Skelton’s still small; maybe it’s not a problem
I don’t want you to think I’m obsessing on this topic, even though I probably am. But imagine my surprise today when I rolled over to the Tiger website and saw this article talking about how Skelton’s size may not be a problem after all.
Now, I know enough about preseason articles to know you can’t put much stock in them. They make it seem like all the guys who were already on the team are going to break through and everybody who’s hoping to make the team somehow will. I didn’t realize Spring Training took place in Lake Wobegon.
Anyway, the point is a lot of fluff gets written this time of year and any Tiger fan who read year after year that “something was different about this team” all through the last 20 years should know better than to get sucked in.
However, I had to grin reading this article. Not only did it talk about how Skelton’s size may not be a problem, Brandon Inge even posited the same theory I put forth when I first started beating the “why do catchers need to be big” drum a few months back. He talked about the possible advantages. Like I said, this doesn’t mean much and I’m not wearing my “Genius at Work” baseball cap to work tomorrow but I have to admit it’s kind of cool to see somebody else thinking this way.
Of course, once I got over myself I realized the Tigers don’t really seem to buy into “the wee catcher can make it” theory. They put him on a weight gain program during the offseason and there are no quotes from coaches saying his size isn’t a problem.
I don’t know how this is all going to turn out, but as you can probably tell the question fascinates me. I love it when guys go against the grain and make people think twice about what they know. I just wish Skelton threw left-handed to boot. It’s entirely possible that would cause somebody’s head to explode.
Note: Unless there’s a really good reason to bring it up again, I promise this will be the last time I bring up Skelton’s size or the idea that it may not be a problem.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 9:43 pm and is filed under james skelton, spring training.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
THE AUTHOR
RECENT ARTICLES BY MLB AFFILIATE
ARCHIVE
7 Responses to “Skelton’s still small; maybe it’s not a problem”
February 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Eh, he put on a lousy 15 pounds. If he continues to kick tail in the minors, I don’t really think Detroit can complain. Everybody whines about Jeff Larish’s swing, but it works for him. Maybe Skelton’s small frame and light weight works for him.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
[…] thing is his prospect status is diminished because of his diminutive stature according to many. Take 75 North is also a fan and was happy to see a Jason Beck profile of […]
February 21st, 2008 at 8:58 am
[…] in the system, and many people think he will be Pudge’s replacement. Matt Wallace from Take 75 North has written a nice article about […]
February 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
What I find so entertaining about this discussion is that it is the exact same kind of questioning that Billy Beane had to endure when he wanted to draft Jeremy Brown. The only real difference being that Brown was considered too large to catch. Beane had to keep reminding his scouts that:
1. Brown held the University of Alabama records for both hits and walks.
2. they weren’t selling jeans
My assumption as to why scouts (and presumably coaches) are wary of Skelton is because smaller guys simply can’t endure full workloads. That makes intuitive sense to me, but I agree that it would be nice if someone could actually explain why.
I also keep asking “at what weight does he become a true prospect?” and no one has answered. He apparently gained 10lbs. over the offseason. What does he need? 8 more? 10 more?
In addition no one has been able to tell me if he can gain weight. I mean, if the guy was 23 or 24 he’d pretty much be screwed. But at 21 I would assume there’s still time to fill out his frame.
And not for nothing, but the guy also has to play some AA ball before he gets a “successor to Pudge” label. If he can continue to compile a .400 OBP in Erie I think a few more people will forget about how small he is.
I’m pulling for him and Hollimon. May they both be starters soon.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:40 am
“… and all the prospects are above average.” Good one-liner.
And, in response to your endnote, I point out the Bill James observation about left-handed catchers: they are eliminated by natural selection. One of the most important things a catcher has to have is a strong arm, right? If you’ve got a 10-year-old on your team with a strong left arm, where are you going to play him? Yup, he’s gonna pitch. I would like to see a few scouts’ heads explode, though. I’m sure that some day, there will be a left-hander in somebody’s system that just can’t find the plate from 60′6″ to save his life, yet can throw strikes between the knees and the ground at 127 feet, 3-1/3 inches (and, yes, I’m geeky enough to have used the Pythagorean formula to figure out how far it is from home plate to 2nd base). Oh, and he’ll have to be a fair-to-decent hitter, too, I’d imagine this would have to be on an NL-based franchise.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Thanks for all the comments and links. This is clearly a topic that interests people. I think it’s because it’s another angle on the scouts v. numbers debate.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
From what I saw of Bones behind the plate last year, his size was never really an issue. Yes, there were times I was sure I’d see him lose a limb in a collision with a runner, but I don’t ever remember thinking to myself, “If only he were bigger, he’d have made that play.”
Leave a comment