Pirates 6, Jays 2: Bucs Finish Interleague Play With Winning Record

Diaz is carrying a .280 wOBA which is not good by any standard. I think DIaz will come around but I don’t get this backlash by impliedi and others who think that fans shouldn’t be upset with Diaz performance so far. They absolutely should. He was a free agent acquisition with a long track record who was supposed to provide some consistency and stability while the young core developed. He has not come close to doing that, though he is showing signs of life, and fans have a right to be upset. If he is not going to provide consistency than he should be replaced with someone younger who will be around longer and may have a higer ceiling. Pointing out that others, like Tabata, have been performing poorly is incredibly silly for several reasons: 1) Tabata is developing and his performance was likely to be volatile 2) Tabata is inexpensive so he his net value is still positive 3) Tabata has a much higher ceiling and as such it pays to be more patient 4) Diaz is a free agent acquisition who was brought on board to provide stability – he has not done that yet 5) Diaz is older and not in the long term plans so is much more expendable 6) and other players performances doesn’t change the fact that…you know…Diaz is playing poorly.

Obviously this post was meant as much for impliedi as you since you and I agree on most of these points.

Here’s the summary of my argument (I could’ve saved a lot of typing if I had just written this in the beginning.):

1. For all intents and purposes, starting MLB players are “starters” because of any or all of the following reasons (more talent, high upside, their bad times are smaller or less frequent, they get results/most out of their talent). So hopefully, we can all agree that to be a starter in the MLB, you’ve got to be pretty good.

2. Starters are better players than back-ups. (In my eyes, they should be significantly better.)

3. Performance expectations for starters should be significantly higher than back-ups. While .750 OPS would be expected for the back-up outfielder, it is expected that the starter have at least .850 (or whatever numbers you care to put in there).

4. If it can be assumed that the best players in baseball are liable to have a bad month somewhere during the course of a season, it should be assumed that back-ups and role players, being less talented, will have longer and more frequent bouts of bad play.

As a simple example: It can be assumed that Andrew McCutchen will have a bad month somewhere during the course of the year. He is a starting MLB player for a reason. I can forgive McCutchen having a few bad weeks, it’s natural and expected. If it goes on for a long time, that is unexpected.

Matt Diaz is not a starter in MLB because he doesn’t have that same ability that McCutchen does. I would fully expect him to have more bad spells and that they would last longer than McCutchen every single season.

My issue is this: don’t call out Matt Diaz because he had a horrible April, call his numbers unacceptable for a corner outfielder, because if you do then you have to apply that logic even more stringently to the starters. If Diaz has a bad April and May, I see that as the same as Tabata having a bad June. In other words, it’s expected. I’m not saying Tabata (when he returns) should be pulled from the line-up, in fact he’s performing as I’d expect. But, the same shoudl be said for Diaz. A slow start, yes, but he has less talent (theoretically) than Tabata. He SHOULD have more rough times.

But, to call out one and not the other, seems to be placing the blame one-sidedly.

The issue I’ve had with Charlie’s arguments, it that he seems to believe that bench guys should perform properly out of the gate, otherwise it is unacceptable. My point is that these guys are bench guys because they have less talent. And if you think that Matt Diaz should be productive from April – October, every time he’s out there, you’re kidding yourself. If he were, Diaz would be starting. MY personal belief is that Charlie has put too much emphasis on the struggles of part-time and role guys, but doesn’t apply that same justice to the starters.

Maybe one more bad example for you!!:
Expectations.

On a scale of 1-10, say my expectations for Andrew McCutchen are a 9 based on his talent.

My expectations for Matt Diaz are a 4 based on his.

If McCutchen is performing at an 7 level and Diaz is performing at a 2 level they are both underperforming.

However, I would argue that McCutchen is the star. He should not underperform (at least not with any regularity). That’s why his expectations are so high to begin with. In this case, I would say that McCutchen is the bigger disappointment to me (for this example, certainly not with his play in reality) than Diaz.

I believe Charlie’s argument would be (just guessing), McCutchen is the star, so you give him more leeway. I agree that you give him leeway, but I wouldn’t agree that it should be more. In fact, I argue the opposite.

So, really, I’m saying Diaz performed poorly in April, and underperformed in May and now in June is probably about where I’d expect him to be. Diaz is performing at about what most would have expected him to. So, I’d argue that for what Diaz is (part-time starter), he’s performing adequately.

Charlie’s contention seems to be that you don’t blame the stars, because even if they are underperforming, they are still performing at a higher level than the bench.

I counter that ALL who underperform should be to blame, but ALL players must be given some leeway to fail. I think starters should have less, because they’ve got more talent. I think Charlie believes they should get more leeway (when they are young) because they have a higher upside and lifespan with the team.

I don’t believe I cleared anything up and this post was pretty long. Sorry about that.