Originally Posted by Rex Hudler
Here is another thought I would like opinions on. I don't necessarily sit on one side of this or the other.
This is as much a general question as it is a Anderson/Reed comparison. I do agree that Anderson is more likely to have somewhat higher OPS seasons because he is likely to hit for more power.
My question is this..... In comparison, would it not be advantageous to keep a really good #2 hitter (who hits lefty to boot) than to keep a slightly more productive hitter like Anderson? My thought is that a guy like Anderson is not that hard to find. I would think that finding a solid OF who will hit 5th or 6th in the order would be easier than finding a very good, high OBP two-hole hitter.
One can argue there is a difference in defense between the two that would make this point moot, which is why I want you guys to think in general terms too, not just as it applies to Anderson and Reed.
Lastly, for what it is worth, I didn't see a big difference between the two defensively. Maybe I drank too much of the Jeremy Reed Kool Aid, but he was pretty damned good in CF while in Birmingham. I know I saw him at his best and saw Anderson partly while injured (he wasn't playing CF with the groin problem, however), but I just didn't see a discernable difference between the two.
Enough thought for the day...... I'm going back to being mindless.
Good question, but I don't think you can answer that without considering the rest of the team. If Podsednik and Iguchi produce like we all hope they will, then you might rather have Anderson. If one of them stumbles, then you might well wish you had Reed instead.