Drew Stubbs or Chris Dickerson? That is the question.
I have never been a fan of letting spring performance dictate roster decisions of this type. Stubbs and Dickerson have roughly 20 at-bats this spring; are we really going to make a decision based on 20 ABs? Seems silly.
That said, Stubbs was named CF heir-apparent in the off-season, and he hasn’t done anything to justify that since spring training started (before today, at least; he had an excellent game this afternoon). Dickerson, meanwhile, has been great. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see the Reds decide that Stubbs isn’t ready, and hand the CF position over to Dickerson. Two things about that:
1. It wouldn’t be all bad. Dickerson isn’t a bad option. He’ll get on base a bit, and his centerfield defense is pretty darn good (even if it isn’t as good as what we’ll see from Stubbs). In fact, just forget the last twenty at-bats, and you can still make a good argument that Dickerson should be the starter.
2. If the Reds make a decision like this based on 20 at-bats, I have serious concern about the people in positions to make judgment calls with this organization. That’s a ridiculous way to run a business. If you think Stubbs is better, as the Reds have said for the last several months, how can 20 ABs change your mind?
I don’t have any problem at all with Chris Dickerson as the starting centerfielder and leadoff hitter for this team. I like the guy. Heck, I like Stubbs too, though I’ve never been completely sold on him. But the idea that the Reds would turn on a dime, based on a tiny sample size…well, that just rubs me the wrong way.
Okay, I’m glad to get that off my chest.