Agreed. I'm a little shocked at the skewed vote here.
I think most people neglect the fact that Rents was bounced around the batting order last year. He got a good deal fewer than half his at-bats in the 2-hole.
If he bats second at Fenway, look for very good things, although he will never swipe as many bags as in 2003.
Of course, this is an answer to "Who would you rather have?" I think their numbers will be comparable (edge for Furcal in steals, maybe a few homers, edge for Renteria in RBI (15-20 more), runs, average), so if you could get Furcal three rounds after Renteria, do that. But no way would I pick him before Renteria. That's dumb.
Agreed. I'm a little shocked at the skewed vote here. I think most people neglect the fact that Rents was bounced around the batting order last year. He got a good deal fewer than half his at-bats in the 2-hole. If he bats second at Fenway, look for very good things, although he will never swipe as many bags as in 2003. Of course, this is an answer to "Who would you rather have?" I think their numbers will be comparable (edge for Furcal in steals, maybe a few homers, edge for Renteria in RBI (15-20 more), runs, average), so if you could get Furcal three rounds after Renteria, do that. But no way would I pick him before Renteria. That's dumb.
Renteria didn't put up great numbers in a season in which he hit in front of Scott Rolen, Albert Pujols, and Jim Edmonds, while Tony Womack was setting up the table in front of him. That alone...the fact he had an off year with all that talent in the lineup with him, and I have to pass on him. Give me Furcal and his handfuls of stolen bases please, although be sure to watch out for his legal troubles.
FatGuyWithAMullet wrote:Furcal easily considering he puts up comparable numbers and is typically a much better draft value.
Exactly. Outside of 2003 Renteria is very overrated fantasy wise IMO. I don't see the move to BOS really helping his numbers that much since he was in a prime spot in a great lineup the last 3-4 years and only had one really exceptional season. One out of 3 or 4 doesn't justify where he is taken in most drafts. Furcal will put up comprable numbers and can be had much later.
Agreed. I'm a little shocked at the skewed vote here. I think most people neglect the fact that Rents was bounced around the batting order last year. He got a good deal fewer than half his at-bats in the 2-hole. If he bats second at Fenway, look for very good things, although he will never swipe as many bags as in 2003. Of course, this is an answer to "Who would you rather have?" I think their numbers will be comparable (edge for Furcal in steals, maybe a few homers, edge for Renteria in RBI (15-20 more), runs, average), so if you could get Furcal three rounds after Renteria, do that. But no way would I pick him before Renteria. That's dumb.
Renteria didn't put up great numbers in a season in which he hit in front of Scott Rolen, Albert Pujols, and Jim Edmonds, while Tony Womack was setting up the table in front of him. That alone...the fact he had an off year with all that talent in the lineup with him, and I have to pass on him. Give me Furcal and his handfuls of stolen bases please, although be sure to watch out for his legal troubles.
Um, as i just said, Renteria got less than half (actually, a little more than a third) of his at-bats in the two hole.
He spend the bigger part of the season batting sixth or seventh. He usually batted behind Rolen, Pujols and Edmonds, not in front of them.
You can certainly make the case for not drafting him — he didn't hit righties well, his caught stealing rate went up in fewer attempts — but don't use this reasoning.
He wasn't lights out batting second, but his 53 games batting second over a whole season give you about this from his 2004 season:
110 runs, 80 RBI, 15 HR
I'm not sure why, but a lot of people are under the mistaken impression Renteria batted second all year and still put up sub-par (for him) numbers.
His numbers were down, but he only batted second for a third of the season. I promise.
Furcal has alot of untapped SB potential...i think he stole 22 bags after the all star game (2nd half of season) when his back healed.
w/o any legitimate big bats behind him, Cox will probably give him the green light more.
Dont forget Furcal missed almost a month last year between a bad back and a broken finger. I expect his final #'s to look something like this:
100+R/ .295 / 13 / 60 / 40+ SB (not bad for 4th-5th round)
On another note, that BoSox lineup is just scary, from 1-9 every guy is a tough out. If Renteria can slug anywhere close to .480 like he did in that '03 season, he could accumulate some serious RBI #'s.
Dont expect Renteria to break double digits in SB's, not on this team atleast (not only was he caught 11out of17 times last year, but Theo rarely lets this team run for obvious statistical reasons)
If i could choose either one without weighing cost, i'd probably go with renteria. Fenway is to good a hitter park with to good a lineup (even better then the Cardinals)
Considering you can get Furcal a couple rounds later he's definitely the best bet.
Also, dont sleep on Furcal's power, i believe he has a 20 HR season in that bat, to bad he bats lead off.
duckbillgates wrote:Agreed. I'm a little shocked at the skewed vote here. I think most people neglect the fact that Rents was bounced around the batting order last year. He got a good deal fewer than half his at-bats in the 2-hole.
As a St. Louisan and die-hard Cards fan from birth, I can assure you that am very familiar with the fact that Renteria's numbers are not from one exact spot in the batting order.
When I answered this (I took Furcal), though, I was looking at this from a points-league perspective. I don't know if that matters to you, but I have Renteria around 8th on my SS depth chart in a points league. I have Furcal ahead of him by a few slots.
Agreed. I'm a little shocked at the skewed vote here. I think most people neglect the fact that Rents was bounced around the batting order last year. He got a good deal fewer than half his at-bats in the 2-hole. If he bats second at Fenway, look for very good things, although he will never swipe as many bags as in 2003. Of course, this is an answer to "Who would you rather have?" I think their numbers will be comparable (edge for Furcal in steals, maybe a few homers, edge for Renteria in RBI (15-20 more), runs, average), so if you could get Furcal three rounds after Renteria, do that. But no way would I pick him before Renteria. That's dumb.
Renteria didn't put up great numbers in a season in which he hit in front of Scott Rolen, Albert Pujols, and Jim Edmonds, while Tony Womack was setting up the table in front of him. That alone...the fact he had an off year with all that talent in the lineup with him, and I have to pass on him. Give me Furcal and his handfuls of stolen bases please, although be sure to watch out for his legal troubles.
Um, as i just said, Renteria got less than half (actually, a little more than a third) of his at-bats in the two hole. He spend the bigger part of the season batting sixth or seventh. He usually batted behind Rolen, Pujols and Edmonds, not in front of them. You can certainly make the case for not drafting him — he didn't hit righties well, his caught stealing rate went up in fewer attempts — but don't use this reasoning. He wasn't lights out batting second, but his 53 games batting second over a whole season give you about this from his 2004 season: 110 runs, 80 RBI, 15 HR I'm not sure why, but a lot of people are under the mistaken impression Renteria batted second all year and still put up sub-par (for him) numbers. His numbers were down, but he only batted second for a third of the season. I promise.
He didn't hit second for most of the year because he didn't produce well enough at the 2nd hole.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by NZF » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:52 pm 
