Yeah Hernandez!!!!!!

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't accept that those defensive stats accurately measure the players' defensive value.

And none of the statistics measure the many intangibles that have been discussed on this thread.

The main stat that you and everyone else defending Tejada are willfully ignoring is their win-loss record with him on the team, as its "star" and "team leader."

So your story is that none of the replacements I've suggested would have been better for the most important stat, team wins, and you're sticking to it?

Ernie Banks was a godawful baseball player.

Cal Ripken was terrible in 1991.

Anyone that thinks Steve Carlton's 1972 season was good is a moron.

[Trace21230]

These two- oldfan and trace- poisened the sunspot board w their irrational hatred of Tejada for years. I see they've left there and come here and continue, even though the guy hasn't played for Baltimore for 8 months, to spout the same tripe. I suggest everyone ignore them; they have no desire for a legitamate conversation or debate. The various threads they've hijacked should be ample evidence of this. They merely want an excuse to bash Tejada and every response they recieve gives them an excuse. It's beyond pathetic.

Hilarious. The Sunspot board was "poisoned" by forces far more powerful than me, and oldfan has been banned there for years. Obviously that's your posting home, why don't you go back there?

And, just to correct your misstatements: 1) I do not hate Miguel Tejada. 2) My opinions of him are not irrational and 3) I post on a wide variety of Orioles related topics and would rather not discuss Tejada at all.

Is this your effort at "legitamate conversation or debate"? If so, I'm touched and amused.

[NoVaO]

People are probably getting a little caught up in Hernandez's nice start this year. He is a plus defensive SS, sure. But he has 3 singles, a couple of sac flies, a couple of sac bunts, and a couple walks. Now, I understand the sac flies were big and one of the singles was huge, but that doesn't make him a good player.

If you look at last year, you see he started off hot (.770 OPS by the end of July) and then it would gradually lower, then a small spike with a good game, and then another gradual lowering. The longer he plays the more and more his OPS goes down because when the sample size becomes large enough, singles and sac bunts/other situational hitting aren't enough to get it done.

Basically, I expect what happened to Brandon Fahey in 06 (when he had a .740 OPS 2 months into the season) to happen to Hernandez. He'll eventually be exposed and his OPS will drop (Fahey had a .730 pre-all star OPS and a .458 post all-star OPS).

And before I hear the usual arguments (OPS should not be considered the be all, end all and his defense is excellent), I'm looking at everything he brings to the table. When it becomes apparent there is somebody better than him (which is not hard to find) he should be replaced.

But I have no problem in playing him now. This year is supposed to be a rebuilding year. He hasn't looked overmatched yet. So there really isn't a problem right now.

[MikeAD]

People are probably getting a little caught up in Hernandez's nice start this year. He is a plus defensive SS, sure. But he has 3 singles, a couple of sac flies, a couple of sac bunts, and a couple walks. Now, I understand the sac flies were big and one of the singles was huge, but that doesn't make him a good player.

If you look at last year, you see he started off hot (.770 OPS by the end of July) and then it would gradually lower, then a small spike with a good game, and then another gradual lowering. The longer he plays the more and more his OPS goes down because when the sample size becomes large enough, singles and sac bunts/other situational hitting aren't enough to get it done.

Basically, I expect what happened to Brandon Fahey in 06 (when he had a .740 OPS 2 months into the season) to happen to Hernandez. He'll eventually be exposed and his OPS will drop (Fahey had a .730 pre-all star OPS and a .458 post all-star OPS).

And before I hear the usual arguments (OPS should not be considered the be all, end all and his defense is excellent), I'm looking at everything he brings to the table. When it becomes apparent there is somebody better than him (which is not hard to find) he should be replaced.

But I have no problem in playing him now. This year is supposed to be a rebuilding year. He hasn't looked overmatched yet. So there really isn't a problem right now.

Agree with everything here, although I would be thrilled by a LH suprise and him proving me wrong (about the eventual drop off).

[BaltimoreTerp]

People are probably getting a little caught up in Hernandez's nice start this year. He is a plus defensive SS, sure. But he has 3 singles, a couple of sac flies, a couple of sac bunts, and a couple walks. Now, I understand the sac flies were big and one of the singles was huge, but that doesn't make him a good player.

If you look at last year, you see he started off hot (.770 OPS by the end of July) and then it would gradually lower, then a small spike with a good game, and then another gradual lowering. The longer he plays the more and more his OPS goes down because when the sample size becomes large enough, singles and sac bunts/other situational hitting aren't enough to get it done.

Basically, I expect what happened to Brandon Fahey in 06 (when he had a .740 OPS 2 months into the season) to happen to Hernandez. He'll eventually be exposed and his OPS will drop (Fahey had a .730 pre-all star OPS and a .458 post all-star OPS).

And before I hear the usual arguments (OPS should not be considered the be all, end all and his defense is excellent), I'm looking at everything he brings to the table. When it becomes apparent there is somebody better than him (which is not hard to find) he should be replaced.

But I have no problem in playing him now. This year is supposed to be a rebuilding year. He hasn't looked overmatched yet. So there really isn't a problem right now.

Very fair post. I agree that he isn't a problem right now.

Of course, when we start seeing the people who believe the absence of a problem right now means it is permanently solved, that is the issue.

[Mark Carver]

A few minutes ago, I tuned into tonight's Astros-Cardinals game to check out Tejada. Never guess what I saw. With a man on first base, the Cardinals' batter hits a ground ball to short, not far from second base.. Tejada dives and the ball hits the heel of his glove. No official error, but a clean catch would have produced a double play. Instead there are Cardinals at first and second.

A couple batter later, the two runners score on a double to deep right center.

The stats don't show Tejada's poor fielding because official scorers only record errors for the most egregious misplays.

So in order for Tejada to have chance at all to make the play, he has to dive for the ball... and because he didn't come up with the ball, it was poor fielding?

I'll remember that the next time Luis Hernandez dives for a ball and doesn't make the play...

[Fan4Life]

For me, anyone that thinks LH is a better baseball player than Tejada is a moron. Now, I dont know that anyone is actually saying that as much as trying to find a way to value LH's defense as much as we valued Miggy's offense. LH, so far, is doing what is expected of him, play good-great defense, and contibute offensively with bunts, sacrifices and an occassional clutch hit. LH should not be the starting SS on this team. We should still be trying to acquire the "Adam Jones" at SS for this team.

[Mackus]

The main stat that you and everyone else defending Tejada are willfully ignoring is their win-loss record with him on the team, as its "star" and "team leader."

So your story is that none of the replacements I've suggested would have been better for the most important stat, team wins, and you're sticking to it?

Two things:

1) Several of the replacements you suggested weren't in MLB during all of Tejada's tenure here. I certainly won't argue Tejada was better in 2006-2007 than Ramirez or 2007 than Tulowitzki, but I will argue over all of his tenure, 2004-2007, he was a better player than almost all of those players you named. He certainly was one of the 5 best SS over that time-span. He was even the best in the game one and possibly two of those years.

2) Your biggest argument seems to be that the team was bad when Tejada was here, and he was our leader and best player. I'll expand on that and argue that you are essentially saying that no bad teams can contain good or great players. Do you agree with that? Because i don't, but you are seemingly stating this to be the case.

[Sports Guy]

Two things:

1) Several of the replacements you suggested weren't in MLB during all of Tejada's tenure here. I certainly won't argue Tejada was better in 2006-2007 than Ramirez or 2007 than Tulowitzki, but I will argue over all of his tenure, 2004-2007, he was a better player than almost all of those players you named. He certainly was one of the 5 best SS over that time-span. He was even the best in the game one and possibly two of those years.

2) Your biggest argument seems to be that the team was bad when Tejada was here, and he was our leader and best player. I'll expand on that and argue that you are essentially saying that no bad teams can contain good or great players. Do you agree with that? Because i don't, but you are seemingly stating this to be the case.

How many bad teams did Ripken play on? We lost 21 games in a row with Cal on the team...Does that make him a bad player?

Ted Williams and Ernie Banks never won a WS, i guess they were awful too!

The reasoning on this board sometimes is incredible.

[Mackus]

The stats don't show Tejada's poor fielding because official scorers only record errors for the most egregious misplays.

Stats like errors and fielding percentage don't show that. But there are numerous stats that do include things like range and other factors. Defensive stats are far behind offensive stats, and no one is perfect, but when the entire trend of all the various defensive stats state that Tejada when he first got here was a very good defensive SS, but by the time his final season was over he was down to an average or slightly below defensive SS, I think that matches up pretty well with what my eyes saw.

I really think the people who are bashing Tejada are simply basing him off of two things. One, is that he requested a trade. The second, is that his final year here was disappointing both offensively and especially defensively. He was a terrific player his first 3 years here, that really can't be argued. .315/.363/.516/.879 line with 28 HR and 116 RBI was his average line here his first three years. Those are phenomenal offensive numbers. Even if he was one of the worst defensive SS (which he clearly wasn't his first 3 years) he still would've been worth several wins above average. Those are MVP-type numbers, its just that the rest of the team wasn't good enough to be in contention.

He certainly had and has his flaws, and he's also certainly been declining as he gets older, but I think its unfair to criticize him for his final year here without also praising him for the dominance he showed during his first 3.

[Sports Guy]

Stats like errors and fielding percentage don't show that. But there are numerous stats that do include things like range and other factors. Defensive stats are far behind offensive stats, and no one is perfect, but when the entire trend of all the various defensive stats state that Tejada when he first got here was a very good defensive SS, but by the time his final season was over he was down to an average or slightly below defensive SS, I think that matches up pretty well with what my eyes saw.

I really think the people who are bashing Tejada are simply basing him off of two things. One, is that he requested a trade. The second, is that his final year here was disappointing both offensively and especially defensively. He was a terrific player his first 3 years here, that really can't be argued. .315/.363/.516/.879 line with 28 HR and 116 RBI was his average line here his first three years. Those are phenomenal offensive numbers. Even if he was one of the worst defensive SS (which he clearly wasn't his first 3 years) he still would've been worth several wins above average. Those are MVP-type numbers, its just that the rest of the team wasn't good enough to be in contention.

He certainly had and has his flaws, and he's also certainly been declining as he gets older, but I think its unfair to criticize him for his final year here without also praising him for the dominance he showed during his first 3.

Well, they also saw his bad defense in the first half of the 2006 season and heard guys like Palmer bashing him everyday because of it.

Of course, even Palmer would acknowledge the knee injury he had the first half that effected his range and Palmer also talked about how his defense was much better in the second half when, surprise surprise, he was healthy!

However, many scouts also saw him in the first half of that season and said his defense was slipping..So, people ran with it without looking at the injury and the obvious improved play when he was healthy.

[Fan4Life]

Well, they also saw his bad defense in the first half of the 2006 season and heard guys like Palmer bashing him everyday because of it.

Of course, even Palmer would acknowledge the knee injury he had the first half that effected his range and Palmer also talked about how his defense was much better in the second half when, surprise surprise, he was healthy!

However, many scouts also saw him in the first half of that season and said his defense was slipping..So, people ran with it without looking at the injury and the obvious improved play when he was healthy.

I think his lack of hustle was a hit on his leadership of our team, piled on top of his first half 2006 season was enough to perminently cement a negative image in some fans minds.

[Mackus]

I think his lack of hustle was a hit on his leadership of our team, piled on top of his first half 2006 season was enough to perminently cement a negative image in some fans minds.

I would agree that after the 2005 season, when there was the Palmeiro issue and then the trade request, that his leadership took a hit. Its hard to rally behind a guy that asked out a few months earlier. But also, Roberts started taking on more of an obvious leadership role, both in the clubhouse and the community, and we also adder Millar, who is a very strong personality in the clubhouse.

[Lucky Jim]

Debates about the Tejada issue seem rather pointless, especially when the arguments pro and con are trivialized by some immature posters.

Baseball can be, at its very best, an aesthetically uplifting experience. Unfortunately this experience is ruined by poor defensive play, especially at shortstop. It may be true that a great offensive shortstop can overcome poor defensive play and be a net positive asset to a team. But it takes a bushel of hitting to accomplish that. My hope is that the end of the steroid era will require baseball to return to basics. Attendance may falter as the most vulgar of fans love the long ball, but the game will be better for a fundamentalist revival.

Baseball is more than just winning and losing. If one believes that wins and losses are the sine qua non numerical measure of performance, then why not follow some quantitative data where winning actually means something, like the stock market tickers?

As long as we are rehashing the Tejada saga, I'd like to know if anyone has a good explanation for an off-field incident that really bothered me last year. Perlozzo, a couple Oriole executives, and 11 players visited Walter Reed in May 2007. Rock Kubatko wrote this:

"A large contingent of Orioles visited Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital before arriving at RFK Stadium. The list of players included Jeremy Guthrie, Paul Bako, Brian Burres, Jay Gibbons, Aubrey Huff, Nick Markakis, Kevin Millar, John Parrish, Chris Ray, Brian Roberts and Jamie Walker."

Note that Tejada, the team's star player, didn't make it to the event. Indeed the Hispanic players were notably absent. I inferred from this that it was likely that a split along racial lines divided the team. The divisions must have been serious because the Hispanic players did not choose to overlook the split to make a nice day for some of the injured veterans.

I'm not a right-wing Bushie, but I believe all people can agree that the heroic troops merit our highest regard. It reflects poorly on people who value their petty personal feuds more than the veterans.

This is rank speculation of the worst sort. There are any number of reasons why individuals might - or might not - go to Walter Reed. And there are even more reasons why they might not when those individuals aren't U.S. citizens and the war is a highly unpopular one internationally.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong here, nor commenting on the war. I'm commenting on making value judgments based on pure speculation. It's cheap.

[Sports Guy]

I think his lack of hustle was a hit on his leadership of our team, piled on top of his first half 2006 season was enough to perminently cement a negative image in some fans minds.

Lack of hustle was the entire team....People loved the Miggy of the first few years and cried when he wasn't the same player.

The Orioles lied to him...They didn't do make the team better like they said he would and he got upset about it.

Miggy hated losing and wasn't shy to say anything about it and people hated him for it.