We (don’t) like Ike: II

A follow-up.

First, I removed a comment where someone called my friend Rob a vulgarity. Wanna bitch me out? Fine—if that’s how you do things. But let’s not be inane.

Second, I’m tired of folks pointing out this stat and that stat, this number and that number to defend a ballplayer who just happens to be very, very, very, very average. I’m not saying Davis is a bad guy or a terrible player. What he is, however, is the typical modern-day Met prospect: Merely OK, but overhyped by desperate fans in a big market. Will Davis ever be the kind of guy most contending teams have at first? A guy who goes .290-35-110? No. No way. Ever. It’s not who he is. I laugh when people call WFAN and say the Mets can trade Davis for some excellent goods. Unless the demand for a poor man’s Greg Walker is high, I don’t see it.

And, yes, he has a solid glove. But that’s not enough. The Cleveland line wasn’t meant to demean his defensive skills, but to imply that his future is a murky one.

Sorry.

12 thoughts on “We (don’t) like Ike: II”

  1. When people point to stats, they are pointing to actual, concrete facts. Not gut feelings. Not baseless predictions (DHing in Cleveland). The guy’s OBP is .350, which is pretty solid. Hitting 19 HRs isn’t a joke either, especially as a 23-year-old and in a pitcher’s park. It’s not difficult to believe he’ll get better as he gets more experience in the league.

  2. But Jeff you say he will be an average player, but you have nothing to back it up, you are just talking out of your ass. We are using stats and history and it shows us with his kind of start and looking at what he did to this point to say we think he will be good. If your going to crap on a guy then at least bring one piece of evidence to the table. The last “big hype” prospect was David Wright and he sucks I know. ALso nobody said on here that you called him a bad guy. Don’t accuse us of stuff that nobody in the comment section didn’t type down, that just a lie. But i know we are just stupid fans who can’t possibly compete with the ideas and thoughts of a sportswriter of your standing. I know “facts” can get in the way, but they can be useful sometimes. The lack of insight and substance in your post on Ike Davis tells me that instead of research and original thought, you just pull out old sportswriter’s cliche

    1. Adam, to start with, I deleted the post that called him a “f—-ing ——-.” That’s why you don’t see it. Second, I have everything to back it up. The power of observation. Experience watching baseball. You’re right—maybe I’m wrong. But sometimes you watch and grasp and develop an opinion. This is my opinion: Ike Davis is mediocre.

  3. The Tuck Pendleton Machine

    “I have everything to back it up. The power of observation.”

    Ah. Irrefutable evidence. I observe that I am insanely intelligent. So does my grandmother. Therefore, it’s true, despite what standardized tests and the judge (thanks for the reduced sentence, Judge Wilson!) may say.

    “This is my opinion: Ike Davis is mediocre.”

    That wasn’t your original opinion. Your original opinion was that he was waaaaaaaay overrated and would end up DHing then washing out of the league (or did I misinterpret the comparison to Durazo?).

    Opinions are okay. Good, even. But since you’re a professional sportswriter, don’t get too upset when people call you out on opinions that have no basis in fact. Like it or not, your bona fides are going to hold you hostage to a higher standard, even if this is a blog.

    If you had said, “Ike Davis is an average offensive first baseman,” then yup, I’d back you up on it. Because according to the stats, it’s true. If you had even said, “By Ike Davis being an average first baseman, he is overrated due to expectations placed on him,” I’d back you up. But then you’d have to cite those expectations that he’d be anything more in his rookie year.

  4. Recently on WFAN, I heard someone suggest trading Ike Davis straight-up for Matt Cain.

    That station is the best for unintentional comedy.

  5. “Second, I’m tired of folks pointing out this stat and that stat, this number and that number to defend a ballplayer who just happens to be very, very, very, very average.”

    Jeff, this is in stark contrast to pretty much every post you make about politics. You lobby for citizens to use facts rather than conjecture, yet when it comes to baseball, facts (see: statistics) suddenly become nonsense in your book. Seems like a strange contradiction to me.

    If I was having conversation with you and stated “[Politician X who you are a big fan of] is below average at his job”, I’d imagine you’d ask me for support for such an assertion. And wouldn’t accept at face value “I have the power of observation” as my justification. You would ask for examples to support my assertion, reasons why I feel that way. This is the same as using facts/statistics to make claims about a player. Do you disagree?

    1. Hmmm … great point, James. Don’t fully agree, because sports and politics are very different, but I get it.

      Here’s the thing: I don’t dismiss stats. But, in sports, observation and history and swing and drive and apparent ease/disease mean a GREAT deal. They genuinely do. There are many things statistics can’t measure. For example, I thought Jason Bay would suck in New York. I wrote the column before the season, and folks wrote in with this stat and that stat. Which was fine—but doesn’t tell the whole story. Would he be comfy here? The adjustment to New York. Has he peaked? Etc … Variables. But, again, your point is a strong one. Appreciate it.

  6. Funny, my powers of observation tell me that Ike Davis plays the best first base for anyone in the blue and orange since John Olerud and, (gasp) had an almost IDENTICAL rookie season at the plate to Olerud. Is he Albert Pujols? Heck no. Can he be John Olerud? Well, maybe, yea. He probably won’t ever hit .350, but he can probably be what Olerud was in ’99. That would be pretty freaking awesome.

  7. I’m tired of folks pointing out this stat and that stat, this number and that number to defend a ballplayer

    So you hate it when people buttress their arguments with like, you know, facts. Yeah, I hate those kind of people, too.

  8. The difference between a .270 hitter and a .300 hitter is about 1 hit every two weeks. It’s hard to pick up on those things with out eyes. That’s why we use stats (organized history) to buttress our arguments. If you wrote a well thought out scouting piece of Ike’s shortcomings you would not be receiving this same response. Instead you wrote a short, pointless attack with at least one ridiculous claim (the DH thing.)

  9. “Second, I’m tired of folks pointing out this stat and that stat, this number and that number to defend a ballplayer who just happens to be very, very, very, very average.”

    Maybe this is because you don’t know as much as you think you do, and you don’t like having that pointed out. Either adjust your opinions based on facts, or get used to the name-calling.

Leave a Reply