Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

Scott Hairston: Prefers return to Mets

Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 7:55 AM

Scott Hairston: Prefers return to Mets 


As we continue to look at OF options, some of the discussion is on Scott Hairston. Stated in many articles/posts is a forgone conclusion that he best serves as a platoon player or forth outfielder. Many gone on to say his performance would suffer from over exposure.

How is this conclusion determined if the guy never gets to play full time? Who decides which players fall into this category?

Last edited 12/23/2012 7:08 PM by DocK16

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 8:38 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


If a player after nearly 2,500 ML at bats hasn't shown the ability to hit a particular type of pitcher, he likely never will.  

Generally speaking, teams can develop a pretty good understanding of a player's strengths and weaknesses at the MiL level.  They decide whether or not players fall into the platoon category or otherwise.  Scouts offer opinions as well.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 10:09 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 



DocK16 wrote: If a player after nearly 2,500 ML at bats hasn't shown the ability to hit a particular type of pitcher, he likely never will.  

Generally speaking, teams can develop a pretty good understanding of a player's strengths and weaknesses at the MiL level.  They decide whether or not players fall into the platoon category or otherwise.  Scouts offer opinions as well.

What kind of pitcher does Hairston not hit that is more of an issue than for, say, Ike Davis?
How is Hairston, the part time player, different than cody Ross, the full-time player? This is not being facetious, I really want to understand how this is determined.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/22/2012 10:17 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


IMO, there is nothing wrong with Hairston that isnt wrong with 80% of MLB hitters.  At least when he does hit, he hits XBHs.  Sure, he is flawed, but that's why he will make $5M and only start on a crappy team.  That's why he prefers the Mets over the Yankees.  He's not dumb.

I think it's a good question, Damon, and personally I think the only reason we have a conversation about Hairston this way is because on the Mets he is leaned on much more for production.

Last edited 12/22/2012 10:25 AM by dcmets

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/22/2012 10:45 AM

RE: Scott Hairston 


Hairston is ok as a stopgap in RF. Even as a fulltime player.
Let him bat 6th in the lineup and hope for some pop.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/22/2012 10:47 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


I wouldn't mind seeing Hairston as a full-time player for a year.  While his average was obviously lower against RHP, the HR totals were still very similar for both LHP and RHP.  He had 11 HR against LHP in 189AB and 9 HR against RHP in 188AB.

If he does get a shot to play every day, I think the potential is there for him to be a 30 HR guy.  Even if his average dips into the .240's, that is still a pretty valuable 6 or 7 hitter.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 10:48 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 



Damonbok wrote:
DocK16 wrote: If a player after nearly 2,500 ML at bats hasn't shown the ability to hit a particular type of pitcher, he likely never will.  

Generally speaking, teams can develop a pretty good understanding of a player's strengths and weaknesses at the MiL level.  They decide whether or not players fall into the platoon category or otherwise.  Scouts offer opinions as well.

What kind of pitcher does Hairston not hit that is more of an issue than for, say, Ike Davis?
How is Hairston, the part time player, different than cody Ross, the full-time player? This is not being facetious, I really want to understand how this is determined.

Well, there are legitimate questions about whether or not Ike is a platoon player.

The biggest difference, at least for me, between Hairston and someone like Ike or even Cody Ross is that Hairston struggles against RHP while Ike and Ross struggle against LHP.  It's no secret that there are far more RHP than LHP throughout ML baseball, meaning Hairston sees favorable matchups much less often than Ike and Ross.

Mookie is correct that most MLers suffer from some kind of lefty/righty split.  In Hairston's case, his splits aren't so severe that he should be considered a total liability against RHP.  

More directly to your point, I think platoon labels are attached selectively based on how much hype a player received as a prospect and how important he is/was deemed by a franchise.  If Ike was just some random C prospect, there's a much greater likelihood the team would consider platooning him.  But since his development is very important to the Mets, they're going to give him every opportunity and then some to figure out lefties.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 11:21 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 



DocK16 wrote:
Damonbok wrote:
DocK16 wrote: If a player after nearly 2,500 ML at bats hasn't shown the ability to hit a particular type of pitcher, he likely never will.  

Generally speaking, teams can develop a pretty good understanding of a player's strengths and weaknesses at the MiL level.  They decide whether or not players fall into the platoon category or otherwise.  Scouts offer opinions as well.

What kind of pitcher does Hairston not hit that is more of an issue than for, say, Ike Davis?
How is Hairston, the part time player, different than cody Ross, the full-time player? This is not being facetious, I really want to understand how this is determined.

Well, there are legitimate questions about whether or not Ike is a platoon player.

The biggest difference, at least for me, between Hairston and someone like Ike or even Cody Ross is that Hairston struggles against RHP while Ike and Ross struggle against LHP.  It's no secret that there are far more RHP than LHP throughout ML baseball, meaning Hairston sees favorable matchups much less often than Ike and Ross.

Mookie is correct that most MLers suffer from some kind of lefty/righty split.  In Hairston's case, his splits aren't so severe that he should be considered a total liability against RHP.  

More directly to your point, I think platoon labels are attached selectively based on how much hype a player received as a prospect and how important he is/was deemed by a franchise.  If Ike was just some random C prospect, there's a much greater likelihood the team would consider platooning him.  But since his development is very important to the Mets, they're going to give him every opportunity and then some to figure out lefties.
Cody Ross bats RHed and has a career .727 OPS vs. RHed pitching and a .928 OPS against lefties with a .290 ISO, a .391 w/OBA vs. .317 vs. RHers.  It's a dramatic platoon split suggesting he's a dangerous hitter against LHers and below average against RHers but about 70% of all pitchers are RHed so guys like Ross and Hairston (whose platoon splits aren't as dramatic bc he hasn't been as dangerous against lefties as Ross has while about the same vs righties) are good or above average only about 30% of the time and below avg about 70%.  Bonus points go to the player like this who has good defensive skills.  

I think the Mets could get away with giving Hairston 500 PAs but for a team building for the future, I would prefer finding someone younger who they can build with rather than investing more time in a guy who's 33 this season and whose limitations are well known.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 11:25 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


Good call, Duff.  For some reason, I had convinced myself Ross was a lefty.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 11:28 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


btw, I'd just as soon see the Mets sign Juan Rivera than Ross or Hairston bc he'll prob play cheaper and be content in a platoon role.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 11:33 AM

Re: Scott Hairston 


I'd still really like to have Ross.  His RHP split isn't horrible (as good Murphy and Duda last season) and he rakes LHP.  He's also a solid defensive player with a good work ethic.  

He's been a 2.0+ WAR player pretty much every year he's been given regular at bats.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 12:43 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 



DocK16 wrote: I'd still really like to have Ross.  His RHP split isn't horrible (as good Murphy and Duda last season) and he rakes LHP.  He's also a solid defensive player with a good work ethic.  

He's been a 2.0+ WAR player pretty much every year he's been given regular at bats.
so much for that.  AZ went 3 yrs, Mets prob didn't even want to go 2...
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 1:31 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 



DuffyDyer wrote:
DocK16 wrote: I'd still really like to have Ross.  His RHP split isn't horrible (as good Murphy and Duda last season) and he rakes LHP.  He's also a solid defensive player with a good work ethic.  

He's been a 2.0+ WAR player pretty much every year he's been given regular at bats.
so much for that.  AZ went 3 yrs, Mets prob didn't even want to go 2...

I'm sure the Mets were willing to go two years (it's been reported they're willing to take on one multi-year deal this off-season), just probably not at the same rate.  

Oh well.  Part of me hopes this prices out Hairston so we have to get creative to fill one of the corners.

Last edited 12/22/2012 1:32 PM by DocK16

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 1:36 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 



DocK16 wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote:
DocK16 wrote: I'd still really like to have Ross.  His RHP split isn't horrible (as good Murphy and Duda last season) and he rakes LHP.  He's also a solid defensive player with a good work ethic.  

He's been a 2.0+ WAR player pretty much every year he's been given regular at bats.
so much for that.  AZ went 3 yrs, Mets prob didn't even want to go 2...

I'm sure the Mets were willing to go two years (it's been reported they're willing to take on one multi-year deal this off-season), just probably not at the same rate.  

Oh well.  Part of me hopes this prices out Hairston so we have to get creative to fill one of the corners.
Was thinking the same right now...I think it most likely does. He's almost g'teed now to get at least 2 yr, $12M... I'm not even sure SA wanted to go 2/10.

Not a lot of RH options though, even thru trades...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 1:47 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 


Personally, I wouldn't even worry about handedness.  We need to acquire a legit starting OF irrespective of what side of the plate he hits from.  I would just focus on getting the best player possible, someone capable of holding down a starting job for at least 2-3 seasons.  

Even though our sights are set on 2014 and beyond, we need to start filling as many holes as possible now.  FA being what it is, there's no way to reasonably fill all of our needs in a single off-season, or even two.  3B, 1B, SS, and hopefully C are all locked down.  Three of those positions are manned by RH.  We could be looking at a platoon in CF for the foreseeable future, which is fine by me.  That's another position that maintains our righty/lefty balance.  Might not be the case this season, but long-term I don't think we suffer from any kind of L/R imbalance, which gives us the flexibility to choose between either a righty or lefty in the OF.  We just need to get the best player possible imo.

Last edited 12/22/2012 1:48 PM by DocK16

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 2:02 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 


I feel you.,.. but even so-- long-term, or at least 2-3 yrs, aside from J. Upton, there really aren't that many OFer's 'reportedly' available.

That didin't seem to be the case for the last 5-10+ yrs... There were always plenty of quality to above avg. OFer's available.

Last edited 12/22/2012 2:03 PM by Gstacks177

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 3:56 PM

Re: Scott Hairston 


Check Hairstons splits. He's as close to Jeff Francouer (aka worthless) against RHP as you can get. He's a platoon player plain and simple. Unfortunately with the Mets budget even platoon players are out of our price range.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/22/2012 5:07 PM

RE: Scott Hairston 


He slugged .500 and hit 20 HRs. On the Mets, and probably 5-6 other teams, that is worth 400-500 PAs.

When we face RHP, Ike, Kirk and Duda were the ones who were supposed to hit.  Hairston should be option 4 on those days.  Unfortunately, he wasnt.

Last edited 12/22/2012 5:09 PM by dcmets

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/22/2012 5:19 PM

RE: Scott Hairston 


To make Damon's point, here are Choo's career numbers against lefties. He will probably get a 4 year deal next offseason.

900 PAs, .249,.338,.358, .695

Hairston against righties
1400 PAs. .229,.288,.416,.704

Last edited 12/22/2012 5:20 PM by dcmets

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/22/2012 5:39 PM

RE: Scott Hairston 




---------------------------------------------
--- dcmets wrote:

To make Damon's point, here are Choo's career numbers against lefties. He will probably get a 4 year deal next offseason.

900 PAs, .249,.338,.358, .695

Hairston against righties
1400 PAs. .229,.288,.416,.704

---------------------------------------------

It's more acceptable from a LHed hitter bc he can have success against 70% of pitchers.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >