A Word on Alex Gordon's Struggles
I have much longer post in the works that centers around our catching situation and a few of our more questioable roster decisions, but this topic has been burning a hole in my head for a little while now. I'm not going to call specific people out or anything--though maybe I should if everyone would improve the way Jome Run Jose did after I dissed his plate discipline--but I've seen numerous comments in game threads and fanposts that go something like "over/under for pitches Gordon sees in his AB: 1" or "of course Gordon goes after the first pitch" or "Gordon kills another rally." I'm not going to tell people to take a different attitude towards Gordon, because that would be prententious of me, but I feel as if overall the negativity towards A-Gord is a bit misdirected. Not wishing to pick on Will, let's look at part of what he wrote on Alex in his nicely done "Auto-Interview II" piece, as I feel as if i should expand a bit on the subject of what kind of hitter Alex has shown himself to be in the majors thus far.
In over 800 big league PAs he's a .253/.322/.408 hitter. He is 24 years old, so he's right on the hinge between still being young and being in his prime. Look at his comparables on his baseball-reference page and tell me how I should feel. Whatever it is that we expected he'd be... we may have to give up those dreams. Fortunately, this is an experience that most of us should be familiar with.
Will's right, of course, in that Gordon has been disappointing relative to what was expected. In hindsight it's easy to say that perhaps Gordon would be better off right now if he had done been learning in AAA rather than being sent right up to the majors, despite the consensus at the time that Alex had nothing left to prove in the minors. The issue that I feel the need to expand on, as this was already brought up in the last couple game threads, is that saying Gordon is a number/number/number hitter for his very short career in the bigs or this season doesn't tell the whole story. Just because it now appears that Alex isn't going to be a superstar doesn't mean we can't still be excited about him improving this year and down the line.
For one, let's look at something that should be clear to everyone by now: Alex Gordon has, in fact, improved overall since last season. Last year's HBP-boosted .247/.314/.411 line isn't exactly blown away by Alex's current .265/.345/.419, but there's definitely caveats here. That .314 OBP had a lot to do with getting plunked 13 times last year, and this year's .345 figure is only slightly boosted by 4 HBPs. After walking only 41 times in 151 games last year, Gordon has already taken 32 free passes. Gordon is also seeing 3.95 pitches per plate appearance this year, which .03 more than David DeJesus. The former is critiscized by many Royals fans as being an impatient hitter at the plate, while the latter is considered to have a very good plate approach. It's also worth noting that that 3.95 P/PA is highest on the team. Now I know this will bring up the totally reasonable argument that patience is not the same thing as working the count effectively to drive the ball--because clearly Alex still needs to work on that--but Gordon is the last player on this team that should be dismissed as someone who isn't working the count.
Now, if you're next reaction is to say something like "okay, but .265/.345/.419 isn't that much better than the career numbers, and it still isn't good for a 3B" then...we are in total agreement. But there's another interesting thing going on with Gordon right now, namely his RHP-LHP splits.
- Alex Gordon 2008 vs. RHP: .294/.370/.505
- Alex Gordon 2008 vs. LHP: .195/.286/.218
- Alex Gordon Career vs. RHP: .270/.344/.440
- Alex Gordon Career vs. LHP: .209/.274/.343
That 2008 vs. RHP line is a lot closer towards what everyone wants, isn't it? Noting that Gordon's overall line has been unimpressive in the majors is fine, because unlike derisions of his plate discipline, it's true. However, it makes sense to parse the splits, especially in the case of a young player. It is far too early in Gordon's career to label him a player who can't hit lefties at all, as that career vs. lefties sample is in 200-something PAs (barely a third of one season's worth). Nonetheless, it has be pointed out that Gordon is killing right-handed pitching this year, while he turns into Freddie Bynum against left-handers. Is this necessarily better than him OPSing 730 vs. righties and lefties, you ask? To my way of thinking, yes. It's not all that uncommon for a young left-handed hitter to struggle against same-sided pitching and then find his feet against them with experience. Maybe Gordon will never be a lefty-masher, but if he can keep up his current vs. RHP clubbing and combine that with, say, a .250 BA against LHPs--hardly an unrealistic goal--his overall line will give us a lot less to complain about. It's not as if Gordon came up with some major caveat such as "this kid is awesome, but he can't touch lefties." The talent is there, the plate discipline is coming, and an improvement versus lefties would vault Gordon up into triple-slash numbers where he would be a plus for his position.
If there's anything we should be getting on Alex for in particular, it's his weak hitting versus left-handers and the fact he's not exactly thrilling defensively overall, despite several gold glove plays this year. Alex Gordon is not a superstar, or a lost cause. I think we all know that a player can be quite good while falling somewhere in-between these extremes.
1 recs |
144
comments
Read Related
Comments
Great post
Patience is a good thing. Royals fans could use some.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Jun 25, 2008 4:28 PM EDT 0 recs
Right now 50 votes, only 8% say yes.
I would have expected higher, honestly. Maybe its a vocal minority.
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on
Jun 25, 2008 6:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What is the precedent
For guys struggling with splits turning it around? Do most good players do that?
I think there is just a frustration with Royals fans seeing Gordon and Butler struggle, while many rookies and second year players around baseball succeed. These guys were sold to us as “can’t miss” and while I still think they will both be solid players, even All-Stars, I have to admit, I’ve been pretty disappointed thus far.
But no one has seriously said “this guy is a bust, get rid of him,” have they? I mean, most of the criticisms are…well because he hasn’t been better than mediocre. We’ll be patient, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect more out of him now.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 25, 2008 4:41 PM EDT 1 recs
Of course we should
I was pointing out that some of the critiscisms levelled at Alex just don’t hold much water. And that versus righties he’s doing very, very well this year.
Chase Utley is one of the best examples of a guy who couldn’t hit lefties at first turning it around. Trot Nixon, one of my old Sox favorites, had a couple good years versus lefties after not touching them early in his career. Raul Ibanez was useless against portsiders in KC but has had some good showings versus them in Seattle.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 4:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Don't forget TPJ
Look at how he developed to where he can hit both righties and lefties equally.
by jsolo on
Jun 25, 2008 4:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm Pretty Sure
He hits LHP’s from the left side about as well as he does from the right, he just hasn’t tried.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on
Jun 25, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
In fairness
I think the “another rally killed by Alex Gordon” was a tongue-in-cheek comment made after he hit a home run. I know I’ve made the comment on more than one occasion.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jun 25, 2008 4:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
In fairness
I wasn’t directly quoting anyone’s comments, Retro. I was just trying to illustrate the perhaps disproportionate negativity. Your continued efforts to show that home runs kill rallies is, as always, appreciated. ;)
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Patience may be a virtue
but I’m hardly going to bash other Royals fans for not being thrilled with Gordon’s 1.5 MLB seasons after seeing Braun, Upton, Longoria, Bruce, and Tulo dominate from almost the second they stepped in an MLB batters box.
The fact of the matter is that Gordon was right up there with Justin Upton as the top prospect in the 2005 draft, and was the #1 overall prospect heading into the 2007 season. To be happy with his results thus far would basically be accepting that he was slightly overrated.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on Jun 25, 2008 4:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Put Gordon in any of those lineups with the guys you mentioned...
Batting lower in the order to start
Not being rushed to the majors
With guys like Fielder/Hart, Griffery/Dunn, Holliday/Helton, Pena/Crawford in the lineup
In far better hitters parks (except maybe TB)
And I think you’d see an upward adjustment to his numbers as well
by jsolo on
Jun 25, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Prospects get overrated all of the time.
A lot of prospect hounds tend be irrationally excited, and often predict the world for a young player who hasn’t cracked AA yet. I’m not “bashing” anyone. I’m attempting to show what Alex is really doing wrong, and it isn’t hitting in generall…it’s hitting vs. lefties.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 4:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just to put it in perspective though
Taking out Upton (because I don’t recall the circumstances of his major league arrival) the other guys are in big time hitter’s park and in most cases were considered (by the media/fans) to have been in the minors too long before their callups. Remember all the noise surrounding guys like Longoria and Bruce not making the team out of spring training? Samething happened to Braun the year before.
On the other hand, Gordon made the team when most of us thought he would start in AAA and had to deal with a much more pitcher friendly environment.
by jsolo on
Jun 25, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Of course they do
and I didn’t mean to imply that you were bashing anyone. All I’m saying is that, overall, Gordon’s numbers are disappointing, and certainly don’t warrant the attention that was heaped on him as a young prospect.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Very good prospects often become
average or “only” above average major leaguers. Prospect experts might have you believe otherwise, but it’s true.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Braun: 199 minor league games at five levels over three years; 767 at-bats.
Upton: 216/ 3-2 /823
Longoria: 205/ 4-3 /785
Bruce: 353/ 5-4 /1341
Gordon: 130/ 1-1 /486
Which of these five guys would you least expect to immediately succeed in the major leagues?
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 4:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Maybe the least experienced?
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 4:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The least experienced
but that would be Upton and Bruce, since they didn’t have the benefit of playing three college years at an elite D1 program.
And frankly, I don’t believe playing more minor league games magically made those players better at the plate than Gordon.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Now you're REALLY being crazy.
Between college and his one year in the minors, Alex Gordon 1086 AB.
Jay Bruce had 1341, against better competition than Gordon had for the most part, except for one year.
Upton’s had only a little less experience than Gordon, again mostly against tougher competition, and he plays his home games in a bandbox now.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Experience
Bruce made him MLB debut at 21 years old; Gordon made his at 23 years old. Thus, Gordon had two years of OVERALL baseball experience on Bruce, regardless of the minor league AB numbers.
Yes, Bruce had more MILB AB than Gordon, but that’s not counting the extra practices, batting cage experience, work with coaches, etc, than any reasonable person would see that Gordon had on Bruce and Upton considering the difference in age when they made their debut.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
So, it is now your contention
that during the three years in which Alex Gordon and Jay Bruce were NOT doing the same thing - that is, three of the four years Bruce was in the minor leagues, and the three years Alex Gordon was in college - that Alex, who was not being paid and who (in theory) had a college degree to concern himself with was receiving more instruction and work at playing baseball than Jay, who was, you know, being paid to play baseball and practice getting better at it?
Is that your contention? Are you really going to sit here and argue that the guy whose JOB it was to play baseball was getting less work at it?
And it’s not “two years of overall baseball experience”. Your argument is intellectually dishonest. Jay Bruce played 3 full years in the minor leagues; Alex Gordon played 3 full years in college and 1 full year in the minors. Either my calculator is broken, or 3+1 is only 1 more than 3.
Or are you actually going to suggest next that the extra year Alex apparently got playing freakin’ LITTLE LEAGUE ball or something should matter?
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:29 PM EDT
up
2 recs
+1
I don’t see how your argument really fits together in a way that makes sense, eazy.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
+2
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm saying
that the 2 year difference in age underscores the fact that Gordon has received more overall baseball experience than Jay Bruce had when he reached the majors. Alex Gordon reached the majors on April, 2007 – 23 years and 1 month into life. Jay Bruce reached the majors in May, 2008 – 21 years and 1 month into life. Thus, Gordon had two years on him, and he didn’t just twiddle his thumbs and read books during that time.
Disagree if you want, but lack of experience is a laughable excuse as to why Alex Gordon has been an MLB disappointment.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Which isn't, I don't think, what people were arguing.
Rather that Gordon’s transition to the majors was tougher because he had exactly one professional season under his belt, and that was at AA.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Look up
People were in fact arguing that Gordon should have seen less success at the early MLB level because he supposedly had less experience. Again, I feel that excuse is BS.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And I disagree
I think that skipping AAA did make his debut a bit rougher than it might have been. If Gordon had gone to AAA, we might’ve seen more warts and his game and been more ready for him to learn on the job.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Of course it made his MLB debut rougher
Without a doubt.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And I agree with that
but damn, it’s doesn’t excuse everything. I can’t believe any of you are sitting here and claiming that if Gordon only faced pitchers like Matt Wright in AAA for a few weeks instead of pitchers like, uh, Matt Wright in AA, he would have blown the f up in MLB. That’s BS, fantasy stuff right there.
Bruce had only 437 AB in minor league ball above High A, Justin Upton had 259, and Gordon had 486. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to buy the company line that the lack of AAA-specific experience for Gordon had any real effect on him, outside of starting slow last year.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Is anyone saying that some AAA time would have necessarily turned Gordon into a star this year?
Anyone? I didn’t think so.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Many
are implying it.
I’m not the one that started this ridiculous argument to begin with.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No one is implying it. You are inferring it.
And if you think the argument is ridiculous, you need to do a little navel gazing.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 6:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Don't pull that stuff out, please.
It’s not a valid point to debate a point with someone for so long and then say “i didn’t start it!” as if this somehow means any relevant to the discussion.
And if that’s what you think I was “implying,” you’re wrong. I wasn’t. Go back and read my posts and show me where I said that a year of AAA would’ve made Gordon a star. I’ll save you some time: I didn’t. I said it probably would’ve helped him find his level the majors quicker once he was promoted.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 6:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Then what are we arguing?
Because I don’t disagree with your last sentence. However, if you think his lack of AAA experience is still hindering him from “finding his level at the majors”, then I would disagree with that.
Frankly, I just don’t think AAA experience is all that beneficial in the long run, and I certainly don’t think it should excuse or even come up in comments now as to why Gordon in underperforming.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 6:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I believe I was making that point
because you thought that NYRoyal or someone else thought AAA would’ve made Gordon into a star. He didn’t say that either.
And the only thing I was saying in regard to AAA is that Alex’s career major league numbers might have been a tick better if AAA ball had helped make a smoother transition to the majors. Not that it would’ve made Gordon into David Wright.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 6:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Do you really think
that the training regimens, instruction, and competition level of a professional organization to which players can devote their full attention isn’t superior to playing for the best team in a mostly-mediocre college conference?
A player is going to develop more playing low-A ball than they are playing in college. End of story.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That's not what I was saying.
It’s rather cloudy right now when it comes to establish any set of rules when it comes to when a prospect should be moved up. Different prospects, different people, different expectations, different treatments.
I’m not arguing, nor is anyone else, that playing in AAA would’ve turned Gordon into a star. I’m saying that if he had played in AAA he probably would’ve found his true MLB hitting level faster. In other words, if Alex is an 800 OPS hitter…he would’ve hit closer to that level faster instead of struggling for a whole year. Capice?
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's certainly a compelling argument
but personally I just don’t buy it. If a player is truly great then he would have made the adjustment by now. Oh well.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 6:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You're right.
Apparently, the one year that Alex played high school baseball or little league baseball or T-ball or whatever which Jay Bruce did not spend doing so makes all the difference.
You can’t count FORWARD. You have to count BACKWARD.
The year before their MLB debuts, Gordon was in AA; Bruce was in A, AA, and AAA.
The year before that, Gordon was a senior at Nebraska; Bruce was in A ball.
The year before that, Gordon was a soph at NU; Bruce was in rookie ball.
The year before that, Gordon was a freshman at NU, and Bruce was a senior in high school.
You see where your “two years” sort of falls apart here now? Alex has only had ONE more year of practical experience than Bruce. Not two, regardless of the two-year age difference.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:49 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Huh?
Bruce was a high school junior during Alex Gordon’s sophomore year at Nebraska, not in rookie ball.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Who then went to rookie ball...
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Eh
he went to rookie ball in 2005, when Gordon was a junior.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You're missing the point.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 6:01 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Oh, god, pay attention.
Re-read my comment until it makes sense, unless “the year before they made their major league debuts” is too complex.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No, it doesn't fall apart at all
The bottom line is that Bruce made his MLB debut two years younger than Gordon, period. End of story. You can rationalize it all you want but I’m simply not going to agree that Bruce was somehow more ready than Gordon despite being two years younger.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 6:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Then you've got a lot of people
disagreeing, since Bruce clearly had more professional experience by the time he made his major league debut. If we followed the logic of what you’re saying, older prospects should be more ready than someone with the same skill set who is younger. This is just not always the case.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 6:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes, it does.
Prior to his major league debut, Jay Bruce spent three full seasons being trained professionally to excel as a baseball player. Prior to that, he presumably spent some number of years playing baseball in high school.
Prior to his major league debut, Alex Gordon spent four full seasons playing organized baseball; one professionally, and three in college. Prior to that, he presumably spent the exact same number of years playing baseball in high school as Bruce did, so that’s a wash.
You with me? 3 years for Bruce, 4 years for Gordon. Four minus three is one. It is not two. One. Obviously, Alex must have graduated high school when he was 19, not 18.
So now, I want you to tell me at what level of organized baseball Alex Gordon received that second extra year of baseball training which you insist he received, and what level of importance we should place on it. Was it Little League, or T-Ball?
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 6:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
(Correction)
It’s not that Alex was only 19. I forgot something important.
Alex graduated in May of 2002, and his freshman season at Nebraska didn’t start until February 2003.
Bruce graduated in May of 2004… and two months later was playing professional baseball.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 6:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wow, you're serious, aren't you?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Is it really
that difficult to understand?
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 5:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Oh, we all understand it
It’s clear that some of us very much disagree.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
BTW
Although, Bruce’s start was amazing, he has really cooled off lately, just saying, he has way too small of a sample size to put him in with these other players.
by I need more Esteban on
Jun 25, 2008 6:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think Alex is fine.
He’s already a solid all around player showing steady improvement. My complaint isn’t with him but with the front office for having him skip AAA. Skipping levels is not a good idea for any prospect. Especially on a team who was/is rebuilding. That’s not hindsight talking that should be an organizational mandate both for developmental and service time reasons.
by djk royal on Jun 25, 2008 4:51 PM EDT 0 recs
Sorry
but I’m not buying the “skipping AAA” excuse for his lackluster results. Many, MANY top prospects have skipped AAA and have not missed a beat. Furthermore, I could see that excuse explaining why he started slow at the beginning of last season, but at this point it should be a non-issue.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 4:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Some skip AAA and don't miss a beat. And some do.
Maybe he needed that extra step and because he didn’t get it, it is slowing his development. It’s a possibility and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sure it's a possibility
but if it’s still messing with him at this point, then again, maybe he wasn’t the caliber of prospect he was hyped up to be.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 4:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Lots of maybes
Maybe he isn’t. Maybe he is. We sure don’t know yet. And maybe pushing him up so quickly hurt his development. It happens.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
It’s just an excuse at this point.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Jun 25, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't think, agreeing with others, AAA made much of a difference
i think in some leagues AA teams may even be better
by royalsreview on
Jun 25, 2008 5:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Leaving Alex aside. I think all prospects should spend time in AAA.
by djk royal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Agree, but
I think in Alex’s case, maybe that time in AAA should have been the last month of 2006.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 25, 2008 5:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What does worry me a bit
Is that he had very high strikeout numbers in the minors. Not even Adam Dunn had high strikeout numbers in the minors.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 25, 2008 4:52 PM EDT 0 recs
But some good MLB hitters did have high strikeout numbers in the minors
David Ortiz comes to mind.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 4:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Perhaps
Ortiz only had one really bad strikeout season (I guess you could say the same about Alex) but it was at a much younger age.
I mean, I’m sure there are examples of guys that had high strikeout numbers that ended up being good, just like there are examples of Mike Aviles-type players getting good at age 27, but I wonder if that is the exception or the rule.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jun 25, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I believe Ortiz had two years with a strikeout rate very similar to Gordon's (including one season in AAA if I remember correctly)
I don’t know if it is the exception to the rule or not. We’d have to look at a lot of data to know. But I would be surprised if it were particularly rare.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The flip side
is that he also had good walk rates in the minors, too. I think if he had gone to AAA we might’ve seen his up-and-down rookie season coming a bit easier.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 4:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Plus when you only control a player for six years.
You would like him to step in and contribute right away. Not be okay for two years while he learns burning service time.
by djk royal on
Jun 25, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ideally, of course you would.
But a lot of players who go on to be quite good struggle comparatively in their first big league exposure.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 25, 2008 5:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Scott Rolen
had similar K numbers his first few years.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 25, 2008 4:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Alex Gordon
was Sold as the “Next George Brett” a midwest born and bred sequel to the original King of Kansas City. So to not be disappointed by his 1.5 year line in the bigs would be crazy. Everyone read the headlines, listened to the expectations and were sold the goods it is just a reaction to what they were sold.
I myself watched Alex at Nebraska heard all the hype in Lincoln/Omaha watched him at the CWS and regionals and was never expecting more than a average to good player. He is almost Too Intense Too Mechanical Too Drago (“Rocky IV”) to ever develop into a superstar superstud. He puts too much pressure on himself until he loosens up a bi


