Which Votto?

by ByANose on Feb 18, 2007 10:33 AM EST Comment 15 comments

A first baseman that can steal 20 bags and bring power is pretty hard to pass up. Which Votto is the real player: 2005 vs 2006 vs somewhere in between? Hatteberg is not a major road block, and if he plays decent again this year is an ideal candidate to get dealt from Cin. Are Votto's SO's a concern? Do you really believe that the 40+ doubles can project into even more power, and where did the speed come from? I do not know whether to bump Votto up my NL only auction board, or wait until he proves he can repeat his numbers at AAA. I just do not have a solid feel on him either way.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Votto of 2004 and 2006 is the real Votto.

Remember, in 2005, the Reds and Dan Obrien instituted a rule that all hitters must take the first pitch unless otherwise told not to. It really set Joey back in the FSL. Everyone knew about the rule, including opposing pitchers. He started off almost all of his at bats down 0-1. After that, its tough to get a pitch to drive. Take a peak back at what he did in 2004 and then in 2006 without restrictions on pitches he could swing at.
As for his speed, in the offseason last year Joey hired a personal trainer to get him in better shape and help him get faster. He worked with him all last offseason and it obviously paid off with the monster year he put up.

Hope that answers some of your questions and concerns.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 18, 2007 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Young Jeff Bagwell

He reminds me of him preroids. Runs good for a 1st baseman and is going to be a 20-20 player in the majors.

by Bravesin07 on Feb 18, 2007 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bagwell

Since when did he do roids. He never looked like he did and they never learned that he did. I don't see any reason to say he did.

by Falcoatl on Feb 18, 2007 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Hatteberg is not a major roadblock"

I like Votto a lot long-term, but I don't think he'll give you much fantasy value this season. Hatteberg wouldn't be a major roadblock with anybody else running the show, but Jerry Narron has a track record of playing mediocre veterans over talented young players.

Edwin Encarnacion was limited to 117 games last year due in large part to Narron's affinity for Rich Aurilia. After EE's injury in June, they left him in AAA to "rehab" for a week after doctors and Edwin himself both proclaimed him ready to go. Then, Narron kept him on the bench for ELEVEN games in July while Aurilia and Royce Clayton manned the left side of the infield.

Votto might be worth a $1 flyer late in case Hatteberg gets injured, in which case Narron would have no choice but to play him. However, Narron's preference for mediocre veterans means that even if he gets the call after the All-Star break, you're looking at 2 starts a week at best so long as Hatteberg is around.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Feb 18, 2007 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Very Good Player

He was one guy that certainly made improvements as the year went on, especially against left handed pitching. I don't think 2006 is his ceiling; it wouldn't surprise me if he hit 30 HR's (in Cincy) sometime in his career. I don't think he'll be posting .400 OBP anytime in the majors but he certainly works right handed pitchers like he knows what he's doing. He got better as the year progressed vs. left handed pitchers; early in the year they ate him up but later in the year he more than held his own. Granted these are all home (Chattanooga) observations.

I agree that the "current regime" isn't going to turn over the keys to 1b this season but it wouldn't surprise me to see them do it next season. I also don't think a full year of AAA would hurt him as he's still a "young" 22 development wise.

Defensively he's okay but makes some boneheaded plays at 1b that certainly wouldn't endear himself to anyone at the major league level. Physically I think he can be a very good 1b just needs more experience to iron out these miscues.

"Strikeouts are good...groundballs are better. Home runs are okay...but walks SUCK!" Mike Caldwell

by Torncuff on Feb 18, 2007 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bagwell Article

http://asher.baseballevolution.com/bagwellconspiracy.html

Talks all about him and the beginning of the steroid era in the 1990's.

by Bravesin07 on Feb 18, 2007 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

lol!

Untainted by a single source. That's the kind of story that makes the Internet "the Internet." Well done.

by whichthat on Feb 18, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hahah

The idea that one player was somehow the hearth for all of baseball steroid dealing (that somehow, multimillionaires wouldn't seek out their own sources) is absolutely laughable.

by limozeen on Feb 18, 2007 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

um..

Um...that article was pretty obviously satirical. And if you don't believe me, read the commentary of the author two years later.

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/bagwellemails.html

by ComandoEep on Feb 18, 2007 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very True

But Bagwell's power just flat out exploded in 94 the beginnings of the heart of the sterioid era. Remember Bagwell couldn't hit a homer at all in the minor leagues, same with Giambi.

by Bravesin07 on Feb 18, 2007 2:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing from this that you're too young...

....to actually remember and are just looking back at the stats, but Bagwell was acknowledged as a huge power-hitter in the making from his rookie season on, when he hit an upper deck shot in Three Rivers (was only the ninth person to do so).

What I think is affecting your perception, also, is that the Astrodome was an absurdly bad place to hit, and even moreso for power numbers -- sort of a one-over-Coors. But to say that Bagwell just "became a homerun hitter out of nowhere in '94" is simply false, since he was commonly regarded a top power hitter the minute he stepped into ROY contention.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 18, 2007 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I don't know one way or the other...

about whether bags used or not, you have to admit that his numbers pre-94 and post-94 were really night and day. He goes from hitting 20 homers in 597 PAs in 93 to hitting 39 homers in 465 PAs, so doubling his homer total and increasing his XBH total from 61 in 93 (a good number) to 73 in 94 in less PAs, from age 25 to 26, and both years were spend in the astrodome. So it does look strange.

But you know, you're right, power was expected from him, and his performance wasn't outside the acceptable limits, historically, so I won't call foul on him (like I do with Bonds, Sammy and McGwire), but given the context of the steriod use at the time, it make me wonder.

by beastball on Feb 18, 2007 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no.....I agree.....

......and I'm curious now whether the fences were moved in that year or something.....

do you happen to know if the park factor in general changed around that time? it is definitely a leap in power, and bagwell is certainly not "beyond doubt." i also don't think it's proof of use though, and i didn't like the giambi comparison, simply because bagwell WAS considered a power hitter (even if not of 40-homer proportions.

then again, in 1992, the homerun leader hit 43 homers as i remember it, and (in all likelihood) it's not like ALL of the increase in that number is due to steroids, so i think it's reasonable to keep that in mind as well.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 18, 2007 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let us not forget the luck factor

Maybe he had a really subpar year one year, and then a really lucky year the next. Additionally, Bagwell was getting a lot more contact that next year than the previous year. Furthermore, he kinda sunk back down to Earth (sorta, as far as a .300/.400/.500 line can be called Earth) the next year, and his career averages turned out to be between 30-40 HRs. So I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this had to do with luck, and just cookies crumbling in certain ways.

by mroak89 on Feb 19, 2007 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He broke his hand

I think that's why his numbers went down the next year. I remember he was always getting hit in the hands. Remember Bagwell faded fast at the end and a lot of players fade fast when they get off the roids, ie. McGwire, Sosa, Anderson, Boone.

by Bravesin07 on Feb 19, 2007 9:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs