TheLeviathan

People aren't concerned largely because they didn't put as much stock into his early success as I did. I bought it and had hope that the .800ish OPS player he was could be sustainable. That doesn't make me wrong or them correct - it was a hope. My concern is born out of the fact that he doesn't appear to be as valuable as could once have been hoped. You'll notice none of this "duh he was never that valuable" talk was floating around in June when he was a fringe elite player. I find it a bit convenient to be laid out now that the homeruns have left, but in any case there does appear to be some valid reasons for doubting that early success. However, there were also valid reasons (see some of Parker's work) to believe it could be sustained. So this isn't a right or wrong issue, there are valid reasons to be on both sides of it. I respect kab's opinion for not having a concern because he thought the April-June Dozier was a bit flukey. Fair point. I didn't think April-June was flukey so I'm a bit concerned. I know we'll still have a good player either way, but I'm concerned we may have lost out on a borderline elite player if the power is truly sapped. And my impetus for the thread was based on the surprise of just how sapped it's really been. One homerun since the all-star break surprised me because it didn't feel as though it had gone that dry.

The kid needs to be at SS to start next year and we need to have Escobar waiting behind him. Those two are both glaring regression candidates, but we have to hope one of them at least plays close to as well as they have this year.

That's such a good point. What's the worst thing that can happen if they fire Gardy and realize later the replacement is worse? We lose 94 games? 93? The change in leadership needs to be about breathing new life into the organization - it's gotten far too stale for far too long.

Disagree.

At no point have I judged him by his homeruns. I apparently can't point out the logical fallacy you keep employing but I'd appreciate it if you stopped. Dozier's on base skills are great and give him a high floor as a player. The problem is that the homerun ball is what made him a fringe elite player at his position. If the homeruns dry up he goes from being fringe elite to a solid player. That doesn't mean I want him cut. I'm not saying he's a bad player, but a solid player is less valuable than a fringe elite one. When a player loses that kind of value in a matter of months it concerns me. Especially when this team needs all the fringe elite players it can get. (As do all teams)

I really don't know how the team could stand pat again with this same group of leadership. It's a terrible message to send to your fanbase, even if you think it's just a token move and Gardy has no blame, you almost have to do it just from a public relations standpoint.

I thought he could stay near that level, yes. Or at least I hoped he could. The park plays to his strengths and with the strong OBP as a base he didn't have to be a power monster to stay at that level. He just needed to stay solid with his power. Instead he's dropped considerably in his homerun production. If we should expect him to settle in more at 10 or so homeruns I think that's a bit of a disappointment from where we were a few months ago.

No, I'm just acknowledging it's less valuable than a .780 OPS.

That's a fair argument then. You should make it, but I never heard such an argument at the time. His BABIP is flukey in August, not sure how anyone can disagree with that. And I'm not even saying we can't expect months like that because Dozier has been pretty streaky so far since his adjustments. But again, as of mid June, early July - there was reason to hope he'd be more than a low .700 OPS player.

Well, at one point the homeruns were real. So, yeah, I was kind of hoping he might be able to sustain that. I'm not sure why that's an awful sin.

Yeah, he's doing fine - but the homerun power has been sapped for awhile. I posted the thread because I was surprised just how sapped it had been. Taking his power out of his game is going to hurt his OPS pretty significantly, that's concerning.

August was also driven by a freaky good BABIP. I'm not undervaluing his strength - I'm glad he has that skill. But part of what had us excited about him was that he was combining power with that strength.

No where have I said he's a bad player. He's a fine player, but I could easily dig up some May/June stuff on this same board on Dozier and your post here would sound like a grumpy pessimist by comparison. There's been a change and it hasn't been for an uptick in expectations.

Nowhere did I say he was a bad player. At the middle point of the season a .700ish OPS would've been seen as pessimistic and now it's generally accepted. I'm a bit concerned by that tail off in expectations.

I'm having trouble registering this in my brain.

I guess I actually became a bit more concerned by this thread and how many people are content with Dozier being far less than a high level performer. It's more than we could've hoped a few years ago, but it's clearly lowered expectations from what people were saying before the season.

That's fair (Though again I wonder how much of August is just flukey luck), but I'd suggest Dozier has teased us with more than those expectations at times. Maybe my concern was born more out of hope that he'd be better than that expectation.

I don't think it's at all a low concern if one of the best young players the team has developed in the last two years is seemingly still a bit of an identity crisis. Dozier is able to get on base with walks and scores runs, we know that it seems. But a lot of the positive production in August was driven by a BABIP roughly 100 points better than he typically sports. I guess I'm still concerned with what we can expect from Dozier long term beyond good defender and good on-base guy. He seems to be prone to extreme streakiness and when I started thinking of what to project next year I was left still scratching my head about his game.

Brian Dozier has hit one homerun since July 22nd. Discuss.

I didn't even hear about that angle. So yeah, the silliness has already begun, probably only more to follow. Is this tough guy play? What does this accomplish? I'm also to assume we will now have a Brewers-Fish rivalry for decades! Just like the deep hate between Pirates and Dbacks and Titans and Cowboys and the other assorted examples of dirty play. (This one by all accounts was just an honest mistake and we STILL have this nonsense happening).

It is, but I don't see how we can get significantly better when we're absolutely awful at a critical phase of the game. We may have to seriously consider trading a guy like Arcia. (Which I would be pretty sad to see, I'm a big fan of his offensive game)

This issue is the number one reason I don't expect this team to sniff contention for at least two more seasons. Buxton will help a lot, but the other big positional addition is a guy with some defensive question marks as well. Assuming we can help transform these guys into competent defenders, it's going to take time.

Exactly, if your best defense for keeping the guy is basically to conclude his position is irrelevant....why do you care if he's replaced?

I'm ok with how his whole situation was handled and I don't hold it against his candidacy. I do, however, think it's silly to credit him for that as a reason to hire him. Nothing about what he did should be celebrated. It was buffoonery.

In football and hockey there is no "possibility" - 22 dudes are physically aggressive with one another every....single....play. (Or 11 in the case of hockey) The fact that you keep seriously suggesting this analogy is baffling. I have to believe you understand how deeply flawed it is but keep floating it for some purpose I have not yet gleaned. There is no "boys will be boys" and no one I read here said any such thing. Munnerlyn deserved to be penalized and was. But what he did was be too physical in a physical sport. Not start a fight in a non-physical sport. The only analogies in football are things like a guy stomping someone's facemask with his cleat or attacking someone with their helmet off - those are rare instances and I'd be every bit as harsh on them. I've already said I'd ban fighting in hockey if I had my way and I feel the same about swinging sticks. There is no hypocrisy. I realize that's the only way you think you can make your position tenable but, sorry, no hypocrisy here. Most everyone who has posted in this thread and called out your first post take the same stance in all major sports. The position here is consistent. We should be talking more about why you are glorifying the dirty nonsense because no one else is. As for rivalries, I'm not being selective: the two largest factors in every rivalry are very simple - geographic proximity and high stakes play. Those two factors tend to drive the other things that add spice to it like dirty play and guys switching allegiances and all the other stuff. You're suggesting dirty play is the cause of rivalries, I'd argue it's the effect of the passion involved in them. In other words, the rivalry has to already exist to drum up the passion for dirty play. Rarely is it the reverse. But by all means, since you have made that claim - let's see a list of specific examples of teams where no rivalry existed but one dirty play cemented a rivalry.