No, I got that. But this has already been shown to not be true. Despite his poor swing, he has a reasonably high contact rate (meaning he doesn't strike out) and when he puts the ball in play, even it is weakly done, he gets on base, hence the decent BABIP. So you are incorrect. His "poor swing" still works for him, despite the weak contact. Why? Because he's ridiculously fast. That is incorrect. BABIP is more of a luck stat for pitchers. It's less variable for hitters. (i.e. some hitters are better at squaring up the ball, regardless of who's pitching.) See above point. For hitters it tends to be a more repeatable skill. That's not to say that there isn't variation among hitters, or that there aren't reasons to help explain variation. For example, a slumping hitter might not be seeing the ball very well and is popping a lot of pitches up. Weaker contact like that means a lower BABIP. Granderson's BABIP was very low last year during his awful season, far lower than it was in other years of his career. Why? Because he was making lousy contact. Same for Cano during his cruddy 2008. His BABIP was very, very low that year, 40 points below his career average. Gardner is the opposite. Gardner is able to use his speed to get on base even when he makes weaker contact. Balls fall in for singles. Soft grounders are beaten out for hits.
As of now, in 2010, after 3 games, you cannot conclusively say he is effective. And my stance is after half a season, when the Yankees deal for another, more efficient player, you will be wrong.
Piggybacking on your last points. The players (generally) with higher BABIP are speed guys (i.e. Gardner, Ichiro (.300 BABIP last season)) and line-drive hitters (Mauer (.373!!! BABIP last year).
I am not basing my judgment on three games of this season and only those three games. I am basing it on his total performance to date (at all levels) and his complete skill set. His performance in the three games they have played this season is almost irrelevant. Um... wrong about what? Nowhere have I said that the Yanks aren't looking to improve. They should always be looking to improve. If they can get a better player than Gardner for a reasonable price, they should. All I said was that that player is not going to be Crawford in the middle of the season. And it's not going to be. I'll guarantee it. Here are the points I've made: 1. I don't think Gardner is as bad as you think he is because of how he "looks" as a player. You've already said you hate him and that nothing will change your mind about this, including facts, so that's fine. But your perception of him is out of line with his value to the team. 2. Bunting more will not improve his performance or increase his value to the team. It will in all likelihood significantly decrease it. 3. Trading intra-divisionally for Crawford mid-season is monumentally stupid and will never happen. Think about it. Tampa is likely to be hotly contesting the wild card, if not the division title. Why are they going to trade one of their better players to a team that could prevent them from making the postseason. The only way that trade happens is if it's so one-sided that Tampa makes out like a bandit. And - despite what the voices in Don's head tell him - Cashman is not that stupid. Don't conflate these three arguments, and please try to address them directly if you take issue with any of them. Because I've noticed that you avoid addressing my points directly. It makes it difficult to discuss any particular topic if you're just going to hop around from point to point and claim to claim. (For example, my last post was correcting your misunderstandings about BABIP. You just brushed right past that.) Indeed.
The reason why Chan Ho pitched the way he did in the season opener. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GIEHPGj9sI[/youtube]
