http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=3229&line=290479&spln=1

He always hustled. That's about it.

Congrats to Freel on a solid career, he got that 1 big contract to set him for life.

I wouldn't say all he could do is hustle, he had a couple real solid years then couldn't stay healthy.

hit .270 with the Reds...i'll take that from a utility player.

For some reason I feel like a lot of people didn't like him....I for one loved seeing him in a Reds uni.

The dude would dive if he was within 20 ft. of the ball. THATS why people didn't like him. You have to be SMART and hustle. Hustle alone doesn't do the trick. Freel, while talented and a hard worker, always seemed a bit dense to me.

"longtime" and "great" are dubious...
otherwise I'll give him his props.

The man that all Reds fans wished was the next Chris Sabo.

killdeer wrote: "longtime" and "great" are dubious...
otherwise I'll give him his props.

The man that all Reds fans wished was the next Chris Sabo.

I'm guessing the title was sarcastic. Which explains the "He always hustled. That's about it." part in the OP's post.

Keeping with the idea of a legacy of 'hustle' players in Cincinnati, how would you rank the following players:
Ryan Freel
Jonny Gomes
Paul O'Neill
Pete Rose
Chris Sabo

Personally, I thought Freel was one of the few hustle guys that I did NOT want on the field. I'm not sure if he was simply lacking that much talent or if he was genuinely not very bright, but he reminded me too much of a bull in a china shop. While playing without regard for his well-being and going all out, he was wreckless and haphazard in his hustle. I reapeatedly said that if Griffey and Dunn had half the desire that Freel had, they could have been top five players.

The only thing great was when he was no longer a Red.

I liked Freel when he first came to the Reds, but his reckless play hurt as much as it helped. I think there's a big difference between hustling and being reckless.

I thought he was a good player for Cincy. Could fill multiple needs and always hustled, even if he ran into a couple of other people and did some major damage to them and himself.

add Adam Rosales and his short stay in Cincy to the "All-Hustle/No-Talent" crowd.

isn't Rosales starting with Oakland?

darbypitcher22 wrote: isn't Rosales starting with Oakland?

Yea, he's havin' an OK year. Hittin' .263 3HR 12RBI, but he's no Miguel Cairo!

I thought I saw him playing in Anaheim the other night... yeah hitting .263 in that HUGE park in Oakland isn't too shabby

Freel was reckless and exhibited very few baseball smarts. Baserunning sense and his approach at the plate were probably his weakest things. That said, he made the greatest catch I have seen in person in Cincy, vs. the Cardinals ~3 years ago, early in the season when they were both near first place. He was playing RF and a Cardinal hit a scorcher in the RCF gap with at least two on that would have given them the lead if it dropped, and I already had conceded the lead. We were right on line with the flight of the ball, and he came from no where angling back toward the wall, flat out dove with full extension and caught it right near the edge of the warning track and grass, saving the lead.

darbypitcher22 wrote: I thought I saw him playing in Anaheim the other night... yeah hitting .263 in that HUGE park in Oakland isn't too shabby

Wouldn't a big park be more likely to BOOST your average, being as there are a lot of places to hit the ball? Unless you're a power hitter (which Rosales is NOT) I don't see that hurting him.

Mooney44Cards wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: I thought I saw him playing in Anaheim the other night... yeah hitting .263 in that HUGE park in Oakland isn't too shabby

Wouldn't a big park be more likely to BOOST your average, being as there are a lot of places to hit the ball? Unless you're a power hitter (which Rosales is NOT) I don't see that hurting him.

That's what I was thinking. If you can get the ball into the outfield, there would be larger gaps because the fielders have more room to cover.

As for Freel, his versatility in the field combined with how managers and fans both get in the moment as far as decision-making both conspired against him. He was a useful bench player who could sub for most anyone on the fly and deliver an adequate performance hitting for average. Problem was that because he could play so many positions, he basically would become a 9th position-player starter, moving around the field.

Two things:
1. If you're playing a gazillion positions, you're a "jack of all trades, master of none" player. He hustled on defense, but wasn't good at taking good lines to the ball and fundamental things like that. He was speedy, but got caught stealing way too often, indicating he didn't have the instincts on the bases. He seemed like an "all heart/little ability" player. A fan favorite, but not a good player.

2. The reason utility players aren't starters is because they don't have the overall package of skills to be everyday players. When Freel played as a pinch-hitter/spot starter, he was a sparkplug who hit .300+ (with very little power). When he was a regular, the average would drop into the low-mid .200s and...when he's not getting on base, those deficiencies in his game got really magnified. A low-average hitter with very little power, poor instincts on the basepaths and questionable defensive instincts will not have much value.