguers. The defense rests, and case closed. [/QUOTE]Yo Kevin!



I was high on him too, after looking at his September 2007 and some minor league stuff...but have you heard him in interviews???



Stats do not show that kinda dumb.



Numbers can only tell you so much.



~Lance

You may be right Lance, I've only seen him play - MLB Extra Innings always cuts off before the post-game interviews. But I don't think fantasy stats for a hitter are that dependent on intelligence - pitching, catching, defense, situational hitting, maybe yes. Hitting for fantasy stats, not so much.



Give him a normal BABIP this season and you'd be looking at a guy on pace for a 260/18hr/26sb/112r season ... I'm sure he wouldn't be the first dumb guy to put nice fantasy stats. (Milton Bradley, Soriano, Albert Belle ... I'm guessing these guys might not crack the baseline in an IQ test).



Funny how bad luck and injuries always bring out the critics.

Love ya KJ...I hope you (like me) crawl up the overall ranks!



~Lance

Kev, You know I crunch numbers as much as anyone so for me to say that I sort of agree with the big foot hopefully means a little. Anyway, let me just ask a question: If Weeks plays for the next ten years and is healthy in each of the ten years ( ) and hits below .240 but with an outstanding contact rate in each of them, do you expect him to hit for a decent average in the eleventh year? I ask because I would think that you would. There is a point at which you have to admit that a guy has certain propitious skills, but that they don't always translate into a good hitter, good pitcher or whatever. I think we are well past that point with Weeks.



[ June 13, 2008, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]