Friday, December 12, 2003

More Spiez Please

OK so I was wrong about Kaz-Mat and Benito so I’m going to get out the prognosticating business for now and make a suggestion. The A’s should target free-agent IF Scott Spiezio. Yes, the same Scott Spiezio the A’s unceremoniously dumped in favor of Randy Velarde all those years ago, the same Scott Spiezio who killed SF in the World Series two years ago.

After two years of showing he could be a legit starter Spiezio was dumped by the Angels and needs a home. Why not bring him back to Oakland? Here’s why they should:

Spiez is basically Scott Hatteberg with pop. Why would the A’s want another Scott Hatteberg? Well, why not? According to Michel Lewis nine Scott Hatteberg’s would constitute the best offense in baseball. Let’s look at the numbers:

Stat Hatteberg Spiezio
AVG .253 .265
HR 12 16
RBI 61 83
2B 34 36
3B 0 7
BB 66 46
SO 53 66
OBP .342 .326
SLG .383 .427
OPS .725 .779
AB 541 521

The only categories where Spiez ranks behind Hatteberg is OBP, BB and SO, and he did it in fewer ABs. So, now you’re asking, why bring in another 1B when the A’s already have Hatteberg and Durazo under contract? Well, first of all, having a solid backup at 1B would help rest Hatte’s back on turf, and against southpaws, and allow Durazo to shift to his natural position, DH. Also, Spiez started his career as a SS, played 2B with Oakland and played 3B and 1B in Anaheim. A team as cash strapped as Oakland should jump at a guy who can back up all four IF positions. Spiez can be like a new Tony Phillips, with out the drug problem (he can even fill in at LF in a pinch). Spiez is a guy who can throw up some clutch numbers (i.e. his dinger in game six), play a little D, and let’s face it, A’s fans who lived through the Dave Magadan, Mike Oquist days have a soft spot for Spiezio. Of course Spiezio will probably go somewhere where they offer him a chance at a starting job (though he’s versatile enough to rotate positions and hit his way into the lineup). C’mon home Scotty, we got some ABs for ya, we’re waiting.

1 comment: