PDA

View Full Version : How good do you think Beckham is?


JermaineDye05
03-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Granted we've only seen just a small sample of Gordon this spring and it's not like he's hitting 1.000 with 6 HR's or anything. Still, from the little we've seen of him he's seemed very calm up there and just looks like he knows where he belongs. I can't remember the last homegrown Sox player that has looked this good. However it is still a small sample so there's not really much to tell how good Gordon Beckham is or will be. Judging scouting reports and what he's done since joining the sox, be it in the minors or in the AFL and ST. Where do you see him with the Sox in the future? Is he the next Joe Crede? A player who's rather good, but never seems to reach that potential of greatness. Is he another Brian Anderson? Top prospect who just fizzles out and busts? (I highly doubt this one.) Or does he actually have the potential to be that good to be the next great SS in not only White Sox history but ML history?

What do you think?

CashMan
03-06-2009, 12:37 PM
Granted we've only seen just a small sample of Gordon this spring and it's not like he's hitting 1.000 with 6 HR's or anything. Still, from the little we've seen of him he's seemed very calm up there and just looks like he knows where he belongs. I can't remember the last homegrown Sox player that has looked this good. However it is still a small sample so there's not really much to tell how good Gordon Beckham is or will be. Judging scouting reports and what he's done since joining the sox, be it in the minors or in the AFL and ST. Where do you see him with the Sox in the future? Is he the next Joe Crede? A player who's rather good, but never seems to reach that potential of greatness. Is he another Brian Anderson? Top prospect who just fizzles out and busts? (I highly doubt this one.) Or does he actually have the potential to be that good to be the next great SS in not only White Sox history but ML history?

What do you think?



I think Gordon is going to be a fixture either at 2B or SS for many years. Brian Anderson didn't fizzle out. I feel for some reason Kenny and Ozzie didn't like Brian and McCarthy for some reason. Was it because they were young and partied perhaps. BA was given the job and was a rookie in 2005, since then for some reason he was banished to the bench. I don't know too many rookies who come up and hit .300 right away, there is a learning process and I feel Kenny/Ozzie never gave him that. I still don't get the stop gaps of Erstad/Swisher/Owens, if BA is that terrible then trade him.

delben91
03-06-2009, 12:44 PM
I think Gordon is going to be a fixture either at 2B or SS for many years. Brian Anderson didn't fizzle out. I feel for some reason Kenny and Ozzie didn't like Brian and McCarthy for some reason. Was it because they were young and partied perhaps. BA was given the job and was a rookie in 2005, since then for some reason he was banished to the bench. I don't know too many rookies who come up and hit .300 right away, there is a learning process and I feel Kenny/Ozzie never gave him that. I still don't get the stop gaps of Erstad/Swisher/Owens, if BA is that terrible then trade him.

I sure hope we can take a thread asking about how good Beckham will be and turn it into a BA/Owens/Wise debate thread!!! :bandance:

CashMan
03-06-2009, 12:47 PM
I sure hope we can take a thread asking about how good Beckham will be and turn it into a BA/Owens/Wise debate thread!!! :bandance:


I said I think Beckham is going to be good.

doublem23
03-06-2009, 12:58 PM
I can't comment on how his defense looks (how does his defense look?) but man, he looks pretty good at the plate.

He'll be good. But he's not ready.

CashMan
03-06-2009, 12:59 PM
I can't comment on how his defense looks (how does his defense look?) but man, he looks pretty good at the plate.

He'll be good. But he's not ready.


Did you or anyone watch the AFL, or is it even televised? I am wondering how good he looked in the AFL.

kittle42
03-06-2009, 01:10 PM
Did you or anyone watch the AFL, or is it even televised? I am wondering how good he looked in the AFL.

He was quite handsome.

esbrechtel
03-06-2009, 01:14 PM
I remember watching the College baseball World series right after we drafted him...

I can't wait to see that kid in the White Sox uni full time....although I have a good feeling it won't be at SS...

oeo
03-06-2009, 01:25 PM
I can't comment on how his defense looks (how does his defense look?) but man, he looks pretty good at the plate.

He'll be good. But he's not ready.

We don't know that. You'd hate to just push him right into the majors, which is why the Sox won't, but I don't think we have an idea of whether he's ready or not.

About his defense, there were questions of whether he could handle major league SS before he was drafted, that he may need to move to second. Apparently, though, he made a very good play at SS earlier in the spring that Konerko commented about. It was on Scott Merkin's blog, I believe. Everyone thought it was a hit, and he made the play; Konerko said something about Beckham playing SS for 15 years if he can make that kind of play. No word on whether he said Beckham was better than Royce Clayton, however.

sox1970
03-06-2009, 01:28 PM
I think he's ready, but I don't think they'll bring him up right away becuase of the service time issue. May? June? I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Britt Burns
03-06-2009, 01:56 PM
I think like Frank and Robin Beckham will spend his first complete pro season at AA, and assuming he does well we will see him in Chicago around August 1 or with the expanded roster in September.

How good will he be? Well, at a minimum I think he and TCM will gives us the beest SS-2B combo since Aparicio-Fox.

DirtySox
03-06-2009, 01:58 PM
I think he is very close to ready, but I would rather not rush things unless we have utter and complete failure in the Getz/Lillibridge experiment.

I also predict this thread will become about Brian Anderson and CF by page 4.

VeeckAsInWreck
03-06-2009, 02:31 PM
I think like Frank and Robin Beckham will spend his first complete pro season at AA

Who are Frank and Robin Beckham? :scratch:........:tongue:

Jurr
03-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Some guys just "have it" or "get it". They are ballplayers. They understand baseball, know what they can do, and quickly adjust to the talent they face. In a mental game like baseball, some guys get themselves psyched out before they step onto the field. Some guys think their talent is going to get them through. Some fear failure so much that they try to do too much, exacerbating the problem. Beckham seems comfortable already.

Am I saying that he's ready to go and become a stalwart for the Sox for years to come? Maybe not. He might be. It's just refreshing to see a young man playing competent ball in spring training, not worrying about anything but putting the bat on the ball.

guillensdisciple
03-06-2009, 02:39 PM
He was quite handsome.


HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAH A!!!!!!


Tears are rolling down my face as I write this.

whitesox901
03-06-2009, 02:41 PM
So is he going to be at SS and we move TCM back to second? or does Beckham just come up and play second when he is ready?

Jurr
03-06-2009, 02:48 PM
So is he going to be at SS and we move TCM back to second? or does Beckham just come up and play second when he is ready?

That, my friend, is called a good problem.

EnglishChiSox
03-06-2009, 03:52 PM
Some guys just "have it" or "get it". They are ballplayers. They understand baseball, know what they can do, and quickly adjust to the talent they face. In a mental game like baseball, some guys get themselves psyched out before they step onto the field. Some guys think their talent is going to get them through. Some fear failure so much that they try to do too much, exacerbating the problem. Beckham seems comfortable already.

Am I saying that he's ready to go and become a stalwart for the Sox for years to come? Maybe not. He might be. It's just refreshing to see a young man playing competent ball in spring training, not worrying about anything but putting the bat on the ball.

You see this in the way he writes as well.

Can't wait to see him with The Sox, you know he's the kind of guy the fans will love to cheer for.

EndemicSox
03-06-2009, 06:32 PM
Time will tell, of course, but I'd wager a pretty penny the WhiteSox have a future all-star in Beckham.

LITTLE NELL
03-07-2009, 05:36 AM
Beckham had a real good game at 2B on Friday, so what I can't understand is Ozzie saying that the kid if he starts the season in the minors he will be at SS. Last time I looked TCM is our SS of the future so lets groom the kid for 2B.
I'm starting to get excited with a future infield of Fields, TCM Beckham and Viciedo. This might happen sooner than later with only Viciedo needing some seasoning in the minors.

cws05champ
03-07-2009, 07:14 AM
If Beckham turns into a Michael Young or Ian Kinsler type player I would be overjoyed!!

Frater Perdurabo
03-07-2009, 08:30 AM
If Beckham turns into a Michael Young or Ian Kinsler type player I would be overjoyed!!

Agreed!

He might have more range than Young, and more power than Kinsler.

Tragg
03-07-2009, 08:40 AM
Beckham had a real good game at 2B on Friday, so what I can't understand is Ozzie saying that the kid if he starts the season in the minors he will be at SS. Last time I looked TCM is our SS of the future so lets groom the kid for 2B.

SS is the more challenging position and he will get more action and experience at SS. They may figure that if he can play SS, he can play 2B.

LITTLE NELL
03-07-2009, 02:33 PM
SS is the more challenging position and he will get more action and experience at SS. They may figure that if he can play SS, he can play 2B.
I would want the kid to get the feel of the right side, making the pivot, covering 1st base on bunts, throwing from a different angle, etc.

Tragg
03-07-2009, 04:26 PM
I would want the kid to get the feel of the right side, making the pivot, covering 1st base on bunts, throwing from a different angle, etc.
He's just far more valuable as a SS if he can play SS.
No use debasing his value in his first year.

guillensdisciple
03-07-2009, 04:31 PM
He is as good as he works himself out to be.

chisox77
03-07-2009, 05:59 PM
It's only a matter of time before Beckham will force the White Sox to play him in the majors. He seems to be pretty special.



:cool:

Jaffar
03-08-2009, 10:25 PM
3 for 5 today in the leadoff spot with 3 doubles.

jabrch
03-08-2009, 11:02 PM
3 for 5 today in the leadoff spot with 3 doubles.


Let's see how he does in (assumedly) Birmingham this year.

sox1970
03-08-2009, 11:07 PM
Let's see how he does in (assumedly) Birmingham this year.

Why, are the Sox playing an exhibition game there this year? :redneck

Boondock Saint
03-09-2009, 05:32 AM
The more I think about it, the more the situation reminds me of Alexei's spring last year. Many people here (myself included) thought Alexei needed time at AAA before starting in MLB. They have both looked great in their respective spring "tryouts", and I'm starting to think that Beckham is good enough to eventually thrive in the majors this year. But then again, every situation is different.

guillensdisciple
03-09-2009, 09:18 AM
The more I think about it, the more the situation reminds me of Alexei's spring last year. Many people here (myself included) thought Alexei needed time at AAA before starting in MLB. They have both looked great in their respective spring "tryouts", and I'm starting to think that Beckham is good enough to eventually thrive in the majors this year. But then again, every situation is different.

I am having trouble believing that a kid 9 months removed from college will be starting for the White Sox at second base. Has a person that young every started before?

Something tells me, even though Ozzie will probably feel that Beckham is the best option, the White Sox will go by the book on this one and just choose one of the three at the second base job.

It might be one of those tought decisions that the White Sox end up changing somewhere in the middle of the year.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 09:22 AM
Has a person that young every started before?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/Youngest_leagues.shtml


Many guys younger than Beckham have started. Gordon is 23. There are soem guys 5 years younger than he who started. Now many of them are also HOF calibre players....Griffey, Sheff, IRod, ARod, etc.

sox1970
03-09-2009, 09:29 AM
I am having trouble believing that a kid 9 months removed from college will be starting for the White Sox at second base. Has a person that young every started before?

Something tells me, even though Ozzie will probably feel that Beckham is the best option, the White Sox will go by the book on this one and just choose one of the three at the second base job.

It might be one of those tough decisions that the White Sox end up changing somewhere in the middle of the year.

Well yeah, some players have gone right to the big leagues--Dave Winfield, Bob Horner, Pete Incaviglia.

Robin Yount was the Brewers SS at age 18.

Gordon Beckham is an accomplished, 22-year-old player: three years at Georgia, including two College World Series finals. He's dominated the Cape Cod league, which is a wood bat league. He's dominated the Arizona Fall League. He's dominating this spring training, while outplaying guys that are probably no better than bench players in Nix, Getz, and Lillibridge.

If they think Beckham is ready, they should do it.

esbrechtel
03-09-2009, 09:34 AM
part of me wonders if TCM should have stayed at 2b and groomed Beckham to be the SS of the future...

guillensdisciple
03-09-2009, 09:37 AM
part of me wonders if TCM should have stayed at 2b and groomed Beckham to be the SS of the future...

I don't think a change in position will change his hitting much. Has anyone seen how Beckham fields?

Jim Shorts
03-09-2009, 09:38 AM
I don't see any thing wrong with the path taken by Longoria.

sox1970
03-09-2009, 09:39 AM
part of me wonders if TCM should have stayed at 2b and groomed Beckham to be the SS of the future...

I've been saying that they drafted him as a SS, and they should give him an opportunity to become the White Sox SS. However, if Alexei is as good as advertised at short, then Beckham is going to be blocked either way. The move to 2B fulltime is probably the better move.

HebrewHammer
03-09-2009, 09:40 AM
I've been saying that they drafted him as a SS, and they should give him an opportunity to become the White Sox SS. However, if Alexei is as good as advertised at short, then Beckham is going to be blocked either way. The move to 2B fulltime is probably the better move.

Does he have the arm strength or the range to be fulltime SS? Everything I've read indicates that 2B is a better fit for his skills.

guillensdisciple
03-09-2009, 09:46 AM
Does he have the arm strength or the range to be fulltime SS? Everything I've read indicates that 2B is a better fit for his skills.


An infield with two young stars that fill out their potential (ala Beckham and Viciedo), a rising star in Alexei Ramirez, and Paul Konerko sounds really good right now. On the fielding side the corners sounds a little iffy. Hitting wise though, I would think that our infield would have some of the strongest hitters in all of baseball.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 09:48 AM
An infield with two young stars that fill out their potential (ala Beckham and Viciedo), a rising star in Alexei Ramirez, and Paul Konerko sounds really good right now. On the fielding side the corners sounds a little iffy. Hitting wise though, I would think that our infield would have some of the strongest hitters in all of baseball.


I see no reason to believe the Sox won't continue to contend for a long time.

beasly213
03-09-2009, 09:57 AM
I see no reason to believe the Sox won't continue to contend for a long time.

Agreed.

With Viciedo possibly moving over to 1B in the future if Fields is able to win the job at 3B and keep it.

According to reports Fields has looked fine at 3B and is looked good at the plate. As the spring has gone on I've become more and more excited about this team.

CF is still iffy but I have no problem with a Wise/Anderson Platoon. Granted we won't have a solid lead off hitter but look around the league, not many teams do.

voodoochile
03-09-2009, 09:59 AM
part of me wonders if TCM should have stayed at 2b and groomed Beckham to be the SS of the future...

That's easily reversed if the need is there.

asindc
03-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Who are Frank and Robin Beckham? :scratch:........:tongue:

A lovely couple, those two. A shame they could not stay together, though.

I agree with most posters here in that if Beckham continues at this pace, I have no problem with him starting at AA and allowing Getz/Lillibridge to earn/keep the 2B job. I will add that since Alexei has already proven himself at the MLB level, he should be allowed to keep the SS job as long as he is productive.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 10:38 AM
I agree with most posters here in that if Beckham continues at this pace, I have no problem with him starting at high AA

Where?

doublem23
03-09-2009, 10:54 AM
Agreed.

With Viciedo possibly moving over to 1B in the future if Fields is able to win the job at 3B and keep it.

According to reports Fields has looked fine at 3B and is looked good at the plate. As the spring has gone on I've become more and more excited about this team.

CF is still iffy but I have no problem with a Wise/Anderson Platoon. Granted we won't have a solid lead off hitter but look around the league, not many teams do.

Agree 100% with the bolded statement. I went into Spring Training kind of pessimistic about this Sox team but their play has been surprising and how can you not be stoked about the pitching so far!

If we can squeeze 2 starters out of the Contreras/Colon/Marquez/Richard/Poreda cluster****, wow, this team might be pretty good.

28 more days... 28 more days...

SoxGirl4Life
03-09-2009, 11:04 AM
Agree 100% with the bolded statement. I went into Spring Training kind of pessimistic about this Sox team but their play has been surprising and how can you not be stoked about the pitching so far!

If we can squeeze 2 starters out of the Contreras/Colon/Marquez/Richard/Poreda cluster****, wow, this team might be pretty good.

28 more days... 28 more days...


Count me in with the pleasantly surprised crowd.

CashMan
03-09-2009, 11:11 AM
What happens to his confidence? He dominated the AFL, doing pretty well in ST, if you send him down, does his confidence drop?

sox1970
03-09-2009, 11:14 AM
What happens to his confidence? He dominated the AFL, doing pretty well in ST, if you send him down, does his confidence drop?

I don't think so. I think that's one of the reasons why they would bring him north to start with.

kaufsox
03-09-2009, 11:16 AM
Glad to see I'm not the only one excited about Beckham. I'm also feeling the love for Viciedo as well. I know, Spring Training, but good results in the spring are just so much more fun than pondering question marks right up until the opener.

Frater Perdurabo
03-09-2009, 12:01 PM
If he outplays Nix, Getz and Lillibridge, then Beckham ought to come North as the starting 2B.

asindc
03-09-2009, 12:08 PM
Where?

I meant Birmingham.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 12:11 PM
I meant Birmingham.


That's what I figured...wasn't sure if you mean High A or Double A. I don't think there is a chance he goes back to Kanny.

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 12:12 PM
I am so glad the White Sox are keeping an open mind on fielding the best 25 men they can put out there. This team has come a long way from the Ron Schuler days. A tip of the hat to JR, Kenny, & Ozzie.

But:
Per the "experts" here at WSI, it is impossible for a guy less than 1 yr removed from college to play in the bigs. Same way a Cuban can't make a splash without going through useless minor league baseball.

CashMan
03-09-2009, 01:26 PM
I am so glad the White Sox are keeping an open mind on fielding the best 25 men they can put out there. This team has come a long way from the Ron Schuler days. A tip of the hat to JR, Kenny, & Ozzie.

But:
Per the "experts" here at WSI, it is impossible for a guy less than 1 yr removed from college to play in the bigs. Same way a Cuban can't make a splash without going through useless minor league baseball.

I think people are worried about him being rushed, and turning into a Kip Wells or Boone Logan.

esbrechtel
03-09-2009, 01:29 PM
personally, I dont want arbitration to kick in too early...

DirtySox
03-09-2009, 01:32 PM
Thus far in today's B game, Beckham is 1 for 2 with an RBI groundout.

http://scottmerkin.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/03/colon_and_contreras_update.html

doublem23
03-09-2009, 01:41 PM
But:
Per the "experts" here at WSI, it is impossible for a guy less than 1 yr removed from college to play in the bigs. Same way a Cuban can't make a splash without going through useless minor league baseball.

Yes, god forbid someone wonder if his performance against scrubs in 12 Spring Training games is a true measure of his current talent.

:rolleyes:

Carolina Kenny
03-09-2009, 01:44 PM
I think Gordon is really making his play.

Getz, is Getz and he won't Getz any better.

Nix, is nixed, already. You have to hit to make this team, no matter what position you play, Ozzie will not play a good field no hit.

Little Bridge, is fast but see above, he can't hit.

Gordon if he continues to hit the curves, will for more power and average than those mentioned above. He should be at least league average in the field, and probably better than league average.

Ozzie wil go with his gut, and go with Gordon!!

CashMan
03-09-2009, 01:46 PM
Yes, god forbid someone wonder if his performance against scrubs in 12 Spring Training games is a true measure of his current talent.

:rolleyes:


He hit over .300 in limited time in the minors, he tore up the AFL, and is doing pretty well in ST. In your opinion, what would he have to do, in order for him to break camp? Usually college player do not need as much time in the minors, the guy is what 22-23yrs old?

shes
03-09-2009, 01:55 PM
A sub-question is whether or not it's the best decision to give him the 2B spot even if he outplays the competition.

There's this idea (usually correct) that guys need to put in their time at the mL level before getting a shot in the bigs, but I think there are special cases. It's possible that Beckham is such a case.

I think what's most important to consider here is that he would be entering as low-pressure a situation as he conceivably could. Our offense is going to be good regardless; it's not like we were expecting much of anything from the 2B spot in the order this year anyway. I think it's pretty obvious that our personnel at that position is the weakest on our roster, or second weakest after CF. As such, why not give the guy with the highest ceiling a shot if he has the best Spring? It's not like he's a pitcher, where being rushed to the majors can really ruin the early part of your career. Hitters generally make the adjustment quicker, for whatever reason.

I am firmly a passenger on the "Start Gordon at second if he has the best Spring" bandwagon.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 02:16 PM
He hit over .300 in limited time in the minors, he tore up the AFL, and is doing pretty well in ST. In your opinion, what would he have to do, in order for him to break camp? Usually college player do not need as much time in the minors, the guy is what 22-23yrs old?

I would not want him to break camp with the Sox under any circumstance.

CashMan
03-09-2009, 02:19 PM
I would not want him to break camp with the Sox under any circumstance.


I would rather go into the season with Beckham having a warm bat than Getz/Lilibridge/Nix.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 02:24 PM
I would rather go into the season with Beckham having a warm bat than Getz/Lilibridge/Nix.

I'd rather play it safe with Beckham than rush him and ruin him. He's 22 years old. Still a lot of time.

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 02:32 PM
I would not want him to break camp with the Sox under any circumstance.


Not even if he's the best guy for the job?

Get serious. How do you know the minor leagues will work wonders for this kid? Plenty of good talent has gone to waste down in farm systems, same way it can happen here at the big leagues.

If the guy is the best player this spring for that job, then you have to consider it.

As for the guy who posted about being concerned about arbitration years kicking in .... :puking:

CashMan
03-09-2009, 02:33 PM
I'd rather play it safe with Beckham than rush him and ruin him. He's 22 years old. Still a lot of time.


I see what you are saying, I just don't see the rushing of a 22yr old, who has played in the CWS, who probably would be hitting 9th in the lineup. Perhaps you are right, I am not a big fan of stop gaps in baseball.

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 02:34 PM
I'd rather play it safe with Beckham than rush him and ruin him. He's 22 years old. Still a lot of time.


I think he would not be the first 22 year old to break a ML camp.

He's probably the most ML ready talent I have seen from our farm system in quite a long time.

beasly213
03-09-2009, 02:41 PM
I would not want him to break camp with the Sox under any circumstance.

Any circumstance? So if he is out playing everyone by far and looks ready and his hitting MLB pitching and Ozzie likes him and is our best option?

If he out plays the competition I see no reason why he shouldn't make the team. "Getting time in the minors" doesn't always help a guy. If he's got a hot bat you go with it.

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 02:48 PM
Any circumstance? So if he is out playing everyone by far and looks ready and his hitting MLB pitching and Ozzie likes him and is our best option?

If he out plays the competition I see no reason why he shouldn't make the team. "Getting time in the minors" doesn't always help a guy. If he's got a hot bat you go with it.


Exactly my point. People freak out about "rushing" a player. If he's good, he's good. If he's better than the other players on the list, then he plays for me.

This kid appears to have a pretty level head, I don't see an early failure and demotion to AAA as something which will kill his career. That's taking it beyond the extreme.

jabrch
03-09-2009, 02:52 PM
If there is nothing he can go down to learn, that he will benefit greatly from, then I'm good with it. But just because he is better than Getz, Nix or Lillibridge, that's not enough for me. I'm looking at Beckham as a long term guy. I want to make sure we don't leave something on the table.

Given that he is new to 2B, I can't see how he'd be ready to play it on the ML level. He may be - I'm not a scout/coach and I am not watching him every day. But right now, unless someone has a compelling arguement, my personal preference would be to let him spend a season playing 2B before coming up.

UofCSoxFan
03-09-2009, 02:52 PM
I think he would not be the first 22 year old to break a ML camp.

He's probably the most ML ready talent I have seen from our farm system in quite a long time.

IIRC, Andruw Jones was 19 when he came up with ATL and he broke camp the next year with them.

I also believe Miguel Cabrera was 20 when he came up with the Marlins.

Those two are at different stages of fine careers.

FedEx227
03-09-2009, 02:54 PM
I say pull a Longoria with him.

Stick him in AAA for a month or so, see how he does, if he's still solid then bring him up. That way you don't technically start his FA clock and you give him some time to prove it wasn't just a hot Spring Training.

I'd say it worked alright for Longoria and the Rays last year.

We're blowing our load just because we haven't seen this much talent in our farm system in years, but let's hold off. The game is a business first and foremost. Bringing him north right out ST doesn't make financial sense. Like the 2008 Rays, we can stay afloat for a month or two without him. The division is very even so it'll be more about what you're doing the last 2 months than what you do the first month.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 03:12 PM
I say pull a Longoria with him.

Stick him in AAA for a month or so, see how he does, if he's still solid then bring him up. That way you don't technically start his FA clock and you give him some time to prove it wasn't just a hot Spring Training.

I'd say it worked alright for Longoria and the Rays last year.

We're blowing our load just because we haven't seen this much talent in our farm system in years, but let's hold off. The game is a business first and foremost. Bringing him north right out ST doesn't make financial sense. Like the 2008 Rays, we can stay afloat for a month or two without him. The division is very even so it'll be more about what you're doing the last 2 months than what you do the first month.

I think this is a reasonable, rational approach.

Does anyone realize, that Beckham's professional career consists of 156 plate appearances (that includes A-ball, the AFL, and Spring Training). Does anyone believe 156 PA is enough time to suffiently prepare for the Majors? Take away 1 hit this ST and he's hitting .278, take away 2 and he's hitting .222.

Look, I hope I'm not giving off the impression that I want Gordon to fail, I just don't think there's any good reason to rush him along to the Majors when there hasn't been enough time to make sure he's ready for it. I've seen plenty of "can't miss" prospects for the Sox crash and burn, sometimes directly resulting from being rushed before they were ready. I'll agree that if a few months into the season, 2nd base is a black hole for the Sox and Gordon is playing well in Birmingham or Charlotte you can talk about promoting him then. But breaking camp with the Sox? No way.

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 03:15 PM
I say pull a Longoria with him.

Stick him in AAA for a month or so, see how he does, if he's still solid then bring him up. That way you don't technically start his FA clock and you give him some time to prove it wasn't just a hot Spring Training.

I'd say it worked alright for Longoria and the Rays last year.

We're blowing our load just because we haven't seen this much talent in our farm system in years, but let's hold off. The game is a business first and foremost. Bringing him north right out ST doesn't make financial sense. Like the 2008 Rays, we can stay afloat for a month or two without him. The division is very even so it'll be more about what you're doing the last 2 months than what you do the first month.


I just hope from a financial aspect, the Sox do not have the same mentality of the TB Rays. IF the guy is good enough to make you win today, who cares when the FA clock starts ticking.

In addition, the Rays did not exepct to compete for the AL East crown and therefore Longoria's situation is not the same as Beckham. I think we can all agree as fans that we expect the Sox to compete for the division title this year and management thinks the same way.

BleacherBandit
03-09-2009, 03:15 PM
I say pull a Longoria with him.

Stick him in AAA for a month or so, see how he does, if he's still solid then bring him up. That way you don't technically start his FA clock and you give him some time to prove it wasn't just a hot Spring Training.

I'd say it worked alright for Longoria and the Rays last year.



Wasn't Longoria on the roster for the start of the year last year?

From what I remember, they had scouted Longoria significantly---more than normal, so they knew what he was fully capable of. I'm not saying that Beckham isn't capable of starting his 'second' season in the big leagues, but remember that Longoria was a significantly scouted (and signed to a long term contract) before the season even started. He was also playing his natural position. I wouldn't rush Beckham into action until he's played at least a few months of second base/third base. Let's be safe about it and make sure he develops into the player we need.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Wasn't Longoria on the roster for the start of the year last year?

From what I remember, they had scouted Longoria significantly---more than normal, so they knew what he was fully capable of. I'm not saying that Beckham isn't capable of starting his 'second' season in the big leagues, but remember that Longoria was a significantly scouted (and signed to a long term contract) before the season even started. He was also playing his natural position. I wouldn't rush Beckham into action until he's played at least a few months of second base/third base. Let's be safe about it and make sure he develops into the player we need.

No, Longoria made his debut something like 2 weeks into the season.

Longoria also spent 2 years in Tampa's farm system and had over 800 PAs before making it to the Majors (that would be over 5x as many as Gordon has accumulated).

LoveYourSuit
03-09-2009, 03:19 PM
I think this is a reasonable, rational approach.

Does anyone realize, that Beckham's professional career consists of 156 plate appearances (that includes A-ball, the AFL, and Spring Training). Does anyone believe 156 PA is enough time to suffiently prepare for the Majors? Take away 1 hit this ST and he's hitting .278, take away 2 and he's hitting .222.

.


You know how professional career ABs Alexei had before last year?

ZERO.

I am with you on the fact that 90% of our farm products come up here to crash and burn, I just don't see a single guy of those busts having the talent and tools of this kid.

guillen4life13
03-09-2009, 03:23 PM
I say pull a Longoria with him.

Stick him in AAA for a month or so, see how he does, if he's still solid then bring him up. That way you don't technically start his FA clock and you give him some time to prove it wasn't just a hot Spring Training.

I'd say it worked alright for Longoria and the Rays last year.

We're blowing our load just because we haven't seen this much talent in our farm system in years, but let's hold off. The game is a business first and foremost. Bringing him north right out ST doesn't make financial sense. Like the 2008 Rays, we can stay afloat for a month or two without him. The division is very even so it'll be more about what you're doing the last 2 months than what you do the first month.

Agreed. I wouldn't be against him breaking camp with the team, especially since he's not a pitcher, but I really don't think 156 PA is a good enough sample. Hell, even ST isn't a good enough sample. Remember that BA tore up ST last year better than anyone else on the team except Jason Bourgeois.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 03:27 PM
You know how professional career ABs Alexei had before last year?

ZERO.

I am with you on the fact that 90% of our farm products come up here to crash and burn, I just don't see a single guy of those busts having the talent and tools of this kid.

Alexei was a seasoned veteran of both the Cuban National Series and international baseball tournaments on the Cuban National Team. You're making him sound like a guy they found on the street.

Not only that, but your argument is horse**** anyway. Frank Thomas was a monster who was ready to play in the Majors as a 22-year-old in 1990. Does that mean Brandon Allen is automatically ready to start everyday for the Sox as a 23-year-old in 2009? No rational person would make that argument.

What Alexei did should have no impact on what happens with Beckham. HE'S NOT READY.

guillen4life13
03-09-2009, 03:27 PM
You know how professional career ABs Alexei had before last year?

ZERO.

I am with you on the fact that 90% of our farm products come up here to crash and burn, I just don't see a single guy of those busts having the talent and tools of this kid.

Alexei was significantly older and broke camp mainly due to his ability to play CF, 2B and SS, and he wasn't slated to take a starting role from the outset. He had been playing with wood bats for a much longer time and came with glowing endorsements from Contreras, et al.

I understand the point you're trying to make but I just don't think they are a fair comparison.

FedEx227
03-09-2009, 03:29 PM
Wasn't Longoria on the roster for the start of the year last year?

Nope, he got called up in April, spent about 2 weeks in AAA. They planned a little bit longer but it still didn't start his FA clock.

I think Beckham ends the year as a regular player on the team, but let's give him a month at AAA. It's not going to kill us to have Getz/Nix/Lillibridge at 2B for a month or two. See how Beckham reacts to the highest minor league level then move him on, there is still no reason to rush him up to the minors.

asindc
03-09-2009, 03:45 PM
Nope, he got called up in April, spent about 2 weeks in AAA. They planned a little bit longer but it still didn't start his FA clock.

I think Beckham ends the year as a regular player on the team, but let's give him a month at AAA. It's not going to kill us to have Getz/Nix/Lillibridge at 2B for a month or two. See how Beckham reacts to the highest minor league level then move him on, there is still no reason to rush him up to the minors.

I agree with this assessment. Furthermore, Sox management has to be thinking long-term with this kid, so if it makes sense financially to start him in the minors, then so be it. If he pans out, it will work out well financially for both the team and the player.

As currently constituted, the Sox are prepared to compete in the AL Central in the short term, meaning first month or two of the season. If help is needed (Beckham, Viceido) then the team can re-evaluate at that point.

FedEx227
03-09-2009, 03:48 PM
I agree with this assessment. Furthermore, Sox management has to be thinking long-term with this kid, so if it makes sense financially to start him in the minors, then so be it. If he pans out, it will work out well financially for both the team and the player.

As currently constituted, the Sox are prepared to compete in the AL Central in the short term, meaning first month or two of the season. If help is needed (Beckham, Viceido) then the team can re-evaluate at that point.

Absolutely, it makes more sense long term to have him spend a month or so in the minors.

We'll be just fine, he can come up in May and we'll be ready to go.

champagne030
03-09-2009, 04:21 PM
The talk about not starting his FA clock is nonsense. Bring him up in May and as long as he sticks he'll qualify for Super Two status. The Rays didn't play games to not start Longoria's clock. The called him up and then announced they had signed him to a nine year contract. Unless we're ultra cheap or Beckham retains Boras we'll buyout his arbitration years anyway.

FedEx227
03-09-2009, 04:32 PM
Ah my fault, I'm reading about it now. You are right. Well, I still think a month or two of him in the minors couldn't hurt.

champagne030
03-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Well, I still think a month or two of him in the minors couldn't hurt.

Agreed.

DirtySox
03-09-2009, 04:49 PM
B Game Update from Melton:

Wise went 2 - 4 with a triple and a homerun.

Edit: Oops wrong thread.

DirtySox
03-09-2009, 04:50 PM
As currently constituted, the Sox are prepared to compete in the AL Central in the short term, meaning first month or two of the season. If help is needed (Beckham, Viceido) then the team can re-evaluate at that point.

My feelings exactly.

russ99
03-09-2009, 06:11 PM
The talk about not starting his FA clock is nonsense. Bring him up in May and as long as he sticks he'll qualify for Super Two status. The Rays didn't play games to not start Longoria's clock. The called him up and then announced they had signed him to a nine year contract. Unless we're ultra cheap or Beckham retains Boras we'll buyout his arbitration years anyway.

That is a valid point, and it's not being cheap. We have him for 4 years near minimum, and I'd think the Sox would like to maximize the returns on those 4 years, especially for a player of his talent level.

I think that will figure into the decision on whether he makes the team, since no one would want to bring him in early and waste a year on semi-mediocre performance, especially since that could mess with his confidence and thus his career. Many first rounders have gone down that path, and not many have succeeded. Longoria's the exception, not the rule.

And I sure don't see Jerry signing anyone to a 9-year contract. If we're content to let Quentin get closer to Arb, why would we suddenly sign Beckham to a big deal in his first or even second MLB season.

That said, I think it would be great if he made the team, but I wouldn't be upset if the Sox let him work his way through A/AA/AAA all season.

...
03-09-2009, 07:21 PM
Alexei was a seasoned veteran of both the Cuban National Series and international baseball tournaments on the Cuban National Team. You're making him sound like a guy they found on the street.

Not only that, but your argument is horse**** anyway. Frank Thomas was a monster who was ready to play in the Majors as a 22-year-old in 1990. Does that mean Brandon Allen is automatically ready to start everyday for the Sox as a 23-year-old in 2009? No rational person would make that argument.

What Alexei did should have no impact on what happens with Beckham. HE'S NOT READY.

How the hell do you know?

doublem23
03-09-2009, 09:03 PM
How the hell do you know?

Because I do. How the hell do you know I'm wrong?

...
03-09-2009, 09:25 PM
Because I do. How the hell do you know I'm wrong?

'nuff said.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 09:36 PM
'nuff said.

I've already presented my reason as to why I don't want to see Beckham start this season in Chicago; I'm not going to retype everything because you're too lazy to reread the thread (rather than the last 3 words of 1 post). If you think he should start in Chicago, feel free to post your reasons. You're lame "gotcha!" crap is pathetic.

...
03-09-2009, 10:09 PM
I've already presented my reason as to why I don't want to see Beckham start this season in Chicago; I'm not going to retype everything because you're too lazy to reread the thread (rather than the last 3 words of 1 post). If you think he should start in Chicago, feel free to post your reasons. You're lame "gotcha!" crap is pathetic.

Your stereotypes and paradigms are what's pathetic. Baseball players can play baseball. He has a great mental make up, by his and his coaches admission, and players like him can handle MLB at this early stage in their careers. You're not going to "ruin" Gordon Beckham.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 10:14 PM
Your stereotypes and paradigms are what's pathetic. Baseball players can play baseball. He has a great mental make up, by his and his coaches admission, and players like him can handle MLB at this early stage in their careers. You're not going to "ruin" Gordon Beckham.

10 years ago, people said the same thing about Jon Rauch.

No need to rush the kid.

...
03-09-2009, 10:15 PM
10 years ago, people said the same thing about Jon Rauch.

Ha.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 10:16 PM
Ha.

:thumbsup:

Great point.

...
03-09-2009, 10:18 PM
:thumbsup:

Great point.

Better than the Jon Rauch comparison....... :thumbsup:

doublem23
03-09-2009, 10:29 PM
Better than the Jon Rauch comparison....... :thumbsup:

You're right, I forgot there's no risk to rushing prospects to the Majors. That never backfires.

However, if at any time you'd like to present an actual argument and not just a bunch of condescending one liners, I'll be waiting.

He doubled of James McDonald and Scott Elbert (10 combined IP in their careers)! HE'S OBVIOUSLY READY!!1!

Huisj
03-09-2009, 10:37 PM
I think Beckham is better than Bobby Hill. What does that mean? I have no idea.

Thome_Fan
03-09-2009, 10:39 PM
I think Beckham is better than Bobby Hill. What does that mean? I have no idea.

It means he's gonna be a heck of a propane salesman some day.

Tragg
03-09-2009, 10:47 PM
There's certainly a risk to rushing a player.
IMO, the risk is greater if the player isn't readily defensively; and the risk is greater for pitchers than position players.

...
03-09-2009, 11:00 PM
You're right, I forgot there's no risk to rushing prospects to the Majors. That never backfires.

However, if at any time you'd like to present an actual argument and not just a bunch of condescending one liners, I'll be waiting.

He doubled of James McDonald and Scott Elbert (10 combined IP in their careers)! HE'S OBVIOUSLY READY!!1!

No, you're right. He's exactly one year away from being MLB ready. Not 364 days, not 366, but 365 days away. That one year will most certainly teach him everything there is to know about baseball. He's so not ready. You must go by the book on this one so you don't ruin Gordon Beckham's career.

Your cliche paradigms and one-liner examples are comical.

guillen4life13
03-09-2009, 11:08 PM
Your stereotypes and paradigms are what's pathetic. Baseball players can play baseball. He has a great mental make up, by his and his coaches admission, and players like him can handle MLB at this early stage in their careers. You're not going to "ruin" Gordon Beckham.

Have fun with your expectations. If Beckham makes the team and doesn't immediately produce or play every day, doublem23 will be around to say "I told you so."

Don't rush it. If he's still tearing it up come early May and the Sox could use his production from 2B, then they call him up. Beckham hasn't used a wood bat for that long and is a relatively raw 2B at this point.

...
03-09-2009, 11:12 PM
Have fun with your expectations. If Beckham makes the team and doesn't immediately produce or play every day, doublem23 will be around to say "I told you so."

Don't rush it. If he's still tearing it up come early May and the Sox could use his production from 2B, then they call him up. Beckham hasn't used a wood bat for that long and is a relatively raw 2B at this point.

What makes him "not ready" now but "ready" in May? That is what is so unbelievable stupid about the whole thing.

cws05champ
03-09-2009, 11:25 PM
What makes him "not ready" now but "ready" in May? That is what is so unbelievable stupid about the whole thing.
Because they will have a bigger sample size of how he handles better competition in real games, not spring training games where pitchers are working on certain pitches.

I'm not saying that Beckham is or isn't ready...who knows unless he plays right away in the Majors. I just think there is no need to rush him up and I think we really need to see what they have in Getz/Nix for a couple months as well.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 11:30 PM
No, you're right. He's exactly one year away from being MLB ready. Not 364 days, not 366, but 365 days away. That one year will most certainly teach him everything there is to know about baseball. He's so not ready. You must go by the book on this one so you don't ruin Gordon Beckham's career.

Your cliche paradigms and one-liner examples are comical.

The fact that this is what you hone in on for your argument proves that you have no idea what I'm even arguing. It has nothing to do with the time, it's all about experience. And yes, there's a lot that can be learned spending a year in the minors, honing his craft, especially since he's likely going to be playing a position he didn't at Georgia.

On top of that, there are financial reasons for the Sox not wanting to bring him up right away. It's a nice cliche to say the Sox should only "care about the product on the field," but the best organizations in baseball are the ones that can mix the business and the sports side.

There have been plenty of highly touted prospects that "were too mentally tough to fail" and "were born to play baseball" yada yada yada that were rushed to the Majors and never lived up to their potential. I think Beckham is a special talent and I prefer the Sox be careful with him. So if I'm being unbelievable and stupid for being skeptical of a guy's performance through 20 Spring Training at bats, well then, I guess that's the way it will be.

doublem23
03-09-2009, 11:31 PM
Have fun with your expectations. If Beckham makes the team and doesn't immediately produce or play every day, doublem23 will be around to say "I told you so."

If I ever need you to speak on my behalf, I'll ask first.

Konerko05
03-09-2009, 11:35 PM
10 years ago, people said the same thing about Jon Rauch.

No need to rush the kid.

Jon Rauch was "ruined" by a bad shoulder. The White Sox actually started him in AAA in 2001 after his completely dominant 2000 between A+ and AA. If you're saying they rushed him by having him throw too many innings in 2000, then maybe I could see your point.

By the time Rauch reached the White Sox, his arm was shot. He was not the same pitcher who struck out 187 batters in 2000. The 166 innings plus his olympic stint obviously took a massive toll on his shoulder.

I have no doubt he would be an above average starter right now if he never hurt his shoulder.

oeo
03-09-2009, 11:39 PM
Jon Rauch was "ruined" by a bad shoulder. The White Sox actually started him in AAA in 2001 after his completely dominant 2000 between A+ and AA. If you're saying they rushed him by having him throw too many innings in 2000, then maybe I could see your point.

By the time Rauch reached the White Sox, his arm was shot. He was not the same pitcher who struck out 187 batters in 2000. The 166 innings plus his olympic obviously took a massive toll on his shoulder.

I have no doubt he would be an above average starter right now if he never hurt his shoulder.

Plus, it's difficult to compare a pitcher to a position player.

Craig Grebeck
03-09-2009, 11:43 PM
People who believe Beckham would succeed in the bigs beginning in April 2009 (and believe it would be wise to start his service time) are as annoying as those who assume he'll suck (if there are any left) because our farm system has been chronically terrible.

In short, let's see how he handles the jump from Kanny to Birmingham before we anoint him. We have Getz, after all.

oeo
03-09-2009, 11:45 PM
People who believe Beckham would succeed in the bigs beginning in April 2009 (and believe it would be wise to start his service time) are as annoying as those who assume he'll suck (if there are any left) because our farm system has been chronically terrible.

In short, let's see how he handles the jump from Kanny to Birmingham before we anoint him. We have Getz, after all.

I think people are just excited that we have a prospect who could potentially become a perennial All Star. It's been awhile since we've had that type of guy. Anderson was probably our last guy, and while highly regarded, still not the college player Beckham was.

For the record, I agree. Getz should start on Opening Day, but it's really nice to know that Beckham is there and at the very least, close to being ready if we have problems.

Domeshot17
03-10-2009, 12:04 AM
If he makes the move to 2b, I think ultimately he will remind people of Dan Uggla. Good power, decent base runner average with the glove. The only thing that scares me is the noticable hitch in his swing. Most times hitches like that hinder progress, but it worked for him on the college level, so only time will tell.

Edit: Also, part of me wonders if we are just better off going the Alexei route with him. We know he isn't ready now, Alexei wasn't ready last year, but our farm instruction is so pathetically bad they might learn faster struggling in the bigs then hitting in triple A.

hi im skot
03-10-2009, 12:12 AM
It means he's gonna be a heck of a propane salesman some day.

Well played.

oeo
03-10-2009, 12:27 AM
Edit: Also, part of me wonders if we are just better off going the Alexei route with him. We know he isn't ready now, Alexei wasn't ready last year, but our farm instruction is so pathetically bad they might learn faster struggling in the bigs then hitting in triple A.

Alexei learned what while sitting on the bench? Walker has already said that all Alexei's adjustments came on his own. He was ready, he just had never experienced anything close to the temperatures he was thrown into.

OTOH, maybe you're right that he wasn't ready, but being the smart player he is, he adjusted quickly.

Konerko05
03-10-2009, 12:28 AM
If he makes the move to 2b, I think ultimately he will remind people of Dan Uggla. Good power, decent base runner average with the glove. The only thing that scares me is the noticable hitch in his swing. Most times hitches like that hinder progress, but it worked for him on the college level, so only time will tell.

Edit: Also, part of me wonders if we are just better off going the Alexei route with him. We know he isn't ready now, Alexei wasn't ready last year, but our farm instruction is so pathetically bad they might learn faster struggling in the bigs then hitting in triple A.

I don't know about that comparison. I see Beckham being more polished defensively and offensively. Uggla could barely field a groundball at Beckham's age. Beckham is already a decent shortstop. I expect Beckham's defense to be much better than Uggla's at 2B.

Offensively, I think Beckham will be a better contact hitter. Uggla is low average with a lot of strikeouts. Beckham should be able to handle the bat with more authority. I'm not sure Beckham could match Uggla's power.

Overall, Beckham's athleticism seperates him from Uggla. Beckham has more natural atheliticism which will allow him to do different things on the baseball field.

Edit: Alexei being able to learn at the major league level means nothing in relation to other players. A 23 year old out of college is also a lot different from a 26 year old from Cuba. I'd rather have Beckham learn against lower talent without a great amount of pressure.

Qdiddy
03-10-2009, 01:28 AM
This reminds me so much of last year. All you kept hearing from these so called experts in here was, Alexi wasn't ready. The Great Brian Anderson should be the starter in CF if the Sox were serious about winning. Last year at this time, Alexi's international experience wasn't worth more than playing AA ball. Now, we're using to judge Beckham's lack of experience? Ok.....

The "Experts" in here, also said the Sox would ruin Alexi, if they brought him straight to the Majors and he failed right away once he faced real Major League pitching. Does anyone know what Alexi's average was after 2 months? It was .234 with an OBP of .255. OUCH! Once he became more comfortable and knew the Sox were behide him, how did that workout for us?

My point to this rant is:

1. I hate people that think just because they have been here a while or have thousands of posts under their belts gives them the right to think they know more about the game than anyone else. Unless, you can prove to me that you have worked as a GM for some Major League team, then your "OPINION" is no better than the next person.

2. If the Sox think Beckham can handle it then why not? This would be huge for the Sox to mix in a solid hitting 2nd basemen. Let's not get caught up on all this.. he needs this and he needs that stuff. If we have learned anything from KW, it's that he NEVER ever does anything by the book.

Thanks for hearing me out.

For those who care, here are all the MLB players to go straight to the Majors without any minor league experience. Courtesy of baseball almanac.

Maybe Beckham can be the next Dave Winfield..:)

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats9.shtml

LoveYourSuit
03-10-2009, 01:32 AM
What makes him "not ready" now but "ready" in May? That is what is so unbelievable stupid about the whole thing.

Everyone plays the "Chat Board Scout" here. My opinion about the kid making the club is just based on what we are being told by White Sox management and the media. I don't know if he is ready or not. No one on this board knows if he is ready or not, and that's a fact. Thank God we have a scouting department, Ozzie, and Kenny to make such a decision.

...
03-10-2009, 01:36 AM
Everyone plays the "Chat Board Scout" here. My opinion about the kid making the club is just based on what we are being told by White Sox management and the media. I don't know if he is ready or not. No one on this board knows if he is ready or not, and that's a fact. Thank God we have a scouting department, Ozzie, and Kenny to make such a decision.

Doubleem23 knows.. HE'S NOT READY.

LoveYourSuit
03-10-2009, 01:41 AM
Doubleem23 knows.. HE'S NOT READY.

I guess Gordon needs to be taught the lesson about appreciating the game more and showing passion and learning the grinder rules by being punished and having him take bus rides from game to game.

doublem23
03-10-2009, 01:49 AM
This reminds me so much of last year. All you kept hearing from these so called experts in here was, Alexi wasn't ready. The Great Brian Anderson should be the starter in CF if the Sox were serious about winning. Last year at this time, Alexi's international experience wasn't worth more than playing AA ball. Now, we're using to judge Beckham's lack of experience? Ok.....

The "Experts" in here, also said the Sox would ruin Alexi, if they brought him straight to the Majors and he failed right away once he faced real Major League pitching. Does anyone know what Alexi's average was after 2 months? It was .234 with an OBP of .255. OUCH! Once he became more comfortable and knew the Sox were behide him, how did that workout for us?

My point to this rant is:

1. I hate people that think just because they have been here a while or have thousands of posts under their belts gives them the right to think they know more about the game than anyone else. Unless, you can prove to me that you have worked as a GM for some Major League team, then your "OPINION" is no better than the next person.

2. If the Sox think Beckham can handle it then why not? This would be huge for the Sox to mix in a solid hitting 2nd basemen. Let's not get caught up on all this.. he needs this and he needs that stuff. If we have learned anything from KW, it's that he NEVER ever does anything by the book.

Thanks for hearing me out.

For those who care, here are all the MLB players to go straight to the Majors without any minor league experience. Courtesy of baseball almanac.

Maybe Beckham can be the next Dave Winfield..:)

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats9.shtml

Hey, if you're going to call me out, you can at least, you know, quote something or actually man up and use my name rather than try and be coy with a subtle pot shot.

If anyone would bother to read things I've posted, my opinion has never been that I think I'm so much more brilliant than anyone here or in the Sox scouting department. My argument has always been that rushing kids to the Major Leagues is a bad idea, and your list proves that. First, notice how 1 player has made the jump straight to the pros in the last 15 years. Most scouts agree that rushing players unnecessarily is bad for their development. This isn't some radical argument I'm proposing. Not to mention, yeah, Dave Winfield is one of the guys on that list, but so is Pete Broberg, Eddie Bane, and Brian Miller... That list pretty much indicates you stack the cards against someone by sending them to the MLB too soon.

The Alexei comparisons are a bit misleading, as well, since nobody had any idea how ready a guy who played in Cuba his whole life would be. But again, he had played professional baseball in Cuba for 7 years and was on their 2004 Olympic team and 2006 WBC team, so it's not like the guy never swung a bat or fielded a grounder before. I'll admit, he was much better than I thought, but that doesn't justify suddenly rushing everyone to the Sox as fast as possible; there was nothing to compare Alexei's case to. There is plenty of evidence that suggests guys who are drafted out of American colleges benefit greatly from a full year in the minor leagues.

Nobody sends their top prospects through the minors this fast for a reason. I mean, as far as I can tell, only 2 players from the 2007 Draft have made their Major League debut. I'm not basing this argument on Gordon's individual pros and cons (as I've said, I think he's going to be a good player), but developmentally, he's not ready for the Majors yet. 156 PA in Kannapolis, the AFL, and the first two weeks of Spring Training do not prepare you for the Majors.

HebrewHammer
03-10-2009, 01:57 AM
I think people are just excited that we have a prospect who could potentially become a perennial All Star. It's been awhile since we've had that type of guy. Anderson was probably our last guy, and while highly regarded, still not the college player Beckham was.

:LTP
"Remember me?"

doublem23
03-10-2009, 01:58 AM
Doubleem23 knows.. HE'S NOT READY.

Do you actually have anything to add to this? At least the other guys who feel Gordon should get a chance to win a spot on the roster bring some insight and evidence to the discussion. I couldn't give a **** if you agree with me or not, but it's awfully hard to argue against someone who doesn't present anything further than sophomoric taunts.

Will someone please show me why they think Gordon will succeed immediately? Since signing with the Sox, he's played in 40 games in Kannapolis, the AFL, and now Spring Training. What makes you think he can play everyday with the Sox? Or, show me why you think rushing guys to the Majors doesn't disrupt their development. As far as I know, it's a very steep learning curve from college to the Majors, and the overwhelming majority of players need extra time to prepare for the talent they will face. But if someone can prove to me otherwise, that this is just old fart baseball gobblydegook and he wouldn't greatly benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I'll admit my reasoning is flawed.

...
03-10-2009, 02:27 AM
Do you actually have anything to add to this? At least the other guys who feel Gordon should get a chance to win a spot on the roster bring some insight and evidence to the discussion. I couldn't give a **** if you agree with me or not, but it's awfully hard to argue against someone who doesn't present anything further than sophomoric taunts.

Will someone please show me why they think Gordon will succeed immediately? Since signing with the Sox, he's played in 40 games in Kannapolis, the AFL, and now Spring Training. What makes you think he can play everyday with the Sox? Or, show me why you think rushing guys to the Majors doesn't disrupt their development. As far as I know, it's a very steep learning curve from college to the Majors, and the overwhelming majority of players need extra time to prepare for the talent they will face. But if someone can prove to me otherwise, that this is just old fart baseball gobblydegook and he wouldn't greatly benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I'll admit my reasoning is flawed.

Of course Gordon would benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I would sound silly trying to argue against that. I also think Gordon would benefit from a full year in the majors.

In my opinion (and the opinion of countless professional scouts), He's that talented. Pitching is pitching. Gordon Beckham knows how to hit the ball. He's smart; baseball smart. Defensively, the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats tends to be easier.

Will he end up breaking camp with the team? Probably not. Could he handle it? In my opinion, yes.

LoveYourSuit
03-10-2009, 02:32 AM
Do you actually have anything to add to this? At least the other guys who feel Gordon should get a chance to win a spot on the roster bring some insight and evidence to the discussion. I couldn't give a **** if you agree with me or not, but it's awfully hard to argue against someone who doesn't present anything further than sophomoric taunts.

Will someone please show me why they think Gordon will succeed immediately? Since signing with the Sox, he's played in 40 games in Kannapolis, the AFL, and now Spring Training. What makes you think he can play everyday with the Sox? Or, show me why you think rushing guys to the Majors doesn't disrupt their development. As far as I know, it's a very steep learning curve from college to the Majors, and the overwhelming majority of players need extra time to prepare for the talent they will face. But if someone can prove to me otherwise, that this is just old fart baseball gobblydegook and he wouldn't greatly benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I'll admit my reasoning is flawed.


Because your favorite team's management is considering the idea. The fans are not demanding Gordon to make the big club. The management, that everyone thumps their chest about trusting, is the one who has made mention of it.

Let me ask you this, do you not trust the Sox to make right decision about this kid?

If he makes the team, it sounds like you are about to give up on this team.

LoveYourSuit
03-10-2009, 02:39 AM
The funniest thing about this thread is that we are arguing about the position on this team which outside CF lacks the most talent. It's like we are asking Gordon to beat out Sandberg or Alomar for 2B.

I can almost gurantee this, Beckham even on a "learning on the job" season, will outplay and outhit anyone of the 3 clowns battling for that position right now. The kid as that good.

Last I checked, shouldn't we be fielding our best 9?

We all had this same silly arguement last season when Alexei was battling to play ahead of such greats as Juan Uribe and Danny Richar.

The question should be, who helps this team win ball games right away?

esbrechtel
03-10-2009, 07:50 AM
Because your favorite team's management is considering the idea. The fans are not demanding Gordon to make the big club. The management, that everyone thumps their chest about trusting, is the one who has made mention of it.

Let me ask you this, do you not trust the Sox to make right decision about this kid?

If he makes the team, it sounds like you are about to give up on this team.


I am with doublem on this one...I think the management is just looking for a story...I don't think they will call him up right away. Look at Longoria last year. The Rays were smart to keep him in AAA long enough to keep him that extra year away from arbitration.

Personally, I think I would rather be paying him Major League money to produce than waste his service time on developing or learning...

edit: also Getz is not a "clown" kid hit .307 in AAA last year, I have a feeling he is going to be a good player as well. Maybe not as good as Beckham but not a "clown"

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 08:43 AM
Of course Gordon would benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I would sound silly trying to argue against that. I also think Gordon would benefit from a full year in the majors.

In my opinion (and the opinion of countless professional scouts), He's that talented. Pitching is pitching. Gordon Beckham knows how to hit the ball. He's smart; baseball smart. Defensively, the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats tends to be easier.

Will he end up breaking camp with the team? Probably not. Could he handle it? In my opinion, yes.
In the long run, it would hurt the major league club.

...
03-10-2009, 09:31 AM
In the long run, it would hurt the major league club.

In what way?

esbrechtel
03-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Money, break in confidence, rushing a "sure thing" etc.....

...
03-10-2009, 09:44 AM
:rolleyes:

esbrechtel
03-10-2009, 09:46 AM
the money and arbitration thing is no reason to eyeroll...

smart teams get their best players to get paid when it really matters

esbrechtel
03-10-2009, 09:48 AM
Honestly, would you rather we pay him his starting salary now while he is learning or when he has had a year of seasoning in AAA and might be better?

Personally I would take the latter. Especially since we have a serviceable 2nd basemen already. Getz hit .300+ in AAA last year and with Nix and Lillibridge to push him we will get fine production from 2b. Let him learn the position in a place with less pressure...

HomeFish
03-10-2009, 09:57 AM
Beckham has no business being in the majors in 2009. The fact we're having this discussion reflects extremely poorly on KW for not going out there and getting a real 2B like Orlando Hudson.

oeo
03-10-2009, 10:01 AM
Beckham has no business being in the majors in 2009. The fact we're having this discussion reflects extremely poorly on KW for not going out there and getting a real 2B like Orlando Hudson.

No, once again, we're having this discussion because he's good. And because he's good, and can quickly reach the majors, there was no interest in bringing in someone else when we have a good stopgap option in Getz.

delben91
03-10-2009, 10:02 AM
156 PA in Kannapolis, the AFL, and the first two weeks of Spring Training do not prepare you for the Majors.

I say let Beckham start with the big club this year if someone can guarantee me 100% he'll be a hall of famer like some past prospects we've had. :cool:

doublem23
03-10-2009, 10:06 AM
I say let Beckham start with the big club this year if someone can guarantee me 100% he'll be a hall of famer like some past prospects we've had. :cool:

:D:

We need jeremyb to stump for Beckham. Those were the days.

HomeFish
03-10-2009, 10:09 AM
No, once again, we're having this discussion because he's good. And because he's good, and can quickly reach the majors, there was no interest in bringing in someone else when we have a good stopgap option in Getz.

The kid got drafted last year and hasn't even played AA. Nobody's THAT good. Even Frank Thomas had to play some AA ball.

Even if we assumed the Beckham would be here next year (which is still a big assumption), we could have signed a legit middle infielder for a one-year contract. Kenny Williams has committed GM malpractice by not fixing the black hole at 2B.

doublem23
03-10-2009, 10:10 AM
No, once again, we're having this discussion because he's good. And because he's good, and can quickly reach the majors, there was no interest in bringing in someone else when we have a good stopgap option in Getz.

Nobody is saying he's not good, or that he's not even potentially great. I really like Beckham, I've seen a few of his at bats this Spring and it looks like he's got the goods. The argument is a) do you think he'd be a productive player at the Major League level in 2009 (I know some think yes, and that's fine, but I have a more pessimistic view) and b) even if he was a decent-to-good player here in 2009, would you ultimately be hurting the Sox in the long-term by promoting him too early?

The "anti-Beckham" argument has never been Gordon sucks, Sox prospects suck, and he's going to fail, but it's that prospects who are rushed to the Majors do have a tendency to fall apart and not reach their potential. Even the best college players usually need some time at the AA or AAA level before they are adequately prepared to play everyday in the Majors.

IMO, the long-term risks far outweigh the slight short-term gain.

sox1970
03-10-2009, 10:12 AM
I don't think there's a right or wrong move with Beckham.

If you send him down, you give him more experience at his future position on the Sox.

If you bring him up, he has a chance to be a real special player from the beginning, and I've always felt a good rookie brings a great element to a good team (that could be Chris Getz too). On the other hand, if for some reason he struggles and needs to be sent down, I don't think he's the type that it would bother him. He's a very confident player and he would just go back down and work on it.

I think when it's all said and done, he'll be sent down for a while...probably while Kenny is trying to get a better leadoff man. When that happens, he'll be up.

I know this for sure...Beckham is rooting for Jerry Owens to get it in gear. Because if Owens isn't leading off, then it's probably going to be Lillibridge or Getz leading off at 2B on opening day.

esbrechtel
03-10-2009, 10:13 AM
So what is the argument for starting him early other than "he is good"

I think the logical arguments have come from the other side...

thedudeabides
03-10-2009, 10:18 AM
The kid got drafted last year and hasn't even played AA. Nobody's THAT good. Even Frank Thomas had to play some AA ball.

Even if we assumed the Beckham would be here next year (which is still a big assumption), we could have signed a legit middle infielder for a one-year contract. Kenny Williams has committed GM malpractice by not fixing the black hole at 2B.

:upsidehead:

oeo
03-10-2009, 10:19 AM
Nobody is saying he's not good, or that he's not even potentially great. I really like Beckham, I've seen a few of his at bats this Spring and it looks like he's got the goods. The argument is a) do you think he'd be a productive player at the Major League level in 2009 (I know some think yes, and that's fine, but I have a more pessimistic view) and b) even if he was a decent-to-good player here in 2009, would you ultimately be hurting the Sox in the long-term by promoting him too early?

The "anti-Beckham" argument has never been Gordon sucks, Sox prospects suck, and he's going to fail, but it's that prospects who are rushed to the Majors do have a tendency to fall apart and not reach their potential. Even the best college players usually need some time at the AA or AAA level before they are adequately prepared to play everyday in the Majors.

IMO, the long-term risks far outweigh the slight short-term gain.

Double, I'm not responding to you. I agree he shouldn't start the season in the big leagues. However, if he's tearing up AA to start the year, I see no reason to hold him back.

What you just said was false for the "anti-Beckham" crowd, is true for HomeFish. He's already said as much: doesn't have confidence in prospects (especially Sox prospects), there's no way this guy gets to the majors faster than the Big Hurt, shouldn't be talking about him until 2011, etc.

delben91
03-10-2009, 10:26 AM
:D:

We need jeremyb to stump for Beckham. Those were the days.

I was thinking more along the lines of the DLS homages.

thedudeabides
03-10-2009, 10:55 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of the DLS homages.

:D:

I almost forgot about those. Who was it that already annointed him a hall of famer?

HomeFish
03-10-2009, 11:01 AM
I'll admit that I thought that Miguel Olivo was a lock to be a perennial All-Star (though not a HoF). So I'll stay out of the "making fun of people who overrate Sox prospects" fray. Though I think its clear that our farm system and player development history is atrocious.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 11:19 AM
In what way?
Starting his service time and rushing a player who has never even made the most difficult transition (rookie ball/A to AA) in the minor leagues. Let's see how he handles Birmingham -- especially considering we've got Getz, who is serviceable. Throwing out platitudes about him being a "ballplayer" doesn't make for a compelling argument.

:rolleyes:
Argue the point, don't be petulant.

voodoochile
03-10-2009, 11:45 AM
:D:

I almost forgot about those. Who was it that already annointed him a hall of famer?

That would be munchman33...

Tekijawa
03-10-2009, 11:48 AM
I say we just have his bronze statue by the fan deck ready for opening day and worry about when to bring him up later.

...
03-10-2009, 12:25 PM
Starting his service time and rushing a player who has never even made the most difficult transition (rookie ball/A to AA) in the minor leagues. Let's see how he handles Birmingham -- especially considering we've got Getz, who is serviceable. Throwing out platitudes about him being a "ballplayer" doesn't make for a compelling argument.


Argue the point, don't be petulant.

I've argued that exact point multiple time in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just because he's too lazy to start at page one.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 12:36 PM
I've argued that exact point multiple time in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just because he's too lazy to start at page one.
Your argument consists of anecdotal (at best) and vague evidence. Saying that he's a mature ballplayer isn't going to (and shouldn't) convince anyone he should skip every meaningful level of the minor leagues.

HebrewHammer
03-10-2009, 07:26 PM
I say we just have his bronze statue by the fan deck ready for opening day and worry about when to bring him up later.

Should we put it next to the one for Jeremy Reed or the one for DLS?

WHILEPITCH
03-10-2009, 07:34 PM
I havent read the thread, but has it been discussed why Becks dropped so low in the draft? Have reasons been speculated about in the past?

DirtySox
03-10-2009, 07:40 PM
Dropped so low? You mean by 1 to 3 spots? :scratch:

I think most people expected the Reds to pick him so he only fell 1 spot or so.

WHILEPITCH
03-10-2009, 07:44 PM
Dropped so low? You mean by 1 to 3 spots? :scratch:

I think most people expected the Reds to pick him so he only fell 1 spot or so.

Still not seeing how I worded it improperly. Yes 1 to 3 spots.

DirtySox
03-10-2009, 07:55 PM
I just wouldn't say he dropped very low. It might be kind of surprising he fell in our lap but it wasn't a monster drop. I believe most analysts had the Sox targeting Brett Wallace.

The top of the 2008 draft was stacked with talent. I suppose you could say he dropped a spot with the Reds signing Alonso, which was questionable because they have little infield depth and already have Votto at first which is where Alonso is destined to play.

It's much more surprising that Smoak fell so far and that the Astros drafted Castro over him.

Daver
03-10-2009, 07:56 PM
Still not seeing how I worded it improperly. Yes 1 to 3 spots.

This isn't like the NFL draft, teams pick on organizational need, not on how their draft affects the team on the field, most teams will always value pitching over a positional player in the top ten, but your whole premise is rather asinine.

HebrewHammer
03-10-2009, 08:25 PM
Still not seeing how I worded it improperly. Yes 1 to 3 spots.

He was picked 8th. How far could he have fallen?

rdivaldi
03-10-2009, 08:49 PM
Though I think its clear that our farm system and player development history is atrocious.

That's pretty much irrelevant now. The last 2 drafts plus our foreign signings have strengthened us to the point where our farm system is looked upon favorably again.

Daver
03-10-2009, 09:05 PM
That's pretty much irrelevant now. The last 2 drafts plus our foreign signings have strengthened us to the point where our farm system is looked upon favorably again.

That does not change the fact that this team spent a lot of years using misguided logic to draft players, and as far as I can tell are still using misguided methods on promoting minor league players.

rdivaldi
03-10-2009, 09:14 PM
That does not change the fact that this team spent a lot of years using misguided logic to draft players, and as far as I can tell are still using misguided methods on promoting minor league players.

Dunno, I don't think there is any one method that you can apply across the board for players. Some guys just progress faster and deserve a shot more quickly. I'm more concerned with our instructors at the lower levels, and from what I've heard, Bell is making a positive impact.

delben91
03-10-2009, 09:16 PM
That does not change the fact that this team spent a lot of years using misguided logic to draft players, and as far as I can tell are still using misguided methods on promoting minor league players.

Emphasis mine.

Is there any logic to the theory that by having a better draft philosophy, and better talent evaluation for the draft would help mitigate the bolded statement above?

I guess I'm saying, if the Sox improve at selecting quality players, players with good baseball sense and fundamentals, would that help with the issue of misguided promotion criteria in that the players, regardless of reason for promotion, would have better a grasp of the basics of the game?

Or is that a bridge too far?

Daver
03-10-2009, 09:38 PM
Dunno, I don't think there is any one method that you can apply across the board for players. Some guys just progress faster and deserve a shot more quickly. I'm more concerned with our instructors at the lower levels, and from what I've heard, Bell is making a positive impact.

I disagree with this.

Emphasis mine.

Is there any logic to the theory that by having a better draft philosophy, and better talent evaluation for the draft would help mitigate the bolded statement above?

I guess I'm saying, if the Sox improve at selecting quality players, players with good baseball sense and fundamentals, would that help with the issue of misguided promotion criteria in that the players, regardless of reason for promotion, would have better a grasp of the basics of the game?

Or is that a bridge too far?

No, it is the philosophy itself that is misguided, not the talent. Joe Borchard had a ton of talent, I have seen very few college players that had the power he had from both sides of the plate, but his talent was never developed because he had no problem hitting minor league pitching and no one bothered to consider what he would do against pitchers that weren't going to just try throw the ball past him. The same can be said for Brian Anderson, the White Sox do not develop players to play at the major league level, they promote hitters as long as they continue to hit, and they let them sink or swim on the MLB level, without ever really caring if they can play a position or not. Carlos Lee was called up as an infielder in a September callup role.

WHILEPITCH
03-11-2009, 12:06 PM
This isn't like the NFL draft, teams pick on organizational need, not on how their draft affects the team on the field, most teams will always value pitching over a positional player in the top ten, but your whole premise is rather asinine.

asinine? I dont even have a premise, all i asked is why he dropped in the draft and if there had been speculation as to why.

Everyone seems to agree he dropped to us, so I dont see at all why several posters have singled out my wording. At no point have i said he went 24th or anything, but it's still a drop from what was expected.

Quentin4prez
03-11-2009, 05:39 PM
beckham just hit a 2 run double 1-1
other notes
viciedo 0-2
kroeger 0-1
owens 1-4 with a ribby
alexei makes error at ss also hits a double
miller 1-2

nodiggity59
03-11-2009, 06:20 PM
I still think it's best that we give him another 1/2 season in the minors.


That said, you gotta love the way this kid goes about his business. He really seems like a winner, a driven competitor.

Fingers crossed that we got a live one here.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 06:32 PM
Everything I've read about him makes him sound like a very polished talent with the potential to be a very good starter on a contending team.

The only knock against him that I've seen is that he's very unlikely to become a star.

Really, I think he'll be a solid infielder with a peak in which he plays like an all-star. He's going to be a good player.

Quentin4prez
03-11-2009, 06:35 PM
wat about his speed i havnt heard anything about speed can he steal 10-20 bases?

Sockinchisox
03-11-2009, 06:43 PM
KW says Beckham has the same shot as Getz, Nix, or Lillibridge at winning the second base job.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090311&content_id=3968030&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb

guillensdisciple
03-11-2009, 06:47 PM
KW says Beckham has the same shot as Getz, Nix, or Lillibridge at winning the second base job.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090311&content_id=3968030&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb


Good because I look at it like this: is the team better with him than they are with either Getz, Lillibridge, or Nix? From what I have seen and heard, I don't see any reason as to why he should not be starting for the White Sox this upcoming season. Who gives us the best chance to win now, not in a few years. I want that championship again, and Beckham is the guy who would help the most.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 06:49 PM
wat about his speed i havnt heard anything about speed can he steal 10-20 bases?

I don't think people see him as that fast, he's much more skills than tools- I've seen some comparisons to JJ Hardy (who is tremendously underrated btw).

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 06:53 PM
Good because I look at it like this: is the team better with him than they are with either Getz, Lillibridge, or Nix? From what I have seen and heard, I don't see any reason as to why he should not be starting for the White Sox this upcoming season. Who gives us the best chance to win now, not in a few years. I want that championship again, and Beckham is the guy who would help the most.


What are the odds that the White Sox make the play offs this year? Right now they don't have a reliable CF, 3b or 2b and as of now Bartolo Colon is the fourth best starting pitcher on the roster.

Is it worth burning a cheap year on Beckham now on a long shot at being successful or for the white sox to take their lumps in 09 and gear up for 2010?

guillensdisciple
03-11-2009, 07:09 PM
What are the odds that the White Sox make the play offs this year? Right now they don't have a reliable CF, 3b or 2b and as of now Bartolo Colon is the fourth best starting pitcher on the roster.

Is it worth burning a cheap year on Beckham now on a long shot at being successful or for the white sox to take their lumps in 09 and gear up for 2010?

Do you honestly believe that gifted hitters need any experience in the minors to make them come out better?

Do you believe that an extra year for the greats in the minors was ever needed? I don't think so. I am not claiming him to be a great, but considering the fact the everyone is saying that his hitting ability NOW is of a major league hitter whereas your other options aren't as great, I don't see why he should not play in the majors.

It does not matter if we make the playoffs or we don't, if we experiment with three players at second and none of them end up as good as Beckham the next year than we will have accomplished nothing.

Personally, even if this year is re-building, I believe it should be taken seriously, regardless of experience and youth. Beckham is already valued as a better hitter than any of the others, why shouldn't he start?

champagne030
03-11-2009, 07:13 PM
I don't think people see him as that fast, he's much more skills than tools- I've seen some comparisons to JJ Hardy (who is tremendously underrated btw).


BA compares him to Michael Young.

I'd say he's got pretty decent speed. Air Force recruited him as a QB and they run the wishbone.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 07:19 PM
Do you honestly believe that gifted hitters need any experience in the minors to make them come out better?

Do you believe that an extra year for the greats in the minors was ever needed? I don't think so. I am not claiming him to be a great, but considering the fact the everyone is saying that his hitting ability NOW is of a major league hitter whereas your other options aren't as great, I don't see why he should not play in the majors.

It does not matter if we make the playoffs or we don't, if we experiment with three players at second and none of them end up as good as Beckham the next year than we will have accomplished nothing.

Personally, even if this year is re-building, I believe it should be taken seriously, regardless of experience and youth. Beckham is already valued as a better hitter than any of the others, why shouldn't he start?

When did I say he couldn't hit in the majors? My issue with bringing him up now is that it burns a cost controlled year for a season that the white sox have very little chance of competing.

Additionally, while he's polished- he's never played above A ball. Polished or not, there are pitch recognition issues that are a challenge for every prospect as they advance up the scale. So yeah, while it's not the reason I stated above (the economic reason), I'll go on the record here too and state that it's not a good idea for him to jump from A ball to the pros.

Let him start the season in AA, if he continue to play well and isn't have issues recognizing breaking balls, promote him in late May so that the White Sox can have him for an extra season on the cheap (as it will push back his major league service time).

Let me put it this way: Matt Wieters is 5 times the prospect that Beckham is. That may sound cold, but Wieters is just about the best offensive prospect since maybe A-Rod. He's a total offensive freak and a good defensive catcher. The Orioles had him spend a year in the minors. On top of that, they're likely going to have him start the season in AA or AAA in order to push back his major league service time.

Daver
03-11-2009, 07:20 PM
What are the odds that the White Sox make the play offs this year? Right now they don't have a reliable CF, 3b or 2b and as of now Bartolo Colon is the fourth best starting pitcher on the roster.

Is it worth burning a cheap year on Beckham now on a long shot at being successful or for the white sox to take their lumps in 09 and gear up for 2010?

They have a very reliable CFer, he won't play much because his offense is poor. They have a lousy third baseman that may hit well, and may just strikeout a lot, and a question mark at second base. The point being if Beckham can win the job in ST there is no reason why he can't follow in the footsteps of Griffey and Rodriguez, neither of whom played an entire season in the minors before making a major league roster.

As far as the pitching goes, well, between the defense most likely to play behind them, and what I expect to see out of the rotation, they are going to give up a lot of runs, I just hope the Sox approach to fielding offense first lineups can try to keep up.

guillensdisciple
03-11-2009, 07:22 PM
When did I say he couldn't hit in the majors? My issue with bringing him up now is that it burns a cost controlled year for a season that the white sox have very little chance of competing.

Additionally, while he's polished- he's never played above A ball. Polished or not, there are pitch recognition issues that are a challenge for every prospect as they advance up the scale. So yeah, while it's not the reason I stated above (the economic reason), I'll go on the record here too and state that it's not a good idea for him to jump from A ball to the pros.

Let him start the season in AA, if he continue to play well and isn't have issues recognizing breaking balls, promote him in late May so that the White Sox can have him for an extra season on the cheap (as it will push back his major league service time).

Let me put it this way: Matt Wieters is 5 times the prospect that Beckham is. That may sound cold, but Wieters is just about the best offensive prospect since maybe A-Rod. He's a total offensive freak and a good defensive catcher. The Orioles had him spend a year in the minors. On top of that, they're likely going to have him start the season in AA or AAA in order to push back his major league service time.


Oh, that's right, I heard something about the financial help that would come from Beckham spending some time in the minors. In this case, I am willing to sacrifice a win or two for the sake of a better financial future for the Sox.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 07:25 PM
They have a very reliable CFer, he won't play much because his offense is poor. They have a lousy third baseman that may hit well, and may just strikeout a lot, and a question mark at second base. The point being if Beckham can win the job in ST there is no reason why he can't follow in the footsteps of Griffey and Rodriguez, neither of whom played an entire season in the minors before making a major league roster.

As far as the pitching goes, well, between the defense most likely to play behind them, and what I expect to see out of the rotation, they are going to give up a lot of runs, I just hope the Sox approach to fielding offense first lineups can try to keep up.

By reliable I didn't mean defensively, I meant as in below average.

Gordon Beckham is a good prospect, Griffey and A-Rod were once in a generation type talents.



It's a lot more likely he'll be Jose Guillen than one of the 10 best players of all time.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 07:31 PM
A-Rod dominated the minors btw, posting an OPS of .951 across A, AA, and AAA his first season in professional baseball. The Mariners bringing him up so soon was a huge mistake because they lost an entire year of A-Rod in his prime due to rushing him at 18 years of age. Had they brought him up the next year as a call up, they'd have gotten to enjoy that first 160 OPS+ that A-Rod posted with the Rangers in 01 and may have won the world series that year.

Ken Griffey did skip from High School to the majors... he's also Ken Griffey Jr.

yazz32
03-11-2009, 07:44 PM
I am all for giving Beckham a shot to start at 2B.
My concern is not too long ago Alex Gordon of the Royals was tearing up spring training just like Beckham, but struggled mightly the whole 1st year that he played in the bigs. I just hope Beckham does not go thru that.

Eddo144
03-11-2009, 07:49 PM
Ken Griffey did skip from High School to the majors... he's also Ken Griffey Jr.
Actually, Griffey did spend time in the minors. He was drafted in 1987 and didn't debut in the majors until 1989. I can't find his minor league history anywhere, but I assume he wasn't just sitting on his ass for two years. :tongue:

Soxpranos
03-11-2009, 07:57 PM
Do you honestly believe that gifted hitters need any experience in the minors to make them come out better?

Do you believe that an extra year for the greats in the minors was ever needed? I don't think so. I am not claiming him to be a great, but considering the fact the everyone is saying that his hitting ability NOW is of a major league hitter whereas your other options aren't as great, I don't see why he should not play in the majors.

It does not matter if we make the playoffs or we don't, if we experiment with three players at second and none of them end up as good as Beckham the next year than we will have accomplished nothing.

Personally, even if this year is re-building, I believe it should be taken seriously, regardless of experience and youth. Beckham is already valued as a better hitter than any of the others, why shouldn't he start?

I agree , I think the only question in mind is if Beckham can handle the 2nd base position. They might just want to see if he is mentally ready to play that position, without hindering his offensive mentallity.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 07:57 PM
I am all for giving Beckham a shot to start at 2B.
My concern is not too long ago Alex Gordon of the Royals was tearing up spring training just like Beckham, but struggled mightly the whole 1st year that he played in the bigs. I just hope Beckham does not go thru that.


The funny thing about this entire debate is that Spring Training should matter .00001% in the decision making. How one performs in Spring Trainings doesn't exactly mean nothing, just next to nothing.

Right now Jarod Saltalamaccia has a slugging percentage of .900. Is he a good young hitter? Yes. Does this Spring mean he's likely to break out this year? Absolutely not.

Right now we're watching the smallest of sample sizes featuring a great number of players who are either rusty or working on something specific. It's not uncommon for a pitcher to go into a spring training game with a game plan of throwing 50 fast balls, 5 change ups and 5 curve balls. They're working on getting their arms loose, they're working at regaining the feel for the ball, they're working at regaining their command.

I mean hell, Dan Bard of the Red Sox has pitched something like 7 innings and has 10 k's and a bb and a single. Should Red Sox fans be have imaged of Bard closing out games as early as 2009 dancing in their brains? Of course not. The guy's a mess in terms of command.

It's nice to see a player have a great spring, if he can build that into a strong season- fantastic but generally there's about as much predictive value in spring training statistics as a week during the regular season. Players can get hot, some can get cold. In the short term it may look like a lot, but in the long run it means little.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 07:59 PM
Actually, Griffey did spend time in the minors. He was drafted in 1987 and didn't debut in the majors until 1989. I can't find his minor league history anywhere, but I assume he wasn't just sitting on his ass for two years. :tongue:

Ha, given his reputation would it be that surprising?


Really though, thanks. God 1987... it doesn't seem like Griffey could be that old.

champagne030
03-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Actually, Griffey did spend time in the minors. He was drafted in 1987 and didn't debut in the majors until 1989. I can't find his minor league history anywhere, but I assume he wasn't just sitting on his ass for two years. :tongue:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/ken-griffey.shtml

Eddo144
03-11-2009, 08:34 PM
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/ken-griffey.shtml
Thanks for the link! Good to know. :smile:

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 09:13 PM
Even though I understand the "let him play" side of the argument, it is in the White Sox best interest to send him down to the minors for what I believe to be two reasons.

1) The Sox do have to see what they have in one of Getz, Nix and Lillibridge at the major league level. I think it would be best to do that sooner rather than later, all three have shown that they can hit minor league pitching at its highest level. All three have been at one time or another been considered decent prospects.

2) Service time. I know it sucks, but in the long-term interest of the team, it's for the best if Beckham doesn't accrue the necessary days to accumulate a full year of servce. Thus the Sox would have to keep him in the minors until the middle/end of May. I don't think a month and a half missed would kill us or him.

soltrain21
03-11-2009, 09:15 PM
Even though I understand the "let him play" side of the argument, it is in the White Sox best interest to send him down to the minors for what I believe to be two reasons.

1) The Sox do have to see what they have in one of Getz, Nix and Lillibridge at the major league level. I think it would be best to do that sooner rather than later, all three have shown that they can hit minor league pitching at its highest level. All three have been at one time or another been considered decent prospects.

2) Service time. I know it sucks, but in the long-term interest of the team, it's for the best if Beckham doesn't accrue the necessary days to accumulate a full year of servce. Thus the Sox would have to keep him in the minors until the middle/end of May. I don't think a month and a half missed would kill us or him.

And say Getz is playing solid ball, you can move him to make room for Beckham and actually get something in return.

kruzer31
03-12-2009, 01:41 AM
Beckham is Ready. Some players just are. I think he is one of those guys.

It's Dankerific
03-12-2009, 09:12 AM
Beckham is Ready. Some players just are. I think he is one of those guys.

I agree. Sit him in the minors for whatever the period is to keep him under for one more year and then bring him up.

Carolina Kenny
03-12-2009, 09:22 AM
Even though I understand the "let him play" side of the argument, it is in the White Sox best interest to send him down to the minors for what I believe to be two reasons.

1) The Sox do have to see what they have in one of Getz, Nix and Lillibridge at the major league level. I think it would be best to do that sooner rather than later, all three have shown that they can hit minor league pitching at its highest level. All three have been at one time or another been considered decent prospects.

2) Service time. I know it sucks, but in the long-term interest of the team, it's for the best if Beckham doesn't accrue the necessary days to accumulate a full year of servce. Thus the Sox would have to keep him in the minors until the middle/end of May. I don't think a month and a half missed would kill us or him.

Congrats on the new baby, and you are right. Even though GNL (Getz, Nix and Lillipad) are all big question marks, you can easily live with them a few weeks or months. How bad can they be? I know pretty bad, but Beckham appears to have a long range future with the Sox, so a few weeks in the long view don't matter.

guillensdisciple
03-12-2009, 09:40 AM
I believe the rules state that if a rookie plays 80 or more games than he will become arbitration eligible within the first 3 years. I am not sure but you get an extra two years on arbitration if they don't play 80 the first season.

It's not exact, but this probably has some role to play in what Beckham does this year.

sox1970
03-12-2009, 09:53 AM
Trade Getz to St. Louis for Schumaker, release Owens, play Beckham at 2B.

Done.

sox1970
03-12-2009, 12:30 PM
If you can get past Dan Hampton, here's an interview with Gordon. The kid knows what to say.

http://www.670thescore.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=3566243

EndemicSox
03-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Of course Gordon would benefit from a full year of minor league ball, I would sound silly trying to argue against that. I also think Gordon would benefit from a full year in the majors.

In my opinion (and the opinion of countless professional scouts), He's that talented. Pitching is pitching. Gordon Beckham knows how to hit the ball. He's smart; baseball smart. Defensively, the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats tends to be easier.

Will he end up breaking camp with the team? Probably not. Could he handle it? In my opinion, yes.

Good post...I agree with everything you wrote.

I'd eat my hat if he starts the year in MLB, and I'm expecting one of the other 2B/SS to perform at an average to good level which will probably keep Beckham in the minor leagues till September. This scenario is probably the best for the franchise in $$$ terms, but if the others flop, I think Beckham will be at 2B for good(or until Ozzie experiments with Alexei in CF again after the studs at that position show what they can do, pushing Gordon to SS) come June. Heck, if Alexei doesn't have what it takes to play SS, and one of Lillibridge/Getz break out, we may see the Alexei to CF move anyway, which in theory opens up a spot for Beckham. All in all, the Sox are in a very good position! The season can't get here soon enough so we can all bitch and moan over whatever Ozzie is or isn't doing...time will tell.

gr8mexico
03-12-2009, 05:13 PM
Trade Getz to St. Louis for Schumaker, release Owens, play Beckham at 2B.

Done.
AMEN!!! The Cardianls need a 2B and Gordon just keeps hitting the crap out of the ball.

kkappelk
03-12-2009, 05:38 PM
I hate playing this game because Chicago athletes are almost always WAY overhyped in this town, but G. Beckham has superstar written all over him. He appears to have the right approach, both on-field AND off-field.

nodiggity59
03-12-2009, 05:39 PM
AMEN!!! The Cardianls need a 2B and Gordon just keeps hitting the crap out of the ball.


Is Skip a CF?

I think that would be a nice option, and we could finally move on from Owens.

If Beckham isn't ready, there's still Getz and Lilli.

rdivaldi
03-12-2009, 08:37 PM
Congrats on the new baby.

:D:

Guess I should consider a new sig. That baby is turning 4 on Monday.

UofCSoxFan
03-12-2009, 08:48 PM
The funny thing about this entire debate is that Spring Training should matter .00001% in the decision making. How one performs in Spring Trainings doesn't exactly mean nothing, just next to nothing.

Right now Jarod Saltalamaccia has a slugging percentage of .900. Is he a good young hitter? Yes. Does this Spring mean he's likely to break out this year? Absolutely not.

Right now we're watching the smallest of sample sizes featuring a great number of players who are either rusty or working on something specific. It's not uncommon for a pitcher to go into a spring training game with a game plan of throwing 50 fast balls, 5 change ups and 5 curve balls. They're working on getting their arms loose, they're working at regaining the feel for the ball, they're working at regaining their command.

I mean hell, Dan Bard of the Red Sox has pitched something like 7 innings and has 10 k's and a bb and a single. Should Red Sox fans be have imaged of Bard closing out games as early as 2009 dancing in their brains? Of course not. The guy's a mess in terms of command.

It's nice to see a player have a great spring, if he can build that into a strong season- fantastic but generally there's about as much predictive value in spring training statistics as a week during the regular season. Players can get hot, some can get cold. In the short term it may look like a lot, but in the long run it means little.

Spring training shouldn't mean much if anything for proven vertans but to say it shouldn't mean anything in determining the winners of position battles, in evaluating players you haven't seen before, in determining the final spots on your roster....is ridiculous. What are you suppossed to determine this by...how guys played against minor leaguers or college players the year before?

UofCSoxFan
03-12-2009, 08:50 PM
I agree. Sit him in the minors for whatever the period is to keep him under for one more year and then bring him up.

I've heard May 1 being talked about as that date....means Beckham misses a month, which given the weather early in the year could be anything from 20 to 25 games...worth it in my opionion to give him another year under our control.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 09:42 PM
Spring training shouldn't mean much if anything for proven vertans but to say it shouldn't mean anything in determining the winners of position battles, in evaluating players you haven't seen before, in determining the final spots on your roster....is ridiculous. What are you suppossed to determine this by...how guys played against minor leaguers or college players the year before?


Trust me, it's not ridiculous. Sure, a person may win a spot on a team as the 11th man out of the pitching staff because they've had a hot spring and don't have any options, but beyond that- the idea of a player winning a spot because of a hot spring is a bad one.

We're talking tiny samples against a very wide range of opponents. If Beckham wins a spot, it's more likely because Kenny Williams and others felt that a proper ETA for him was sometime in 2009 than him posting good numbers in 20 at bats.

I mean right now he's hitting a home run every ten at bats- Do you expect him to hit 55 home runs this year? No, he'll be lucky if he does that in his first two full seasons in the pros. He's just a very good prospect who happens to be very hot right now.

Maybe I'd believe you that major league baseball teams pay that much attention to spring training statistics if we could find some examples of a player winning a spot solely on their spring training.

Beckham's a project. He'll likely be an All-Star (should he remain a middle infielder) and the White Sox rightly have a lot invested in his future. I doubt Williams is going to risk retarding his development because of a couple hot weeks in March.

How you determine who should make the team is by pooling together your scouts, development team and other front office types to pour over a players track record (usually the minors) and look at their weaknesses and strengths and determine whether or not they should make the roster or if they should spend more time seasoning in the minors.

I mean hell, it's completely possible the front office will say: "Damn, this kid has had a great spring, but we want him to work on his pitch recognition as he may be vulnerable to off speed pitches. Let's send him to the minors for a month or so to work on that and access later" Despite them tearing the cover off the ball.

Likewise, it's possible for them to say "Well his numbers have sucked thus far this spring, but I really like his approach. Additionally, he has great footwork around second. He may struggle initially but he can work it out" To a guy sucking at the plate all summer.

The point is- they likely learn more from workouts and practice than a players statistics during the spring. We're dealing with such small samples statistically, that what a player does means next to nothing.

DirtySox
03-12-2009, 09:52 PM
http://scottmerkin.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/03/thursdays_roundup.html

Says Beckham might be playing the outfield in order to get some more at bats during ST.

A. Cavatica
03-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Maybe I'd believe you that major league baseball teams pay that much attention to spring training statistics if we could find some examples of a player winning a spot solely on their spring training.

Boone Logan.

And look how that worked out.

Daver
03-12-2009, 10:26 PM
Boone Logan.

And look how that worked out.

Don't get Billy riled, he'll fire up on your ass with more forms of mental masturbation than you'll want to deal with.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 10:55 PM
Boone Logan.

And look how that worked out.

And how do we know he made it only because of his spring statistics-

Anyway, you're right- as I said before it occasionally comes up were the fifth or sixth option out of the bullpen wins a job during ST. However, I doubt it's based solely on spring training performance, it's more likely based on scouting.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 10:57 PM
Don't get Billy riled, he'll fire up on your ass with more forms of mental masturbation than you'll want to deal with.

Still waiting for you guys to prove these theories wrong. So far, I've made one of you look like a total fool for his critique on run differential. But at least he
threw an argument out there.

Tragg
03-12-2009, 11:07 PM
Still waiting for you guys to prove these theories wrong. So far, I've made one of you look like a total fool for his critique on run differential. But at least he
threw an argument out there.
Total fool on run differential? Are you kidding? All you did was say it looks accurate in your spreadsheet. You didn't offer any real argument, which is why I didn't bother respoinding.

Run differential is a lazy statistic. Wins are far more indicative of team quality than pythagorean wins.

Per BP's stats: Shaprio 7-Williams 1.
Per reality: Williams 7 - Sharpiro 1

SOXfnNlansing
03-12-2009, 11:08 PM
And how do we know he made it only because of his spring statistics-

Anyway, you're right- as I said before it occasionally comes up were the fifth or sixth option out of the bullpen wins a job during ST. However, I doubt it's based solely on spring training performance, it's more likely based on scouting.


Logan made it only because Ozzie had no confidence in the 'big leaguers' that were in camp that spring. He even was mocking to the press about bringing up this kid that was in A ball because his relievers suck. If I recall correctly, Logan really had a terrible April (Indians?) and he was sent backing to the minors for months. That was a bad year for the bull pen because he was brought back later in the season and sucked.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 11:24 PM
Total fool on run differential? Are you kidding? All you did was say it looks accurate in your spreadsheet. You didn't offer any real argument, which is why I didn't bother respoinding.

Run differential is a lazy statistic. Wins are far more indicative of team quality than pythagorean wins.

Per BP's stats: Shaprio 7-Williams 1.
Per reality: Williams 7 - Sharpiro 1


Um when the hell did I argue that run differential has great predictive of future results? Never, go read my prior post in the other thread. You were proven wrong, definitively.

If you had, you would have seen that since 2001 run differential has been better than 95% accurate on win totals. It explains events (win/loss records)- and has limited predictive value in that it allows us to see if a team over performed or underperformed, however that doesn't make it any more/less likely that a team will suddenly right itself the next season. There are far too many variables in play for one to think that's the most important factor going from season to season.

In conclusion:

You're argument, though written more intelligently-

"Run differential has no barring on a teams record"

Results, > 95% of the time, run differential has an impact. Enjoy being wrong.

I would like to know how providing evidence that you're argument doesn't pass the smell test more than 5% of the time isn't an argument. Oh yeah, it isn't- so long as you deny basic math.

SOXfnNlansing
03-12-2009, 11:32 PM
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-11107C796AECD0B8.html

http://blogs.trb.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/blog/2006/03/ <<<Hawks' blog from 3/21/06

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 11:46 PM
again, I stated in my first post regarding spring training statistics that we do in fact sometimes see relievers beat people out in position battles, it happens.

Additionally, it happens for position players in extremely rare conditions as well (injuries, suspensions and so on)- I'm just arguing that spring training stats means essentially nothing and that teams almost certainly understand this.

If player X wins a spot during spring training, it has a lot more to do than their performance during exhibition games- subsequently, we should stop clamoring about Beckhams great week during spring training games as evidence that he's ready. Josh Reddick is hitting .500 this spring, I doubt he'd hit .200 if he played in the majors this season.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 11:52 PM
some more info for Tragg

Here's a study from some lazy academic about the value of run differential.

http://www.williams.edu/go/math/sjmiller/public_html/math/papers/PythagWonLoss_Paper.pdf

Jeez, he comes up with the same conclusion I did. The math is real dude, you can't ignore it.

Konerko05
03-13-2009, 01:56 AM
again, I stated in my first post regarding spring training statistics that we do in fact sometimes see relievers beat people out in position battles, it happens.

Additionally, it happens for position players in extremely rare conditions as well (injuries, suspensions and so on)- I'm just arguing that spring training stats means essentially nothing and that teams almost certainly understand this.

If player X wins a spot during spring training, it has a lot more to do than their performance during exhibition games- subsequently, we should stop clamoring about Beckhams great week during spring training games as evidence that he's ready. Josh Reddick is hitting .500 this spring, I doubt he'd hit .200 if he played in the majors this season.

Why does it have to be about spring training statistics? Spring training is a good way to get extended looks at players Guillen and company might not usually see. They can be looking at other things besides statistics. You know, actual scouting.

HebrewHammer
03-13-2009, 08:12 AM
Anyone else think this might simply just be a case of Ozzie wanting to motivate the 3 guys fighting for the job? None of them have been that impressive so far. This could be a case of Ozzie using the papers to get one of these guys to win the job.

I don't think Beckham has a chance of breaking camp with the big club. I think we're going to get a carousel at 2nd base until someone plays will enough to earn a starting job. If Nix, Getz and Lillibridge are unable to win the job by May, I think we'll see Beckham make his debut on the South Side.

seventyseven
03-13-2009, 08:21 AM
Um when the hell did I argue that run differential has great predictive of future results? Never, go read my prior post in the other thread. You were proven wrong, definitively.

If you had, you would have seen that since 2001 run differential has been better than 95% accurate on win totals. It explains events (win/loss records)- and has limited predictive value in that it allows us to see if a team over performed or underperformed, however that doesn't make it any more/less likely that a team will suddenly right itself the next season. There are far too many variables in play for one to think that's the most important factor going from season to season.

In conclusion:

You're argument, though written more intelligently-

"Run differential has no barring on a teams record"

Results, > 95% of the time, run differential has an impact. Enjoy being wrong.

I would like to know how providing evidence that you're argument doesn't pass the smell test more than 5% of the time isn't an argument. Oh yeah, it isn't- so long as you deny basic math.

You make a really fun board participant. Did anyone ever tell you that?

Btw, it's "your" not "you're." It's usually a good idea to get the words right when you're demeaning someone's intelligence. But you already knew that.

guillensdisciple
03-13-2009, 09:19 AM
You make a really fun board participant. Did anyone ever tell you that?

Btw, it's "your" not "you're." It's usually a good idea to get the words right when you're demeaning someone's intelligence. But you already knew that.


Nice.

Billy Ashley
03-13-2009, 10:01 AM
You make a really fun board participant. Did anyone ever tell you that?

Btw, it's "your" not "you're." It's usually a good idea to get the words right when you're demeaning someone's intelligence. But you already knew that.


I never said I wasn't careless. I tend to think I write pretty well; though at times I make stupid errors everyone once in a while.

Typos and brain farts aside, at least my posts aren't a compilation of sentence fragments and illogical argument.

I'm pretty secure with how intelligent I am (I'd argue smarter than the average beer, err I mean bear). In terms of writing, I tend to think I'm far ahead of the bell curve. Now if we want to talk about science or kinetic learning or "emotional intelligence," I'll admit the following: I barely passed biology in college (and the professor treated it like a cake class), I'm about the clumsiest person I've ever known and can not dance and while people who don't know me very well think of me as nice, I annoy my closest friends and family to no end.

shes
03-13-2009, 11:26 AM
though at times I make stupid errors everyone once in a while.


Was this intentional?

Just teasin' :tongue:

...
03-13-2009, 10:01 PM
I never said I wasn't careless. I tend to think I write pretty well; though at times I make stupid errors everyone once in a while.

Typos and brain farts aside, at least my posts aren't a compilation of sentence fragments and illogical argument.

I'm pretty secure with how intelligent I am (I'd argue smarter than the average beer, err I mean bear). In terms of writing, I tend to think I'm far ahead of the bell curve. Now if we want to talk about science or kinetic learning or "emotional intelligence," I'll admit the following: I barely passed biology in college (and the professor treated it like a cake class), I'm about the clumsiest person I've ever known and can not dance and while people who don't know me very well think of me as nice, I annoy my closest friends and family to no end.

Would have never guessed.

...
03-13-2009, 10:03 PM
Gordon also has zero strikeouts on the spring.

Daver
03-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Gordon also has zero strikeouts on the spring.

Spring Training numbers are useless, they can't be plugged into the regular season spreadsheet that BP uses.

...
03-13-2009, 10:17 PM
Spring Training numbers are useless, they can't be plugged into the regular season spreadsheet that BP uses.

Billy in 3..2..

Tragg
03-13-2009, 10:48 PM
some more info for Tragg

Here's a study from some lazy academic about the value of run differential.

http://www.williams.edu/go/math/sjmiller/public_html/math/papers/PythagWonLoss_Paper.pdf

Jeez, he comes up with the same conclusion I did. The math is real dude, you can't ignore it.
The math is not real. He uses what appears to be real statistical analysis to test a lazy statistic.

2 Questions Billy.
1. What's the point of phythagorean wins?....why can't you use real wins? Can't be that it helps projects playoff success, because we all know that's statistically impossible.

2. Can you cut to the nut in that paper for me - where is the comparison of pythagorean wins to actual wins - i.e. show that they are valid. Not that they should be valid - but that pythagorean wins accurately reflect real wins. We know it was a farce in 2005. But quickly scanning that document, I didnt' see year by year comparisons.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 11:59 AM
The math is not real. He uses what appears to be real statistical analysis to test a lazy statistic.

2 Questions Billy.
1. What's the point of phythagorean wins?....why can't you use real wins? Can't be that it helps projects playoff success, because we all know that's statistically impossible.

2. Can you cut to the nut in that paper for me - where is the comparison of pythagorean wins to actual wins - i.e. show that they are valid. Not that they should be valid - but that pythagorean wins accurately reflect real wins. We know it was a farce in 2005. But quickly scanning that document, I didnt' see year by year comparisons.

So hypotheses testing is not real math? Let's not tell pharmaceutical companies, doctors, social scientists or gallop- they’re going to be really hurt by the knowledge of that they’ve devoted years in college and in the real world to something that isn’t mathematical.



People who use pythag and pythag alone to predict future results do so at their own peril. I’ve only stated that about 50 times in this thread. Forgive me if I come across as snooty, but if you’re going to continue to attack my position, please try to make it appear that you understand it. The point of it is that it helps explain past results.

That said, pythag does have limited predictive value. Say a team is .500 after a month, despite being much better according to pythag. Should they continue such run scoring/ run prevention trends- in the long run they will see their record become more reflective of their pythag. That said, one of the first rules one learns in statistics 101 is that odds don’t change with each roll of the dice (gamblers fallacy), so it’s not any more likely than before that the team will actually play to its expected level. That said, given that pythag is 95% correct in predicting 95% of teams records- they’re likely going to see performance closer to the pythag over the teams remaining games.

On the play offs- Given a variety of factors, accurate projection in the play offs based on the performance of a team is virtually impossible. We’re talking about tiny margins of errors in the post season, one pitcher have a bad game because a case of the flu can literally be enough in a 5 game series to prevent a team from advancing. Furthermore, given that the regular season is such a grind- I’ve heard players argue that just about everybody is hurt in October. Players are suffering from severe fatigue, some are playing with ligament tears that will be surgically repaired once their team is eliminated/ wins it all, others are having constant cramps and muscle pulls. When the White Sox make the World Series again- take a moment to be impressed with what it means physically for players to be playing into November. They’re literally gutting out something that probably shouldn’t be done for the sack of their long term playing health.

There are studies that suggest certain types of teams do better in the play offs, teams with a lot of pitchers with very high K rates and line ups full of home run hitters. In short, the theory presented by Nate Silver is that teams who can cause a lot of WPA changing moments are advantaged. Personally, I’ve never really looked at secret “sauce enough” (Silver’s theory) close enough to say anything other than, “That interesting.”
The paper looks at 2004, and comes to the same conclusion I did. 95% of the time, pythag predicts with in 5% of how many wins a team will have. You keep referring to the 2005 white sox as if it’s some sort of shocking evidence that disproves the theory- it’s not, usually 1-2 teams a year out/under perform their pythag. Though given that it appears random as to who does it and when, it doesn’t look as if it’s a discernable skill. We’re not talking about scientific law, that’s limited to stuff like gravity. We’re talking about a theory about a measurement that explains results… a theory that has been proven statistically significant time and time again.

Statistically speaking, people who live healthy life styles live much longer than those who do some combination of the following: eating poorly, failing to exercise, smoking, and drinking in excess and so on. My maternal grandfather generally, was a good guy. That said he drank way too much his entire adult life, smoked 2-3 packs a day, believed in having 3 egg omelets every morning with a side of bacon the size of my fist. He lived to be 82 and died from a blood clot moving from his leg to his heart. The blood clot, I’ve been told was in a leg that was surgically repaired 40 years ago after a nasty car accident (he was drunk at the time). If the guy hadn’t had that car accident, he’d have made it to 90- good living disaster that he was be damned.

We all know someone like that; conversely we all have known or will in the future know someone who’s died way too young despite not having a terrible life style. The point of this is not to sound depressing, but to rather illustrate a point. Because of the statistics, I don’t smoke- I only drink once a month, I eat wheat bread and I try to go to the gym three times a week. The fact that Bruce Lee died in his 40’s and Rodney Dangerfield was telling jokes into his mid 70’s doesn’t disprove the statistics behind life style and life expectancy. It’s just illustrates that if something is statistically significant (95% or higher), you’re still going to see a couple weird cases once in a while.

The 2005 White Sox, the 2007 Rockies and the 2006 Indians don’t disprove a damn thing. Additionally, I'd suggest you pick another team as you're chief argument, the white sox out played their pythag that year by 8 games. They won literally 4.93% more games than they "should" of, pythag wasn't even that wrong about them.

Tragg
03-14-2009, 01:28 PM
Hypothesis testing can be real math.
In this case the underlying statistic being tested is NOT real math. It's lazy. Not the testing - but the statistic being tested.

I'd like to reitterate my questions:
1)What's the point of pythag wins? Why not use actual wins.
2)Never mind - I can go to baseball reference and just eyeball the wins/phythag wins....it's a lot closer to reality than I thought, but still a few big discrepancies most years.

I have a third question for you:
Is Pecota purely mechanical calculation? For example, I'm trying to figure out how a mechanical program could peg Chris Young to improve his OBP by basically 27 points over last year and 27 points more than he's ever had? It can't be just "Bad luck" because his walk rate's not very good.

You can pooh pooh 2005 all you want (it's the Sox and Indians they were way off on, and that's the only 2 I checked)....but they picked the world champs to win 73 - to me, that's a signficant gaffe.

...
03-14-2009, 01:50 PM
So hypotheses testing is not real math? Let's not tell pharmaceutical companies, doctors, social scientists or gallop- theyíre going to be really hurt by the knowledge of that theyíve devoted years in college and in the real world to something that isnít mathematical.



People who use pythag and pythag alone to predict future results do so at their own peril. Iíve only stated that about 50 times in this thread. Forgive me if I come across as snooty, but if youíre going to continue to attack my position, please try to make it appear that you understand it. The point of it is that it helps explain past results.

That said, pythag does have limited predictive value. Say a team is .500 after a month, despite being much better according to pythag. Should they continue such run scoring/ run prevention trends- in the long run they will see their record become more reflective of their pythag. That said, one of the first rules one learns in statistics 101 is that odds donít change with each roll of the dice (gamblers fallacy), so itís not any more likely than before that the team will actually play to its expected level. That said, given that pythag is 95% correct in predicting 95% of teams records- theyíre likely going to see performance closer to the pythag over the teams remaining games.

On the play offs- Given a variety of factors, accurate projection in the play offs based on the performance of a team is virtually impossible. Weíre talking about tiny margins of errors in the post season, one pitcher have a bad game because a case of the flu can literally be enough in a 5 game series to prevent a team from advancing. Furthermore, given that the regular season is such a grind- Iíve heard players argue that just about everybody is hurt in October. Players are suffering from severe fatigue, some are playing with ligament tears that will be surgically repaired once their team is eliminated/ wins it all, others are having constant cramps and muscle pulls. When the White Sox make the World Series again- take a moment to be impressed with what it means physically for players to be playing into November. Theyíre literally gutting out something that probably shouldnít be done for the sack of their long term playing health.

There are studies that suggest certain types of teams do better in the play offs, teams with a lot of pitchers with very high K rates and line ups full of home run hitters. In short, the theory presented by Nate Silver is that teams who can cause a lot of WPA changing moments are advantaged. Personally, Iíve never really looked at secret ďsauce enoughĒ (Silverís theory) close enough to say anything other than, ďThat interesting.Ē
The paper looks at 2004, and comes to the same conclusion I did. 95% of the time, pythag predicts with in 5% of how many wins a team will have. You keep referring to the 2005 white sox as if itís some sort of shocking evidence that disproves the theory- itís not, usually 1-2 teams a year out/under perform their pythag. Though given that it appears random as to who does it and when, it doesnít look as if itís a discernable skill. Weíre not talking about scientific law, thatís limited to stuff like gravity. Weíre talking about a theory about a measurement that explains resultsÖ a theory that has been proven statistically significant time and time again.

Statistically speaking, people who live healthy life styles live much longer than those who do some combination of the following: eating poorly, failing to exercise, smoking, and drinking in excess and so on. My maternal grandfather generally, was a good guy. That said he drank way too much his entire adult life, smoked 2-3 packs a day, believed in having 3 egg omelets every morning with a side of bacon the size of my fist. He lived to be 82 and died from a blood clot moving from his leg to his heart. The blood clot, Iíve been told was in a leg that was surgically repaired 40 years ago after a nasty car accident (he was drunk at the time). If the guy hadnít had that car accident, heíd have made it to 90- good living disaster that he was be damned.

We all know someone like that; conversely we all have known or will in the future know someone whoís died way too young despite not having a terrible life style. The point of this is not to sound depressing, but to rather illustrate a point. Because of the statistics, I donít smoke- I only drink once a month, I eat wheat bread and I try to go to the gym three times a week. The fact that Bruce Lee died in his 40ís and Rodney Dangerfield was telling jokes into his mid 70ís doesnít disprove the statistics behind life style and life expectancy. Itís just illustrates that if something is statistically significant (95% or higher), youíre still going to see a couple weird cases once in a while.

The 2005 White Sox, the 2007 Rockies and the 2006 Indians donít disprove a damn thing. Additionally, I'd suggest you pick another team as you're chief argument, the white sox out played their pythag that year by 8 games. They won literally 4.93% more games than they "should" of, pythag wasn't even that wrong about them.


It seems like this **** has infected every thread and it's beyond annoying. Start a new if you want to complain about how people don't give a ****.

Daver
03-14-2009, 02:22 PM
It seems like this **** has infected every thread and it's beyond annoying. Start a new if you want to complain about how people don't give a ****.

He wants to spread the gospel of junk math as wide as possible.

UChicagoHP
03-14-2009, 02:31 PM
I think it's pretty damn interesting, imo, I don't understand most of it, but it's the future, and the present I guess, of statistical analysis in MLB. Of course, most fans don't give a rat's ass about this stuff, but it's ok in my book.
Is it the only thing that matters when evaluating talent? No...but to say it's pointless is ridiculous as well. Can't we all just get along? :gulp:

EDIT: I've only seen about 50 PA's from Beckham, including his rampage through the CWS, but I'd be quite shocked if he isn't a regular at 2B or SS come July '10. He could probably hit .270 with 15 HR's right now, but a little seasoning will not hurt a talent like Beckham. Props to Kenny Williams, it's about time to White Sox had an uber-prospect in the system.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 02:35 PM
Hypothesis testing can be real math.
In this case the underlying statistic being tested is NOT real math. It's lazy. Not the testing - but the statistic being tested.

I'd like to reitterate my questions:
1)What's the point of pythag wins? Why not use actual wins.
2)Never mind - I can go to baseball reference and just eyeball the wins/phythag wins....it's a lot closer to reality than I thought, but still a few big discrepancies most years.

I have a third question for you:
Is Pecota purely mechanical calculation? For example, I'm trying to figure out how a mechanical program could peg Chris Young to improve his OBP by basically 27 points over last year and 27 points more than he's ever had? It can't be just "Bad luck" because his walk rate's not very good.

You can pooh pooh 2005 all you want (it's the Sox and Indians they were way off on, and that's the only 2 I checked)....but they picked the world champs to win 73 - to me, that's a signficant gaffe.

1)The point is that it has limited predictive value- for example; the 2007 Diamondbacks (I mistakenly referred to the Rockies of the same year earlier) should have understood that while they were a good team, that had a couple fundamental flaws that should have prevented them from winning the division, however, they lucked out. Perhaps if the organization had been more realistic about their accomplishment in 07, they could have carried that success in 2008. I will not pretend that this analysis doesn’t have it’s draw backs- for one it assumes productivity will stay fairly consistent for year to year, but like I’ve tried to argue, it’s just one tool in the bag. One measurement to be used with others in assessing a situation, Arizona should realized that while they were a good run prevention team, their offense couldn’t sustain a 90 win team without drastic changes.

2)And I’d argue those examples of teams that have greatly over or underperformed their pythag should be expected from time to time. We’re dealing with a bell shaped graph; naturally some results are going to end up in the two standard deviations from the mean. If the system doesn’t work, the number of examples will grow- but as I hope I’ve demonstrated, a statistically insignificant number end up like the D’backs of 07.

3)Good question. I like PECOTA, a lot actually. I agree with you entirely that the projection seems to bullish in Young. I’m not certain of this, but I believe PECOTA uses comparable players and trends seen by age in its projections- meaning- PECOTA sees a trend in 25 years old improving their OBP, additionally- players of similar skills sets have seen additional jumps. Finally, Chris Young saw good walk rates in the minors and a 2% jump in walks last season.

Now, I’ll be first to admit that this assumes too much on and individual bases (just because batters advance more at certain ages doesn’t make it certain that Young will make the adjustments necessary to do so). However, when looking at their projections as a whole- they’re going to end up right more times than anyone else.

PECOTA is a tool, and as I’ve pointed out before- it’s not going to be able to predict that Jon Danks learns a cutter, that Cliff Lee figures out how to reduce his BB rate to epic proportions or that Miguel Cabrera is going to eat to many Ho Hos in any particular off-season. However, their model is going to be correct about the majority of players who don’t enjoy or suffer from any sort of transformative epiphany or destructive coke habit. As people are so fond of saying- there is a lot more to baseball than numbers. I believe that. I just wouldn’t advise betting against them, as they’re going to be right many more times than not.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 02:56 PM
He wants to spread the gospel of junk math as wide as possible.


So where was it that you got you PhD in mathematics? MIT right?


Actually it comes up time and time again because if I mention anything as simple as OBP, four or five of the same posters make nonsensical non arguments before moving onto different childish insults or one liners.

Maybe I'm incorrect here, but it appears you've responded to about 1/3 of my posts this weekend and haven't put for a single substantive argument.

Your critiques have had the depth of your average episode House of Payne, the humor of the Jamie Kennedy Experiment and the relevance of the Mario Lopez show.

guillen4life13
03-14-2009, 03:04 PM
Billy:

I am familiar with a lot of the math that you are suggesting, though my experience with stats is in a much more manufacturing based arena. Probability of part defectiveness or failure, probability of a machine causing injury, etc. I'm still in college so you may have a higher level of expertise (and certainly a higher level of interest).

I haven't completely read the novels you've posted in this thread and others, but I think I get the gist of it. It's a tool, as you acknowledge, however, IMHO, you put a bit too much faith in it.

I will say this about applying this type of hypothesis testing to baseball (or any sport in general), and you have already alluded to it yourself: this takes into account virtually nothing about the human element of the game.

Examples:
-Weather (which is an unpredictable independent variable in outdoor parks). How does this affect ball impact and movement (not to mention player comfort, traction, and ease of motion).
-Travel. Grueling road trips. 'Nuff said.
-Health or any other situations team members or coaches may be going through. Examples: Charlie Manuel's situation during these past playoffs. Jordan's Flu Game. Pippen Migraines. You never know how an individual or team will react to that type of stress.
-Career years. Who the hell would have expected Esteban Loaiza to have the year he had in 2003? Bret Boone in 2001. Jose Contreras and Jon Garland in 2005? I could go on...

When you cite pharma testing, polls, etc with hypothesis testing being a credible method, of course, you are right. But let me say this: any company that depends on that type of hypothesis testing obviously has much to lose if they are far off base. There's a lot more incentive for the whole testing process to be done right so that these companies can stay credible, or in the case of pharma, avoid litigation. As such, they establish controlled conditions to encourage a consistent, minimally skewed outcome.

In the MLB, the only money riding on such hypothesis testing as far as baseball is concerned would be national advertising, because anyone wants to advertise with a winner. But even here it's usually inconsequential because a team that's expected to win is not going to get as many endorsements as a team that has already won.

I don't understand how you can be so skeptical about a season without one game having been played yet. If you were skeptical about last season, that would make more sense since 2007 was such a disaster. The Tigers are essentially in the same position the Sox were in a year ago. Lots of unproven variables or players coming off of down years. Meanwhile the Sox are the returning division champions and have only lost two significant pieces of that puzzle in Vazquez and Cabrera, both of which were adequate but not great pieces at that.

However, especially with baseball, it's tough to quantify so much.

And when I look at Pythag W/L or any of these predictions, most of them I could make myself just by watching these teams play, and many I strongly differ with based on having seen these teams play. Therefore, I have a healthy skepticism of these stats because, while they are a tool, they are very often wrong with the less obvious cases, and my understanding of the math behind it does not account for all of the random independent variables.

Just my two dollars.

guillen4life13
03-14-2009, 03:17 PM
So hypotheses testing is not real math? Let's not tell pharmaceutical companies, doctors, social scientists or gallop- theyíre going to be really hurt by the knowledge of that theyíve devoted years in college and in the real world to something that isnít mathematical.


The paper looks at 2004, and comes to the same conclusion I did. 95% of the time, pythag predicts with in 5% of how many wins a team will have. You keep referring to the 2005 white sox as if itís some sort of shocking evidence that disproves the theory- itís not, usually 1-2 teams a year out/under perform their pythag. Though given that it appears random as to who does it and when, it doesnít look as if itís a discernable skill. Weíre not talking about scientific law, thatís limited to stuff like gravity. Weíre talking about a theory about a measurement that explains resultsÖ a theory that has been proven statistically significant time and time again.

Statistically speaking, people who live healthy life styles live much longer than those who do some combination of the following: eating poorly, failing to exercise, smoking, and drinking in excess and so on. My maternal grandfather generally, was a good guy. That said he drank way too much his entire adult life, smoked 2-3 packs a day, believed in having 3 egg omelets every morning with a side of bacon the size of my fist. He lived to be 82 and died from a blood clot moving from his leg to his heart. The blood clot, Iíve been told was in a leg that was surgically repaired 40 years ago after a nasty car accident (he was drunk at the time). If the guy hadnít had that car accident, heíd have made it to 90- good living disaster that he was be damned.

We all know someone like that; conversely we all have known or will in the future know someone whoís died way too young despite not having a terrible life style. The point of this is not to sound depressing, but to rather illustrate a point. Because of the statistics, I donít smoke- I only drink once a month, I eat wheat bread and I try to go to the gym three times a week. The fact that Bruce Lee died in his 40ís and Rodney Dangerfield was telling jokes into his mid 70ís doesnít disprove the statistics behind life style and life expectancy. Itís just illustrates that if something is statistically significant (95% or higher), youíre still going to see a couple weird cases once in a while.

The 2005 White Sox, the 2007 Rockies and the 2006 Indians donít disprove a damn thing. Additionally, I'd suggest you pick another team as you're chief argument, the white sox out played their pythag that year by 8 games. They won literally 4.93% more games than they "should" of, pythag wasn't even that wrong about them.



The problem is that, while a small number of teams over/underperform from their expected W-L, that's still significant when there are only 30 teams to being with. On top of that, when it's one of these teams that ends up playing a significant role in the playoffs (getting to/winning the WS), then even more questions pop up.

Additionally, 5% out of 162 is about 8 games. 8 games can be the difference between a 1st and 3rd or 4th place finish in a division. Winning a division championship is, in itself, a definition of success. Not winning it is a failure. That is very significant. A team that wins 82 games in a year is merely average. A team that wins 90 games will often go to the playoffs (success), where it's usually a question of who has the hotter team rather than a question of who is better.

I hope I've understood your points properly and not responded based on a misunderstanding of position.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 03:20 PM
Guillen, I do agree with you completely that the human element of the game is incredibly important. In my prior post I pointed out that there's no way to predict when a player is going to "suddenly get it" in regards to how to pitch or how to work counts. Additionally, weather of plays a monumental impact on individual games... I'll be the first to tell you, that protecting one game is a fools errand.

I also discussed health before, but given the great amount I've written- I can fully understand if you missed it. Health is the biggest factor to a teams success. Look at the relative health of the starting rotations of the last ten world series winners- The White Sox, The Red Sox in 04, The Phillies, the 07 Red Sox, the 03 Marlins all were exceptionally lucky in regards to the health of their starters during their championship seasons. PECOTA, Bill James, anyone can predict Y. Gallardo blowing his knee covering first base- if that has not happened perhaps the Brewers would have won the World Series last year- it's impossible to know.

The only area I completely disagree with you is that hypothesis testing is done by front offices. I know of several organizations that care about DIPS (and have no doubt tested the theory). Additionally, I'm certain that every organization runs such tests on methods of healing players. I have little doubt, the Yankees have tested the so called "Verduchi" effect or that the Red Sox have tested the value of pitcher abuse points. It would be silly not to. If a major league team learns that PAP for example is nothing but bull- great, now they can ignore it.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 03:26 PM
The problem is that, while a small number of teams over/underperform from their expected W-L, that's still significant when there are only 30 teams to being with. On top of that, when it's one of these teams that ends up playing a significant role in the playoffs (getting to/winning the WS), then even more questions pop up.

Additionally, 5% out of 162 is about 8 games. 8 games can be the difference between a 1st and 3rd or 4th place finish in a division. Winning a division championship is, in itself, a definition of success. Not winning it is a failure. That is very significant. A team that wins 82 games in a year is merely average. A team that wins 90 games will often go to the playoffs (success), where it's usually a question of who has the hotter team rather than a question of who is better.

I hope I've understood your points properly and not responded based on a misunderstanding of position.

No, you've observed them entirely appropriately. My response to the very valid point that 5% of the season could mean the different between 3rd and 1st is this-

We fans don't understand how freaking lucky a team (any team) has to be to make the play offs. It's freaking hard. Good or bad luck, karma, or whatever you wish to call it, is often what makes the difference between a team winning a division and missing the play offs*.

To me, that's the exciting part of baseball. The math is so damn sound, and yet it's unpredictable as all hell.

My only minor quibble is that, going back to 2000, the most teams we've ever had missing by 8 games or more was 3. It happened once, and both teams were on 8 on the dot. Two or three different seasons in the same period of time had 1.

I wouldn't be surprised if the average was around 1.5 a season.

*More on this- I've often times equated it to playing what poker players call "playing +EV". There are a great number of maneuvers that in the long run will make a player money depending on various factors. Unfortunately, a great number of times they will do this and lose money/chips. Projections, pythag, sabr in general is all about putting forth ones best guess. Stat heads will end up being incorrect a lot, but in the end- they'll have made a profit (or been right far more often than others)

guillen4life13
03-14-2009, 03:38 PM
The only area I completely disagree with you is that hypothesis testing is done by front offices. I know of several organizations that care about DIPS (and have no doubt tested the theory). Additionally, I'm certain that every organization runs such tests on methods of healing players. I have little doubt, the Yankees have tested the so called "Verduchi" effect or that the Red Sox have tested the value of pitcher abuse points. It would be silly not to. If a major league team learns that PAP for example is nothing but bull- great, now they can ignore it.

I did overlook this aspect, and I'm wondering how... :redface:

However, again:

Straight up scouting from watching a player play will trump the sabremetrics and hypothesis testing for just about every organization.

Again, just looking at the Sox, there have been too many instances of them acquiring players that other teams had written off, and turning them into studs by recognizing and helping to correct a flaw. But it's not just the Sox who do this. Do these statistical models account for the coaching staff?

So again, we agree that this is a tool in which organizations have more or less confidence. The Sox are a team that do not subscribe to this model as religiously as, say, the A's. I think for a certain time the Sox tried it during the earlier part of this decade, and it didn't work. There was a recent article (the Jon Heyman/SI article, I think) that made mention of the scouting and talent evaluation methods the Sox use.

guillen4life13
03-14-2009, 03:45 PM
No, you've observed them entirely appropriately. My response to the very valid point that 5% of the season could mean the different between 3rd and 1st is this-

We fans don't understand how freaking lucky a team (any team) has to be to make the play offs. It's freaking hard. Good or bad luck, karma, or whatever you wish to call it, is often what makes the difference between a team winning a division and missing the play offs*.

To me, that's the exciting part of baseball. The math is so damn sound, and yet it's unpredictable as all hell.

My only minor quibble is that, going back to 2000, the most teams we've ever had missing by 8 games or more was 3. It happened once, and both teams were on 8 on the dot. Two or three different seasons in the same period of time had 1.

I wouldn't be surprised if the average was around 1.5 a season.

*More on this- I've often times equated it to playing what poker players call "playing +EV". There are a great number of maneuvers that in the long run will make a player money depending on various factors. Unfortunately, a great number of times they will do this and lose money/chips. Projections, pythag, sabr in general is all about putting forth ones best guess. Stat heads will end up being incorrect a lot, but in the end- they'll have made a profit (or been right far more often than others)

Fair enough. Of course, no statistical analysis is going to yield a 100% confidence rating since that's an asymptote.

However, there is so much luck involved. In all of it. And no one can quantify that. We agree here.

The minor quibble is fair but I'll still stand by what I said earlier. The anomalies tend to have a big impact by either really tanking or going far in the playoffs.

Daver
03-14-2009, 03:51 PM
So where was it that you got you PhD in mathematics? MIT right?


Actually it comes up time and time again because if I mention anything as simple as OBP, four or five of the same posters make nonsensical non arguments before moving onto different childish insults or one liners.

Maybe I'm incorrect here, but it appears you've responded to about 1/3 of my posts this weekend and haven't put for a single substantive argument.

Your critiques have had the depth of your average episode House of Payne, the humor of the Jamie Kennedy Experiment and the relevance of the Mario Lopez show.

Do you really think I'm going to make any effort what so ever to debate something that I consider to have the same value as a steamy pile of dog crap?

HomeFish
03-14-2009, 03:53 PM
Do you really think I'm going to make any effort what so ever to debate something that I consider to have the same value as a steamy pile of dog crap?

Hey now, looking at what a steamy pile of dog crap can do has historically been a very good way of predicting what White Sox prospects can do!

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 03:58 PM
I did overlook this aspect, and I'm wondering how... :redface:

However, again:

Straight up scouting from watching a player play will trump the sabremetrics and hypothesis testing for just about every organization.

Again, just looking at the Sox, there have been too many instances of them acquiring players that other teams had written off, and turning them into studs by recognizing and helping to correct a flaw. But it's not just the Sox who do this. Do these statistical models account for the coaching staff?

So again, we agree that this is a tool in which organizations have more or less confidence. The Sox are a team that do not subscribe to this model as religiously as, say, the A's. I think for a certain time the Sox tried it during the earlier part of this decade, and it didn't work. There was a recent article (the Jon Heyman/SI article, I think) that made mention of the scouting and talent evaluation methods the Sox use.

I think the White Sox are one of two or three teams that rely on more of a traditional approach at running their organization and are actually very good at it. Given the personnel it's likely the best way for them to do business (no qualms about that) but at times, I do think they neglect the other side a little too much (they give away too many outs, seem to not really care about defense as much as other teams)

The ideal model, is the type that incorporates a healthy dose of both- however that's really difficult to do, even now because of the resistance to change among many in the old guard (btw, I don't include the white sox FO as resistant- I just think they found a niche they're excellent at and focus on that strength).

You bring up the Athletics- they're a great example of an organization that had a good idea but was/ is too dogmatic. They've had success, a great deal when one considers the lack of resources Oakland has to deal with but they could likely have achieved even more impressive heights if they hadn't subscribed the insane "No high schooler" draft code that really zapped their player development for a while.

Please don't believe Daver when he alludes to me being so fanatical stat lover. I've gone on the record a number of times discussing how important scouting is (hell, when looking at HS prospects what use are statistics? You're garden variety single A wash out is a super stud in HS).

I just don't want to minimize the accomplishments of a group of people who have greatly changed the game with nonsense that even Murrey Chass wouldn't find suitable for print.

I'm out for the evening, it's been fun debating. Take care.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 04:04 PM
Do you really think I'm going to make any effort what so ever to debate something that I consider to have the same value as a steamy pile of dog crap?

Then why bother to post at all. Generally message board mods like to limit the noise to content ratio.

Also, I don't believe you could adequately defend your stance if you tried... so don't bother.

Instead continue with your Pavlovian urge to respond with each one of my comments with 12 words posts discussing nothing in particular.

guillen4life13
03-14-2009, 04:06 PM
I think the White Sox are one of two or three teams that rely on more of a traditional approach at running their organization and are actually very good at it. Given the personnel it's likely the best way for them to do business (no qualms about that) but at times, I do think they neglect the other side a little too much (they give away too many outs, seem to not really care about defense as much as other teams)

The ideal model, is the type that incorporates a healthy dose of both- however that's really difficult to do, even now because of the resistance to change among many in the old guard (btw, I don't include the white sox FO as resistant- I just think they found a niche they're excellent at and focus on that strength).

You bring up the Athletics- they're a great example of an organization that had a good idea but was/ is too dogmatic. They've had success, a great deal when one considers the lack of resources Oakland has to deal with but they could likely have achieved even more impressive heights if they hadn't subscribed the insane "No high schooler" draft code that really zapped their player development for a while.

Please don't believe Daver when he alludes to me being so fanatical stat lover. I've gone on the record a number of times discussing how important scouting is (hell, when looking at HS prospects what use are statistics? You're garden variety single A wash out is a super stud in HS).

I just don't want to minimize the accomplishments of a group of people who have greatly changed the game with nonsense that even Murrey Chass wouldn't find suitable for print.

I'm out for the evening, it's been fun debating. Take care.

I can make my own judgments about your views, so don't worry about it.
I'll say that this has been one of the more enjoyable debates for me on WSI also and I think we both understand and acknowledge each others positions even though we disagree on certain aspects. Definitely one of the most civil debates I've seen on WSI (though the civility can detract from the entertainment sometimes :redneck).

Take care.

Daver
03-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Then why bother to post at all. Generally message board mods like to limit the noise to content ratio.

Also, I don't believe you could adequately defend your stance if you tried... so don't bother.

Instead continue with your Pavlovian urge to respond with each one of my comments with 12 words posts discussing nothing in particular.

Damn your funny.

I'll stop, I wouldn't dream of hurting your little little feelings.

Billy Ashley
03-14-2009, 04:30 PM
Damn your funny.

I'll stop, I wouldn't dream of hurting your little little feelings.

Before I leave for the night, I should tell you to check out the Porcello comment I made in the Talking baseball thread.

In short, I commented that I think it's a bad idea for the Tigers to promote this kid, because his K rate in single was around 5. I argued that, in that majors, it would likely be around 3 last year. I also argued that the kid has a bright future, but is too young and not seasoned enough to make it, yet.

So Daver in is infinite wisdom says something to the effect of: “Brilliant, so you can’t be a good pitcher with out being a strike out pitcher”

I only bring this up to embarrass/ challenge Daver, if he can find 10 pitchers who have succeeded at the major league level as starters with a K per 9 below 4 over the past 50 years (it was actually somewhat common in the deadball era) over a sustained period of time (let’s say 5 years)- I will leave this board. If not, I’ll continue to call him out on how stupid of a comment this was and how little he knows about baseball.

Success btw means an ERA+ over 100 for their career.

guillensdisciple
03-14-2009, 04:53 PM
While I don't want to get involved in any of this, I will say that my personal preference has always been to take the game at face value. Statistics give you a very rough outline to the rules of the game but, as we understand, you can't predict human aspect. There are exceptions to the rule everywhere, Billy did a great job pointing that out, but it is for that exact reason that I don't bother myself with statistics or averages.

The impossibility to determine- the impossibility to know who will be the best and who will win is the exact reason why we enjoy this game. If these statistics mattered- if they were pivotal in determining how baseball works, then there would be no point of watching.

You can put laws and averages to everything, but even that ONE team changing their outcome changes the outcome of a few teams around them. Whether we notice it or not, the Diamonbacks, the Rockies, the Tigers, the White Sox, the Cardinals, and the Astros of the past were all teams that threw off the balance of these statistical tools. It doesn't matter if the thing got ONE wrong- it is that one that changed eveyrything, that one that proved that machine wrong.

I understand your argument Billy, and I think you argue it very well, but I just don't see the point of using statistics in general. Nothing in life is certain, and this uncertainty might be the reason why we enjoy it in the first place.

UChicagoHP
03-14-2009, 05:03 PM
Beckham with another knock...

Humans play the game, but numbers determine the winner. Y'all make good points, well, most of ya!


Good night all!