Author Topic: Danny?  (Read 2101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 4887
Re: Danny?
« Reply #50: October 09, 2012, 08:40:31 AM »
You don't square early for a bunt base hit.


By the way, you'll note that in yesterday's bunt, there was nobody on base so clearly he was bunting for a hit.  And he squared early.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18090
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Danny?
« Reply #51: October 09, 2012, 08:55:33 AM »
Ray D - you are probably right.  Occam's Razor.  Among competing hypotheses, start with the one that relies on the fewest assumptions.  Rather than assuming it was a rational decision based on strategy and figuring out the strategy, take it for what it looked like.  I'm just astounded by the play.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Danny?
« Reply #52: October 09, 2012, 09:16:44 AM »
The result of the play was 2 guys in scoring position for Tyler Moore to drive in, so the play worked out.  Can't be too upset with the results.  Better than another K or a GIDP, either of which seemed possible or even likely with how Danny has been swinging the bat.

I liked the bunt try yesterday.  Anything that might get him going again, really.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18090
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Danny?
« Reply #53: October 09, 2012, 09:40:07 AM »
In fairness, if I were to say anything good about game #2, it was nice to see Danny crush a couple of balls - the one to the wall and the line drive over the 2d baseman.  Both were lefty.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16656
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Danny?
« Reply #54: October 09, 2012, 09:52:09 AM »
Yeah he hit the ball hard yesterday, that's a good sign

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18090
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Danny?
« Reply #55: October 12, 2012, 04:05:00 PM »
FWIW, I went through his at bats this series, because it's been my impression that, since game 1, he has not been swinging and missing as much and has had some decent plate appearances even if the results aren't there. 

in 10 plate appearances, he's swung and missed twice in 35 pitches, and taken 5 called strikes and 11 balls.  He's had fair contact 7 times, including the bunt that Joyce called him out on at first but which looked safe (deemed a sacrifice).  One walk, 1 swinging K, and two called 3d strikes.

It's clear he absolutely stunk in Game 1 (3Ks and the weird botched safety squeeze that was deemd a sacrifice), and what is more troubling is that the 3 Ks were vs. Wainright.

if it was just jitters and sun in game 1, then you might view the past 3 games a bit more optimistically and think he is "due."  If it was Wainright, or if the jitters are back, then the Lombo chorus will be in full voice.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54503
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Danny?
« Reply #56: October 13, 2012, 02:50:02 AM »
Get rid of this piece of crap.

Online Vega

  • Posts: 4610
Re: Danny?
« Reply #57: October 13, 2012, 02:54:46 AM »
I'm less supportive of Danny than I was of Desmond when he was in this situation last year. Desmond showed some improvement towards the end of last year, but Danny is consistently meh. I wouldn't mind if we didn't have Lombo, who I think is a better player. Despite his flaws, Danny is a pretty okay second baseman who would likely get something decent in a trade. He won't get traded though. He'll be our starting second baseman next season, although hopefully he'll be on a short leash.

Offline BigMeech

  • Posts: 3128
  • BM Punk
Re: Danny?
« Reply #58: October 13, 2012, 02:56:33 AM »
hey guys, he has a good WAR.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18090
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Danny?
« Reply #59: October 13, 2012, 02:56:42 AM »
At this point, it'll be tough for him to play here.  Players get booed out of town.  Now that there are enough folks who follow the Nats in town, he's going to start getting booed pretty badly. 

Offline BigMeech

  • Posts: 3128
  • BM Punk
Re: Danny?
« Reply #60: October 13, 2012, 02:59:05 AM »
Espinosa has about 100 at bats next season to show some improvement.  If not, you gotta let him go. 

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 18397
  • Is it 2015 yet?
Re: Danny?
« Reply #61: October 13, 2012, 02:59:55 AM »
Espinosa has about 100 at bats next season to show some improvement.  If not, you gotta let him go. 

I hope Lombo kicks ass in ST and beats Danny out for starting job.

Online Vega

  • Posts: 4610
Re: Danny?
« Reply #62: October 13, 2012, 03:01:46 AM »
I hope Lombo kicks ass in ST and beats Danny out for starting job.
You're under the false impression that there will be a competition at all.

Offline mmzznnxx

  • Posts: 5091
Re: Danny?
« Reply #63: October 13, 2012, 03:09:16 AM »
I think Danny's better at the end of his second full season than Desmond was. To be fair I didn't want Desmond this year and he really put me in my place, so I'm operating under the assumption Danny will improve too. If next year it seems like he's reached his ceiling though, I definitely think we need to think about upgrading or getting something for him.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 4887
Re: Danny?
« Reply #64: October 13, 2012, 11:16:58 AM »
Alot of experts "saw" something in Desmond, something that I sure didn't see.  Are these experts "seeing" it in Espinosa?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33836
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Danny?
« Reply #65: October 13, 2012, 11:18:20 AM »
You're under the false impression that there will be a competition at all.

Why should there be? Lombo is the inferior player. I'm all for replacing Espinosa with a better player... but certainly not Lombo who is a downgrade at the plate and in the field.

Peopl are blinded by strikeouts. They both get on base at a .315-.317 clip, Espinosa hits for more power and is a much better runner and defender.

Lombo hit .273 this year and Espinosa hit .247... you know how many more hits that is over 100 at-bats? 3.

You really want to replace a superior player with an inferior one over three hits? I don't.

To put it in better prospective, if you give Lombo full time work 600+ PA's... that's a total of 18 extra hits a year... or one extra hit every nine games. Losing a better defender with more power and more speed is not worth one hit every nine games.

You certainly can make the argument that Lombo improves your chances of success in certain situations like when you have to score a run and you have a runner on third with less than two outs... but over the course of a 162 game season, Espinosa is going to help the team more than Lombo possibly can.

By all means improve second base... but Lombo is the opposite of improvement.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 3866
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Danny?
« Reply #66: October 13, 2012, 11:22:10 AM »
I'd like to see him give up on batting from lefthanded

Espinosa has about 100 at bats next season to show some improvement.  If not, you gotta let him go. 


Offline BigMeech

  • Posts: 3128
  • BM Punk
Re: Danny?
« Reply #67: October 13, 2012, 11:23:16 AM »
Yeah, the switch hitting thing with him has got to cease.  It's doesn't work to your advantage when you can't hit left handed.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Danny?
« Reply #68: October 13, 2012, 11:24:44 AM »
Danny was AWFUL this year. Though, I haven't been as hard on him as I had been towards Desmond last year. Desmond shut me up big time. Since he did, I'm giving Espinosa a little window to turn into superstarmvpgreatestplayerever status. I mean, Desmond was terrible his second year. His third year he tore it up. Espinosa's second year (this year) was awful. Maybe he'll reach his potential too? And that potential could be nice.

Offline jhuterp

  • Posts: 355
Re: Danny?
« Reply #69: October 13, 2012, 11:28:14 AM »
Danny was AWFUL this year. Though, I haven't been as hard on him as I had been towards Desmond last year. Desmond shut me up big time. Since he did, I'm giving Espinosa a little window to turn into superstarmvpgreatestplayerever status. I mean, Desmond was terrible his second year. His third year he tore it up. Espinosa's second year (this year) was awful. Maybe he'll reach his potential too? And that potential could be nice.

This.  Espinosa will be  the starting second baseman next year, hopefully showing the same kind of progress Desmond made this year.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Danny?
« Reply #70: October 13, 2012, 11:43:38 AM »
This.  Espinosa will be  the starting second baseman next year, hopefully showing the same kind of progress Desmond made this year.

Now I don't want the position to just be handed to him like it was this year but I don't mind giving him some time in ST to prove it. I want Lombo and possibly Rendon to have a shot to start there.

Offline jhuterp

  • Posts: 355
Re: Danny?
« Reply #71: October 13, 2012, 11:46:58 AM »
Now I don't want the position to just be handed to him like it was this year but I don't mind giving him some time in ST to prove it. I want Lombo and possibly Rendon to have a shot to start there.

Agreed, if it's more of the same next year a change is in order.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3862
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Danny?
« Reply #72: October 13, 2012, 11:47:28 AM »
I think he deserves the same chance Desmond got. See what he has next season, say through the break and as long as he's not losing games for us, let him prove if he has it or not.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18219
Re: Danny?
« Reply #73: October 13, 2012, 12:06:53 PM »
I'm completely with Linty on this.  Lombo is as good an insurance policy as there is in baseball, but he's not better than Danny.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7411
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Danny?
« Reply #74: October 13, 2012, 12:10:03 PM »
I see a lot in Danny. He is a great defender and hits like an allstar right handed. I would send him to winter ball and have him bat RH exclusively.