Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 14, 2007
Pie vs. Patterson

Felix Pie's defense is the reason the Cub Reporter thinks the rookie will get more time to develop than Corey Patterson:

Is Felix Pie ready, then? Probably not, if ready means doing much more than flashing his offensive potential. But great athletes learn to hit, largely because their defense buys them the time that Jason Dubois won't have. Meanwhile Pie can anchor center field, which is something, not nothing. Cub fans in particular might have a problem with this patient approach because it didn't work with Corey Patterson. We waited and waited and he never got better.

The problem with Corey Patterson, I would argue, was not so much his slow progress as a hitter but the fact that his defense couldn't carry him, get him over the rough spots, ease the pressure. Bottom line, he was not a great fielder, and it's a little mysterious why, since he could run and he could throw. But the catching part sometimes eluded him. Midway through his tenure with the Cubs, I started asking myself, if he's a great fielder, how come he never makes great plays? My teenage son used to put together homemade highlight reels, and once he asked me to sit down to watch a collection of Patterson web-gems. I said, okay, but look closely and you'll see that in every catch his left elbow is bent. And it was true, both when he dove and when he leaped. There was something tentative about it. The sort of thing that Juan Pierre did ten times last year, where you lay flat out in a dive, parallel to the ground, arm and glove fully extended-Patterson didn't do that. He lacked the physical commitment, or courage, that defines an athlete. Patterson was the image of an athlete. He may have been born to play a great athlete in a movie. But he wasn't one. Several scouts out there with egg on their faces should be implementing a new Patterson Rule: don't say a guy has five tools until you've seen him do something special in the field. Patterson is partly a victim of bad scouting (he said, with great hindsight).

It may be six, seven years before we know what kind of hitter Pie is going to become, especially in terms of power numbers. But it will only take about a month to tell if he's the real deal as an athlete. If he is, then the comparisons with Patterson should stop right there.



Posted by David Pinto at 12:54 PM | Defense | TrackBack (0)
Comments

just goin off memory here, but isn't Patterson a very good defender according to PMR?

that's the problem i see in this article, relying on making great plays to determine his defensive worth. if he's two steps quicker to the ball than Jim Edmonds (just an example, i don't know that he is) then he wouldn't have to make that dive that edmonds had to make.

point is taken about the bent elbow though...

Posted by: boomer at February 14, 2007 02:01 PM

I always thought the saving grace of Patterson during his Cub days was his defense. At least he did something well.

Posted by: Tom at February 14, 2007 02:24 PM

"Great athletes learn to hit..."

That doesn't exactly sound true to me.

Posted by: Jurgen at February 14, 2007 02:54 PM

joe dimaggio never made the flash plays and he was ok.

Posted by: bar35 at February 14, 2007 03:52 PM

boomer, what do you mean "point is taken about the bent elbow though..." ?

There are plenty of pictures of Corey Patterson making great catches with an extended glove arm.

Some were posted to the original article at The Cub Reporter

http://mvn.com/mlb-cubs/?comments_popup=128#comment-10628

Posted by: classof66 at February 14, 2007 04:14 PM

And I thought that with great fielders, they've got such good range, they make plays that average fielder get webgems for boring. That is, their range is good enough that they don't have to dive or jump for balls that a majority of fielders do.

Posted by: Adam B. at February 14, 2007 05:52 PM

I think CPat is the most glimmering example of just how poor/overrated the Cubs minor league system is. They had a guy that was allowed to hit third in the minors and swing for the fences when his physique/tools clearly demanded he become a leadoff hitter in the show. Instead of teaching this kid how to bunt, get on base, be selective, and use his speed, they had him hitting third and swinging for HR's. Their poor scouting allowed them to believe he had HR power (duh- aluminum bats in college?), when he really had the tools to become a Rickey Henderson type leadoff man (speed first, with some occasional power), provided he could be coached into being more selective. Having a sixth place hitter in the NL with that type of speed was a waste, even moreso considering what they gave up to eventually get a leadoff guy in Pierre.....

Posted by: BooHoo at February 15, 2007 10:57 AM

The problem with this article is (as other have pointed out) is that it's entirely subjective.

In an era of analysis in which hard data has proven much more effective than the number of "web gems" a player makes, it's ignorant to not at least mention some fielding metrics.

I'm a firm believer that old-fashioned scouting has value, but I'm not sure this is an example of it.

Posted by: Matt at February 16, 2007 10:33 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?