The biggest problem with saying Nady is an improvement over Swisher at the moment is Nady’s health. He has been out quite a while with his arm injury. When he returns he is a defensive liability, he will have a below average arm. Can he even throw the ball very far now? I think it was Girardi that said in an interview all they ask Nady to do is hit the cut off man and they will send Cano further into right field than normal. RF is traditionally a position where a strong arm is necessary.

Now I’ve always hoped Swisher could learn to hit more and have a higher avg, but at this point I guess its tough for him to learn. I wasn’t a fan of him when the Yankees first acquired him, I wasn’t looking forward to another Jason Giambi type player, but he has grown on me. He simply has fun playing the game, the Yankees haven’t had that kind of energy in quite a while.

Here are some interesting quirks with Swisher this year. He hits better away, .313/.400/.708 if he didn’t have to hit at Yankee Stadium I guess we’d have an amazing player. At home he’s hitting .169/.372/.268. This is a big difference aside from the fact he continues to get walks, make you wonder why he doesn’t hit at home. In games the Yankees won he’s hit .288/.424/.615, and in losses .190/.325/.365. His production leads to wins for the team and hasn’t been wasted much. In 6 games and 22 AB at 1B Swisher has hit .333/.455/.833, we don’t have to worry much about production if Tex gets a day off at first and DHs or sits completely. He’s a .400 hitter while batting 2nd or 3rd over 7 games.

….cold hard truth is that Swisher, strikeouts and all, gets on base more than Xavier Nady.
————–

Exactly. Nady makes more outs than Swisher, which is bad. It could be offset by a superior slugging %, but it isn’t. They have nearly identical career SLG%. As such, the player who makes fewer outs is going to be better/more valuable. Since Swisher makes fewer outs (even though strikeouts might stick out in the mind more than groundouts), he is the better offensive player.

And hey, if Swisher never makes contact, he won’t ground into double plays, right?

I don’t get Steve on this one and I never will. He’s the better player than Nady on both sides and whether or not a “contact” guy gets on more or not, the bottom, cold hard truth is that Swisher, strikeouts and all, gets on base more than Xavier Nady. Period. Nady is good to have and strengthens a very weak and pathetic bench, but he is not more valuable than Swisher, streakiness, strikeouts, and all.

And yeah, he’s a nut, but this is a guy that does a ton for charity. He seems to be a good guy, so I don’t get the hate. And if you dislike him, fine, but to hate him and then make illogical arguments based on poor stat work?

yagottagotomo1 wrote:
How can you make a case statistically for a player who you just said is not as good?

Consistency. I’m not actually sure about this, but I’m guessing Nady’s lows aren’t as low as Swisher’s. Of course, statistically, the low points and high points even themselves out over the course of a season. But there is probably something to be said for consistency. Slumps are a drag.

If Steve wants to make this case, it would probably be a good idea to compare Nady’s slumps to Swisher’s. If Swisher’s aren’t actually worse than Nady’s, then Steve really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, statistically.

Steve Lombardi wrote:

Raf wrote:

Contact guys don’t whiff?
I believe they’re called contact guys because they don’t whiff all that much, no?

But they still strike out. Just like players like Swisher make contact.

Justin wrote:

What it tells us is that, as others have pointed out, he’s streaky player who strikes out a lot, but he’s also a good player. Nady is not as streaky and doesn’t strike out as much, but he’s also not as good. I think there’s a case to be made for preferring the latter type of player, aesthetically and statistically, and I’m pretty sure that’s the case Steve is trying to make.

Aesthetically, yes. How can you make a case statistically for a player who you just said is not as good?

Jake1 wrote:

Nady would tear up RF in the new yankee stadium. swisher should not be playing 7 days a week.

I’m feeling ya!

Raf wrote:

Contact guys don’t whiff?

I believe they’re called contact guys because they don’t whiff all that much, no?

Justin gets it. Thanks dude.

Steve’s admitted that he dislikes Swisher for aesthetic reasons before, so I’m not sure where all this “The truth comes out!” is coming from. It’s a perfectly reasonable position. I would guess that we all have players we dislike for aesthetic reasons.

It’s also entirely reasonable to point out that Swisher has been terrible over the month of May, and when he’s playing like that, Nady is an improvement.

What’s not particularly reasonable is to use selective endpoints as arbitrarily as they have been used in this post and throughout this thread. Come on. Swisher had a really good first month. He had a really bad second month. Shockingly, it’s averaged out to his career stats. Now he appears to be getting hot again. At some point in the season, he’ll get cold again. And around and around we go. That tells us something, but neither his hot nor cold stretches should be used to make generalizations about his career as a whole.

What it tells us is that, as others have pointed out, he’s streaky player who strikes out a lot, but he’s also a good player. Nady is not as streaky and doesn’t strike out as much, but he’s also not as good. I think there’s a case to be made for preferring the latter type of player, aesthetically and statistically, and I’m pretty sure that’s the case Steve is trying to make. I disagree with him, but it’s not insane. Arguing that Swisher’s a terrible player overall, however, is insane. As would be arguing that Nady’s a terrible player overall.