Gordon versus Young

Its amazing

that ever since Young tossed the bat at the umpire, many people automatically droped him from #1 on their prospect list. I thought Gordon would win ROY this year, but I always thought Young was a more talented player.

by nyy601 on Apr 15, 2007 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i think its wayy too early to draw conclusions

but.. i agree with nyy601. i think yound slid down a lot of people's lists when he tossed the bat. however, in gordon's defense, this is his first real sample of the majors, whereas delmon was up last year for a bit. i think by july, well have a pretty good idea of who is ahead in the ROY race

by rangersfan24 on Apr 15, 2007 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It's way too early - just as it was way too early to start throwing Elijah Dukes name around after a game and a half.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Candidate

He's still a candidate.

2 HR's and 4 walks so far this year.

It's too early to crown anyone the rookie of the year or call someone a bust, but it's damn sure not too early to name someone a candidate.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Apr 15, 2007 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me re-phrase

too early to say he belongs among the early favorites.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i can agree with that

he is definitely not an early favorite, but i definitely would not take him out of the running either. i think its funny how two of the biggest names for ROY play for shit teams though. how much you wanna bet neither of them gets it!

by rangersfan24 on Apr 16, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's

Matsuzaka's to lose. Unless he gets hurt - he'll win it.

by slurve on Apr 16, 2007 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ya, which i really dont agree with

he is a veteran, allbeit from another country, but he is a seasoned veteran. i dont think players of this sort should be eligible for ROY.

by rangersfan24 on Apr 17, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily.....

Dice-K hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire like a lot of folks predicted. If Delmon continues to crush the ball, he has a legit shot despite the advantages Dice-K has (increased media coverage due to coming from Japan and playing in Boston).

Dice-K is still the early favorite, but Delmon can very easily close the gap.

by guru4u on Apr 18, 2007 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon's problem is

he's in such a deep hole early, it's going to be hard to come back from it. Not saying he can, but if he doesn't start hitting, and hitting soon, he's going to find it impossible to get back in the ROY race. Young, OTOH, can go on a little slump and be fine since he's gotten off to such a great start.

by killa3312 on Apr 15, 2007 5:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the last thing on the actual

player's mind is the award. I doubt he or anyone inside the org. actually gives a damn about the award.

The awards are for us not for them.

by wildthang on Apr 15, 2007 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, huh

That's why they have incentive clauses in their contracts.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do rookies

have incentives writtin in to their contracts? I would imagine that the parent club wouldn't have to put it in when they sign the 1 year deals.

by wildthang on Apr 15, 2007 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

contract

Delmon Young of
5 years/$5.8M (2004-08)

* $3.7M signing bonus, signed 9/03
* incentives may bring entire package to $6.25M
* drafted 2003 (1-1) (Major League contract)
* agent: Arn Tellum
* ML service: 0.034

by pedrophile on Apr 15, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most rooks don't

but some of the MLB contracs being handed out to recent draftees do contain incentives. Not sure if Gordon actually has this one or not - but that's not really the point. Players get incentives tied to All-Star games, gold gloves, MVPs, etc. all the time - it's VERY common.

Think the parent club doesn't care? Think again. Players are much more marketable/profitable when the have a "MVP" or "ROY" attached to their name.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sort of what I meant but

let me clarify, first I know how common they are, John Bale gets 100 g's for being the World Series MVP. So thats no secret, but what I was getting at was more that the awards and such are going to be secondary to the development of the player. For example, the Royals aren't going to send Gordon to AAA at 128 AB's for the rest of the year so he can collect a ROY for next year. Basically, the awards are what they are, and if it took a few years of development at the ML level for a player to start producing so be it.

by wildthang on Apr 15, 2007 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

126At bats

If they called him up a week earlier last year he wouldn't qualify. Coincidence?

by pedrophile on Apr 15, 2007 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL CHILL OUT PEDRO

wooosahhhh man. i dont see why a player would not care if they got ROY or not. nothing but good can come from it

by rangersfan24 on Apr 16, 2007 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

Delmon would love to get it and Tampa would love to see him get the award as well.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

Prospect lists are for career value, no? I don't think Delmon is going to draw enough walks to have the same value as Gordon in his career. If Gordon can become a Teixeira-like hitter (which is how I see him, and why I list him at #1), he'll outshine Young in the long run, barring dramatic improvement.

Just because Young's apparently ready now and Gordon isn't two weeks into their rookie years doesn't mean we should coronate anyone just yet.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 5:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+2

by doublestix on Apr 15, 2007 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-100

Can I do that? My opinion counts for a 100.

Walks???? They are valuable but, like who cares?

If Gordon ends up being as good a player as Delmon Young it sure wont be because of walks.

It'll be because AG start putting up great average and power #s like Delmon will. DY's batting eye has been fine so far and he is very young. Delmon dont need no walks, just enough selectiveness to get a pitch to drive!

casedog

by casejud on Apr 16, 2007 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh

Hmm...I bet baseball teams who need players with valuable traits like not making outs care. A lot.

Delmon is going to be a great hitter, but if he ends up being Juan Gone to Gordon's Teixeira, walks will indeed be a big part of why Gordon is more valuable.

by limozeen on Apr 17, 2007 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Delmon

is a future batting champion. His ability to make consistent hard contact is something that you just can't teach. He'll learn to take walks eventually. He doesn't swing at bad pitches often.

His high average is not a fluke. No, he's not going to hit .370 for the season, but it wouldn't surprise if he's a perennial .320 hitter in the future. He's got it all, power, speed, defence the ability to hit for a huge average.

He'll need to walk more in the future. But I have no doubt that he'll get more patient as he progresses. Plus he'll walk more in the future just because people aren't going to pitch to him.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree

He can and will be a good player, probably a great player. But Mark Teixeiras don't come around all that often, especially ones who can play third base.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guys

that are potenial batting champions with 30-40 homerun power come along even less often. IMO Delmon has Alex in every category except OBP and even then I don't think the difference will be signifigant because of Delmon's ability to hit for a consistently high average.

I'd rather a .320/.380 guy (which I firmly believe Delmon will be, people will be forced to pitch around him, raising his BB rate whether he likes it or not) over the .300/.400 guy because a hit is still worth more than a walk.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd disagree

about the one point, agreed on the rest.

<<He doesn't swing at bad pitches often.>>

Right now he doesn't have good pitch recognition. I've seen a decent amount of swings at breaking balls in the dirt.

If the pitch starts out of the zone Delmon will hold off. He has a good eye with regards to that. But if a breaking pitch starts in the zone Delmon is hacking.

by pedrophile on Apr 15, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With 2 strikes

yes, he has trouble laying off pitches that start in the zone. However, with less than 2 strikes, it's usually not an issue.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well.... yeah

no one has ever struck out with less than 2 strikes. Many pitchers will use an "out" pitch that is a breaking ball more often with 2 strikes. I like Delmon, but I think you may be a tad guilty of Kool-Aid consumtion here.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could be

drinking the Kool-aid, but I'd say that the Alex Gordon fans are far more guilty of it than I am. I mean the community projection had him as a super-star from the get go.

Delmon has hit at every level without fail. I'm not really sure what more he has to do to get respect on this board. I think people are assuming because he doesn't BB at a high rate, he can't hit for average, which to this point in his career, he's dispelled at every level including the big leagues. He's special.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's early

He still has time. Gordon has hit at every level before his two week stint in the big leagues, too. We'll see.

As for their careers, saying the only category Gordon will lead Young in is BB is a stretch, I think. I think he'll have more power, too. Delmon will have more speed, sure, but Gordon's no slouch on the bases either, and he plays third.

It is early early early.

by ajohnst1 on Apr 15, 2007 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Power

Delmon has very similar power if not more than Gordon. Remember, Delmon hit 20 homeruns in AA as a 19 year old in 330 at bats. That's a slightly higher rate than Gordon, except he was 3 years younger. Delmon hit a homerun once every 16.5 ab's, Gordon once every 16.75.

I think people sometimes forget how young he is because he's been around so long. Delmon can barely drink. He's only 21. A year and 7 months younger than Gordon. 2 years in baseball time. He's got a signifigant amount of projection left in him. He's still a skinny kid. He could easily add 20-30 pounds to his frame as he gets older increasing his power, while lowering his speed.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He could

"easily add 20-30 pounds to his frame as he gets older"

Yep - it's also possible we won't be able to tell him apart from Da Meathook in a few years. LOL

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

but the count wasn't the issue. When a pitch starts in the zone he swings.

If a fastball is flat and 2 inches off the plate he won't swing. His eye is good that way. But if the pitch starts in the zone he will offer.

Right now he can't pick up the spin and recognize the pitch. No big deal though, he is young and can be good without this skill.

Too many people talk about his problems with 2 strikes or that he is overly agressive. This is not true. He will go the other way, will swing with a flat trajectory when needed. Will lay off pitches. His approach is excellent, he has changed my mind. He just can't, yet, recognize pitches.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Count

again I disagree. I've seen him lay off of several breaking pitches that start in the zone and break out. Does he do it everytime? No. He's not perfect. But so far this season, he's a lot better at it than when I saw him last season. Also, to be fair to him, that is the hardest pitch to lay off of I would think. It's what makes a breaking pitch a good pitch.

I never said he was overly agressive, but what I was talking about was that he needs to learn to wait for a pitch he can drive. Often, he'll try and hit a pitchers pitch within the strike-zone with 0 or 1 strike. That, IMO is the biggest part of his hitting game he can improve. And he will, it will get better with time. But that is the biggest knock on his approach I have. Much more so than swinging at breaking pitches that start in the zone and break out.

by Tyler on Apr 16, 2007 7:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess a bit of both

if he waits a little longer on those low & away pitches he can read the spin, they are typically going to be breaking balls anyways.

btw - it looks like the scouting report is out on Dukes. Everything is low on the plate, middle in, breaking balls. With his flat swing that is going to be his one weakness and pitchers are attacking it. Once he adjusts to this he'll start tearing the cover off the ball again. Pitchers are giving him an awful lot of respect.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eli

I read in the paper today the Steve Henderson (hitting coach) saw a mechanical flaw in his swing on Saturday and they're working on correcting it. Hopefully this adjustment will allow him to get to those balls. They've just been pounding the lower part of the zone and he hasn't been able to do anything with it. His pitch recognition skills are amazing. He's going to be special too.

by Tyler on Apr 16, 2007 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eli

I love his approach at the plate. He just couldn't hit those middle-in, low, breaking balls.

Watching almost all of his plate appearances this year I realize that pitchers pitch him different than just about anyone on the roster. They are pitching with fear against him. The Halladay plate appearances were awesome. Even Ponson was throwing some nasty breaking balls all on the inside corner.

If they are giving their best against Eli and he adjusts - I could see him having a big year.

Oh - and for the people saying Delmon hits the ball the hardest. Maybe that is true because of how square Delmon hits it. But even when Eli doesn't square it up he crushes the ball, even infield hits. His two double-plays are a result of this.

I really see Dukes similar to Sheffield in many ways.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have always felt....

that Delmon's best comparison is Vlad. Vlad had eerily similar tools and minor league track record as Delmon when he first broke into the majors. And I can easily see Delmon having that type of career.

by guru4u on Apr 18, 2007 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not too early

As far as voting goes. I'll give you 2 scenarios:

1)starts hot
cumulative batting average by month
Apr 400
May 375
June 350
July 325
Aug 310
Sep 300

2) starts slow
cumulative batting average by month
Apr 200
May 225
June 250
July 275
Aug 290
Sep 300

As you can see the results are the same. But in scenario #1 you see a hitter who kept his batting average at or above 300 all year. The perception is this guy was a 300 hitter all year and was even better in the early going. Not true, but it's how many people read the numbers.

The second scenario it's seen as a guy that stunk but was able to use a hot stretch to have good numbers. Many/most writers will take #1 scenario.

Also, the 1st scenario is in the hilight all year which also helps.

I just used batting average but of course this applies to everything.

I'm not saying Delmon has it won or anything. But the early going is much more important for awards than people give it credit.

by pedrophile on Apr 15, 2007 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Walks are overrated to an extent

Young isn't batting lead-off, he's batting 5th. His job is to drive in runs, and he's doing an excellent job of it. Eventually, after opposing teams and managers begin to pitch around him, he'll walk more. I think Young has proven that he doesn't need to walk to hit for a high average. He's a rare breed.

by killa3312 on Apr 15, 2007 6:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

no

His job is to not use outs so that his team can get as many at bats as possible. Right now he's doing an acceptable job of that because he's batting .350. Do you expect that to keep up? What do we say about a .005 IsoD when he's hitting .310 or .290?

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The last time

and only time in his career he's hit less than .316 was when he was a 19 year old in AAA, and even then he hit .285. He's a freak, that has the ability to hit for a high average without taking walks. I expect that would continue.

If you saw him play on a daily basis you'd believe too. He's amazing. He doesn't swing at bad pitches out of the zone for the most part. He does need to do a better job of recognizing the pitches within the strike zone that he can drive and the ones he should take, but when a pitcher throws a hittable pitch, he hits it hard most of the time.

His high average is not a fluke and he's going to hit over .300 on the season. You can mark that down. Probably over .315.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gifted but...

He struck out once in every 4.97 ABs in the minors. You can expect that number to only go down at the ML level this year.

by Con on Apr 16, 2007 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let Me Guess

You are a big Jason Kendall fan?

by DrBGiantsfan on Apr 15, 2007 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still like Gordon better.

by SenorGato88 on Apr 15, 2007 6:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sample Size

Are you guys freaking kidding?

The Royals have played 12 freaking games. Pujols was doing just about as well as Gordon until today. A couple of 3 for 4 games and he's hitting 0.250.

Get back to me in a month and we can start comparing.

by GregJP on Apr 15, 2007 6:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

AMEN.

+1

by b1leper on Apr 15, 2007 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1000000

let's hold off for another month or two before we actually start saying who's got a real chance.

by foolintherain on Apr 15, 2007 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only real knock...

on Young was his attitude problems. Granted, that isn't something you want to overlook as that has caused some players with good skills to flame out early. His plate discipline could use some work as well but, then again, Gordon's hasn't exactly been stellar either. While its still too early to tell, Young could very easily be the better player this year and over his entire career...or it could be Gordon. Who knows? All I know is that neither the Royals or the D-Rays are going to be complaining about having either one of them on their team.

by KCSlayer on Apr 15, 2007 7:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There was also...

his pathetically bad plate discipline and a "WTF happened to his power?" thing in AAA.

I still have NO IDEA what I think Young is going to be. Most (if not all) the time I say he's going to be something like .300-.320/.330-.350/.500+ hitter.

Thats a good player, but Gordon is going to hit for a ton of power, take alot more walks, and still hit around .280. Plus he plays a much more important defensive position.

by SenorGato88 on Apr 15, 2007 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't hold

his numbers in AAA against him TOO much - he was very young and he did improve as time went on.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont

know that 3b is that much more important than RF at all.

casedog

by casejud on Apr 16, 2007 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I think Delmon has a much better chance to win the ROY award than Gordon. First, he clearly is a bit more comfortable at the MLB level - which is probably attributable to his experience from last year. More importantly, however, is how Delmon's approach leads to big counting statistics. Sportswriters don't care if he walks, they look at HR, RBI, AVG - and maybe R, and SB. Many of them probably have no idea what OPS is...This year, I think Delmon will end up with more HR, RBI, and a higher AVG and he could have more runs and stolen bases.

Regardless, Delmon's approach leads to big time counting statistics and that's why he'll finish higher in the ROY than Gordon (for the record I think Dice-K wins it).

"May all your sliders break across two planes"

by Dfarth on Apr 15, 2007 9:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree... completely

I think many under-estimate the average sports writer. I agree, many still hold onto to antiquated ideals, but the climate has been changing - especially among baseball specific writers. It still has a ways to go IMO, but it's getting better. Joe Morgan-ism is a dying breed.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I wish that were true...but how did Howard win the MVP award last year?

"May all your sliders break across two planes"

by Dfarth on Apr 15, 2007 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Because his OPS was only .018 less than Pujols and he hit 9 more homeruns. He also played 16 more games, and that is signifigant. There's something to be said for staying healthy all season.

by Tyler on Apr 15, 2007 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad example

sabermetrically - Howard was a good choice, if not the clear winner. He led not just the NL, but all of baseball last year in runs created.

by slurve on Apr 15, 2007 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

I understand that Howard had a great year...but often times the awards seem to go to the players with better counting stats than to the best hitters - and I attribute that to the ignorant sports writers. And I'm willing to bet that Delmon ends up with better counting stats - heck he may drive in 100 runs - than Gordon. JMO

"May all your sliders break across two planes"

by Dfarth on Apr 16, 2007 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The better statement...

would be how did JUSTIN MORNEAU win the MVP last year.

Warning Track Power

by WTP on Apr 16, 2007 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I agreed with it...

but here is an arguement against the writers looking at a players season as a whole. They all seemed aware of how slow he started. They knew how he really seemed to turn it on "when it counted" and how he carried them much of the second half of the season. He had what seemed to be many instances of late game heroics that resulted in being the difference for the AL Central.

by slurve on Apr 16, 2007 6:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 HR's this year

and all took them from a tie or behind in the game to put them into a lead in which they won.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it was

His .341 batting average in the second half or, his 18 homers and 52 rbis in June and July when they dug themselves out of a whole and got to the top of a tough division or, his 16-24 .593 Avg with runners at 3rd with 2 outs!

casedog

by casejud on Apr 16, 2007 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, I see

good stats over small, random periods of time are better than stats over larger, more representative periods of time (which, by the way, include all those small, random time periods).

of course, the problem with making arguments FOR players based on particular samples is that those guys are the ones who will have especially BAD samples from other scenarios. for instance, Morneau's first half. or, alternatively, he must have been the sh-ttiest hitter in baseball with runners on first and second and one out (or something like that).

when you add it all up, Morneau wasn't the league's best. maybe he deserved the MVPOIP though (Most Valuable Player Over Idiosyncratic Periods).

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 16, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

You're confusing predictive stats with value stats. Sure, stats class tells us we can't reasonably expect Morneau's clutch hitting to continue over time. But it did happen last year, and it did result in real wins that led a real baseball club to a real division championship.

by limozeen on Apr 17, 2007 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fair point

and I get what you're saying. still, can you find any of those evaluative (rather than predictive) metrics that say what Morneau contributed led the American League? as I remember, they almost all have Jeter winning the award, and the only thing that speaks in Morneau's favor are the Jayson Stark-esque statistics above, which means that, obviously, the runner-on-third-with-two-outs scenario must have happened a pretty insignificant number of times because it DIDN'T lead to more value/wins than what other top players did.

still, i do appreciate your point on the difference between the two stats, and i definitely attacked casejud's point incorrectly.

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 17, 2007 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dunno

Morneau was 4th in AL WPA last year. I believe was among the league-leaders in game-winning hits, come-from-behind homers, and walk-off hits as well.

by limozeen on Apr 17, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

but don't runs in the second inning count win as many games as runs to end the 9th?

even if we take the extreme version of what you're saying should determine the MVP -- whoever's contributions ended up directly effecting the most outcomes of games -- then you're going to want to look at runs+RBI totaled up, with perhaps a rule that runs/RBI collected while your team was winning/losing by 5 or more runs don't count. otherwise, a two-run homer in the second that puts you in a position to win counts just as much as the one in the 9th that MADE you win. the latter is just more exciting than the former.

if you really want to use runs/RBI totals to determine the MVP, I can understand (though I don't agree with it, and I doubt you would either). but I really can't agree with using "walk-off hits" as a category for determining MVP, since they AREN'T more valuable than other hits (except those in blowouts).

what it seems like you're arguing for is why voters would FEEL Morneau was so valuable -- because he had so many salient hits that SEEMED to win the game. and it's true that voters feel this way -- Eric Gagne would have never won his Cy Young if he'd been a set-up man and hadn't recorded all those saves, even though it wouldn't have made his year any less valuable. but, if the argument is for who added the most VALUE, then I don't think the stats you are using show much at all. WPA would, but Morneau was fourth in that. that makes him a damn great player (which I think he was -- and I wasn't HORRIFIED by his selection by a long shot), but he probably didn't deserve the award when there were other players who added more. that's what the MVP award should be about, right?

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 17, 2007 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

runs in the 2nd

are not equal to runs in the 9th

in the 9th they are facing pitchers that have a combined era probably 2 full points lower than in the 2nd. Not the same animal.

by pedrophile on Apr 19, 2007 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point, definitely

but then i think you're drifting away from the argument limozeen wanted to make, and back to a more traditional view of the runs/hits: that those who get them in more difficult scenarios are better players.

it may be true that a run in the 9th is harder to come by, but it doesn't win the game any more than the one you could have had back in the 2nd. in fact, if you're argument is true -- that people are more likely to score in the second than in the 9th -- then the player who holds the advantage in the 9th over the league but struggles early in the game is putting his team at a relative DISADVANTAGE, because he's forcing the hitters on his team to face more closers/tough pitching late. if he had homered in the second, his team would get a crappy middle reliever.

all things considered, i don't think Morneau made up for his disadvantages in VORP and win shares and everything else based off his ability to hit good pitching in the 9th in precious few at bats. but, even if he did, that doesn't make the runs "more valuable" to his team winning -- just more difficult to come by, which should be PREDICTIVE of future performance (which is what limozeen wanted to avoid focusing on in his argument).

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 19, 2007 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who is better

I'll give Gordon his due credit when he starts putting up numbers and I realize that small sample size cliche - I'm not doubting him.

On the other hand, I see Delmon having a chance to overtake Gordon in nearly every category, but walks and public sentiment.

Early on in his MLB career, Delmon looks like he has that Vlad hand eye coordination thing going as far as hitting the ball. It remains to be seen whether he can walk enough to satisfy the strictly sabermetric types.

Delmon is playing in his what is likely to be first full season - two years younger than Gordon.

While Gordon has been annointed as the second coming, Delmon is probably a better bet to fulfill the hopes people have for Gordon as a superstar.

Gordon will be a solid all-star, but I bet, will be a disappointment for those pimping him to be the next great hope.

by Bleho65 on Apr 16, 2007 12:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Compare the pitchers

Gordon and the Royals have faced an inordinate number of excellent pitchers so far (non studs in parens): Schilling-Beckett-DiceK-Verlander-(Maroth)-Bonderman-(Burnett)-(Towers)-(Chacin)-(Trachsel)-Bedard-( Cabrera? - almost studly)

That's six top starters (not counting Cabrera) and 3 other decent-to-good pitchers (Maroth, Cabrera, Burnett) in 12 games.

Now check out Tampa Bay's opposing pitchers:

(Pavano)-(Petite)-(Chacin)-(Ohka)-Halladay-(McCarthy)-(Wright)-(Tejeda)-(Silva)-Santana-(Ponson)-(Bo nser)

That's 2 studs and one decent pitcher (Petite) in 12 games. The other 9, TB has been hitting against the dregs of the earth.

Is it any wonder that the entire TB team is hitting well (not just Delmon Young) and the entire KC team is not (not just Gordon)?

by Locke000 on Apr 16, 2007 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs