PDA

View Full Version : Chris Young


ndgt10
07-22-2007, 04:08 PM
The sox should have kept this guy and shipped Mr. Anderson off to Arizona. I hope that Arizona demanded him and it was not the whitesox organization thinking Anderson was better.

oeo
07-22-2007, 04:11 PM
The sox should have kept this guy and shipped Mr. Anderson off to Arizona. I hope that Arizona demanded him and it was not the whitesox organization thinking Anderson was better.

ndgt10, you should apply for a job with the White Sox. I mean your hindsight skills are just too valuable.

ndgt10
07-22-2007, 04:13 PM
ndgt10, you should apply for a job with the White Sox. I mean your hindsight skills are just too valuable.
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young or would they have preferred to send Anderson off to Arizona and keep Young?

oeo
07-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young or would they have preferred to send Anderson off to Arizona and keep Young?

I have no idea, but right now neither has amounted to much. Chris Young is hitting for power, but not for average, nor is he walking. Still too early to say you want him back...although Anderson looks like a bust already.

ThomesHomie
07-22-2007, 04:24 PM
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young

Everyone but Ozzy :smile:

QCIASOXFAN
07-22-2007, 04:28 PM
Everyone but Ozzy :smile:
And me.:yoohoo:

Bill Naharodny
07-22-2007, 04:32 PM
ndgt10, you should apply for a job with the White Sox. I mean your hindsight skills are just too valuable.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's hindsight to some here. I think I remember reading those posts at the time the trade was made. Anyway, we are where we are.

JorgeFabregas
07-22-2007, 04:37 PM
Chris Young's major league stats are pretty modest. They're not a whole lot better than Anderson's. The only thing he's clearly better at is stealing bases.

ChiSoxFan7
07-22-2007, 04:42 PM
Chris Young's major league stats are pretty modest. They're not a whole lot better than Anderson's. The only thing he's clearly better at is stealing bases.

I miss the days when we could do that....:whiner:


RIP on the DL:pods:

BeviBall!
07-22-2007, 04:49 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't think it's hindsight to some here. I think I remember reading those posts at the time the trade was made. Anyway, we are where we are.

It's not a hindsight issue as at least 70% of WSI was against that trade from the jump -- I was not one of them. But, this shouldn't even be a topic of conversation as it has nothing to do with the 2007 Sox. Vaz has been one of possibly three bright spots all season.

whitesoxfan
07-22-2007, 04:51 PM
Yeah he does have 15 HR's, but he's hitting .231 and has an OBP of .275. He'd fit right in with the current group of losers that we have.

Brian26
07-22-2007, 05:05 PM
The sox should have kept this guy and shipped Mr. Anderson off to Arizona. I hope that Arizona demanded him and it was not the whitesox organization thinking Anderson was better.

Hindsight is 20/20, and it's not fair to complain about this trade now when you didn't say anything about it at the time.

Brian26
07-22-2007, 05:07 PM
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young or would they have preferred to send Anderson off to Arizona and keep Young?

Step back in time and remember what the situation was in December of '05. Anderson was coming off a nice little August and September, which included him taking King Felix deep twice in one game when the rest of the team couldn't touch him. If you foresaw Anderson sucking as much as he does now at the plate, I'll give you credit. However, I don't think you can prove that you did.

Parrothead
07-22-2007, 05:10 PM
Yeah he does have 15 HR's, but he's hitting .231 and has an OBP of .275. He'd fit right in with the current group of losers that we have.

Now I can see why everyone loves this guy ! He is a stud.

itsnotrequired
07-22-2007, 05:12 PM
Step back in time and remember what the situation was in December of '05. Anderson was coming off a nice little August and September, which included him taking King Felix deep twice in one game when the rest of the team couldn't touch him. If you foresaw Anderson sucking as much as he does now at the plate, I'll give you credit. However, I don't think you can prove that you did.

And who says Arizona even wanted him? I love it when people say the Sox should have traded Player X instead of Player Y, as if the deal could have gone down that way. Trades aren't like eating at the casino buffet, where players can be swapped out for others of equal or lesser value.

letsgosox1592
07-22-2007, 05:16 PM
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young or would they have preferred to send Anderson off to Arizona and keep Young?
The Diamondbacks said that the Sox had to give up Chris Young to get Javier Vazquez. The Sox tried to offer Anderson but the Diamondbacks wouldnt do it.

santo=dorf
07-22-2007, 05:17 PM
Did the Whitesox organization like Anderson better than Young or would they have preferred to send Anderson off to Arizona and keep Young?
Why don't you look at it from Arizona's stand point?

You're giving up Javy Vazquez and cash for El Duque, Luis Vizcaino, and a prospect. For what is on the table at the moment are you going to choose Brian Anderson or Chris Young?

oeo
07-22-2007, 05:25 PM
It's not a hindsight issue as at least 70% of WSI was against that trade from the jump -- I was not one of them. But, this shouldn't even be a topic of conversation as it has nothing to do with the 2007 Sox. Vaz has been one of possibly three bright spots all season.

Sure it is.

Saying you wished they traded Anderson instead of Young, two years after the fact. That's hindsight, alright. It's apparent the original poster is not against the trade (or at least does not state it here), he's just saying we should have traded Anderson instead of Young.

itsnotrequired
07-22-2007, 05:35 PM
It's apparent the original poster is not against the trade (or at least does not state it here), he's just saying we should have traded Anderson instead of Young.

That's the way I read it but the point that Arizona may not have wanted to make the deal if it was Anderson is certainly valid.

JB98
07-22-2007, 06:40 PM
I didn't like the Vazquez trade. Not then, not now.

I didn't want to trade Young OR Anderson for Vazquez. I thought that trade eroded our pitching and organizational depth.

Of course, neither Young nor Anderson have done much so far. Young is slightly better, only because he is on pace for a 20-homer season this year. Otherwise, his numbers are unimpressive.

pearso66
07-22-2007, 09:41 PM
I liked the trade then, and I still like it now. I said at the beginning of the year (I don't know if I did here or not) that Vazquez would be our best pitcher. Buehrle is, but Vazquez has done pretty well. As of now, the only one I'd say I really miss from that trade is Viscaino, and that's only because of how bad our bullpen is. And to be honest, I don't know how he's doing this year.

balke
07-22-2007, 09:43 PM
I'd rather have someone else over either at this point. .275 OBP? What good is that doing anyone? Paging Jeremy Reed.

getonbckthr
07-22-2007, 10:11 PM
Chris Young has been given the spot without worry of having his spot stolen from him from either: A) a utility IF who couldn't judge a flyball any better than the fench judge can judge canadian ice skaters or B) an aging veteran whose best years are closer to the stock market crash than they are to present day (yes an exaggeration).

jabrch
07-22-2007, 10:41 PM
Chris Young didn't hit in the minors. He still hasn't hit in the majors. Big freaking deal.

Grzegorz
07-23-2007, 04:49 AM
Chris Young has been given the spot without worry of having his spot stolen from him from either: A) a utility IF who couldn't judge a flyball any better than the fench judge can judge canadian ice skaters or B) an aging veteran whose best years are closer to the stock market crash than they are to present day (yes an exaggeration).

Spot on...

JorgeFabregas
07-23-2007, 07:59 PM
FWIW Steve Stone said today that the Diamondbacks like Chris Young so much that they're going to keep him around and make Justin Upton play a corner outfield position.

PennStater98r
07-24-2007, 01:54 PM
You mean the Sox could have the best pitcher in the N.L. right now? Damn! What were they thinking?

seventyseven
07-24-2007, 02:01 PM
FWIW Steve Stone said today that the Diamondbacks like Chris Young so much that they're going to keep him around and make Justin Upton play a corner outfield position.

I've seen Young play a few times this year. I don't see what all the fuss is about. He looks like a younger version of Jacque Jones to me.

balke
07-24-2007, 02:12 PM
The worst case scenario, we traded Mike Cameron again. I'm not going to cry in my beer over it. Vazquez was worth the cost so far. That aquisition might actually be what lands us even better prospects and talent at the deadline since it filled out our starting rotation, and so many teams are in need of a starter this season.

soxfan13
07-24-2007, 02:38 PM
Chris Young has been given the spot without worry of having his spot stolen from him from either: A) a utility IF who couldn't judge a flyball any better than the fench judge can judge canadian ice skaters or B) an aging veteran whose best years are closer to the stock market crash than they are to present day (yes an exaggeration).

Exactly the shot Anderson was given last year. he chopped it up enough at the plate that the Sox had no choice but to go with the other options.

jabrch
07-24-2007, 03:06 PM
I've seen Young play a few times this year. I don't see what all the fuss is about. He looks like a younger version of Jacque Jones to me.

Agreed - I don't get it.

champagne030
07-24-2007, 04:22 PM
Exactly the shot Anderson was given last year. he chopped it up enough at the plate that the Sox had no choice but to go with the other options.

BZZZZZ. Wrong. Try again.

SoxxoS
07-24-2007, 04:37 PM
Did I miss something on Chris Young other than the HR numbers?

.275 OBP - He would fit in fantastically here.

You better hit a lot of homers if you OBP is going to be under .300. Like 50.

I would be willing to be Javy Vazquez could fetch us a better prospect/player right now - So therefore, KW wins the trade. Vazquez is signed to a damn good contract until 2010, correct? There is no contest.

balke
07-24-2007, 04:38 PM
Haha, some people here really are like broken records. Its like people that talked trash about the Jeremy Reed trade. "We could've given up Crede!!!" Just because Reed got off to a hot start and Crede wasn't as good with the bat for like 40 games.

They also thought somehow there was a choice between Borchard and Reed, and Kenny really dropped the ball. I semi-expect the same outcome. Both prospects are way overhyped and suck. They will not be big impacts to MLB.

munchman33
07-24-2007, 04:45 PM
BZZZZZ. Wrong. Try again.

I'm so sick and tired of revisionist history when it comes to Brian Anderson.

If you want to think he's still gonna be a major league player, fine. But he was basically GIVEN the CF job out of spring training, and had the better part of a season to figure things out. He didn't.

JB98
07-24-2007, 05:45 PM
I'm so sick and tired of revisionist history when it comes to Brian Anderson.

If you want to think he's still gonna be a major league player, fine. But he was basically GIVEN the CF job out of spring training, and had the better part of a season to figure things out. He didn't.

I wonder if the BA fan boys still think Anderson is a better player than Curtis Granderson. :D:

munchman33
07-24-2007, 06:02 PM
I wonder if the BA fan boys still think Anderson is a better player than Curtis Granderson. :D:

but there was a stretch of 20 or so at bats in mid july that show he clearly was, as long as you take out the days he started and went hitless...

champagne030
07-24-2007, 06:48 PM
I'm so sick and tired of revisionist history when it comes to Brian Anderson.

If you want to think he's still gonna be a major league player, fine. But he was basically GIVEN the CF job out of spring training, and had the better part of a season to figure things out. He didn't.

I'm sick of the revisionist history too! The platoon started in game #2 last season. The post I referenced suggested that BA was given the everyday job and didn't need to look over his shoulder after a bad game or two. He was looking over his shoulder after one game and he did very good in that game.

And 20 games in July? More revisionist bull****. A .304 average in 135 AB's covering approximately 40 starts from July 1 to August 31st, but don't let your version of history get in the way.

Frater Perdurabo
07-24-2007, 07:11 PM
I'm sick of the revisionist history too! The platoon started in game #2 last season. The post I referenced suggested that BA was given the everyday job and didn't need to look over his shoulder after a bad game or two. He was looking over his shoulder after one game and he did very good in that game.

And 20 games in July? More revisionist bull****. A .304 average in 135 AB's covering approximately 40 starts from July 1 to August 31st, but don't let your version of history get in the way.

You're right. And Ozzie actually intended for there to be a platoon - during Spring Training 2006 he said that it was his plan all along to give Mackowiak regular ABs in CF. That's far from being "handed" the CF job.

The facts are these: BA never was named the clear-cut starter in CF, his defense always was top-notch, he didn't hit well during April, May, June and September, but hit well in July and August. I've never argued anything else, except in mid-2006, when I and several others argued that BA's struggles at the plate hurt the Sox less than Mackowiak's defensive struggles in CF. If that makes me a "BA fanboy," then I'm guilty as charged.

JB98
07-24-2007, 07:50 PM
You're right. And Ozzie actually intended for there to be a platoon - during Spring Training 2006 he said that it was his plan all along to give Mackowiak regular ABs in CF. That's far from being "handed" the CF job.

The facts are these: BA never was named the clear-cut starter in CF, his defense always was top-notch, he didn't hit well during April, May, June and September, but hit well in July and August. I've never argued anything else, except in mid-2006, when I and several others argued that BA's struggles at the plate hurt the Sox less than Mackowiak's defensive struggles in CF. If that makes me a "BA fanboy," then I'm guilty as charged.

What has hurt the Sox is not having anyone who is worth a damn in CF for the last season and a half.

Frater Perdurabo
07-24-2007, 08:05 PM
What has hurt the Sox is not having anyone who is worth a damn in CF for the last season and a half.

You're half-right. Anderson was/is one of the best defensive CFs in the game. I agree that he couldn't hit well during most of his time with the Sox.

His offensive struggles didn't seem to hurt the Sox offense when they were surging during the first half of the 2006 season.

JB98
07-24-2007, 08:19 PM
You're half-right. Anderson was/is one of the best defensive CFs in the game. I agree that he couldn't hit well during most of his time with the Sox.

His offensive struggles didn't seem to hurt the Sox offense when they were surging during the first half of the 2006 season.

As I've said many times, Anderson had roughly 400 ABs for the 2006 Sox and contributed a grand total of two big hits.

Josh Fields has had that many big hits this week.

FarWestChicago
07-24-2007, 08:44 PM
I wonder if the BA fan boys still think Anderson is a better player than Curtis Granderson. :D:Yeah, that's really a good one. :roflmao:

Of course, they have conspiracy theories and what not. How about Granderson just basically kicking vaunted BA's ass? :dunno:

HotelWhiteSox
07-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Did I miss something on Chris Young other than the HR numbers?

.275 OBP - He would fit in fantastically here.

You better hit a lot of homers if you OBP is going to be under .300. Like 50.

I would be willing to be Javy Vazquez could fetch us a better prospect/player right now - So therefore, KW wins the trade. Vazquez is signed to a damn good contract until 2010, correct? There is no contest.

That he's a rookie?

kittle42
07-24-2007, 11:09 PM
People not attunded to stats look at mildly impressive HR and SB numbers and think a good player that makes.

For shame!

rdivaldi
07-24-2007, 11:09 PM
Haha, some people here really are like broken records. Its like people that talked trash about the Jeremy Reed trade. "We could've given up Crede!!!" Just because Reed got off to a hot start and Crede wasn't as good with the bat for like 40 games.

They also thought somehow there was a choice between Borchard and Reed, and Kenny really dropped the ball. I semi-expect the same outcome. Both prospects are way overhyped and suck. They will not be big impacts to MLB.

Do not even compare the phycial tools and talent ceilings of Chris Young and Jeremy Reed, they are not even close. Reed is a hard working overachiever. Young is an amazing talent, if he puts it together he will go 30/30.

I like the Mike Cameron comparison, I've always thought the two were somewhat similar. Cameron does play better defense and had more success in the minors.

roadrunner
07-24-2007, 11:51 PM
Anderson was/is one of the best defensive CFs in the game.

THAT makes you a BA fanboy

Frater Perdurabo
07-25-2007, 06:37 AM
THAT makes you a BA fanboy

For telling the objective truth? :?:

jabrch
07-25-2007, 08:54 AM
.237/.281/.425/.706

Yes folks...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Ladies and gentlement - I present you Chris Young.


He very well may some day be a heck of a ball player. The same can be said about BA, Sweeney, Owens, Fields, etc.

The same can not be said about Javy - he already is one heck of a ball player.

balke
07-25-2007, 09:11 AM
Do not even compare the phycial tools and talent ceilings of Chris Young and Jeremy Reed, they are not even close. Reed is a hard working overachiever. Young is an amazing talent, if he puts it together he will go 30/30.

I like the Mike Cameron comparison, I've always thought the two were somewhat similar. Cameron does play better defense and had more success in the minors.

Overachiever? At the time of that trade he had several people on this board convinced he was going to be a high doubles, ichiro type leadoff hitter. Some put his ceiling to have him hit +.310 for his career and play GG defense in CF.

Now I understand if Young puts it together he'll be an all-star. Right now, he looks like a guy that can't hit a baseball, but when he does it goes real far. I don't like that kind of baseball. There's a lot of outfielders out there with more to offer.

Vazquez was worth what we gave up so far. People need to get it out of thier heads that there was a choice between Anderson and Young. Even if there was, Anderson isn't dead in the water yet. He's got just as much of a chance to improve as Young does. Both right now are not answers to the CF problem of the Sox.

kittle42
07-25-2007, 09:26 AM
.237/.281/.425/.706

Yes folks...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Ladies and gentlement - I present you Chris Young.


What do you know? He was homers and stolen bases! He's awesome!

soxfan13
07-25-2007, 09:28 AM
BZZZZZ. Wrong. Try again.

I'm sick of the revisionist history too! The platoon started in game #2 last season. The post I referenced suggested that BA was given the everyday job and didn't need to look over his shoulder after a bad game or two. He was looking over his shoulder after one game and he did very good in that game.

And 20 games in July? More revisionist bull****. A .304 average in 135 AB's covering approximately 40 starts from July 1 to August 31st, but don't let your version of history get in the way.


He started 17 of the White Sox first 24 games and batted a crisp .161 and a .264 OBP to me that is being given the job and like I said chopping it up enough to lose the job.

spiffie
07-25-2007, 09:55 AM
He started 17 of the White Sox first 24 games and batted a crisp .161 and a .264 OBP to me that is being given the job and like I said chopping it up enough to lose the job.
The games he didn't start in April and May were against the following pitchers:
Westbrook
Bonderman
Burnett
Towers
Elarton
Radke
E. Santana (at LAA)
Meche
F. Hernandez
Elarton
Radke
McClung
Maddux
Zambrano
Saarloos
Haren
Janssen
Taubenheim
Westbrook

So he was sat for two starts against Westbrook, Radke, Elarton and one against all the others in those two months. The starters he missed had a collective ERA of 4.47, a number inflated by the inclusion of Towers and McClung. Without them the collective ERA is 4.29.

Lines against RHP last year:
Anderson: 223/284/374
Mackowiak: 308/384/453

For a team that was contending for a playoff berth, there is absolutely no way to justify playing Anderson against those RHP when Mackowiak is there and able to hit like that.

Anderson had the job, and he was given it knowing that against tough RHP he would be sitting. At no point should anyone have expected him to be starting all 162 games, and if Ozzie had done that it would have been terrible managing.

soxfan13
07-25-2007, 10:06 AM
The games he didn't start in April and May were against the following pitchers:
Westbrook
Bonderman
Burnett
Towers
Elarton
Radke
E. Santana (at LAA)
Meche
F. Hernandez
Elarton
Radke
McClung
Maddux
Zambrano
Saarloos
Haren
Janssen
Taubenheim
Westbrook

So he was sat for two starts against Westbrook, Radke, Elarton and one against all the others in those two months. The starters he missed had a collective ERA of 4.47, a number inflated by the inclusion of Towers and McClung. Without them the collective ERA is 4.29.

Lines against RHP last year:
Anderson: 223/284/374
Mackowiak: 308/384/453

For a team that was contending for a playoff berth, there is absolutely no way to justify playing Anderson against those RHP when Mackowiak is there and able to hit like that.

Anderson had the job, and he was given it knowing that against tough RHP he would be sitting. At no point should anyone have expected him to be starting all 162 games, and if Ozzie had done that it would have been terrible managing.

I agree I defended BA all season saying give him time. I am just arguing the fact that some posters are saying he was never given the job as his and with no worries of losing it. I say he was and that he lost it because of his performance.

Jaffar
07-25-2007, 10:07 AM
He started 17 of the White Sox first 24 games and batted a crisp .161 and a .264 OBP to me that is being given the job and like I said chopping it up enough to lose the job.

Pre All Star Break .192 avg .280 obp 182 at bats
Post All Star Break .257 avg .301 obp 183 at bats
I figured the arrow was pointing up especially after his spring training. Explain Juan Uribe.

balke
07-25-2007, 10:09 AM
Great another Brian Anderson thread labeled with someone else's name.

soxfan13
07-25-2007, 10:50 AM
Pre All Star Break .192 avg .280 obp 182 at bats
Post All Star Break .257 avg .301 obp 183 at bats
I figured the arrow was pointing up especially after his spring training. Explain Juan Uribe.

Again I am not arguing whether he should be playing or not or be given another chance or why others get to play longer when not producing. All I am saying is that LAST YEAR BA was given the job and he did more then enough to lose it.

rdivaldi
07-25-2007, 03:22 PM
Overachiever? At the time of that trade he had several people on this board convinced he was going to be a high doubles, ichiro type leadoff hitter. Some put his ceiling to have him hit +.310 for his career and play GG defense in CF.

:?:

Who were these people? Most had seen him struggle in ST and in AAA that year and had begun to realize that he wasn't such a great player. Reed is a hustling overachiever, a grinder if you like. He doesn't possess great physical tools, a quick bat, or a nice swing. Young is quite the opposite, the comparison to Cameron is very insightful.

As for BA, it's time to forget about him. I'd like nothing better than for him to become good enough to become a MLB regular, but he will have to do it with another team.

rdivaldi
07-25-2007, 03:32 PM
.237/.281/.425/.706

Yes folks...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Ladies and gentlement - I present you Chris Young.

Even though allude to it later on in your post, let's be frank here. Chris Young is 23 years old, Cintron is 28, Grindy is 33, Mack is 31 and so is Pods.

Anyone who can not recognize his talent and upside is either clueless or biased to a fault.

balke
07-25-2007, 03:35 PM
:?:

Who were these people? Most had seen him struggle in ST and in AAA that year and had begun to realize that he wasn't such a great player. Reed is a hustling overachiever, a grinder if you like. He doesn't possess great physical tools, a quick bat, or a nice swing. Young is quite the opposite, the comparison to Cameron is very insightful.

As for BA, it's time to forget about him. I'd like nothing better than for him to become good enough to become a MLB regular, but he will have to do it with another team.

His minor league batting avg. was .327 w/ a .390 OBP. He hit .409 in 242 at-bats in Birmingham (.474 OBP). I remember one idiot mumbled "lead-pipe lock hall of famer". But he didn't look as good as Sweeney does when he strikes out, I'll admit to that.

rdivaldi
07-25-2007, 03:43 PM
His minor league batting avg. was .327 w/ a .390 OBP. He hit .409 in 242 at-bats in Birmingham (.474 OBP). I remember one idiot mumbled "lead-pipe lock hall of famer". But he didn't look as good as Sweeney does when he strikes out, I'll admit to that.

But after that unbelievable season in Birmingham he had a miserable ST, followed by wrist problems and a very average half season in Charlotte before being traded. There were a lot of "overrated" mumblings in Arizona that spring. I admired his grit and determination, but he reminded me of Caruso at the dish (with a better eye).

balke
07-25-2007, 03:56 PM
His AAA avg. was .288. C Young = .275 (Reed's "Mediocre" season his avg. was .305 in 233 AB's)

Extrapolate the SB's and Jeremy Reed is going to steal an equal amount or more. Jeremy Reed K'd about 1/3 the amount of times C Young did.

The difference? Chris Young had 3 times the power. Jeremy Reed played better Defense and was a better hitter.

I don't think either is the future of a franchise.

Mr. White Sox
07-28-2007, 12:17 PM
.237/.281/.425/.706

Yes folks...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Ladies and gentlement - I present you Chris Young.


He very well may some day be a heck of a ball player. The same can be said about BA, Sweeney, Owens, Fields, etc.

The same can not be said about Javy - he already is one heck of a ball player.

I think Young has shown he is a streaky, streaky hitter as well. This is only less than a week later:

.241/.291/.443/.734
17 HR and 15 SB in 16 attempts is pretty darn good as well. He is starting to walk more. His rookie season has been defined by streaks, and he's on one now as well. Detractors claiming a horrible K rate should look at Josh Fields. Fields has struck out 57 times in 169 ABs, while Young has K'd 69 times in twice the ABs. Both will curtail their K rates eventually, but rookie seasons will often involve lots of K's and flashes of excellence.

I think he'll be a consistent .280/.330/.470/.800 player in the majors who has a chance at 25/25 every year. KW definitely gave away a lot for Javy, but Young's problems with injuries are definitely a red flag.

I'm just glad one of Young and Fields stayed; Fields is going to be just as good as Young in overall talent. He'll flash better power, a lower average, similar OBP and similar SLG.

jabrch
07-28-2007, 05:40 PM
His AAA avg. was .288. C Young = .275 (Reed's "Mediocre" season his avg. was .305 in 233 AB's)

Extrapolate the SB's and Jeremy Reed is going to steal an equal amount or more. Jeremy Reed K'd about 1/3 the amount of times C Young did.

The difference? Chris Young had 3 times the power. Jeremy Reed played better Defense and was a better hitter.

I don't think either is the future of a franchise.

Here's the big difference - Jeremy Reed is a bust. Chris Young hasn't busted out yet.

balke
07-29-2007, 01:52 AM
Here's the big difference - Jeremy Reed is a bust. Chris Young hasn't busted out yet.

Yeah, he's like Corey Patterson without the defensive ability and more K's. Future HOFer.

Save McCuddy's
08-02-2007, 08:19 AM
but there was a stretch of 20 or so at bats in mid july that show he clearly was, as long as you take out the days he started and went hitless...

That is lmao funny.

Save McCuddy's
08-02-2007, 09:13 AM
.237/.281/.425/.706

Yes folks...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Ladies and gentlement - I present you Chris Young.


He very well may some day be a heck of a ball player. The same can be said about BA, Sweeney, Owens, Fields, etc.

The same can not be said about Javy - he already is one heck of a ball player.

You've got to be kidding me. Unlike anyone mentioned in your post, Young plays well above average defense in center field. He is the leadoff hitter for a division leader -- and has been the catalyst for their recent tear.

In the last 11 games of which Arizona has won 10, Young's line looks like this:

BA .326 Runs 14 HR 4 SB 5 SLG% .717.

Last night he took a grand slam away from Mike Cameron after a full sprint to the wall to catch up to a line drive on its way out.

Instead of making ridiculous comparisons to useless players, maybe you should pay attention to how dynamic 23 yr. old players with real talent can affect a team's chances to win.

Take the 4 guys you mentioned and add Terrero, Sweeney, Owens, and Andy Gonzalez. You still fall short of Young's HR total despite the 1067 AB's that our 8 Sox have vs the 363 Young has.

Neither BA nor Owens is ever going to be "one heck of a ball player". I'll hold out hope that Sweeney could be -- although that hope is a crap shoot. Fields is showing that he has a great chance. Young however, has established that he's on the brink.

jabrch
08-02-2007, 09:18 AM
You've got to be kidding me.

Nope - I gave you cold hard facts - as of my post, he had...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik

Randar68
08-02-2007, 10:11 AM
In the last 30 days, Chris Young has 8 HR's and 8 SB's.

If he duplicates that in August and September, you're going to be looking at a 30/30 season for a kid that still is only going to get better.

God I love Chris Young. If Vazquez pitches as well as he has been for the rest of the contract, I would say we didn't "lose" the trade, but I have always contended that Chris Young was going to be a 40/40 threat in the majors...

Ball just explodes off his bat, and despite the K's, his minor league track record shows that he will take a lot of walks once he is settled in at this level.

Tragg
08-02-2007, 10:47 AM
In this supposed era of "no one will trade prospects", just 2 years ago the Sox traded the best prospect it had in a decade (plus 2 other pitchers) for a pitcher coming off of a mediocre year. Williams judged correctly (so far) as Vazquez is a dominant pitcher this year; and Young has power, plays defense and the OBP may (or may not) come around;- but we haven't had a positional player like he may become in ages.

Young and/or Vazquez would have fit in with the philosophy that won the WS: pitching, defense and power;
Unfortunately, that policy was dicarded in favor of a new philosophy of pitching, mediocre defense and hacking/slap-hitting, that has resulted in one of the worst teams in baseball.

Flight #24
08-02-2007, 10:54 AM
In this supposed era of "no one will trade prospects", just 2 years ago the Sox traded the best prospect it had in a decade (plus 2 other pitchers) for a pitcher coming off of a mediocre year. Williams judged correctly (so far) as Vazquez is a dominant pitcher this year; and Young has power, plays defense and the OBP may (or may not) come around;- but we haven't had a positional player like he may become in ages.



Huge difference between trading for a pitcher which the team controlled for 3 more years (since absent the extension the Sox would have had arb rights on Javy after '07) and not getting anything for a 3 month rental.

See the Teixeira deal for confirmation that you get a ton when you trade for a guy with 1+years left on their deal. In fact you could argue that Atlanta gave up more than the Sox did and whereas Javy had 3 years, Teix has 1 more.

Which is why I think Garland's out the door this offseason unless Jose turns it around the rest of the year (unlikely).

balke
08-02-2007, 11:11 AM
but we haven't had a positional player like he may become in ages.


Joe Crede. Minus the stolen bases, plus the GG defense.

jabrch
08-02-2007, 11:15 AM
resulted in one of the worst teams in baseball.

Never mind injuries to multiple starters and non-performance of others - blame it on philosophy.

There is no philosophy of "mediocre defense and hacking/slap-hitting". You are making this stuff up.

SoxxoS
08-02-2007, 11:31 AM
Chris Young is still very much a question mark - He is in the middle of a terror right now - so you are going to have overreactions to how good he is - same as if he was in the middle of a cold streak from the other side.

Would he be welcome back on the Sox? Absolutely. But dont forget, what KW said after trading for Vazquez "I have nightmares that Chris Young highlights on SportsCenter are going to haunt me." He knew Young could be a stud.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 11:46 AM
Chris Young might be a question mark, but a lot of us knew that he was loaded with talent 2-3 years ago. As for the trade, AZ most likely asked for Young ahead of Anderson, that has been my feeling all along.

Flight #24
08-02-2007, 12:20 PM
In the last 30 days, Chris Young has 8 HR's and 8 SB's.

If he duplicates that in August and September, you're going to be looking at a 30/30 season for a kid that still is only going to get better.

And based on Jerry Owens last month, he's hitting .290 and is 10/13 in SBs which would translate to 60SBs and pushing 100 runs over a full season. Similarly, Josh Fields would hit ~35HR and drive in 100+.

I think Young can be very good, but a month's worth of strong performance, while very nice, can't necessarily be projected like that.

SABRSox
08-02-2007, 12:23 PM
Even though allude to it later on in your post, let's be frank here. Chris Young is 23 years old, Cintron is 28, Grindy is 33, Mack is 31 and so is Pods.

Anyone who can not recognize his talent and upside is either clueless or biased to a fault.

Thank you. There are too many people around here who look at stats in a vacuum to prove their points. A rookie struggling in his first year, why, that's never happened before.

Take a look at his recent stats, and he's tearing it up. He's going to be a 30/30 guy, and all the jabrch's out there are going to be eating some major crow.

I was against the inclusion of Chris Young from the start. That kid has got loads of talent.

balke
08-02-2007, 12:59 PM
Thank you. There are too many people around here who look at stats in a vacuum to prove their points. A rookie struggling in his first year, why, that's never happened before.

Take a look at his recent stats, and he's tearing it up. He's going to be a 30/30 guy, and all the jabrch's out there are going to be eating some major crow.

I was against the inclusion of Chris Young from the start. That kid has got loads of talent.

He's going to be Corey Patterson most likely. Hopefully the Sox can land Jordan Danks and we can all forget about the deal and realize Vazquez was what was important, not an OFer.

Flight #24
08-02-2007, 01:23 PM
Take a look at his recent stats, and he's tearing it up. He's going to be a 30/30 guy, and all the jabrch's out there are going to be eating some major crow.


And Javy Vazquez is currently a solid #2 or #1 SP and should continue that.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 02:19 PM
He's going to be Corey Patterson most likely.

His numbers this year are already equal to Patterson's BEST years except for the fluke half year he had in 2003. I have no idea why some of you are continuously ragging on the kid, he's a special talent.

oeo
08-02-2007, 02:28 PM
His numbers this year are already equal to Patterson's BEST years except for the fluke half year he had in 2003. I have no idea why some of you are continuously ragging on the kid, he's a special talent.

Might have something to do with all these 'can't miss' outfielders we've had in recent years that have not panned out. Not saying Young won't, but he wouldn't be the first one to do so.

balke
08-02-2007, 02:37 PM
His numbers this year are already equal to Patterson's BEST years except for the fluke half year he had in 2003. I have no idea why some of you are continuously ragging on the kid, he's a special talent.

His #'s or his hr's?

jabrch
08-02-2007, 02:43 PM
Even though allude to it later on in your post, let's be frank here. Chris Young is 23 years old, Cintron is 28, Grindy is 33, Mack is 31 and so is Pods.

Anyone who can not recognize his talent and upside is either clueless or biased to a fault.

There is absolutely no doubt he is talented. So is BA. So is Sweeney, so was Jeremy Reed, so was Mike Caruso, so was Henesly Muellens, so was...

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 03:00 PM
His #'s or his hr's?

His #'s. Patterson's OPS was consistently in the low to mid 700's and in the 600's a couple of times. Plus Young probably won't strike out 168 times.

I don't think people understand how below average Patterson's numbers have been. The Flub and BA noise machines have distracted people from the facts.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 03:03 PM
Might have something to do with all these 'can't miss' outfielders we've had in recent years that have not panned out.

Who are these "can't miss" guys? I don't remember anyone saying that Sweeney or Anderson were those kind of players. I heard that with Cameron and Reed to a lesser extent, but really who else?

If you listen to Hawk for your prospect news, then I can see that. But I have a feeling that 99.9% of us know better.

balke
08-02-2007, 03:11 PM
His #'s. Patterson's OPS was consistently in the low to mid 700's and in the 600's a couple of times. Plus Young probably won't strike out 168 times.

I don't think people understand how below average Patterson's numbers have been. The Flub and BA noise machines have distracted people from the facts.

The only facts I'm really looking at are RBI, R, OBP., avg. SB's, doubles, Hr's and not getting carried away with extrapolation. In your mind Young has already hit 35 hr's this season. In my mind he has 19 and is in the middle of a hot streak.

Young has 75 K's at the moment (363 ABs). Patterson has 54 (334 AB's)

27 SB's to 18. Patterson plays better defense from what I've seen. A large majority of Young's HR's have been solo shots. Patterson has 75 runs scored this season, compared to Young's 55. young has 13 more RBI.

How much more valuable or better is he than Patterson? I'd say its about a wash. I think they are hyped just as much as one another, and neither is a superstar in the making. Time will tell though. Both have talent and would be welcome on the team right now though.

Randar68
08-02-2007, 03:39 PM
And based on Jerry Owens last month, he's hitting .290 and is 10/13 in SBs which would translate to 60SBs and pushing 100 runs over a full season. Similarly, Josh Fields would hit ~35HR and drive in 100+.

I think Young can be very good, but a month's worth of strong performance, while very nice, can't necessarily be projected like that.

Of course not, but he has been improving for more than the past month. Is it unreasonable to suggest he could end up 30/30?

Like I said, IF he has 2 more months similar to his last month, he will be 30/30 as a rookie. May not happen, but who cares? Kid is a stud.

Randar68
08-02-2007, 03:41 PM
I'd say its about a wash. I think they are hyped just as much as one another, and neither is a superstar in the making. Time will tell though. Both have talent and would be welcome on the team right now though.

Huh? Comparing Patterson and Young? You're kidding, right?

Young is a stud. If young ends up having a 30/30 rookie season, are you going to do an about-face and stand there and tell us you were wrong and Young is a "superstar in the making"?

santo=dorf
08-02-2007, 03:52 PM
Nope - I gave you cold hard facts - as of my post, he had...

A batting average worse than Cintron
An OBP lower than Erstad
A SLG lower than Mackowiak
An OPS lower than Podsednik
So what? Maybe if you got a little more selective with your stats you can get a gig writing for BP.

I'd take Young over all those guys listed and anyone who wouldn't is a complete friggin' nutjob. Let's update your list with stats coming into today.

Young: .245/.294/.463/.757
Cintron: .229/.275/.286/.561
Erstad: .268/.315/.344/.659
Mackowiak: .277/.353/.416/.759 (traded away for nothing)
Podsednik:.253/.321/.374/.695

santo=dorf
08-02-2007, 03:54 PM
His numbers this year are already equal to Patterson's BEST years except for the fluke half year he had in 2003. I have no idea why some of you are continuously ragging on the kid, he's a special talent.
Corey Patterson had one good month in his 2003 season that the Chicago Media was cramming down our thoats. He had 6 monster at-bats in April, but his best month was in May: .333/.345/.565
Yes, a .012 ISoD. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6400/splits;_ylt=ApNM7R9a4nT1KZunjEjgrM6FCLcF?year=2003&type=Batting

balke
08-02-2007, 03:56 PM
Huh? Comparing Patterson and Young? You're kidding, right?

Young is a stud. If young ends up having a 30/30 rookie season, are you going to do an about-face and stand there and tell us you were wrong and Young is a "superstar in the making"?

No, cause I don't believe a superstar has a .300 OBP and scores less than 100 runs out of the leadoff spot. If he gets it up to .333 with his OBP. at the least, and hits that many HR's then I'll say superstar. Other than that, I'll say he's a good CFer in the making. Ever since ESPN called him Pujols, people have gotten carried away with the guys play. Hr's are cool, the ball goes real far when he hits it. Superstars are all around hitters with power. When he does that he'll be a superstar.


And yeah, I will compare him with Patterson because he gets the same underserved hype as superstar. When/if he becomes one I'll let you know I was wrong. Until that time I'll say he's Mike Cameron with 5-10 more Hr's a season and .30 pts less OBP and a lesser glove at best.

jabrch
08-02-2007, 04:11 PM
Huh? Comparing Patterson and Young? You're kidding, right?

Young is a stud. If young ends up having a 30/30 rookie season, are you going to do an about-face and stand there and tell us you were wrong and Young is a "superstar in the making"?

At the same point in their respective careerrs, Corey Patterson was considered a stud as well Randar.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 04:18 PM
At the same point in their respective careerrs, Corey Patterson was considered a stud as well Randar.

But by who? Jim Callis, a self proclaimed Flub fan and the rest of the Flub organization. There was absolutely zero reason for him to be hyped as much as he was. One good season in A ball at age 20 and all of a sudden he's the top prospect in baseball??? That was an absolute joke. BA looked like a fool for falling for that one.

Watching Chris Young develop in the minors made people believe he had the potential, not a hype machine.

Tragg
08-02-2007, 04:26 PM
There is no philosophy of "mediocre defense and hacking/slap-hitting". You are making this stuff up.

Open the 2005 season with Carl Everett on the bench; a 2006 and 2007 bench with nothing but utility players. When injuries finally happen, we pay dearly in 2007.
Defensively impeccable Anderson out for the horrific defensive Mack
Defensively impeccable Anderson out for the noddle armed slap hitting Erstad
Speedy Harris out for the hacking Cintron
The only young OF that is allowed to stay up is the slap hitting Owens. And he gets the favorable lead-off spot from which to work and has sported an ops below .600. Sweeney, the outfielder with easily the highest upside, quickly goes down and hasn't returned. And Anderson.... (FWIW, I want Owens to stay up).
Cintron pinch hits and is the backup DH.
The only power acquisition in the last 2 years was a replacement for Frank Thomas...and that cost us some power in CF.

Flight #24
08-02-2007, 04:39 PM
At the same point in their respective careerrs, Corey Patterson was considered a stud as well Randar.

And FWLIW, since we're looking at hot streaks, Patterson's batting .385 with 10SB since the break.

Randar68
08-02-2007, 04:42 PM
At the same point in their respective careerrs, Corey Patterson was considered a stud as well Randar.

So were 7000 other players in the last 10 years. BFD.

Randar68
08-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Watching Chris Young develop in the minors made people believe he had the potential, not a hype machine.


DING DING DING!

balke
08-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Watching Chris Young develop in the minors made people believe he had the potential, not a hype machine.

I don't know. When I think of young superstar in the making I think Corey Hart, Ryan Braun, Hunter Pence. None of these guys are struggling with Avg. or OBP. like Young.

C Young's got skills, but superstar is a big word. He's in the second tier with Willits, Delmon Young, Josh Hamilton, Tulowitzki, Pedroia. And I hesitate to even put him there, cause the majority of those guys are hitting like major leaguers with decent power, rather than all power and a low quantity of hits.

Randar68
08-02-2007, 04:45 PM
No, cause I don't believe a superstar has a .300 OBP and scores less than 100 runs out of the leadoff spot. If he gets it up to .333 with his OBP. at the least, and hits that many HR's then I'll say superstar. Other than that, I'll say he's a good CFer in the making. Ever since ESPN called him Pujols, people have gotten carried away with the guys play. Hr's are cool, the ball goes real far when he hits it. Superstars are all around hitters with power. When he does that he'll be a superstar.


He's a rookie, so because he isn't hitting .300 with a .380 OBP, he's not a future stud?

I take it you only base your projections about 1 day in advance then, since you need to see it to believe it. Makes your presense in the discussion of projecting a player's future production rather pointless, don't you think?

balke
08-02-2007, 04:49 PM
He's a rookie, so because he isn't hitting .300 with a .380 OBP, he's not a future stud?

I take it you only base your projections about 1 day in advance then, since you need to see it to believe it. Makes your presense in the discussion of projecting a player's future production rather pointless, don't you think?

You would rather base your prediction on an 11 game stretch and minor league stats that are translating to about what he's hitting now avg. and OBP. wise. I would rather base mine on a season. Which is more pointless? In your head his minor league stats will be matched in the majors, I don't believe that. I think they go down against ML pitching, which they have.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 07:57 PM
In your head his minor league stats will be matched in the majors, I don't believe that. I think they go down against ML pitching, which they have.

Personally I believe that he is going to surpass all of his minor league stats as he continues to mature and grow into his body. Remember, he's still fairly "young" (no pun intended).

FarWestChicago
08-02-2007, 08:53 PM
Damn, this thread is beginning to make me miss the BA is Mick Jr. threads. :o:



^^
I was not serious. :D:

jabrch
08-02-2007, 11:27 PM
So were 7000 other players in the last 10 years. BFD.

EXACTLY! Chris Young has 7000 (by your estimate) other equal prospects to him in 10 years. Right now there are 700 Chris Young's in baseball (by your estimate)

jabrch
08-02-2007, 11:28 PM
Personally I believe that he is going to surpass all of his minor league stats as he continues to mature and grow into his body. Remember, he's still fairly "young" (no pun intended).

He may - and you very well may be right. But that growth pattern, where a player suddenly outperforms his minor league history in the majors, is not likely based on history.

It isn't impossible. Young may be the next one. But he also may look like all the last 7000 (Randar's Estimate).

California Sox
08-03-2007, 06:48 PM
ESPN has a glowing profile up on Young today. link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2959343)

I'm a huge CYoung fan. Maybe Justin Upton will beat him out and they'll trade him back to us.

Frater Perdurabo
08-03-2007, 07:37 PM
A belated

:tomatoaward:

JorgeFabregas
08-03-2007, 07:45 PM
ESPN has a glowing profile up on Young today. link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2959343)

I'm a huge CYoung fan. Maybe Justin Upton will beat him out and they'll trade him back to us.
Not sure if you saw my post. Steve Stone claims that the D-Rays plan to make Upton move to a corner spot because they like Young so much.

balke
08-12-2007, 06:40 PM
Man, he went 0-5 today and dropped his Avg. to .229. He hasn't had an extra base hit since August 1st.

jabrch
08-12-2007, 10:29 PM
Man, he went 0-5 today and dropped his Avg. to .229. He hasn't had an extra base hit since August 1st.

Some day Chris may very well be a good hitter. That day is not today. He has no more ability to hit for average, or get on base, in the majors than he showed in the minors. His HRs and SBs look nice on a stat sheet, but they don't win enough games when coupled with a .232/.286 line.

balke
08-14-2007, 10:13 PM
And he follows up that drought with a 2 HR night. Hmm. We could see what Sosa would've been like without steroids. /half teal

santo=dorf
08-17-2007, 09:38 PM
Man, he went 0-5 today and dropped his Avg. to .229. He hasn't had an extra base hit since August 1st.
Since this post: 5 home runs, 2 doubles, 9-16, and 6 runs scored.

FarWestChicago
08-17-2007, 10:56 PM
Since this post: 5 home runs, 2 doubles, 9-16, and 6 runs scored.Yep, he's Mick Jr. There is no doubt about it. Talk me when your inducer of wet dreams goes for the triple crown. :smile:

Is there anything that will ever make you delusional egomaniacs, well, basically acquire one atom of self awareness?

Randar68
08-21-2007, 10:21 AM
Yep, he's Mick Jr. There is no doubt about it. Talk me when your inducer of wet dreams goes for the triple crown. :smile:

Is there anything that will ever make you delusional egomaniacs, well, basically acquire one atom of self awareness?



Young established a National League milestone Sunday, becoming the first rookie to attain 20 homers and 20 steals in a season.
Spin: His steal of home Sunday represented his 20th theft of the season and catapulted him into the record books. He is only the eighth rookie in major league history to reach that plateau. Very impressive considering he has 37 games remaining to pad those numbers


With 24 dingers and 21 steals and over a month to play, he could still potentially reach 30/30.

Randar68
08-21-2007, 10:29 AM
Some day Chris may very well be a good hitter. That day is not today. He has no more ability to hit for average, or get on base, in the majors than he showed in the minors. His HRs and SBs look nice on a stat sheet, but they don't win enough games when coupled with a .232/.286 line.

His minor leagure OBP was .358 and had improved the longer he was in the minors. He didn't hit for huge average, sure, but that power with a mid-.300 OBP is still a pretty damn good hitter. Let's not also ignore that he went from rookie ball exclusively in 2003 to the majors at the tail end of 2006... that's pretty remarkable pace for such a raw hitter. Over that time, he continued to improve in essentially every aspect of his game despite moving up and more than a level-per-year pace. Ferchrissakes, he posted a .922 OPS in Birmingham after SKIPPING high-A... don't see that very often (a.k.a. in the last 15 years in the Sox organization at least)

balke
08-21-2007, 10:56 AM
His minor leagure OBP was .358 and had improved the longer he was in the minors. He didn't hit for huge average, sure, but that power with a mid-.300 OBP is still a pretty damn good hitter. Let's not also ignore that he went from rookie ball exclusively in 2003 to the majors at the tail end of 2006... that's pretty remarkable pace for such a raw hitter. Over that time, he continued to improve in essentially every aspect of his game despite moving up and more than a level-per-year pace. Ferchrissakes, he posted a .922 OPS in Birmingham after SKIPPING high-A... don't see that very often (a.k.a. in the last 15 years in the Sox organization at least)



I think that's why he said he may be one day. The #'s are about what was expected so far. If he throws some OBP. in, then the Sox can cry in their beer. For now, pitching wins championships. Rookie leadoff hitters with a lot of speed and power have potential. When is he an available Free Agent? The Sox could sign him if they want when that day comes. As far as this season goes, I don't see him catapulting the Sox into 1st place.

Randar68
08-21-2007, 01:39 PM
I think that's why he said he may be one day. The #'s are about what was expected so far. If he throws some OBP. in, then the Sox can cry in their beer. For now, pitching wins championships. Rookie leadoff hitters with a lot of speed and power have potential. When is he an available Free Agent? The Sox could sign him if they want when that day comes. As far as this season goes, I don't see him catapulting the Sox into 1st place.

The way they've played and the way the entire bullpen minus Jenks melted down for 2 months, there is certainly no one player that could have done that, so saying Young doesn't do that is a little disgenuine. Nobody is saying he's Mickey Mantle today or that he is already the best player in baseball, but the kid has a shot to be a 30/30 rookie, after already becoming the first 20/20 rookie in NL history...

It would be nice if some people would recognize that.

balke
08-21-2007, 02:07 PM
The way they've played and the way the entire bullpen minus Jenks melted down for 2 months, there is certainly no one player that could have done that, so saying Young doesn't do that is a little disgenuine. Nobody is saying he's Mickey Mantle today or that he is already the best player in baseball, but the kid has a shot to be a 30/30 rookie, after already becoming the first 20/20 rookie in NL history...

It would be nice if some people would recognize that.

I think everyone recognizes it. But, what may I ask is your point? He's not going to win ROY, and he's been very streaky. He's a leadoff hitter with an OBP. under .300 so far. He needs to progress there, or be moved to the #3-4 spot where those HR's mean more.

Right now, I don't think he fits in with this team, as they have plenty of HR guys that have struggled hitting for avg. and OBP. But after he's low on options, and the D-backs decide they can't afford him, perhaps he'll be back on the southside. He'll need to hit better for that to happen though. No matter how many HR's and SB's, that low of an avg and OBP aren't worth much. He will most likely raise both though, it just hasn't happened yet.

jabrch
08-21-2007, 02:56 PM
His minor leagure OBP was .358 and had improved the longer he was in the minors. He didn't hit for huge average, sure, but that power with a mid-.300 OBP is still a pretty damn good hitter. Let's not also ignore that he went from rookie ball exclusively in 2003 to the majors at the tail end of 2006... that's pretty remarkable pace for such a raw hitter. Over that time, he continued to improve in essentially every aspect of his game despite moving up and more than a level-per-year pace. Ferchrissakes, he posted a .922 OPS in Birmingham after SKIPPING high-A... don't see that very often (a.k.a. in the last 15 years in the Sox organization at least)

Randar, I said that "Someday he may become a good hitter". I also said that a .267/.358 line in the minors doesn't translate well to the majors. He's hitting .237/.290 right now. I know his HR/SB is sexy, but he's not getting on base, via the hit or the walk, enough right now to justify the admiration that he gets from some.

Again - I recognize that Chris has talents. He has a great combination of power and speed. He's just not a good hitter if you measure hitting either via batting average or obp. If you use HRs and SBs, he's wonderful - but I think everyone is advanced enough here (you more than most) to understand that just measuring Chris on HRs and SBs would be very misleading.

jabrch
08-21-2007, 02:58 PM
It would be nice if some people would recognize that.

Consider it recognized.

Now consider it recognized as less relevant than the fact that he is a sub .240/.290 hitter.

Tragg
08-21-2007, 03:16 PM
Right now, I don't think he fits in with this team, as they have plenty of HR guys that have struggled hitting for avg. and OBP. But after he's low on options, and the D-backs decide they can't afford him, perhaps he'll be back on the southside. He'll need to hit better for that to happen though. No matter how many HR's and SB's, that low of an avg and OBP aren't worth much. He will most likely raise both though, it just hasn't happened yet.
A young player with speed who hits the crap out of the ball doesn't "Fit" into this team?
The cynical side of me says that with all of the slappers and hackers Ozzie has dragged onto this team, you're probably right - he doesn't hit ozzie-style.
(and when has ozzie EVER been about OBP?)

ON the other hand, a young stud centerfielder is EXACTLY what we need and exactly what we lack. And I know Young hasn't fully developed. And yes we got a good pitcher for Young plus 2 other pitchers.
But a hitter like Young would fit like a glove.

balke
08-21-2007, 03:38 PM
A young player with speed who hits the crap out of the ball doesn't "Fit" into this team?
And yes we got a good pitcher for Young plus 2 other pitchers.
But a hitter like Young would fit like a glove.

.237 avg. .290 OBP. That's less OBP than Juan Uribe with a handful more Hr's HOW IS THAT HITTING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BALL!? He'd be Juan Uribe in CF with as many HR's as Crede. That's not what this team needs at all. Where's he going to bat? 6th? 7th? He's not a real difference maker (yet). I'd rather see Jerry Owens or Pods leading off at this point.

jabrch
08-21-2007, 04:08 PM
A young player with speed who hits the crap out of the ball doesn't "Fit" into this team?
The cynical side of me says that with all of the slappers and hackers Ozzie has dragged onto this team, you're probably right - he doesn't hit ozzie-style.
(and when has ozzie EVER been about OBP?)

ON the other hand, a young stud centerfielder is EXACTLY what we need and exactly what we lack. And I know Young hasn't fully developed. And yes we got a good pitcher for Young plus 2 other pitchers.
But a hitter like Young would fit like a glove.


I'm amazed for someone who *****es so much about hackers that you'd consider a sub .240/.290 hitter as someone who hits the crap out of the ball. Other than his HRs and SBs, this guy offers very little at the plate.

SoxxoS
08-21-2007, 04:09 PM
If he doens't hit a home run - He is one of the worst hitters in baseball by far.

jabrch
08-21-2007, 04:28 PM
If he doens't hit a home run - He is one of the worst hitters in baseball by far.

He's far worse than Erstad or Pods if you take away his HRs. He has a lower avg and a lower OBP than either.

Some day - Chris may "get it" but he never did in the minors enough to hit decent. He took some pitches, but that's not a skill that translates well from the minors to the majors unless you are also a good HITTER. Guys who hit .250 and walk a lot in the minors tend to hit less and walk less in the majors.

Randar68
08-21-2007, 04:32 PM
I think everyone recognizes it. But, what may I ask is your point? He's not going to win ROY, and he's been very streaky. He's a leadoff hitter with an OBP. under .300 so far. He needs to progress there, or be moved to the #3-4 spot where those HR's mean more.

Right now, I don't think he fits in with this team, as they have plenty of HR guys that have struggled hitting for avg. and OBP. But after he's low on options, and the D-backs decide they can't afford him, perhaps he'll be back on the southside. He'll need to hit better for that to happen though. No matter how many HR's and SB's, that low of an avg and OBP aren't worth much. He will most likely raise both though, it just hasn't happened yet.

He's not a leadoff hitter. He is hitting leadoff for a team that doesn't have one. That's like saying "Ray Durham is a leadoff hitter"

Historically, he has shown that he will take walks, despite the K's, and will get on at a good rate relative to his average. Now people are saying he'd be the worst hitter in baseball if you don't look at his HR's... *** are they talking about? There are about 4 regulars on this team that would be getting out-performed by Young as a rookie. Kid has almost as many dingers as Ken Griffey or Albert Pujols. Has more dingers in a less hitter-friendly ballpark.

BTW, for all those crowing about him performing poorly as a lead-off hitter, maybe you should look at the stats before running off yelling about .240/.290...

Kid has hit .267/.320 (.832 OPS) as a leadoff hitter with 15 HR and 16 SB in 252 of his 433 overall AB's. Still not super-start stats, but a hell of a lot better than what most are showing him as hitting as a leadoff hitter.

You're right, he wouldn't fit here...

but I think everyone is advanced enough here (you more than most) to understand that just measuring Chris on HRs and SBs would be very misleading.
Nor is using rookie production or K numbers to say how good a player will become...


I also said that a .267/.358 line in the minors doesn't translate well to the majors.

Which is pretty darn misleading since he struggled for 2 full years in rookie ball at a very young/raw age and then blew through 4 levels in 3 years (still young for his leagues). A kid that drew 66, 70, and 52 walks in his last 3 minor league years spanning 4 levels. A kid that had OPS of .870, .922, and .898 with 31, 32, and 17 SB's in those same 3 years...

What didn't translate? That he didn't get a chance to repeat a level and hit .300 with 40+ HR's? He'll finally get that chance to repeat a level next year, so let's see what he can do with a year of learning and coming back to the same level under his belt...

Kid's a freaking stud. It took about 1 minor league BP session and game to figure that out, and my opinion hasn't changed since I saw him in Kannapolis till I see him now on TV...

Randar68
08-21-2007, 04:35 PM
He's far worse than Erstad or Pods if you take away his HRs. He has a lower avg and a lower OBP than either.


That's like saying "he can't get on base if you take away hits and walks"...

When did this "if he didn't hit for power he'd be useless" line of logic gain so much validity around here?

He does hit for power, bottom line. He has an .844 OPS since the All-Star break, stop trying to explain it away with excuses or invalid hypotheticals.

roadrunner
08-21-2007, 04:38 PM
He's far worse than Erstad or Pods if you take away his HRs. He has a lower avg and a lower OBP than either.

Some day - Chris may "get it" but he never did in the minors enough to hit decent. He took some pitches, but that's not a skill that translates well from the minors to the majors unless you are also a good HITTER. Guys who hit .250 and walk a lot in the minors tend to hit less and walk less in the majors.

Since your such a big fan of OBP, I assume that you will agree that Joe Crede is vastly overrated by White Sox faithful due to his career .259/.305 line.

Or does AVG/OBP not become as important to you all of a sudden?

balke
08-21-2007, 05:45 PM
Since your such a big fan of OBP, I assume that you will agree that Joe Crede is vastly overrated by White Sox faithful due to his career .259/.305 line.

Or does AVG/OBP not become as important to you all of a sudden?

The only thing that kept Crede in the majors was his glove, Ozzie said so himself entering the 05' season. He's also very clutch.

And what you are doing is making up a BS claim anyways, not a single person within 100 miles of this thread said anything about Joe Crede being good or bad, but you. Not that the argument holds weight anyhow, a 3bman's glove is much more valuable and irreplaceable than a CFer's.


And Randar, I can't even respond to what you are saying, you have a completely cracked way of looking at someone's production. You're making excuses left and right for his bat (Referring to his minor league walks as "Historically"), and in your head he is hitting like he did in the minors, and he's not. He's not on-base enough to be considered "superstar" valuable. He's just talented, and showing power. If you knew for the rest of his career his OBP. and AVG. were going to stay where they are presently, he wouldn't be more than a bottom of the order guy on an above avg. hitting team.

How does the kind of player Chris Young is fit in on a team that is already 8th in the league in HR's and 28th and 29th in OBP and Avg.? Or do you believe power hitting lineups win championships? See: 2004 v. 2005 White Sox, they don't. Well balanced teams win championships. Chris Young only would throw the Sox' balance further out of whack.

mjmcend
08-21-2007, 06:39 PM
The only thing that kept Crede in the majors was his glove, Ozzie said so himself entering the 05' season. He's also very clutch.

And what you are doing is making up a BS claim anyways, not a single person within 100 miles of this thread said anything about Joe Crede being good or bad, but you. Not that the argument holds weight anyhow, a 3bman's glove is much more valuable and irreplaceable than a CFer's.


And Randar, I can't even respond to what you are saying, you have a completely cracked way of looking at someone's production. You're making excuses left and right for his bat (Referring to his minor league walks as "Historically"), and in your head he is hitting like he did in the minors, and he's not. He's not on-base enough to be considered "superstar" valuable. He's just talented, and showing power. If you knew for the rest of his career his OBP. and AVG. were going to stay where they are presently, he wouldn't be more than a bottom of the order guy on an above avg. hitting team.

How does the kind of player Chris Young is fit in on a team that is already 8th in the league in HR's and 28th and 29th in OBP and Avg.? Or do you believe power hitting lineups win championships? See: 2004 v. 2005 White Sox, they don't. Well balanced teams win championships. Chris Young only would throw the Sox' balance further out of whack.

3rd Base is a more important defensive position than centerfield? That's a new one.

Of course if Young doesn't improve then he won't become a superstar. You miss Rander's entire point. Young improved very quickly (after 2 years struggling in rookie ball), so much so that he was promoted through 4 leagues in 3 years. Someone who shows that much talent to warrant those promotions will get better once he has the time to adjust.

In this hypothetical about Young helping the White Sox, its this simple, he is a better centerfielder than anyone else on our team so of course he would help.

balke
08-21-2007, 08:45 PM
3rd Base is a more important defensive position than centerfield? That's a new one.

Of course if Young doesn't improve then he won't become a superstar. You miss Rander's entire point. Young improved very quickly (after 2 years struggling in rookie ball), so much so that he was promoted through 4 leagues in 3 years. Someone who shows that much talent to warrant those promotions will get better once he has the time to adjust.

In this hypothetical about Young helping the White Sox, its this simple, he is a better centerfielder than anyone else on our team so of course he would help.

The Sox two top pitchers are Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland. This team lives and dies by the ground ball. There have been far more runs stopped by a Crede stop down the line, and sure-handed throw to 1B, than a robbed homerun in CF. CFer may be just as important depending on the team, but I would argue that a good offensive 3Bman that plays great D is harder to find than a Cfer who does the same. That's why I'd rather not get into comparing Crede and Young in the first place.

And as far as Young helping the Sox, he wouldn't help them nearly as much as a guy who can actually get on base with speed, or as much as Vazquez has. His batting stats would only add to what is wrong with this team at the moment.

It's Time
08-21-2007, 09:03 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/images/headshots/Mlb/194.jpg
"I have speed, power, can't get on base and can't hit for average".


http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/20/201739m.jpg
"Hey, Chris."

balke
08-21-2007, 09:13 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/images/headshots/Mlb/194.jpg
"I have speed, power, can't get on base and can't hit for average".


http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/20/201739m.jpg
"Hey, Chris."

:nandrolone

"Eat your Flintstone vitamins guys."

mjmcend
08-21-2007, 09:16 PM
Our two top pitchers are Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland. This team lives and dies by the ground ball. There have been far more runs stopped by a Crede stop down the line, and sure-handed throw to 1B, than a robbed homerun in CF. CFer may be just as important depending on the team, but I would argue that a good offensive 3Bman that plays great D is harder to find than a Cfer who does the same. That's why I'd rather not get into comparing Crede and Young in the first place.

And as far as Young helping the Sox, he wouldn't help them nearly as much as a guy who can actually get on base with speed, or as much as Vazquez has. His batting stats would only add to what is wrong with this team at the moment.

Buehrle and Garland's groudball tendencies are overrated by Sox fans.
Groundball / Flyball ratio

Mark = 1.33
Jon = 1.07

Hell Jose is a better groundball pitcher than Garland at 1.26.

Mark is just the 45th best pitcher at inducing groundballs in the MLB who has thrown at least 100 innings this year.

And I would argue that is easier to find offense at 3B rather than centerfield. Even if you exclude the butchers at the position.

I would agree that a good but inconsistent starting pitcher (Vazquez) is more valuable than Young, but that doesn't make Young worthless. And this silly idea that more homeruns are a bad thing has to stop. Homeruns are never bad.

Tragg
08-21-2007, 09:33 PM
I'm amazed for someone who *****es so much about hackers that you'd consider a sub .240/.290 hitter as someone who hits the crap out of the ball. Other than his HRs and SBs, this guy offers very little at the plate.

He's a young hitter with power. He's in his 2nd year. He's not there yet, but he's getting there. I'm patient. Hell, I think Floyd can pitch (no one else does, but I do, and I wish he'd stay in the rotation and if not that, in a decent bullpen rotation). I think Richar is going to be super (and he should bat 2nd right now, IMO) even though he's hitting .180. He's got patience and a good eye (the power hitters get pitched around so they walk more, but he doesn't get pitched around and earns walks or works these pitchers...I honestly hope he isn't discouraged form that on this team).

I'm not saying anything about the trade... I don't lament it - we got a good player.

What I am saying is we need a young OF who can hit the baseball. Owens slaps (if he can slap his way to .350obp, he's fine - hope he does). Sweeney - who knows? (get him up here). Anderson - hurt et al. We need a young outfielder.

BTW, Ozzie's hackers have no power and slap hit for obps of .330 and below (my defintion):cool:

balke
08-21-2007, 09:43 PM
Homeruns are never bad.

Yeah. You didn't watch the Sox in 2004. 15 runs one game, 0 the next. That's HR baseball.

Buehrle and Garland are 8th and 12th in GIDP balls induced this season. Garland was 13th last season Buehrle was 15th last season. They rely on the infield a ton. This whole pitching staff has reaped the benefits of the infield defense this team has had (largely Uribe and Crede, but also Konerko's picks, and even Iguchi's play).

As far as CF goes, I'd rather have Rowand than Young. I'd rather have Hunter, who's very likely to be picked up in the offseason to be kept away from the Twins. Chris Young wouldn't have impacted this Sox season, and by the time he does start becoming an all around hitter, he'll probably be a free agent, or available via trade.

champagne030
08-21-2007, 09:44 PM
He's far worse than Erstad or Pods if you take away his HRs. He has a lower avg and a lower OBP than either.



:kukoo::rolling::rolling::rolling:

That has to be in the top 10 of most silly posts I've seen on this site.

If you cut off Konerko's arms he's not going to be a good hitter. :rolleyes:

champagne030
08-21-2007, 10:01 PM
.237 avg. .290 OBP. That's less OBP than Juan Uribe with a handful more Hr's HOW IS THAT HITTING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BALL!? He'd be Juan Uribe in CF with as many HR's as Crede. That's not what this team needs at all. Where's he going to bat? 6th? 7th? He's not a real difference maker (yet). I'd rather see Jerry Owens or Pods leading off at this point.

Well, Uribe has a lower OBP than you state. I read today that he has the 3rd lowest OBP of any regular in all of baseball. And he cannot run, takes days of playing defense.... Anyway, I surely wouldn't want Owens or Pods leading off next season instead of Young.

balke
08-21-2007, 10:29 PM
Well, Uribe has a lower OBP than you state. I read today that he has the 3rd lowest OBP of any regular in all of baseball. And he cannot run, takes days of playing defense.... Anyway, I surely wouldn't want Owens or Pods leading off next season instead of Young.

His career OBP. is .295 (what I was referring to). This season its at .279. But its nice of you to join the conversation to grab pieces from posts you're not even really reading.

And you must like wasting Hr's if you'd want a power bat hitting leadoff who's never on base for Jim Thome, Paul Konerko, and Jermaine Dye. I'd rather see someone who's on base more who's even more of a stolen base threat at the leadoff spot. If Young was on the team he'd be a #2 hitter or #6 or #7 hitter. Leadoff is not where you play someone like him. Josh Fields looks good enough hitting in the 2-hole for now (admittedly, Young looks like a better #2 hitter. Like Corey Patterson).

mjmcend
08-21-2007, 10:48 PM
Yeah. You didn't watch the Sox in 2004. 15 runs one game, 0 the next. That's HR baseball.

Buehrle and Garland are 8th and 12th in GIDP balls induced this season. Garland was 13th last season Buehrle was 15th last season. They rely on the infield a ton. This whole pitching staff has reaped the benefits of the infield defense this team has had (largely Uribe and Crede, but also Konerko's picks, and even Iguchi's play).

As far as CF goes, I'd rather have Rowand than Young. I'd rather have Hunter, who's very likely to be picked up in the offseason to be kept away from the Twins. Chris Young wouldn't have impacted this Sox season, and by the time he does start becoming an all around hitter, he'll probably be a free agent, or available via trade.

I watched them in 2004. I will repeat, homeruns are never bad. If we hit homeruns in those games which we scored no runs (all 8 of them, only one more than in 2005) we might have won a few more games.

GIDP does not a groudball pitcher make. Groundball do. Buehrle is above average. Garland is not.

Hunter will cost an arm and leg. Rowand will at least cost an arm. And I am positive Young will have a better year at the plate than Rowand next year.

balke
08-21-2007, 11:03 PM
I watched them in 2004. I will repeat, homeruns are never bad. If we hit homeruns in those games which we scored no runs (all 8 of them, only one more than in 2005) we might have won a few more games.


Hehe, and if they would've hit a fly ball with a runner on 3rd and no outs, they would've scored too, what the heck does that mean? The point is they didn't score those games because they didn't hit HR's. I believe it was termed corpseball.

Guess who led the league in Hr's that season? And guess who didn't make the playoffs? That's right. And guess who didn't lead the league in Hr's in 2005, was more well balanced, and won the W.S.? The Sox for all answers. If Only that 2004 team could've traded a player who hit so many HR's for a pitcher eh? A good veteran pitcher? Or perhaps if they would've just had a leadoff hitter who was on base more, they could've produced more runs off of Maggs or Thomas' or Konerko's bombs and flyouts.

Very often when Garland is in a jam he induces the double play ball. That's what he's good at, I don't care what the ratio says, The amount of GIDP's he racks up shows he uses the defense overall a ton and they don't GIDP from the outfield. FWIW Garland's G/F ratio has been higher than Buehrle's in the past.

rdivaldi
08-21-2007, 11:52 PM
Are we back comparing Young to players in their 6th season in the majors? Come on guys, that's not worth the bandwith that it took to post.

Young's OPS is a very respectable .751 and is a little higher after his 25th home run tonight. True his OBP is bad and he strikes out too much, but let's not bash a 23 year old for that.

I'm pretty sure that we're all pretty darn high on Josh Fields right now, and looking at their numbers, they're pretty similar. Wanna talk about strikeouts?

Fields: 249 AB, 14 HR, 18 BB, 87 K, .245/.297/.751
Young: 439 AB, 25 HR, 29 BB, 97 K, .237/.290/.751

roadrunner
08-21-2007, 11:53 PM
Hehe, and if they would've hit a fly ball with a runner on 3rd and no outs, they would've scored too, what the heck does that mean? The point is they didn't score those games because they didn't hit HR's. I believe it was termed corpseball.

Guess who led the league in Hr's that season? And guess who didn't make the playoffs? That's right. And guess who didn't lead the league in Hr's in 2005, was more well balanced, and won the W.S.? The Sox for all answers. If Only that 2004 team could've traded a player who hit so many HR's for a pitcher eh? A good veteran pitcher? Or perhaps if they would've just had a leadoff hitter who was on base more, they could've produced more runs off of Maggs or Thomas' or Konerko's bombs and flyouts.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove with your 2004 and 2005 comparisons but you are flat out wrong with your facts.

2004 offense: .268/.333/.457, 865 total runs, 242 HRs, 78 steals
2005 offense: .262/.322/.425, 741 total runs, 200 HRs, 137 steals

By any measure, the 04 offense was better. The difference between those teams was pitching.

2004 ERA: 4.91
2005 ERA: 3.61

balke
08-22-2007, 07:01 AM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove with your 2004 and 2005 comparisons By any measure, the 04 offense was better. The difference between those teams was pitching.

2004 ERA: 4.91
2005 ERA: 3.61

Yeah, if you read what I write you'd see the part about pitching, a balanced team, and how that correlates to winning. Why is Chris Young not on the team? He was traded for a pitcher. My point is his stats weren't as valuable as what the Sox got. As you can see from above, he's got a very similar style of hitting to Josh Fields. And if Josh Fields went in that deal instead, the Sox 3rd base spot would be someone like Andy Gonzalez. At least in CF the Sox have Jerry Owens who's been playing very well as of late.

And BTW, it wasn't just pitching, it was the defense of that 2004 team that was bad. That and they set a record for most 10+run games, and I believe they set a record for most games scoring 3 runs or fewer. So yes on your stat sheet it looks real pretty with all the HR's and runs scored, the fact of the matter was the majority of those runs were coming all at once. Hr's were indeed bad. By replacing the top of the order with guys who got on base, the Sox were able to spread the runs around better, and win close games.

balke
08-22-2007, 07:05 AM
Young's OPS is a very respectable .751 and is a little higher after his 25th home run tonight. True his OBP is bad and he strikes out too much, but let's not bash a 23 year old for that.


Noone's bashed him. Some people just think he's a superstar right now, others thing he's a possible star in the making. And I just make the point that his play doesn't win the Sox the division this season if he stayed, and by the time he does become an all around hitter, he'll probably be available via free agency or trade.

California Sox
08-22-2007, 11:03 AM
Just for fun:

Chris Young 2007: 114G 439AB 67R 104H 21DBL 25HR 46RBI 29BB 97K 21SB 2CS .237AVG .289OBP .465SLG .754OPS

Torii Hunter 1999: 135G 384AB 52R 98H 17DBL 9HR 35RBI 26BB 72K 10SB 6CS .255AVG .309OBP .380SLG .689OPS

Hunter doesn't top 25HR until his third season, doesn't steal 20 bases until his fourth.

I have always been a huge Young booster and nothing he's done this year has changed my mind. Is he going to be as good as Justin Upton? Probably not. But he's going to be a versatile player who hits for power, steals bases, and plays good defense. It's not like we've got too many of those guys. And as to whether having him on the team would have made a difference this year: We're in fourth now with Vazquez so it's not like he would have hurt.

oeo
08-22-2007, 11:10 AM
And as to whether having him on the team would have made a difference this year: We're in fourth now with Vazquez so it's not like he would have hurt.

Yes, we would be in last. Javy has been solid all year...who's the pitcher taking his place? Gavin Floyd?

voodoochile
08-22-2007, 11:10 AM
Just for fun:

Chris Young 2007: 114G 439AB 67R 104H 21DBL 25HR 46RBI 29BB 97K 21SB 2CS .237AVG .289OBP .465SLG .754OPS

Torii Hunter 1999: 135G 384AB 52R 98H 17DBL 9HR 35RBI 26BB 72K 10SB 6CS .255AVG .309OBP .380SLG .689OPS

Hunter doesn't top 25HR until his third season, doesn't steal 20 bases until his fourth.

I have always been a huge Young booster and nothing he's done this year has changed my mind. Is he going to be as good as Justin Upton? Probably not. But he's going to be a versatile player who hits for power, steals bases, and plays good defense. It's not like we've got too many of those guys. And as to whether having him on the team would have made a difference this year: We're in fourth now with Vazquez so it's not like he would have hurt.

Well the 5th starter would have been Floyd and the Sox would be going into next year with 3 question marks in their rotation. I'd rather have Vazquez.

California Sox
08-22-2007, 11:19 AM
Yes, we would be in last. Javy has been solid all year...who's the pitcher taking his place? Gavin Floyd?

And fourth is better than last because...

My opinion is if you're out of contention the entire season, you might as well be last and get the draft pick.

jabrch
08-22-2007, 12:34 PM
That's like saying "he can't get on base if you take away hits and walks"...

When did this "if he didn't hit for power he'd be useless" line of logic gain so much validity around here?

He does hit for power, bottom line. He has an .844 OPS since the All-Star break, stop trying to explain it away with excuses or invalid hypotheticals.

It's not "if he doesn't hit for power" - it is "if he doesn't hit HRs"

Those are two very different stories.

SoxxoS
08-22-2007, 02:54 PM
It's not "if he doesn't hit for power" - it is "if he doesn't hit HRs"

Those are two very different stories.

Exactly.

He compares a little bit to (but with speed, which is worth noting) http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/russell-branyan.shtml

Look at the 2001 season when Branyan was 25

.232 BA 20 HR 38 Walks 132 K's .316 OBP 802 OPS

Since Youngs OBP is .289 - Take the difference in OBP and you are looking at the difference in OPS.

What does this mean? Not much - Other than showing Branyan hasn't improved much and his career OPS is 800 with a .230 batting average. Chris Young plays defense and steals bases - so he is going to be a more productive player - but lets see if he improves his plate discipline before we annoint him an All Star, IMO.

Randar68
08-22-2007, 04:27 PM
It's not "if he doesn't hit for power" - it is "if he doesn't hit HRs"

Those are two very different stories.

HAHA! Are you guys really serious here or just trying to stick to some obfiscated point?

Young is not a superstar today, but he's made NL history in his rookie year in his 5th level in 4 years. Give him a chance to repeat a level for the first time since he was 19 years old and I am convinced he is going to put up borderline All-Star numbers as a 2nd year player.

He plays in a pitcher's park and a division where every park is a pitchers park except Coors Field... He would be leading this team in HR's today, ahead of Konerko, Dye, Thome, etc... and he's >90% in SB success rate...

He's not making enough contact at this point, but his walk totals have been steadily improving. His pre-All-Star to Post-All-Star OPS has jumped 150 points.

He has been learning on the job and has shown significant improvement and progress. What makes anyone believe this will not continue?

Randar68
08-22-2007, 04:31 PM
What does this mean? Not much - Other than showing Branyan hasn't improved much and his career OPS is 800 with a .230 batting average. Chris Young plays defense and steals bases - so he is going to be a more productive player - but lets see if he improves his plate discipline before we annoint him an All Star, IMO.

At each level in the minors he started out with a lot of K's and over the course of his season, would increase the BB:K rate...

Branyon was also starting his 8th year of professional baseball when he had the season you referenced.

Chris is in his 6th. In 2 years, get back to me.

jabrch
08-22-2007, 05:20 PM
What makes anyone believe this will not continue?

Who said he won't continue?

All I said is he hasn't done **** yet if you look at his numbers as a whole. It's a lot more than 25 HRs and 21 SBs. He's got a sub .240 avg and a sub .290 OBP. He may some day be damn good. But in the minors, his highest batting average was .277. That doesn't translate well to the majors. All I am saying is that he's not nearly as good as some here are making him out to be.

That's it...

Who knows what he might become? He's never proven to be even a mediocre prospect in terms of hitting for average, at any level. He won't walk a ton in the majors if teams don't fear him doing anything other than hitting HRs against them.

He's got a long way to go to reach the status some here want to paint him in.

balke
08-23-2007, 08:25 AM
I will say, for anyone 7 HR's in 9 games is damn impressive. Now's the time his OBP. might go up, due to noone wanting to get taken yard.

spiffie
08-23-2007, 08:28 AM
Who said he won't continue?

All I said is he hasn't done **** yet if you look at his numbers as a whole. It's a lot more than 25 HRs and 21 SBs. He's got a sub .240 avg and a sub .290 OBP. He may some day be damn good. But in the minors, his highest batting average was .277. That doesn't translate well to the majors. All I am saying is that he's not nearly as good as some here are making him out to be.

That's it...

Who knows what he might become? He's never proven to be even a mediocre prospect in terms of hitting for average, at any level. He won't walk a ton in the majors if teams don't fear him doing anything other than hitting HRs against them.
Unless he's like Adam Dunn, and hits for a career avg of .247 and a career OBP of .379.

balke
08-23-2007, 08:57 AM
Unless he's like Adam Dunn, and hits for a career avg of .247 and a career OBP of .379.

Which might be what he does. I personally don't like Adam Dunn's play (.212 w/ RISP), but If Chris Young does develop like that he'll be a lot more valuable in doing it, since he can steal. One thing is certain, they need to get him out of the leadoff spot, all of his past 7 HR's have been solo shots meaning 7 RBI in those past 9 games. The same amount of Rbi Josh has in his past 9 games w/ 3 hr's.

Chris Young: .136 RISP in 81 AB's 17 RBI 22 Solo Hr's 4 w/ men on
Josh Fields: .296 RISP in 78 AB's 29 RBI 8 Solo Hr's 7 w/ men on

The Diamondbacks are wasting a lot of opportunity for RBI by having him at leadoff. 14 Hr's have come with 0-out and noone on base for him. Why not move him to 2nd in the order? He's not on base enough for the guys behind him (especially when you add in the solo Hr's he has) and that's 7 Hr's in a row that were essentially wasted.

Even if there is no better leadoff guy for their team (And if they are making a playoff run, they could probably inquire about Scotty Pods to play LF, and move Byrnes over to RF, so they aren't relying on a rookie) They should move Hudson or even Upton to leadoff, just so they aren't wasting these Hr's.

I know when I see a Sox pitcher give up a solo shot to leadoff the inning, it doesn't seem to bother me as much as the leadoff hitter getting on base via walk or double. The leadoff hr either kills the inning or it can win the game if its done against a Santana type pitcher (He does have 1 against Smoltz, and one against Peavy). Just seems overall he should be moved lower in the order.

He still needs to get on base WAY more if he's going to be an "Adum Dunn type" but, if he keeps the power threat and moves lower in the order, his OBP. if not his avg. should go up.

jabrch
08-23-2007, 09:10 AM
Unless he's like Adam Dunn, and hits for a career avg of .247 and a career OBP of .379.

And a SLG% of .529....

But even still, Dunn is a bit overrated by some. While his obp/slg is impressive, I wouldn't rank him amongst the top 20 hitters in baseball. (His numbers are the same as Carlos Pena's numbers - and nobody thinks Pena is a top 20 guy - Dunn benefits from his name) Thome has similar (better) numbers - and he's not a top 20 either in my eyes.

Randar68
08-23-2007, 12:20 PM
The Diamondbacks are wasting a lot of opportunity for RBI by having him at leadoff. 14 Hr's have come with 0-out and noone on base for him. Why not move him to 2nd in the order? He's not on base enough for the guys behind him (especially when you add in the solo Hr's he has) and that's 7 Hr's in a row that were essentially wasted.

Even if there is no better leadoff guy for their team (And if they are making a playoff run, they could probably inquire about Scotty Pods to play LF, and move Byrnes over to RF, so they aren't relying on a rookie) They should move Hudson or even Upton to leadoff, just so they aren't wasting these Hr's.


He needs to hit 3rd/4th/5th... You don't want him on base behind real slow guys a lot, but he doesn't make consistent enough contact to be a #2 hitter in the NL... It just shows how many teams are really lacking #1 or #2 hitters.

Not sure I'd want him lower than 6th in the order, but he is Arizona's best power hitter and he's hitting leadoff. It's not like they have Konerko and Thome who really can't hit anywhere but 3/4...

SoxxoS
08-24-2007, 10:13 AM
From ESPN



1. Young leading things off with a bang for D-backs

Diamondbacks center fielder Chris Young (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6514) has become a regular on the "Touch 'em All" segment of "Baseball Tonight" recently. Young's power surge -- which includes seven home runs in his last nine games -- comes as a surprise to some, although he did hit over 20 homers in three different minor league seasons. The D-backs' rookie batted seventh in the order on Opening Day, but he comes into Friday's game with a club-high 26 homers, mostly from his new spot at the top of the order.

Young has been most dangerous on pitches thigh-high and above. Here are the locations of his home runs this season:

HOME RUNS BY LOCATION (FROM PITCHER'S VIEW)LocationAwayMiddleInTotalUp2518Middle85114Dow n4004Grand total1410226

He is much more likely to hit a fastball out of the yard. Twenty-one of his 26 homers have been against fastballs.

Pitch typeHome runFastball21Curve/slider3Changeup/other2
During Young's recent power surge, five of his seven home runs in the past nine games have come with the pitcher ahead in the count. He went deep only four times with the pitcher ahead through Aug. 13.

Young may not be as likely to go yard tonight against Cubs lefty Sean Marshall (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7718). Only five of his home runs have come against left-handers, and none of those were breaking pitches. Marshall throws his curve or slider much more often than most pitchers -- 42 percent of his total pitches are breaking balls.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=2989027

Maybe don't throw him fastballs and let Orlando Hudson beat you?

balke
08-24-2007, 12:36 PM
Yeah, I figured that was the case. I haven't seen him but for one game, but if a guy has all of these solo HR's with noone on base, I would imagine he's just sitting fastball and connecting for the most part.

FarWestChicago
08-24-2007, 04:25 PM
Maybe don't throw him fastballs and let Orlando Hudson beat you?

Yeah, I figured that was the case. I haven't seen him but for one game, but if a guy has all of these solo HR's with noone on base, I would imagine he's just sitting fastball and connecting for the most part.Back off, fellas. This guy rocks. The Sox should have never traded him no matter what they were offered.

balke
08-24-2007, 04:29 PM
Back off, fellas. This guy rocks. The Sox should have never traded him no matter what they were offered.

Come on, what if they could've gotten Jeremy Reed AND Miguel Olivo for him? What then?

spiffie
08-24-2007, 04:33 PM
Back off, fellas. This guy rocks. The Sox should have never traded him no matter what they were offered.
The real question is, what if the D-Backs offered Chris Young for Brian Anderson? Would that make the entire universe collapse on itself, leaving only those two standing astride the void where time and space once were?

Tragg
08-24-2007, 04:55 PM
Meanwhile the league's worst offense and 2nd to worst team is certainly in a position to lampoon high ceiling young outfielders.

FarWestChicago
08-24-2007, 04:56 PM
The real question is, what if the D-Backs offered Chris Young for Brian Anderson? Would that make the entire universe collapse on itself, leaving only those two standing astride the void where time and space once were?Holy crap. That would be like a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation. They would actually convert both their body masses into pure energy. I'm no engineer, but I think that would cause some serious issues for planet Earth (where's ode when you need him). Let's call them 210 each. Holy ****, that's a ridiculous mutual annihilation event. I'm sure somebody here can calculate the megatons. Somehow, Jeremy Reed would survive and still be a Lead Pipe Lock First Round Hall Of Famer. :redneck

SoxxoS
08-29-2007, 10:39 PM
For those that care (and I do, b/c of my AZ connection so I dont want to hear about Young for the next 10 years)

He is 5 for his last 28. Three guesses what kind of hits those were? And they weren't singles, doubles or triples.

Last 5 hits were homers.

Grzegorz
08-30-2007, 04:41 AM
For those that care (and I do, b/c of my AZ connection so I dont want to hear about Young for the next 10 years)

He is 5 for his last 28. Three guesses what kind of hits those were? And they weren't singles, doubles or triples.

Last 5 hits were homers.

I'd like to see consistency; he has much room to improve...

jabrch
08-30-2007, 08:42 AM
Somehow, Jeremy Reed would survive and still be a Lead Pipe Lock First Round Hall Of Famer. :redneck

I could hear those jokes a million times and they never get old.

jabrch
08-30-2007, 08:47 AM
Meanwhile the league's worst offense and 2nd to worst team is certainly in a position to lampoon high ceiling young outfielders.

Tragg - I don't believe they are lampooning Young - rather they are lampooning posters on this board who make it sound like he is the second coming, and that there was no logical explanation for why we'd have traded him to get Javier Vazquez. There is a difference.

I'm not lampooning Young at all. I'm pointing to his .232/.285/.468 line and saying that for all his HRs and SBs, he's adding precious little else to his team - and that this was actually projectable based on his failure to ever really hit for average consistently in the minors.

SoxxoS
08-30-2007, 08:51 AM
I'm not lampooning Young at all. I'm pointing to his .232/.285/.468 line and saying that for all his HRs and SBs, he's adding precious little else to his team - and that this was actually projectable based on his failure to ever really hit for average consistently in the minors.

Exactly - WHICH THE SOX WOULD TAKE, mind you.

voodoochile
08-30-2007, 09:02 AM
Exactly - WHICH THE SOX WOULD TAKE, mind you.

I'd still rather have Vazquez and it's really not even that close for me. Nothing against Young and it's not because he has all or nothing stats in his rookie season. I hope he develops into a great player.

Maybe he turns into Andrew Jones. Maybe he turns into ShamME* without the roids...

jabrch
08-30-2007, 09:34 AM
Exactly - WHICH THE SOX WOULD TAKE, mind you.

Would you take that if it meant giving up Javy Vazquez and having to go with a questionmark as a SP for the past 2 seasons?

jabrch
08-30-2007, 10:02 AM
I'd still rather have Vazquez and it's really not even that close for me. Nothing against Young and it's not because he has all or nothing stats in his rookie season. I hope he develops into a great player.

Maybe he turns into Andrew Jones. Maybe he turns into ShamME* without the roids...

And given that when we made the deal, we had Sweeney, BA and Owens in the system, and no SPs that we felt would be MLB effective, it made even more organizational sense at the time. Nobody knows if they'd have taken one of those other 3 OFs if we offered, of if it was us or them who wanted it to be Young - but at the time, the deal made a lot of sense for a team that had hopes of returning to the post season both in 2006 and 2007. Now hindsight tells us something different - but if I had hindsight, I'd be figuring out how to spend the 500mm I won in the two lotteries on Tuesday and Wednesday, not sitting here talking about Chris Young.

SoxxoS
08-30-2007, 10:07 AM
I stated earlier in this thread that its funny that the DBacks would trade CYoung for Vazquez right now, no doubt. Webb, Vazquez and Davis could actually win a playoff series. Webb, Livan and Davis, can't. (I dont think).

voodoochile
08-30-2007, 10:13 AM
And given that when we made the deal, we had Sweeney, BA and Owens in the system, and no SPs that we felt would be MLB effective, it made even more organizational sense at the time. Nobody knows if they'd have taken one of those other 3 OFs if we offered, of if it was us or them who wanted it to be Young - but at the time, the deal made a lot of sense for a team that had hopes of returning to the post season both in 2006 and 2007. Now hindsight tells us something different - but if I had hindsight, I'd be figuring out how to spend the 500mm I won in the two lotteries on Tuesday and Wednesday, not sitting here talking about Chris Young.

This is the part that is often overlooked. The Sox dealt a player who there was lots of institutional depth to cover and wasn't ready to contribute for a player who was more than ready, plays a more important position and for which the Sox had no MLB ready replacement.

jabrch
08-30-2007, 11:24 AM
This is the part that is often overlooked. The Sox dealt a player who there was lots of institutional depth to cover and wasn't ready to contribute for a player who was more than ready, plays a more important position and for which the Sox had no MLB ready replacement.

Hindsight is 20/20. If we knew that last year and this year we'd not make the playoffs, then we wouldn't have done it. But having Vazquez gave us a much better chance of making the playoffs than keeping Young/Duque/Viz would have.

balke
08-30-2007, 11:46 AM
Baseball is a strange sport. Who's to say a young CFer in the Sox system won't elevate his play to be an above avg. CFer in the next couple of seasons? Stranger things have happened.