True or False: Chris Carter, Oakland Athletics
by John Sickels on Sep 18, 2010 4:18 PM EDT
Email
PrintTrue or False: Chris Carter's very slow start for the Oakland Athletics indicates that there is strong probability that he won't hit major league pitching sufficiently to hold a job long-term.
Discuss what you see in him. My thoughts below the fold, but decide for yourself before reading my idea.
My own thoughts are that the sample is too small to panic, but he clearly needs some adjustment time. I've seen him play enough that I think he can make these adjustments. Doesn't mean he will, but I think it's very possible.
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sure its a small sample
but the chances of a .250 hitter going 0 for 29 in the first 29 at bats of his career are on the order of .02%. A more reasonable assumption is that his “real” ability level is considerably below .250 at the moment. I wouldn’t predict his career off of what he has done so far, but unless something changes in a big hurry, it would be reasonable to conclude that he needs at least another half season in AAA.
That's not true
I’m sure we can find 0/29 streaks in lots of hitters’ careers
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Sep 19, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Robin Ventura, for example
went 0/41 in his rookie year, and finished his career with a .267 BA and 294 HRs. I’m not a big Chris Carter fan, but those numbers seem feasible
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Sep 19, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
it's absolutely true
that a 25% chance has only a .02% chance of not happening 29 times in a row, but that is from any given point—in this case the first 29 at bats of a player’s career. And, measuring from the beginning of a career, that is why this is so very rare a feat as i note below.
Obviously, some players have at bats spanning many thousands of at bats so there are many different opportunities.iterations for unlikely things to happen if you look at their entire career. Even so, my search on baseball-reference.com finds that there have only been 17 streaks of 29 or more hitless at bats by non-pitchers over the past 30 years, so this only happens on the order of once every other year or so.
Yes, Robin Ventura was one of these guys and is very near the top of the list for the worst hitless streak of all time, and yes he had a very good career. And so could Carter. But I think it is notable that the others at the top of the list of the longest hitless streaks over the past 30 years didn’t fare quite as well:
Dan Howitt lifetime .194, streak season 188
Andy Fox lifetime .239 streak season 091
Phil Stephenson lifetime .201 streak season 155
Len Matuszek lifetime .234 strike season 077
Mick Kelleher llfetime 213 streak season 160
Gerald Williams is the next half-way decent hitter on the list with a lifetime .255, but even he accomplished the dubious feat at age 34 thorough 26 in snippets of three seasons in which he hit a combined 52 for 300 for a 173 batting average. With Robin Ventura standing out, I admit, as a notable exception, this is not a list you want to find yourself on..
I'm sort of in between on this one
Its not just the initial struggles, but the combination of the scouting reports saying he had holes in his swing that would be exploited by major league pitching along with the 40% K rate in his 27 AB so far. I’m not to the point where I’m going to write him off or anything, but I’m even more convinced now that contact is going to be a huge problem for him at the ML level going forward.
Didn't realize they'd already played today
Make that a 45% K rate
Agreed.
This just kind of confirmed what a lot of scouts had already said. So far he’s always made the proper adjustments, but we’ll see if he can do it at the major league level. At this point I’d probably rather have Daric Barton, for whatever that’s worth.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 18, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
wouldn't a lot of people?
7th best 1B this year, and even if you assume he is playing over his head defensively he probably isn’t worse than 10th-11th.
by Navi's_Navy on Sep 19, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
The plan going forward appears to be having both.
Barton stays at first, because a sub-mediocre offense just can’t throw away someone who gets on base so well, and Carter moves to the outfield, defensive warts and all, and you just hope he gets better. (That’s assuming they keep Cust at DH, which would seem to be a no-brainer, but you just never can tell.)
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 24, 2010 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not a great sign, obviously.
But Carter has always struggled somewhat right after a promotion. Here’s a look at his first 20-30 AB’s after other promotions.
2006 A: 4 for his first 30, a double, and 11 K’s. He was demoted to Rookie ball after that, where he did well, even from the beginning.
2007 A: Promoted to A (again) to start the year, and went 0 for his first 24. Then turned it on after that.
2008 A+: Promoted to A+, started out 5 for his first 30, no extra base hits and 10 K’s and struggled for a while after. Ended up mashing at Stockton, though.
2008 AA: Went 6 for his first 29 with 13 K’s, 2 doubles. Ended up being his best year of his career so far.
2008 AAA: Promoted towards the end of the season, went 9-30 with 3 HR’s, better K ratio but no walks. Best transition of his career.
I think that Carter just needs more time to adjust. At other stops in his career, he’s stalled immediately following a promotion like he is now. There are other possible factors weighing him down as well, such as the pressure of being in the bigs or the way the A’s have jerked him around.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
by travdog6 on Sep 18, 2010 5:04 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
He isn't going to get paid to hit .300
He is getting paid to hit the long ball. Give the kid some time.
You gotta hit the ball to hit the long ball
Tough to hit many out when you strike out in 13 of your 30 PA. Dude looks like he may strikeout more than Mark Reynolds.
Pedro Alvarez and Mike Stanton K’d a lot (and continue to do so) when they first came up. They’ve obviously acclimated a little bit to the majors (more so for Stanton, obviously), so all that’s really needed is some patience and some ABs. Heyward went through a rough phase with K’s as well, which may have been because of the wrist injury, but still. Young players strike out – it happens and, in most cases, it’s expected.
I don’t think the K’s are all that surprising, and I don’t think he’ll continue on this pace for the rest of his career. The thing that is surprising is just the fact that he doesn’t even have a hit. That’s my biggest worry. It’s gotta be killing his confidence, but the fact that the A’s aren’t giving up has to help a little bit. It’s too small of a sample right now to come to any kind of conclusion on what the future holds, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be worries either. It’s discouraging, but it isn’t the end of the world…yet.
http://mvn.com/mlb-tossingtherosin/
by koolkerns101 on Sep 18, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
probably small sample size
you could have a similar poll about Josh Bell, those results might be different though.
Like people have all ready said
sample size is way too small, but it is obviously a little unnerving. I think the kid is a bit jittery starting out. Once he has time to get used to the higher level of competition, he always seems to make the necessary adjustments.
How about "ridiculously small sample size".
Besides, not all rookies come out and dominate the game immediately. Carter was always going to have a rough time with his strikeout rate, but it’s just the beginning. Players either adjust or don’t.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 18, 2010 8:34 PM EDT reply actions
I think he'll be fine
he is what he is. A guy with his skillset is likely to take a little while to adjust when he starts facing pitchers he’s never seen before, as travdog demonstrated above. I think given the PT next year, he could mash.
Yeah agreed.
He’s always been an absurdly streaky hitter too, so I think at some point next year he’ll go on an absolute tear
If you read the true or false, it is unreasonable to pick true.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
Heh, yeah seriously.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 18, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure why you think that
People have always said he’d struggle to make at the major league level. Thus far he’s shown that those concerns were entirely warranted. The combination of the scouting reports and the slow start make it entirely reasonable to think there is a strong chance he won’t succeed. No one is saying there is no chance he can succeed or that he can’t still be somewhat useful.
Eh, the question in the poll isn’t a good one in my opinion. If you read that question and both options, I think you have to select False. It’s just too small of a sample to say definitively that he will not find success at the MLB level based on the roughly 30 ABs he received. Now you can agree that he wont succeed (as I do) but I can’t use that sample as my evidence to support that claim. That is why I think you have to pick false.
Yeah I kinda read the question wrong
There’s no way such a small sample size can say what he will do over the course of his career. I voted “true” just because I think he was over rated to begin with… But after re-reading the Q, I should have voted “false”.
by OraNge DusTT on Sep 19, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
People have always said he’d struggle to make at the major league level. Thus far he’s shown that those concerns were entirely warranted. The combination of the scouting reports and the slow start make it entirely reasonable to think there is a strong chance he won’t succeed. No one is saying there is no chance he can succeed or that he can’t still be somewhat useful.
Yes. People have always said that. The true or false says, does his"very slow start…indicate that there is strong probability that he won’t hit major league pitching sufficiently to hold a job long-term. "
The sample makes no such indication, nor does it indicate a strong probability of such a result.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
Does it say something about ignoring the scouting reports?
It says " Carter’s slow start means there is a strong chance he won’t succeed." I don’t take that to mean based solely on his slow start we’re predicting he won’t succeed. I take it to mean does his slow start point to him not succeeding. I was a bit torn on it, but based on the scouting reports and the terrible start, I think he is going to have a huge problem making contact at this level. Given his lack of defensive value, I think there is a strong chance the contact problems keep him from ever being anything more than a RHH platoon player. Maybe you consider a COF RH platoon player a long-term job for him, but I don’t.
The question is about the slow start, I do not infer that it is, at all, asking about scouting.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
It doesn't say to ignore it either
Heck, it doesn’t even say to make the decision BASED on his start. It simply asks if the starts indicates a strong probability that he won’t hold down a long-term job. Even if you already thought he wouldn’t make it in the majors before the start, you’d still think the start indicates that he won’t make it, meaning you’d answer true.
If we were talking about a prospect that didn’t have questions about hitting for contact at the major league level, I would say the slow start wasn’t that much to worry about. Considering this is exactly what scouts were worried would happen at this level and the fact that I already had some reservations about him, the start indicates to me that he may very well have problems at this level.
Clearly we read this question very differently.
re
Then it isn’t the sample that is indicating, its the reports.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
No the sample is indicating the same problem the reports did
Is the current sample a sign of there being a strong probability that Carter won’t make it? The italicized is a definition of indicate, and IMO the answer to that question is yes.
It doesn't matter how you slice up your argument.
Plain and simple, 29 at bats means next to nothing. There is not a single metric which is even close to being stable in that sample size. The first meaningful statistic to stabilize is contact rate, and that’s not until 100 plate appearances.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
You're arguing from a purely statistical standpoint
But that’s not what I see the question asking. Its asking if the the sample we’re seeing right now indicates that Carter will struggle. Based in part on scouting reports, I think the sample is indicating that he will struggle. I don’t think he’ll be this bad going forward (that would be impossible obviously), but I do think contact will continue to be an issue and I don’t think he’ll ever be more than below average against RHP.
So make your argument based on the scouting reports.
Don’t use meaningless samples to support your point. You can’t draw any conclusions from 29 at bats, not even in support of prior evidence.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
So you're suggesting we completely ignore relevant data?
That’s ridiculous. There’s a difference between not drawing conclusions based solely on a statistically insignificant sample size and completely ignoring it. Read my example above of a biased coin. Its perfectly reasonable to combine the knowledge you’ve gained from a statistically insignificant data sample with prior knowledge in order to make an educated guess. Its completely unreasonable to say all data should be ignored until its reached a statistically significant sample size.
Yes, ignore it.
Until the sample size becomes large enough to actually draw a conclusion—any conclusion.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
To clarify
Yes, data can be useful before it reaches a statistically significant sample size. But not at extremes like this. It’s just too small of a sample size to hold any meaning whatsoever.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
Once again, I'm not drawing a conclusion from the sample size
The sample size is simply an indication that the conclusion I already felt pretty strongly about may be right. I’m not basing any conclusions on the sample size. Its an indication, not a basis.
Very false....
but I do think he should be working out more than usual this offseason.
Most players struggle when they first reach a new level
Especially the majors. There are adjustments to be made. I wouldn’t be worried.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
of course 29 at bats isn't very many...
but historically bad or good performances, even in what might otherwise be a fairly small sample can be meaningful when they are at extremes, which is why, for example, getting just six out of six numbers right in a lottery is so improbable and why many argued at the time, correctly I believe, that Clemens’ 20 strikeout performance early in his first full season was a very positive omen .
Carter’s performance is already into historic territory as his 29 at bats without a hit is tied for the fourth longest streak of hitless at bats to start a career in major league history going back to 1920, behind only Vic Harris, Lou Camilli and Randy Moore, and tied with Len Boehmer. Inc
If struggling when players reached a new level was something that happened to most players, then this would have happened a lot more than 3 or 4 times.
I honestly see Chris Carter
a .233-.255 with 30-40 HR potential and loads of walks and strikeouts type of hitter…basically Jack Cust.
he could be better than that, of course. and 30 ABs is never enough to judge a player by his value. many guys like that never get chances to play again (Roberto Petagine, anyone?)
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
As an A's fan, I'll take another Jack Cust in a heartbeat.
Give me two Custs, two Bartons, two Penningtons, and two Crisps, and I’ll throw them together with a Kurt Suzuki and make a competitive lineup.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Sep 24, 2010 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Geez hasn't Pedro Alcarez been striking out a ton too?
And people had questions about his ability to make contact. He’s had waaay more ABs but nobody seems to be freaking out about him.
Obviously Alvarez was more highly regarded, but you get my point. John and travdog already basically covered the other points I was going to make. He always struggles when he first jumps to a new level (and this is the toughest jump to make), and he’s always been able to make adjustments.
Now if he’s still K’ing 45% of the time this time next year, then I’ll be worried. Somehow I doubt that, though.
"The A's have to be setting some record this year for simultaneously maximizing team quality and player anonymity. I guess that’s sort of their thing though." - Luke in MN
by hero66 on Sep 19, 2010 11:04 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Geez hasn't Pedro Alvarez been striking out a ton too?
And people had questions about his ability to make contact. He’s had waaay more ABs but nobody seems to be freaking out about him.
Obviously Alvarez was more highly regarded, but you get my point. John and travdog already basically covered the other points I was going to make. He always struggles when he first jumps to a new level (and this is the toughest jump to make), and he’s always been able to make adjustments.
Now if he’s still K’ing 45% of the time this time next year, then I’ll be worried. Somehow I doubt that, though.
"The A's have to be setting some record this year for simultaneously maximizing team quality and player anonymity. I guess that’s sort of their thing though." - Luke in MN
by hero66 on Sep 19, 2010 11:05 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Geez hasn't Pedro Alvarez been striking out a ton too?
And people had questions about his ability to make contact. He’s had waaay more ABs but nobody seems to be freaking out about him.
Obviously Alvarez was more highly regarded, but you get my point. John and travdog already basically covered the other points I was going to make. He always struggles when he first jumps to a new level (and this is the toughest jump to make), and he’s always been able to make adjustments.
Now if he’s still K’ing 45% of the time this time next year, then I’ll be worried. Somehow I doubt that, though.
"The A's have to be setting some record this year for simultaneously maximizing team quality and player anonymity. I guess that’s sort of their thing though." - Luke in MN
by hero66 on Sep 19, 2010 11:06 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Neither and both
I think the sample is too small to be definitive, but I also have my doubts that he’ll be that productive of a hitter.
breakin news
chris carter gets a hit to rise his ba up to 0.029
.342/.422/.605
in 38 AB’s after his 0-33 start. 8 K’s with 6 BB’s over that span.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
