OnlyBucs

Some call it broken record.



Others call it consistency.



While you figure out which it is, we're a dead last club.

Isn't it kicking the can to continue playing a mediocre at best player like Polanco instead of giving someone else an opportunity who might turn out to be better? When you're dead last with mediocre players, you can either give someone else a chance to do better or maintain the consistency of playing the guys who keep you dead last. So if the complaint is about kicking the can, I don't see how the solution is to continue doing the same thing. It's just complaining for the sake of complaining. If they do A, then complain that they didn't do B. But if they do B, then complain that they should have continued doing A.

745954454253440407360 wrote: Isn't it kicking the can to continue playing a mediocre at best player like Polanco instead of giving someone else an opportunity who might turn out to be better? When you're dead last with mediocre players, you can either give someone else a chance to do better or maintain the consistency of playing the guys who keep you dead last. So if the complaint is about kicking the can, I don't see how the solution is to continue doing the same thing. It's just complaining for the sake of complaining. If they do A, then complain that they didn't do B. But if they do B, then complain that they should have continued doing A. 


I agree with this but you want to make sure the person you give the chance to has earned it.   There is no use rushing a guy like Swaggerty to play or even Alford.  Osuna got a better chance in 2020 and didn't capitalize.  Polanco shouldn't be given a spot but the Bucs need to have somebody who can beat him out (which shouldn't be hard if he plays like he did in 2020).



Right now the Bucs don't have a lot of players knocking on the door.

754057575C6557575C5B57320 wrote: Some call it broken record.



Others call it consistency.



While you figure out which it is, we're a dead last club. 
__________

We have been "seeing what we have" with some new guy for the past 15 years.

263D303138343B550 wrote: I would rather have Polanco in the outfield over Osuna, Alford, or Frazier.


So you're not interested in having the best talent on the field?  I thought you were a Pirates fan.
______

I don't consider Osuna and Alford to be better talents than Polanco.


_______

What I see in Alford is a career .214 hitter with no power.  What I see in Polanco is a career .246 hitter with some power.


But you're ignoring his poor outfield play, his horrid base running, and his inability to stay healthy for an appreciable length of time. Those all matter, too. For me, they offset a BA that's below average and the ocassional HR.

.246 isn't far from average.



And, if it and his HRs are 'below average,' then what is .214?



It's not as if we're replacing Polanco with any Willie Mays.

764354545F6654545F5854310 wrote: .246 isn't far from average.



And, if it and his HRs are 'below average,' then what is .214?



It's not as if we're replacing Polanco with any Willie Mays.
It is meaningless to compare a BA after 83 ABs to a BA after 2,547 ABs.



At this point we have no idea if Alford will be better than Polanco. The only things we know for sure are that Polanco has already compiled an unimpressive body of work after 7 seasons as an everyday player and that Alford's career is in its infancy with barely anything to go on other than 83 scattered ABs over 4 seasons with a career high of 28 ABs in any one season. Polanco had as many as 593 ABs in one season alone.



But you act as if we don't need to see anything more from Alford because of his "career" BA of .214. Heck, if you want to use absurdly small sample sizes for comparison, Alford's career BA for the Pirates is .250. That's better than Polanco's .246. Dump Polanco! And while we're at it, let's release Jared Oliva. He's a career .188 hitter.



Cal Ripken Jr began his career with 11 hits in his first 83 ABs. (Holy cow!, that's fewer than Alford's 14 for 83!) But in a bizarre move, the Orioles did not conclude that he would be a career .133 hitter. Go figure. Somehow, amazingly, incredibly, they came up with the crazy idea that perhaps he had not demonstrated his full ability as a hitter after compiling a career of 83 ABs. Those people could never work in Weenie World where Ripken and Alford would both be on the Hall of Shame wall as 2 of the biggest flops in MLB history and John Paciorek would be crowned as the greatest hitter in MLB history with a perfect 1.000 mark in his career 3 ABs.



Alford probably won't be in the Hall of Fame. He's probably no Ripken. But maybe, just maybe, 83 career ABs is not enough to draw a conclusion on his ability. (I dunno, just tossin' that out there.)

The Pirates seem to enamored with potential, particularly long-ball potential. The keep expecting Bell and Polanco to produce up to the team's idea of their potential. I would prefer to see someone with competent defense at first and also with giving some of these other guys a shot at right. At least in Pittsburgh, Polanco is what he is, as is Bell. They may both bloom elsewhere but that doesn't help us any.

We can compare every .214 hitter who comes along to Cal Ripken and play him instead one of our only sources of power on the team. At least the .214 hitter works for the LM.

614C41505746511112230 wrote: .246 isn't far from average.



And, if it and his HRs are 'below average,' then what is .214?



It's not as if we're replacing Polanco with any Willie Mays.
It is meaningless to compare a BA after 83 ABs to a BA after 2,547 ABs.



At this point we have no idea if Alford will be better than Polanco. The only things we know for sure are that Polanco has already compiled an unimpressive body of work after 7 seasons as an everyday player and that Alford's career is in its infancy with barely anything to go on other than 83 scattered ABs over 4 seasons with a career high of 28 ABs in any one season. Polanco had as many as 593 ABs in one season alone.



But you act as if we don't need to see anything more from Alford because of his "career" BA of .214. Heck, if you want to use absurdly small sample sizes for comparison, Alford's career BA for the Pirates is .250. That's better than Polanco's .246. Dump Polanco! And while we're at it, let's release Jared Oliva. He's a career .188 hitter.



Cal Ripken Jr began his career with 11 hits in his first 83 ABs. (Holy cow!, that's fewer than Alford's 14 for 83!) But in a bizarre move, the Orioles did not conclude that he would be a career .133 hitter. Go figure. Somehow, amazingly, incredibly, they came up with the crazy idea that perhaps he had not demonstrated his full ability as a hitter after compiling a career of 83 ABs. Those people could never work in Weenie World where Ripken and Alford would both be on the Hall of Shame wall as 2 of the biggest flops in MLB history and John Paciorek would be crowned as the greatest hitter in MLB history with a perfect 1.000 mark in his career 3 ABs.



Alford probably won't be in the Hall of Fame. He's probably no Ripken. But maybe, just maybe, 83 career ABs is not enough to draw a conclusion on his ability. (I dunno, just tossin' that out there.)


Alford isn't worth arguing over. If he was any great shakes, I'd agree with you. He isn't, so I don't.